Loading...
EAC Minutes 12/06/2000 RDecember 6, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, December 6, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe Alfred Gal Alexandra Santoro Ed Carlson William Hill ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Esquire Ron Nino, Current Planning Barbara Burgeson Page I ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA December 6, 2000 9:00 a.m. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of October 6, 2000 Meeting Minutes Growth Management Update Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUD-00-16 "Collier Blvd. Mixed-Use Commerce Center PUD" Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development PUD-99-28 "Cocohatchee Bay PUD" Sections 8,16,17 and 20 Township 48 South, Range 25 East C. Planned Unit Development PUD-00-17 "Collier Blvd. Commercial Center PUD" Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East D. Planned Unit Development PUD-2000-14 "Brittany Bay PUD" Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East E. Conditional Use Petition CU-00-14 "Townsend Lake Excavation" Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East F. Commercial Excavation 59.755 "Longan Lakes 2, Commercial Excavation Section 25, Township 47 South, Range 27 East Environmental Advisory Council Agenda December 6, 2000 Page 2 Vie Old Business Discussion regarding Wetland Workshop Public input regarding workshop VIII. Subcommittee Report A, Growth Management Subcommittee IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrative staff no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2000 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (403-2370). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Can we call to order the December 6th meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council. Can we call the roll to determine that we have a quorum? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Planning Services. Ken Cornell has resigned officially from the Environmental Advisory Council. The remaining EAC members: Ms. Santoro? MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Mr. Sansbury? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Mr. Gal? MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Erica Lynn. Erica Lynn will not be here today. She was one of the new EAC members that was appointed. Because of the short time frame of notice we gave her, she was not able to attend. I would like to welcome Bill Hill back on the EAC. He was just recently reappointed. MR. HILL: Nice to be back. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Welcome back, Bill. Before we begin just for the pleasure of the council, we need to elect a new chairman. I'd like to hear the pleasure of the board, if they'd like to do it before we start. What's your pleasure? MR. COE: You want to do it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'll do it if you want me to do it, you tell me. MR. COE: I make a motion to have you do it. I'll always volunteer somebody else. MR. HILL: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, all in favor? All aye. Appreciate the confidence. As I say, I do have a right-hand over here. Now we need to elect a vice-chairman. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to nominate Mr. Coe for Vice-chair. Page 2 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'll second that one. All in favor? MR. HILL: I'm not so sure about that one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We've got a second. Motion on the board. Favor? Hearing no opposed, Mr. Coe is duly elected Vice-chairman. Approval of the agenda? Do we have any deletions, revisions, anything of that sort? MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. We would ask that you remove from your agenda, item D, the Brittany Bay PUD. That issue, that PUD, went to the Board of County Commissioners. Because of time constraints, this is an affordable housing project, and state funding has a deadline of prior to this meeting. It was scheduled for your last meeting but for lack of a quorum, you were unable to deal with it. The board, in their action however were cognizant of the fact that had you not reviewed the petition, and the PUD, as approved, however, did contain all the recommendations of the staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good, sir, thank you. Are there any other revisions? MS. BURGESON: We'd like to move item 7, discussion on the Hearing Examiner Program, forward to the beginning of the agenda. And also like to move the Growth Management Update after the public hearings, so that would be heard right before Old Business. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're going to move the Growth Management? MS. BURGESON: Update to right after the Land Use petitions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. MS. BURGESON: Bob Mulhere is going to make a presentation on these. MR. MULHERE.' Thank you for allowing me to come up front. Right now I'm in a computer training class downstairs, so I need all the training I can get. I put in your packet a copy of the of executive summary we brought to the board. It was at the board's direction we brought the issue forward. We are proposing, and the board has directed staff to move forward, to amend the special act which is a legislative act Page 3 December 6, 2000 adopted by the Florida legislature in 1967, pre-Florida Constitution, that governs how we -- in part, governs how we handle land use petitions, particularly quasi-judicial land use petitions. Because of the existence of that special act, we have to amend that to allow for the utilization of the Hearing Examiner. Some of you may be familiar locally, or nearby Lee County utilizes a Hearing Examiner for quasi-judicial land use petitions. The executive summary goes into some great detail and the attached report on the legal history that has resulted in changes in the way that local governments deal with quasi-judicial land use petitions and the need for a very specific process. But in general and in summary, the benefits of utilizing a Hearing Examiner the way we see it are, number one, it does create a level playing field and there is certainly a perception in some people's mind that one group or another may have greater access to decision-makers during the land use, quasi-judicial land use petition process. This will really reduce or eliminate that perception. Everyone will have equal access and the board's decision will be based strictly on the record that is established at the Hearing Examiner's hearing. We have done it a little different than Lee County, at least in our proposal, because Lee County does totally prohibit ex parte communication even with the Board of County Commissioners. We know that our board is very sensitive to being able to speak to their constituents, so we are not proposing to prohibit ex parte communication with the board. We are, however, prohibiting ex parte communication with the Hearing Examiner. However, the board will have the final say-so, as they do in Lee County, on conditional uses, rezones, PUDs, those types of petitions. On those petitions where the board makes final approval, ex parte communication will be permitted, though we have been directed to create a better process, a stronger process, for disclosure of that ex parte communication, including a written record and log, and that information will be disclosed and become part of the record. The major benefit that we see really is, it creates an opportunity for the advisory committees to the board and for the Page 4 December 6, 2000 board itself to deal with many of the issues that have become problematic on a case by case basis, or petition by petition basis, to deal with those issues from a policy perspective. And, really, I think this advisory board, in particular, has raised concerns about certain policies and wanting to look at certain policies, for example, wetlands and wetlands permitting, listed species issues. As you know, we're looking at those issues through the rural assessment process and the next few months all those issues will be coming back to you for the policy deliberations and being carried forward to the board. Once we have established the Hearing Examiner program, it would be my recommendation that in working with you, we create a list of policy issues that you would like to look at and prioritize that list. And over the next year and into the future, we begin to deliberate on those policy issues and bring your recommendations forward to the board. It's problematic to address a policy issue in a specific petition. We need to look at that more proactively, and I think you have all, individually and collectively, expressed a desire to do this. On the whole, I think this is an excellent opportunity and program we're and looking forward to getting it implemented. We worked closely with the county attorney's office and will continue to do so during the process of implementing this program. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I think the information is pretty substantial in your packet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Chapter 120, Board of Administrative Hearings has a set of guidelines on how administrative officers handle these hearings. Does that tie in at all to what we're talking about here? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Pat on that. I don't think it does. MR. WHITE: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it does. 120 pertains to other types of entities than just, that which we're talking about as far as Hearing Examiners. Those are some rules that typically deal with state agencies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We'll keep you posted as we move forward. Page 5 December 6, 2000 You'll probably see some discussion of this as a result of the legislative delegation meeting, I believe, during the latter part of the month of December, and we are preparing an amendment to the Special Act. We'll keep the Special Act in place, but simply amend it to allow this process to also be a methodology that we can use quasi-judicial land use hearings. MR. GAL: Will the staff still make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner as they do now to us? MR. MULHERE: That's an excellent question. Yes. The process will be that the staff will accept the application, review the application, make recommendations directly to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will hold a very judicial-like process in which there will be testimony and evidence placed into the record and then the Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation to the board. At this time, we've got it structured on conditional uses, rezones, including PUD rezones. On those lesser, shall we say, less significant types of petitions such as variances, boat dock petitions, off-site parking petitions, these kind of lesser-- many of which do not come before the board, those types of petitions will -- the hearing officer, as we structured it now, will make a final decision and any recourse beyond the Hearing Examiner's decision will be in the courts. MR. HILL: Two more questions, Bob. Referring to the article in the paper back in October, and that's the only information, the Circuit Court was identified as possibly handling variances. Are we building the court system into this? MR. MULHERE: No. The court system comes into play only as a last resort. The Hearing Examiner will make final recommendations or final decisions -- excuse me, not recommendations -- final decisions on several types of what we call lesser quasi-judicial land use petitions. Those include variances, boat dock petitions, off-site parking. I'm sure I'm missing a couple. Alcoholic beverage distance waivers, gas station location waivers, these types of things. Those lesser types of petitions that the Hearing Examiner will make a final determination on those. Once the Hearing Examiner has made a determination, the only recourse for either the applicant or for those who may be in opposition to it, is the courts. Thank you. Page 6 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions? Thanks, Bob. Moving right along into Land Use petitions; is that correct? Do we need to swear everyone in that's going to be speaking? (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me take a quick step back if I may. This is my first day as a chairman. I missed a review of the minutes from the October 6 minutes. I don't happen to have them with me. Anyone like to move approval? MR. COE: I'll make a move to approve the minutes. MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, they are approved. Now we can go. Also like to stop for a moment, we need to have disclosure, very quickly. Has anyone on the board had any conversations with anybody regarding this particular petition? Hearing none, you may proceed. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff. As you can see, the subject site is located on the north side of 1-75 and the west side of Collier Boulevard. Petitioner is proposing to rezone a 70-acre site. It's currently zoned agriculture to a Planned Unit Development. It's proposed to allow 433 residential dwelling units and commercial uses, retail uses about 240,000 square feet and 30,000 square feet of office uses. The subject site is located within activity center number 9 on the Future Land Use Map, which permits residential densities eligible to go up to 16 units per acre. Proposed density at 10 units per acre is -- they are consistent with that. Activity center number 9 also allows for interchange type commercial and office uses. The proposed uses within the PUD are consistent with that. As can you see, the access to the site is off of access road number 2, which is now Magnolia Pond Lane, and it lines up with the approved access to the Golden Gate Commercial PUD to the north. Steve Lenberger is here to answer any environmental Page 7 December 6, 2000 questions, and I'll be happy to answer any planning questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you have any questions of staff? MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bellows, with respect to your staff report, I note that -- the one that was included is the backup for the agenda -- indicates it's for the meeting of November 1. And obviously, I'd just like to put in the record this staff report and all of the other ones that follow are for today's meeting, in case there's ever a question. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This was continued to this meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So noted. MR. HILL: I have one question. The Interchange Management Plan, it was indicated that has not been fully implemented and this will have to meet those specifications once that's implemented, or does this come in prior to that? MR. BELLOWS: No. Like the project to the north, the PUD makes provisions for being consistent with that. The Interchange Master Plan is ratified by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. HILL: Could that be added to the staff recommendations? MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would the petitioner like to address the matter? MR. DUANE: For the record Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates. We're in agreement with the staff recommendations, and I'll be happy to answer any questions along with my consultant, Geza Wass de Czege, from Southern Biomes. And we'll give you a card. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any questions for the petitioner? MR. NINO: Does that meet the environmental findings? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sorry, got ahead of myself. Sorry about that, Ron. Keep me straight here, Ron. I need help today. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. As Ray Bellows indicated, the subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Interstate 1-75. It's approximately 70 acres and all wooded, most of it natural vegetation. The site has extensive areas of pine flatwoods through it and has areas of open pine with cabbage Page 8 December 6, 2000 palm association and areas pretty heavily vegetated with saw palmetto. There are some wetlands on the property. They are located in the front along Collier Boulevard in this area on the aerial photograph I have on the wall. I believe they are about 1.4 acres. It used to be a pine, cypress community, but now it's pretty much totally invaded with melaleuca. So it's pretty much a melaleuca monoculture at this point. The consultant did a wildlife survey on the property. They did find an inactive red cockaded woodpecker cavity tree, and it's located right here on this map, roughly on the east half of the parcel. They did a survey for the birds, but they did not find any on-site, and the cavity is deemed to be inactive at this time. There are also gopher tortoises on-site located in the northwest portion near a saw palmetto; it's fairly open. They're also located in the saw palmetto in this portion of the property where the RCW cavity tree was. I also noticed a burrow when I walked through the oak area on this area, so there are several of them on the property. Not a lot of them, though. I have a PUD Master Plan on the wall here. As you can see, the residential component is off to the west and the commercial component is off to the east. And the petitioner is proposing to preserve 25 percent of the native vegetation on-site, and it's roughly indicated in this area here where the little stipples are on the plan, and that will satisfy the preservation requirement in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Land Development Code. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, and also the environmental consultant is here for the project. MR. CARLSON: That preserve area is the Gopher Tortoise Protection Plan, basically? MR. LENBERGER: There will have to be a detail plan on relocating them at the time the project comes in for development. But yes, the tortoises will be relocated to the preserve areas on-site. As you can see, a number of the tortoises are already in that location. MR. CARLSON: Is there any estimate how many are there? MR. LENBERGER: I should probably turn it over to the environmental consultant to see if they've done more of a detailed survey of the property. Page 9 December 6, 2000 MR. de CZEGE.' My name is Geza Wass de Czege, with Southern Biomes, environmental consultant. There's four to five burrows out there, which is estimated about three tortoises. MR. HILL: Small family. MR. de CZEGE: Very small. MR. HILL: I noticed an uncertainty of the location is Homing Road. Is that the correct name for it, if there was a discrepancy? MR. LENBERGER: What was that? MR. HILL: The location of the road on the north boundary. There was a statement in there that there was an uncertainty between its location on this project and the one to the north, I think. MR. LENBERGER: I should let Ray Bellows speak to that. MR. BELLOWS: The roadway on the visualizer, this is access road number 2 which was an FDOT type road to serve the lots going further to the west. It's been named Golden Pond Lane now, and the access to the commercial lines up with the approved access to the PUD to the north, the Golden Gate Commerce Center PUD. Is that your question? MR. HILL: Yes, and I can't find it now, but there was a statement that there was a discrepancy between the location of that road on two different submissions. I'll find it in a minute. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: The location of the access point has been in alignment with the project to the north and any discrepancy, I think, has been resolved. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have any other questions for petitioner or for staff? MR. HILL: I have a legal question. I went out to the site, and it's fenced and the gate is chained. What rights do we have as members of this council to get on that property? I decided not to, for this property and other similar situations. MR. WHITE: I think that's a really good question. Typically, the law of trespass is that if it's gated and locked, you need to have the owner's permission to enter. Typically however, that permission is readily granted to typically staff and members of these boards that have a right of review. Certainly all that's required I would believe, is to contact Page 10 December 6, 2000 that individual who has ownership or control of the property. Also just as a note as to ungated properties, most of the applicants, as far as I'm aware, when they submit their applications are required to allow, if you will, staff and other representatives onto the property. So I think that there is authority for you to enter. Just that when it's gated, you need to get permission. MR. HILL: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anyone from the public who would like to address this particular item? Hearing none, what's the pleasure of the council? MR. CARLSON: Vote to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. In favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, it passes unanimously. Okay, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: We need to swear people in. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anyone that's going to testify needs to be sworn in. (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Disclosure on council? Anyone had any conversations with the petitioner and the public regarding this item? Hearing none, proceed. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, Planning Services Department. Let me start off by first asking you to make certain corrections to your report. We're dealing with 590 units, a project containing 590 units instead of 799, and consequently, a dwelling unit density of 1.1 units per acre instead of 1.5, as indicated in your report. It's important for you to appreciate that we're dealing with a parcel of land that is currently zoned to permit more units, while the applicant alleges that they could put 1,700 units of housing on this property, and with the underlying zoning being single-family, that's highly unlikely given the environmental sensitivities of the property. But I can assure that they can certainly build considerably Page 11 December 6, 2000 more than 590 dwelling units on this property under the current zoning that's in place. So therefore, this -- in reality, the development of this land can go forward under the current zoning and result in substantially, in the opinion of staff, far greater impact to the area than is currently proposed by this petition. This petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. As you know, the Future Land Use Element doesn't have any preference for any structure-specific type of housing. It simply allows in the urban residential district anything from single-family to multi-family and all of the descriptions that the people in the real estate business use to describe various forms of multi-family housing. Neither does the Growth Management Plan/Future Land Use Element indicate any bias for heights of buildings. And really, when it comes right down to the function of this PUD, is to take the opportunity to develop high-rise structures in a very limited portion of this PUD. You're going to find, I think the staff report points out, that 90 percent of the land will be reserved, preserved, as some form of open space, either in its natural preservation state or as open space that we associate with a golf course. In reality, only about 10 percent of this land will be used for housing. That housing will occur some 8 to 900 feet west of Vanderbilt Drive and a small portion of housing -- I'm going to go to the visual -- this property ownership extends to the Tamiami Trail or U.S. 41, and on the Master Plan is indicated as a residential parcel. So you have residential parcels here and residential parcels in this configuration here, and the rest of the land is shown as golf course and open space. In this portion of the PUD, the provision is made for two-story residential structures. In this portion, to the west of Vanderbilt, provision is made for high-rise structures of 20 stories in height, with the first building being limited to 15 stories because of the fact that immediately north of that property is a 15-story high rise structure under construction. South of that 15 stories, the remainder will be 20-story structures. Staff advised us that this petition, as presented, is consistent with all of the environmental policies and objectives Page 12 December 6, 2000 of the Growth Management Plan and it is indeed consistent with the Traffic Element and all other related elements. As you know, it's an 18-hole golf course with 15 holes of golf on the east side of Vanderbilt, three holes of golf on the west side, 590 units, 90 percent preservation. I would ask the environmental staff to deal with the specifics of those environmental issues. MS. BURGESON: Barbara Burgeson with Planning Services. The proposed Cocohatchee PUD encompasses 530 acres of land in northern Collier County, on the west side of U.S. 41, located east and west of Vanderbilt Drive, immediately north of the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive. The western parcel of land consists of a large strand of mangroves, swamp and open water, as well as a diverse collection of vegetation communities, such as bayhead, coastal scrub and pine flatwoods. The eastern parcel is undeveloped and consists mostly of a vegetative community of cypress swamp, wet prairie, coastal scrubs, and pine flatwoods. The subject site consists of 156 acres of uplands, 272 acres of wetlands, and 100 acres of other surface waters. Most of the uplands represent remnants of coastal dune strands. That habitat is dominated by pine and typical scrub vegetation. Of the entire site, 19 -- nearly 20 acres of uplands, 214 acres of mixed wetlands, and 98 acres of waters will be preserved. An additional 34 acres of uplands and 11 acres of wetlands will be protected under the eagle's primary and secondary protection zones. It's also important to note that development of this property will need to be closely coordinated with the state and federal wildlife agencies and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing the site plan and proposed development plan to assure that the bald eagle that is currently utilizing the site is protected. And the representatives of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are also reviewing the site to protect the gopher tortoise issues, due to the fact that there are a vast number of tortoise burrows identified on this property. The development of residential buildings around the eagle nest will have to be coordinated with the appropriate agencies. At this time, the proposed residential plans, as currently Page 13 December 6, 2000 contemplated, will not be possible under current regulations unless the deteriorated condition of the eagle's nest, we find that that eagle relocates to another tree outside of the area and primary and secondary zones would not affect the proposed locations of the buildings. MR. HILL: Would you go back and repeat that last portion? MS. BURGESON: Yes. At this point, the plans for the residential buildings are identified where the eagle's nest is and where the primary and secondary zones are. And they are not consistent and could not be considered consistent until such time as that eagle relocates. But the tree that they are in -- and the environmental consultant can probably explain it better -- is a dead tree. You might probably see that from the staff report, the photo. And that eagle, the environmental consultant anticipates, will be relocating and moving from that location. Once they do, there's a two- to five-year, I believe it's five-year unless the tree is completely knocked down, there's a five-year time frame from when the eagle leaves the nest to when construction could be considered and that tree could be considered completely abandoned. So the proposal for residential units or development within the primary and secondary zone is contingent upon the eagle relocating. MR. NINO.' The long and short of it is, while we are approving 590 units of housing, in fact, they won't be able to build any of those units until the eagle finds a new home. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Council, questions for staff? MS. BURGESON: The other item I want to address was the gopher tortoise issue on-site. The consultant did extensive gopher tortoise surveys on the property, identified a total of 233 burrows. They have reworked their site plan for the golf course a number of times since the original site plan was designed, and they are identifying the majority of the gopher tortoise burrows that are active in areas that can be preserved in the rough and in the preservation areas of uplands adjacent to the golf course. There is also going to be some opportunity through the development process to amend that a little bit more to field relocate some of the preserve areas and the rough areas, to preserve the most active gopher tortoise burrows in their existing locations, and the remainder of those will be relocated Page 14 December 6, 2000 on-site. We don't anticipate any tortoises will need to be relocated off-site. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? MR. COE: Do you happen to know -- I'm sure you would know -- is the golf course considered a conservation area? MS. BURGESON: Golf course itself would not be. MR. COE: We're saying that 90 percent includes the golf course? What is it if we subtract the golf course and all those recreation areas and all that business and have actually what is preserved that is natural land. Does anybody have that statistic? MR. NINO: I don't have that number. MR. COE: I have the 90 percent, but I don't know what the real percent is. MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. As of this moment, we don't have those exact calculations. We have changed our golf course to decrease impact. It is our intent to save as much native vegetation as we can. By the time we're finished -- normally a golf course is somewhere in the 130-acre range. Sometimes that includes lakes and that includes the rough. The way that we have redesigned this course, we have lowered all the grades. It will be something like a Collier's Reserve course where we are intending to save as much as we can. So those final numbers really won't be available until we are finished the permitting through South Florida Water and the Corp. But they will be significantly lower than what most courses would be, which would be 130 acres. My guess is we probably will have at least half that course, which will be native vegetation in its existing state. MS. BURGESON: The initial proposal through the Environmental Impact Statement was 213 acres of mixed wetlands being preserved and roughly 20 acres of uplands being preserved, under what would be considered preservation or conservation easements. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Other questions? MR. HILL: I have two brief ones. In the original computation of acreages, the 101 acres of other surface waters, is that privately owned? Page 15 December 6, 2000 That's -- what part of Vanderbilt Creek that's included in the 500 -- MS. BURGESON: I think if you take a look at the plan up on the opposite wall, the yellow line shows the property boundary, and if I'm correct in assuming, Karen, that everything in that was privately owned, even the surface waters? MS. BISHOP: Correct. As unusual as it is, this is similar to the project that came before you before The Dunes, where the ownership of this property, and it shows on the Collier tax maps that Mrs. Dougherty (phonetic), who is the original owner, in fact, has ownership under the water. MR. HILL: Then that comes into the 90 percent, also, in addition to the mangrove swamps that you mentioned, that staff mentioned? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. All those will be in conservation. A conservation easement in perpetuity forever, not to be touched by anyone. MR. HILL: The other question, in laying out the golf course, it seems to me that you've put most of the holes in the wetlands, wetland area, in the jurisdictional wetland area as opposed to the uplands. Was that an attempt to save the gopher tortoise burrows? MS. BISHOP: To be absolutely honest, it's very difficult to try to save uplands and wetlands at the same time. So we have identified the most pristine of wetlands which we are, in fact, saving. Some of the cypress out there are just awesome, as well as the gopher turtle habitat, which is also an awesome habitat. So between the two we are trying to find the least impactive. Unfortunately, there's a tremendous amount of water coming from the north which we are intending to keep the flow in place, but it really doesn't leave you much room to work with, to keep that golf course because you need so much area for a golf course just to play in itself. Unfortunately, we have had to encroach on some of the wetlands, but with the mitigation we are proposing as well as the conservation, we believe that this is the best plan we can come up with. MR. HILL: Are you talking about off-site mitigation? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. We are going to try to keep everything on-site. Of course, we are not finished our permitting yet so the Page 16 December 6, 2000 agencies may disagree and say I have to do off-site. But at this time that is not our intent. MR. HILL: I have never seen a petition with respect to as environmentally sensitive land as this is. I feel very uncomfortable with it. That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Other members of the council? MR. CARLSON: I have just a small question. Is this a high-rise building over on the right-hand side, over on the eastern edge? There. MS. BISHOP: That's a golf club; that's the clubhouse itself. That's the only building, besides the maintenance facilities, that will be in this whole area that you see here. The finger will have some caddyshacks, the maintenance facility, and two-story condos on the total east side across -- near 41. But this area that you see here, the only place you'll see buildings besides an occasional toilet will be the golf club itself. MR. CARLSON: So all the proposed residential 590 units are on those little -- MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, that's it. No other place. Well, we do have the condos on the finger, so there will be some condos on that side. But they are two-story and they are along that finger strip itself. This whole area right here, as well as this, obviously, will stay golf course and no buildings. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where is the eagle's nest? MS. BISHOP: Right about here. There should be an exhibit in your packet that shows the eagle's nest, his primary and his secondary zones. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I got it right here, looking right at it. MR. CARLSON: I guess my biggest question when I looked at these maps was there is a bald eagle nest protection area which coincides with the area of the future high-rises, and that's a big part of the project. And I don't have any idea, other than some tall buildings, what is that going to look like? MS. BISHOP: That side, the development of that side? MR. CARLSON: All buildings and parking? MS. BISHOP: Essentially, it will look very much like The Dunes. You will have parking underneath the buildings, and you will have a high-rise building, and you will be vegetated around it, Page 17 December 6, 2000 normal vegetation, similar to what you see when you drive through Pelican Bay and those kinds of projects. Golf course -- actually this plan that we show here is not reflective of what we revised our plan to. We have no golf course in the eagle's primary zone at all. So that will maintain until Mr. Eagle and Mrs. Eagle find a new place to live. And at that time wherever he goes, if he stays on the property, then those zones move with him wherever he goes. And if he moves somewhere else, obviously, his zones disappear. MR. CARLSON: You understand my question. That's a huge part of this project, that diagonally crossed line, bald eagle nest protection area? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: If a lot of that was native habitat that would be important. MS. BISHOP: That area was burnt a long time ago, and if you've driven by there, I'm sure many of you have seen this eagle. You can see him from the road. There was a huge fire that went through there. The kind of habitat that's available now there is what's left over after a fire. All the big trees are gone. There's only -- the only pine trees that we have on our site that's even remotely useable for the eagle is a small patch at this area and a small patch at this area near the marina. That's where he actually hung out before. But at this point, he doesn't go down there. He sits occasionally, because I assume he's getting fed from the marina. But at this point, there is no vegetation there, other than what's left over after a fire starting to come back stuff. You have some scrub over there and you have -- but you can see it's just mostly prairie looking stuff as you drive by there. And you can get on the site, too, there is no fence. MR. NINO: I'd like to a make a comment about the statement that says this is the least environmental response. Again, I would reiterate that given the mitigation environment that we live in, whether we like it or not, I'm sure that this developer, the owner of this land, could destroy to a far greater extent what's there if they built typical single-family subdivisions. You have driven up there and you have seen Glen Eden on the Bay, for example. Glen Eden could be repeated over on this Page 18 December 6, 2000 property only at a much larger extent. That would put impervious cover over 80 to 90 percent of the land we're dealing with. So I don't know how you can say that this is the least environmental response to this property. I beg to differ. MR. CARLSON: I don't think that's what Mr. Hill said. He said this is some of the most environmentally sensitive property that he's seen come before the board. MR. NINO: Okay. Thank you. MR. HILL: That was my comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't particularly like the idea of seeing five high-rise buildings, six high-rise, 15- to 20-story buildings right up against the edge of the area with 25 foot setbacks. I think what Mr. Nino has to say is what's the alternative, and the alternative, I think, in lieu of concentrating the density in that particular area, is spreading it out over the whole site MR. NINO: Let me advise you that we have used the same development standards for spacing between buildings as we have in Pelican Bay, which is one-half of some of the heights. And that's a pretty reasonable standard, provides for preserving substantial view corridor. The alternative to that is -- and to some extent there is some multi-family zoning in this property that would allow 50 for the pike. That would destroy the view because it would all be horizontal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How do we make the determination of when the eagle has left? Who does that? MS. BURGESON: That's typically done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Both of those agencies are involved in an annual monitoring and review report that comes out on the eagles that are located in Collier County. Joe Boso has been doing that for the past 10 years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not being that familiar with the habits of eagles, periodically do they move from nest to nest? Certainly sounds like we plan for him to be moving on sometime. MS. BISHOP: They typically don't leave the nest unless there's some reason, the tree has been damaged or there's been a problem in that area. Most of the eagles in Collier County have Page 19 December 6, 2000 been in their nests as long as there is not -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So potentially if he didn't move, the high-rise doesn't happen? MR. NINO: They are out of luck. MR. CARLSON: One last try at this. If you had to guess the area you've got designated as a bald eagle nest protection area on this map, this map over here -- MS. BISHOP: Oh-- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: -- how much of that is impacted by high-rise buildings and parking lots and otherwise altered, cleared under-- MS. BISHOP: Currently right now, there is only one tree in the eagle's habitat area; one tree that he sits in. There are no other. MR. CARLSON: I'm not interested primarily in just trees, I'm interested in the native habitats that are in there. MS. BISHOP: I have my biologist who's with me to give a better explanation than I can on that. But substantially, everything that would be in that area would be utilized for development once the eagle is gone. MR. HALL: Tim Hall, Terrell and Associates. The actual buildings themselves, the footprint of the buildings, is about an acre to an acre and a half, and then you've got the associated parking and driveways and landscaping around them. So I think the eagle protection area is about 45 acres. If you had five buildings at -- maximize it, say they took up four acres apiece, then 20 acres of that 45 would be impacted by the actual development. The rest of it could be maintained in native or the existing habitat. Those are just guesstimates. It would depend on the construction that needed to be done and machinery that had to be brought in. MR. HILL: On page 15 of the environmental impact statement, in this case the applicant is proposing to modify the primary zone to 500 feet. That's not consistent with this map, is it, on the eastern edge because of existing site conditions? MR. HALL: On the original -- the map that you have or the map that's shown here, which shows the golf course hole number four coming down, it impacted the primary zone. It was within the primary zone. And based on the flight paths of the eagle, the flight paths showed from the tree it went generally to the west or Page 20 December 6, 2000 southwest. So we had requested a modification of the primary zone to 500 feet on that eastern side. Since that ElS was submitted, the plan has been changed and the 750 foot primary zone is maintained all the way around the nest. There is no construction or golf course impact. MR. HILL: The concentric circle is accurate; the ElS requirement is not? MR. HALL: That's correct. MR. HILL: On that same page, you refer to the gopher tortoises will be removed from the construction area to on-site preserve. You'll be applying for an incidental take permit. Are you going to reestablish those burrows on-site after the construction? MR. HALL: Yes. That's just a safety precaution. The areas that are going to be constructed with the golf course, the active burrows and the tortoises that are using those need to be moved from that area into the on-site preserves. Those on-site preserves will be fenced temporarily until the construction activities are over, and then the fences will be removed and the gopher tortoises will then have free reign of the site once again. MR. COE: We've got a member of the board that has a preserve that remains fenced. I would assume you've considered both sides of the fence, so to speak, and you are recommending unfencing them, just let them go where they want? MR. HALL: Right. MR. COE: What's the impact on the gopher tortoise? MR. HALL: The attempt was made in the construction of the golf course -- there are going to be areas, flyover areas, where the only active construction activity is going to be canopy removal. The trees will be taken off and all of the native ground covers will be left intact. So what we want to do is -- right now, the gopher tortoises have access to that entire site. We'd like to maintain that to where they still have the ability to move from one area to another. That helps maintain a healthier population, rather than just fencing them in the small preserve areas. Gives the ability where if one area gets crowded or there's a conflict between the tortoises, they have the ability to move to another area. MR. COE: What about the pollution from the golf course and effect on the tortoises? Page 21 December 6, 2000 MR. HALL: That's something -- there hasn't been a whole lot of studies done on that. I would like to -- we do want to have a monitoring program of the tortoises. They'll all be marked as they are captured and moved, so that we can try to keep observing them to find out if that is going to be a problem. The other thing is that the golf course is going to be very -- the pesticides and insecticides used on the golf course are going to be very environmentally friendly. I'll let Don talk about that a little more. MR. CORACE: Morning. My name us Don Corace with Signature Communities. We're the developer of Cocohatchee Bay PUD as well as the Tensail Golf Club, which is the golf course component, obviously. With regard to the golf course, our designer that we picked, his name is Tom Weiskopf, and some of you who play golf probably know that name. Tom is noted in the golf course design community as one of the more environmentally sensitive designers. He's done a number of courses out west, in Mexico, in the northwest, where he had to deal with some of the same issues that we're dealing with here. We have had -- our objective with the golf course is to maintain as much of the natural habitat as possible. We do that for two reasons. One, the golfers like to see a more natural environment as opposed to a contrived golf course where you have waterfalls, for example, that look unnatural. Secondly, to keep the golf course in a natural state also reduces our maintenance costs. In addition, we have had meetings and conversations with the Audubon Signature Golf Course program and you may be aware that the Audubon program is very well-known in this area. Collier's Reserve was the first Audubon Signature course. Holt Collier, which is a course under development by the Collier family, is certainly part of the Audubon Signature program, as well. I think they have gone to the gold program which is very expensive. We have had ongoing conversations with them. They took their consultants, took a look at our plan that we currently have, which is a rough -- we're only in the rough grading planning stage at this point -- and we went through the various Page 22 December 6, 2000 criteria, and their comment was that you have an Audubon course already. And one of the things that they drew attention to was that as we started developing the routing plan for the course, we tried the best we could to incorporate those preserve areas for the gopher tortoise. And if you notice -- this plan has changed slightly from the time that this was done -- but you would notice on our current grading plan that many of the tee box areas are very close on both sides of the tee box areas, which are somewhat elevated. The preserves pinch in close to those tee box areas. And the Audubon Signature program people said that that's one of the things that they look for to maintain preserves for the gopher tortoise or whatever species is on any one of their projects. So we have done what we believe, at this point, is as much as we could without our environmental permits to preserve this area for the gopher tortoises, and we feel that it's a good mix with our golf course routing plan. So from our standpoint it's a win-win situation, and we'll continue on that path the best we can to preserve that natural habitat and to preserve those areas that we think are sensitive. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One comment on that. I think, to answer your question somewhat regarding whether they stay or not, I think we found -- and we monitor it -- that by a planting program with the gopher apples and prickly pear cactus as a food source, we find some places they are trying to get inside the fence. And I think under your permit that you're going to get from the state, there will be some requirements in a relocation are to replant the food source. And I think that is a really beneficial thing to improve; actually get the vines out, clean up the underbrush, do the plantings. I think that's what really helps them out. MR. HALL: Right. That will be part of the habitat management plan for the gopher tortoises, would be to maintain the native areas and plant, if necessary. Some of the -- there is already some pretty extensive areas of the gopher apple and saw palmettos that will be maintained. But in areas that have been impacted through off-road vehicle use or that may be impacted Page 23 December 6, 2000 temporarily by the construction activity, those will be replanted and returned to a native status. MS. BURGESON: That has become a requirement of Collier County's Gopher Tortoise Relocation Management Plan, that they do have to provide some discussion on restoration or revegetation of those areas, if it's necessary. MR. CORACE: One comment that I would like to make as far as the fertilizer and pesticides. There are a number of organic fertilizers and pesticides that are being used these days. Karen had made the comment, or Tim had made the comment, that that needs to be studied. We have an agronomist who we have hired for this golf course project and we plan on using as much of the organic materials as possible, which is consistent with the Audubon Signature program, as well. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: I realize the preparation of these documents is expensive, but that would have been very helpful if that had been included in the package, that particular-- MR. CORACE: What are you referring to? MR. HILL: The map on the wall. It would have been very helpful to have that in the ElS statement. MR. CORACE: Okay. MR. HILL: These are helpful, but they are very confusing or can be confusing. That's very helpful. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any further questions of petitioner? MR. GAL: I have a question of the staff. I'm not really sure what we're approving if there's still an eagle on the property, and we don't know where it's moving to, and we don't know where they are going to build. MR. NINO: One needs to appreciate that when you rezone property, you are not issuing any building permits. A rezoning is simply a statement that says, if you can get your permits, you can use your land for the underlying, for whatever it's zoned. That condition exists across all of Collier County and throughout the United States. Land is zoned; you really don't know if you can use it for the purpose for which it's zoned. There are really two separate actions when it comes right Page 24 December 6, 2000 down to it. So you shouldn't be confused, you shouldn't take the position that when you zone land, you're automatically -- that that automatically allows them to go in and do whatever they want consistent with the permitted uses of that particular zoning district. So it's not unusual to zone land not fully appreciating or knowing the extent to which they are going to be able to utilize that zoning classification. They've got to go through all the permitting processing, and those are the checks and balances that we have. Checks and balances, as you know, are going to take care of it -- that eagle is not put out of business. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think if you look at the stipulations on page 10 and 11 of the EAC staff report, number 9 is a stipulation that indicates that they would remove the residential high-rise tract designation on the parcel where it's currently active bald eagle's nest. I think that may also be information that's consistent with the question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Also for the EAC's comfort, there is a requirement that the Bald Eagle Management Plan in its entirety be attached to the PUD document as an exhibit, so that that becomes a part of the formal legal document that the board approves. And that in itself can be changed through time. If the eagle does move, that document will be amended as an attached exhibit to the PUD. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any further questions of the staff or the petitioner? Anyone from the public that would like to address this matter? Have you been sworn, sir? MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir. Good morning, council members. My name is Chris Thornton. I'm an attorney here in Naples with the law firm of Treiser, Kobza and Lieberfarb representing the Estuary Conservation Association, formerly known as the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. It's a group of about 200 people in the north Naples area. The mission of the group is to protect the waterways in the North Naples area and to protect estuarine systems. We do have a few concerns about the project. Some of them just might require some clarification from county staff or from the developer. And first, before I get into those, as noted by Page 25 December 6, 2000 Councilman Hill, the first issue that jumped out at me when I saw the proposed plan was the statement in the document that about 100 acres of this property, claimed in fee simple title, is open waters of Wiggins Pass Channel, the Cocohatchee River and open waters running north and south of the Wiggins Pass Channel. And it was a surprise to me to learn that when I go fishing through the Wiggins Pass Channel, I'm traveling across private property when I understood that property to be owned by the state as sovereign lands. That's an issue I've requested a determination from the state Division of State Lands, Title and Records Section, and it's something that we'll continue to work with the developer on to clarify. I'm not sure what we can do about it today but the issue should be clarified. It goes to the density calculations, if you claim 100 acres of it is open water that's not counting the wetlands, the mangrove wetlands, that are below the mean high water line. I don't know how many wetlands below the mean high water line there are, but if you do determine that those lands are, in fact, owned by the state, it would change your perspective in how you look at this project. As you look at it now, you realize you are receiving a huge amount of land as a preserve, but if the land is already owned by the sovereign state, you're really not getting anything you don't already have. So I think that's an issue that needs further research, that needs to be looked into. The second issue that I'd like to address concerns the eagle and the eagle really -- existence of the eagle on the site is a consideration that you should make, and whether or not the timing of this rezone request is appropriate. The staff has stated in their presentation this development will not be possible as long as the eagle remains there. By approving the PUD as it is, you really ensure that the eagle is going to leave. There's a huge financial incentive to make sure the eagle does leave so the project may proceed. Second, by approving it now, you are locking in the development rights on this property, and granted, the property is zoned for development now, but you're locking in a high-rise development and it might not be the time to approve this Page 26 December 6, 2000 property for that right now because there's an eagle there. If you don't approve it now, what you gain is when the eagle does leave and the eagle's been gone for five years and a developer comes in from a project to be approved at that time, the entire environmental regulatory scheme may have changed. That eagle may be there for 10 or 15 years. We lose the opportunity to apply the new regulatory scheme in the future to this land. So by approving it today, the eagle is there and he'll leave and when he does leave the project will go forward. If we don't approve it now, the eagle may or may not leave, but when he does finally leave, the new environmental laws 15, 20 years down the road will be applied to this project and it can be a disadvantage. Maybe the laws -- the regulations might swing the other way and be less environmentally sensitive. But who's to say? We don't know. We do know if we approve it now it will be locked in for this development. The third issue, and this is probably just a clarification from county staff. I don't think it's perfectly clear from the code -- maybe it is, maybe I missed something -- but I want to clarify that it is the case that the county's policy and procedure is to count open water for density credits. I would like to know if that's the case. I know in the city of Naples they do not count open waters for density purposes. I assume the county does, as this project has been given density credits for all that open water. But I think it's an issue that needs to be clarified. Lastly, the land does have an immense amount of preserve area. That preserve area also has a list of permitted uses, uses that are allowed in the preserve area. And I know that some of the preserve areas are on the golf course and some of the preserve areas are on the waterfront. I don't think that all of these permitted uses are appropriate in all of the preserve areas. The preserve areas in the golf course, especially at page 5.1 of the PUD document, section 5.3, permitted uses include golf cart paths. Number 5 is pathways and bridges. While those might be appropriate on the golf course, I don't think they are appropriate on the preserve areas adjacent to the water of the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Page 27 December 6, 2000 And I would ask that, basically, the preserve areas be segregated. And the preserve areas on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive have extremely limited uses: A boardwalk might be nice, an elevated boardwalk, but a large golf path with a berm would not be appropriate in that area. It would prevent water flow. And I just ask those permitted uses be specified for which preserve area they apply to. That's the end of my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Thornton? MR. THORNTON: One further issue I forgot to bring up. I would like to place this map on the visualizer, if I might. Environmentally sensitive lands in the county have already been overlaid with an ST overlay. This is the current zoning map for a portion of the property. As you can see the overlay line -- we don't really know exactly where it is. You have to go out and have an environmental person determine exactly where that line lies. But as we can see, it's presumed to run in this general direction. I can't tell from the application where the delineation between the development property and the preserve property lies in relation to this line. Special treatment lands that have been designated that way, they have special requirements in the site development planning process. The approval of PUD would remove the special treatment overlay. If all those special treatment lands are being preserved, that's great. That issue just needs to be clarified where those lines are in relation to each other. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Like to respond to Mr. Thornton? MR. THORNTON: Thank you. MR. CORACE: Don Corace for Signature Communities. I'd like to address two of the issues that he brought up, one of which is the density issue. We've had discussions during our Dunes project with regard to the waterways and including those in the density. Let me just say for the record that we've done a calculation as to how many -- we've done a calculation to those lands that we control that are not either mangrove bay areas or the water areas here, and Page 28 December 6, 2000 that calculation basically runs along this line to here, including the golf course and this finger area that we've noted. We have approximately in that area 230 acres. Based upon our existing zoning we can have three units to the acre, and what that equates to is 690 units just for that property alone that's allowable for the density qualification. So whether or not we hold private land which we contend that these are private lands -- even if you take those lands out, we still qualify under the density formula for 690 units, and we're only requesting 590. So in my mind, his contention as far as this waterway is moot. Secondly, I'd like to address the eagle issue. I do take exception to the fact that the gentleman mentioned that we have an economic incentive to have that eagle leave or be removed. We plan to comply with all eagle management policies with all the various agencies. To make the insinuation that we are going to do something to remove that eagle is incorrect and I think inappropriate. From the standpoint of the time frame, we don't plan on building those high-rise projects probably for the next four or five years anyway, so we have a fairly patient time table. So I just wanted to make that note. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. How would you respond to Mr. Thornton's request regarding the separation of the two preserve areas? MR. CORACE: I'll let Karen address that. MS. BISHOP: The way that we've set up our PUD allows -- he is correct, I have preserves on both sides of the road. The golf cart paths are intended to be at the golf cart area. The preserves on the west side of the road along mangrove areas are not intended to have golf cart paths. We are in the process at this point of permitting this with the district and the Corp, and I can assure you that they would never allow a big berm golf course path to run through the mangroves. We would at the very most like to see a boardwalk for passive recreation, but at this point, we haven't even proposed that in our environmental permits. We intend to put a different kind of conservation easement on the mangrove wetland preserves than we do on top of the preserves within the golf course. So we do not intend to put a Page 29 December 6, 2000 golf cart path back there. There would be no reason to do that. The construction would be a nightmare considering that it's very squishy out there in the big scheme. So that is not going to happen. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you have a problem stipulating to that in your approval? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. MR. CARLSON: Can you address his question on the ST? MS. BISHOP: Yes, to some degree. I've worked with lots of projects that have had ST overlays. I can assure you these ST overlays were done on 200 foot aerials, which are 200 foot scale aerials, which, at the very best, have a quarter inch per foot stretch across them and they are a generalized line. These lines are determined more accurately with the vegetation maps and the jurisdictional lines that are done by the agencies which we, in fact, have and are going through that process. There may be some change in those lines due to the reality of the ground, not so much encroachment of our development, but what's really out there. You have the vegetation and flux maps, you can see where those lines would be. At this point, we have not submitted any applications for any buildings at that point because there's an eagle there and we're not intending to do that. But during the process of permitting there may be a change in those areas. But I can assure you that those lines would certainly never cross the mangroves or any of those types of areas that we know absolutely we're not going to be encroaching on that. But I can tell you that the maps you see and Collier County zoning maps are not the best accuracy. They give you an idea that there is something there, but the shape of those lands is better determined in the environmental process, which is what we're doing now. MR. NINO: Let me also add that we've used the PUD rezoning process as a means of redefining those jurisdictional areas, so this is not precedent setting. Pelican Bay -- a great many of the PUDs that we have approved in this county had ST zoning on them and they were redefined as a consequence of adopting the PUD. So we've done this many times. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Page 30 December 6, 2000 MR. HILL: for rezoning? MR. NINO: MR. HILL: While you're up there, Mr. Nino, this is a request Yes, it is. I agree with your statements that that does not Would necessarily relate to specifically what's going to be done. it be appropriate for this council to ask that the project be resubmitted or brought back to EAC in the future when the specifics of the development are finalized? MR. NINO: I can't answer that question. Pat, do you want to answer it? MR. WHITE: I think the simple answer is probably yes, it would be appropriate, but I think that's only the result of what the collegial body decides to do. MR. NINO: EAC is an advisory board. The Board of County Commissioners is the ultimate authority. I can't imagine a case coming back to an advisory board. It would have to go back to the Board of County Commissioners, wouldn't it? MR. WHITE: Mr. Nino, my comments were made with the understanding that the EAC makes recommendations only. Their recommendation could be that they would like to see, they believe it to be appropriate as a body to have it resubmitted at some other point in time in some other form. I'm assuming that would be consistent with some aspect of a denial. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What you're saying, you'd like to see a resubmittal at the time that it's been determined that the eagle has departed and they are going to proceed with the development? MR. HILL: Right. I think it's been made very clear that this council is being asked today to approve or disapprove a rezoning which simply says you can now use the land for a specific purpose. With as many uncertainties as exist in what's going to happen and the window when that's going to happen, I think it's appropriate that we might want to look at it at a future date. MS. BISHOP: I might suggest to you that when the eagle leaves -- because it is a when, not if, because the tree is dead and so he will be leaving that -- we'll have to come back in front of you to amend our document. So we will, in fact, have to go back through the boards again to amend the document to whatever new location Mr. Eagle decides to go to. So you will Page 31 December 6, 2000 have that opportunity. And furthermore, during my environmental process at the district as well as the Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and Game and Fish, there will be a myriad of eyes looking at this from the environmental perspective, so that it will not be left to the haphazard approval of, you know, non-environmental people. So you do have that security that that's going to happen. And when the eagle moves, I will be coming back to change that map to show where he now is. You will then have another opportunity to review this project to what really is going to happen out there. MS. BURGESON: I just wanted to make a comment regarding what Karen just said. If the PUD document is amended in the future to amend the Bald Eagle Management Plan, that does not necessarily mean staff would require that this project or PUD document be brought back before the EAC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we request stipulation of that in the approval? MS. BURGESON: If you want to stipulate that, that any amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan require that this PUD be brought back before EAC, we can add something to that nature. MR. COE: I'd like to make a comment here and as you know, I'm pro environment. But I see a developer that appears has taken an enormous amount of time to preserve within the current regulations the maximum amount, and he's tried to balance it between a decent project and the environment. We're hung up on this eagle and bottom line is there's going to be 9,000 eyes on this eagle. Everybody is going to watch this eagle. I'm going to watch it, Ed is going to watch it. I'm going to drive up there and look at this eagle. I've never seen it before. Bottom line is they can't do anything until this eagle moves away, period. So to require them to stop planning everything and wait until the eagle flies away is ludicrous. They need to get on with their planning. They know they can't do anything until five years after this sucker flies way; that's a long time. In the meantime they could be planning their project and getting on with their lives. For us to put a stumbling block in the middle of them when they're going to be required to be looked at Page 32 December 6, 2000 by fish, game, wildlife, George Bush, Governor Bush, maybe even AI Gore, is ridiculous. That's my comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I agree with you. But I think what Mr. Hill is asking for is not the rest of the project but just the area within the 750 feet. MR. HILL: Unless some of the rest of the project gets affected. MR. COE: We have enough people looking at it without having to come back to us. There is enough people out there that are going to have to permit it. Even the county staff knows that they are dead meat if they infringe upon the eagle's area. So I mean, there is people that are going to be really held to task on this and to come back before us, we're just another stumbling block and waste of time when it comes to that. We need to look at the overall project environmentally, look at what it really does and what it doesn't do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the council? We need to move forward. MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve it as it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. WHITE: Would that be with the stipulations that the staff has in the staff report? MR. COE: Obviously, yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think the stipulations we talked about, separating of the preserve areas and the language what could be done in the preserve area. MS. BURGESON: That's actually within the PUD document, so we're comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, very good. Do I hear a second? MR. HILL: To get a vote; I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a second. Discussion? Hearing none, if we could ask you if you would call the roll on the vote to make sure we get it right on the record, everybody knows who's voting for what. Shall we do that? MS. BURGESON: Normally you just ask for those in favor. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Those in favor of the motion? MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Page 33 December 6, 2000 MR. CARLSON: No. MR. GAL: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion fails four to two. Four to two against. MR. NINO: It's important that the board have a habit of asking why did you vote against it. I'd like to be able to ask the question. Can I get some reason why you're voting against it? MR. WHITE: I don't know that Mr. Nino's comments are premature. There may be a second motion that's going to come from the council. I don' know. If there will be no further motions, I think it's appropriate to address his question if you choose to. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are there any further motions? What we did is turned down a motion to approve. What we need if there is another action, we need another motion. MR. CARLSON: Well, there is so much at stake here, I was uncomfortable with the area designated as a bald eagle nest protection area. I really don't know what's going to happen there. It's a big part of this project, and I'm uncomfortable with that. I thought we were getting somewhere when we talked about this project coming back to us so we would have more details on specifically what would happen in this area, a huge chunk of this project. And that's what I'm uncomfortable with and if we can get some detail on that in the future, I'm happy. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Basically what we're saying is 750 foot radius, which is called the nesting radius or whatever it is. MR. CARLSON: I'm talking about this whole area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The area where the high-rises are? MR. CARLSON: It's designated on this as a Bald Eagle Nest Protection Area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Doesn't interfere with their ability to build a golf course; is that correct? MR. CARLSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They could build a golf course, proceed with everything else on that basis, however, prior to the time they go on with the high-rises, we are requesting that they come back to us. MR. COE: The antithesis of that is also, if we turn this down, they can just turn right around, go back, plan it, get rid of the golf Page 34 December 6, 2000 course, put in single-family homes, high-rises, whatever they want to do and build out umpteen hundred more things and destroy the environment where the golf course is currently located. To heck with high-rises, they can go for that later on; am I correct, Mr. Developer? MR. CORACE: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? MR. COE: The bottom line is you could just forget about the golf course and go ahead and develop that area and come back later and request the high-rise? MR. CORACE: Yes, we would have the ability to do that. MR. COE: Just want to make sure I understand that. MR. CORACE: I know the public hearing is closed, but with regard to the vote, the concerns about us coming back when the eagle either relocates or whatever happens with the eagle, we would have to make an amendment to our PUD anyway, according to what Karen has indicated. That is correct, Ron? MR. NINO: Correct. MR. CORACE: So by virtue of us having to make an amendment to the PUD, we would have to come back before the planning commission and the board, as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: There seems to be a disagreement with Barbara on that. Barbara, did you say they do not have to back to the EAC? MS. BURGESON: It's not a requirement from the staff level to bring this project back to the EAC with that type of amendment. MR. NINO: It's rather academic. Within six months you're going to have a Hearing Examiner process, you and the Planning Commission will not be reviewing land use petitions. MR. HILL: That's incidental to our action today, though, Mr. Nino. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Does the petitioner have a problem with stipulation to that, they'll come back to the EAC at the time they revise the PUD? MR. CORACE: No. MR. CARLSON: Move to approve with the stipulation that they come back to the EAC once they finalize the development plan. MS. SANTORO: Second. Page 35 December 6, 2000 MR. WHITE: This time the discussion, Mr. Chairman, given the nature of the motion and specificity with regards to coming back before this council, if as Mr. Nino has indicated, there may not be in existence at that point in time a council, is perhaps a favorable motion -- amendment to the motion that could be made, the EAC or other responsible decision-making entity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you have a problem with that addition, sir? MR. CARLSON: I guess it's the reality of life we have to deal with. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Does the seconder have a problem? MS. SANTORO: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion? Motion carries unanimously. (Recess taken from 10:30 to 10:40.) (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Witnesses have been sworn. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning advisory. I have an amendment to 1-75 Collier Boulevard Commercial Center PUD interchange, at the time of our addressing the department to produce a similar sounding name with the first project. As you can see on the monitor, the site is located on the southwest quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. It's surrounded by the Westport Commerce Center PUD to the south. To the north is the Alligator Alley PUD which allows for commercial retail uses. To the east across Collier Boulevard is the Forest Glen PUD which is a mix of residential and commercial. In the northeast corner is the Tollgate Commercial Plaza PUD, and the project we heard earlier today, agenda item A, is the Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Commerce Center. This project is currently zoned industrial and allows a full range of industrial uses. Due to changing market conditions, petitioner's requesting to rezone it for PUD allowing approximately 148,975 square feet of commercial retail type uses. It's consistent with the activity center number 9 which Page 36 December 6, 2000 allows for interstate commerce retail type uses. It will also be subject to the Interchange Master Plan when that is ratified, like the other projects before this one. Be happy to answer any questions and environmental staff will also present the environmental review. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions from council? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services. The subject property is almost 20 acres on the southwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. The aerial on the map here indicates the outline of the project, and most of the project is vegetated with pine cypress mix. There's heavy infestations of melaleuca on-site. This particular area is older and you can see that the -- there is a centralized area of disturbed land which we believe was probably cleared in the 60s. Been a long time. The project is pretty much wetlands in its entirety, maybe about an acre of uplands. The project will impact about t5 acres of those wetlands and preserve about three acres, almost three acres, in the west and south sides of the project. I have the PUD Master Plan superimposed on this overall site plan. The overall site plan contains the subject PUD right here. Surrounding it on two sides is the Westport Commerce Center PUD. The reason I have the exhibit up here is to show you the location of the preserve areas on both sites to give you an indication how they line up. You can see the project is proposing a preserve of almost three acres of wetlands on the west and south side of the project and they line up with the preserve area, approximately 16 acres on Westport Commerce Center. For impacts to wetlands, the petitioner is proposing to buy credits in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, approximately five credits. The petitioner also did a wildlife species survey. There are red cockaded woodpeckers to the west and southwest of this project and Cedar Hammock PUD. The results of the survey found that there are no cavity trees or RCWs on-site. If you have any questions, be glad to answer them. The petitioner's environmental consultant is also here. Page 37 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Lenberger? Hearing none -- excuse me. MR. HILL: According to the one map, figure 4 in the wetland impact map, all except that disturbed area you have running northeast/southwest, the entire area is wetlands at this point other than that. The entire area of the project except for that disturbed area which you identified is currently wetlands? MR. LENBERGER: Wetlands, that's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? For the petitioner? MR. HANCOCK: Morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Tim Hancock. I'm the director of Collier County Services for Vanasse and Daylor. I'm here today representing Linda Marshall Kowalski, trustee for the property. The property as described, 19 and one-half acres, is a little different than some of the petitions you regularly see. A lot of residential petitions that come before this council start off as agricultural zoning and the act of zoning then authorizes or at least authorizes a set of uses and development plan to be initiated subject to permitting requirements. This project has been zoned industrial for well over 20 years. It is located at the intersection of two significant collector and arterial roadways. It is small in nature when compared to something of the nature of Westport Commerce PUD. So by today's standards, without any action by this council or any action by the County Commission, the project could be developed as an industrial park with equal to or lesser preservation requirements than you see in the issue of wetlands in the plan before you. Some other things to note is that because of the wetland preservation as it is indicated, the absolute maximum of development on the property has been reduced. A rule of thumb generally is 10,000 square feet of retail per acre of development. Potentially, you could see close to 200,000 square feet of retail development on this parcel if it were maximized. Due to the preservation requirement and what has been proposed in this exact location, the PUD contains approximately 150,000 square feet of commercial, providing, again, a lesser impact not just from a physical standpoint, but from a Page 38 December 6, 2000 transportation standpoint. We have had the opportunity to discuss this project in the past with members of the County Commission who, given the choice between commercial and industrial, felt commercial was a better use for this area than would be industrial. Thus we are here today. If there are any specific land use questions, I'll be pleased to answer those. Barring that, I will introduce Ken Passarella of Passarella and Associates to answer environmental questions you may have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Hancock? Hearing none. MR. PASSARELLA: For the record Ken Passarella, president of Passarella and Associates, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have related to the environmental aspects of the project. MR. CARLSON: How did you get through the sequencing? How did you get through the avoidance stage and justified filling of 84 percent of the wetlands? MR. PASSARELLA: To give you a little update on the status of our other permits for the project, we are in for the environmental permitting for the project with the South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We have, through the process, satisfied the avoidance and minimization requirements for the state, the South Florida Water Management District. We are still in the review process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding their avoidance and minimization analysis. With respect to the state, there was an acknowledgement due to the low quality of the wetlands on-site, the infestations by exotics, the alterations to the hydrology in this area by the construction, originally of 951 and Davis Boulevard and then by 1-75, also the canal along the east side of 951, has dramatically altered hydro periods in this area. These areas are wetlands of relatively low quality. The other issue, in discussions with the South Florida Water Management District and avoidance minimization issue is the landscape position of these wetlands. The wetlands are located at an intersection of two major roadways and activity center in Collier County. Page 39 December 6, 2000 The concern for preserving wetlands in other portions of the site, for instance, trying to preserve some wetlands in the northeast corner of the site with commercial development around it, drew a lot of concerns from the South Florida Water Management District. What they wanted to see was that we consolidate any well and preserves that we do adjacent to the preserves on the Westport property and that the remainder of the wetlands be mitigated off-site at a mitigation bank. So we were encouraged to go off-site with our mitigation through that process with the South Florida Water Management District. I want to clarify one thing. In the ElS, I think there was reference to 5 acres or credits at Panther Island Mitigation Bank. We are actually being held to purchase 7.09 credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank by the district. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other discussion or questions? Anyone from the public would like to -- MR. COE: I have a question. I don't understand exactly how this mitigation thing works. You impact 15 acres but you only have to buy seven someplace else? MR. PASSARELLA: Yes. What happens is there is a functional assessment that is done on the wetlands on-site. There's two functional assessments that are done. There is one functional assessment done on the impact site and there's a functional assessment done at the mitigation site. For instance, at Panther Island Mitigation Bank they used a wrap analysis, a wetland wrap assessment procedure analysis that was developed by the South Florida Water Management District to assess the -- for lack of a better term -- the value of a wetland and they do that on the mitigation site. For instance, in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank if they had a wetland that scored out on a scale zero to one, scored a .3 because it was degraded in some fashion by lowered hydrology, by drainage ditches, exotics infested, and the proposed mitigation program is to come in there and fix the hydrology and remove the exotics and maintain those areas. Then the score of that well goes from a .3 before the mitigation activities are done, to say a .8 after the mitigation activities are done. So you generate a lift of .5. So that lift is multiplied by the acreage of the mitigation Page 40 December 6, 2000 site, say they do it over an acre, they generate .5 credits. Conversely, you go to the impact site and say the wetlands are scoring out at a .3 or a .4, you take a .4, you're impacting one acre, so you need .4 credits from the bank. So you may be purchasing -- you may be impacting 15 acres and you're only purchasing 10 credits, but those 10 credits may relate to 30 acres of mitigation on the mitigation site. So there is a formula that's involved there on how that's derived. MR. COE: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further discussion? Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody from the public want to address the petitioner? Hearing none, what's the pleasure of the council? MR. HILL: May I have a moment of levity? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, you may. MR. HILL: When does melaleuca become an endangered species? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How's that beetle doing by the way? Is it still eating melaleuca? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It is, but not quick enough. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure? MR. HILL: Move for approval. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. Thank you. Anybody here that's going to testify in this matter needs to be sworn, other than Mr. Nino and other members of the staff. Okay, here we go. (Speakers sworn.) MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ron, let me just check. Anyone on the council had any contact with the petitioner on this item? Hearing none, okay. MR. NINO: The petitioner's requesting conditional use approval to conduct an earth mining operation on the site with rural agricultural zoning designation. This site is designated agricultural rural as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Page 41 December 6, 2000 Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition this subdistrict permits earth mining, oil extractions and related processing uses. The site is within the area of the county subject to final order number AC-99002 issued June 22, 1999, by the Administration Commission. However, the final order does not prohibit the conditional use of earth mining. Therefore, the proposed use of the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. I bow to environmental staff. MR. LENBERGER: For the record Stephen Lenberger, development services. Subject property has approximately 42 and a half acres. I have an aerial photograph on the wall here. The property is vegetated with three native plant communities; has an area of cypress towards the front and has an area of pine flatwoods. Pretty much most of the central area is pine flatwoods on up to the northern portion of the property. And it has an area of pine/cypress mix also mixed in that area along the flatwoods. The remainder of the property has been disturbed. There's been some clearing of the exotic vegetation in that area and you can see that in the photographs I have and the EAC staff report. Anyway, that area would be this portion of the property, the front area and areas along the west side. Wetlands on-site, about 10 acres. The petitioner is proposing to impact most of those. And as mitigation and also a preserve area requirements as far as the county is concerned, they are proposing to create a marsh area of approximately five acres on the east side of the property and also on portions of the west side of the property on the area bordering the lake. There was an endangered species study done on the property and the only wildlife seen were wading birds; a snowy egret and a little blue heron along the canal on the front of the property, actually in the right of way. Petitioner is here to answer any questions. I also will be glad to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What do we have -- I notice that there is in the code on mining, I assume some restoration Page 42 December 6, 2000 language when they are finished, and I see the notes on there. What guarantees do we have? Is there any bonding or anything of that sort that requires it be restored when they are finished, whatever? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with planning development staff. There is a bonding requirement they have to post 25 cents a cubic yard up to $500,000 bond, and that is to guarantee that the lake be restored to some condition that meets the excavation ordinance, the four to one side slopes down to three feet below the water. It doesn't include things like roads and other items that may be traveled on during the operation. There are different fees that cover that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Has there been any thought of-- kind of reminds me in Polk County, Florida, where you do all the phosphate mining. For many, many years it was no requirement to go back and do anything and everything was left as it was done, pits and so forth. At the very least, when it's finished they should come back and do some planting around it. Any thought been put into revising the ordinance in that manner? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There is a 10 percent literal zone planting requirement-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In the water itself? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- in the ordinance itself that is the subject of some study of the last couple of years to see if it should be expanded. MR. HILL: Question for staff. Unless I've missed it, there's a letter from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there is one archeological site. Is there some stipulation in the staff report how that's to be handled or is that assumed -- MR. NINO: The normal stipulation is that during any excavation if there is discovery they need to stop construction, call in the historical people. That stipulation will be put into the MR. HILL: They say there is one listed in that site. MR. NINO.' Well, that's never a certainty. The maps show that and the map would have triggered -- I wish Ray was here, or Susan were here. This is not my petition. If our historical maps indicated a location, that would have triggered the requirement for them to submit an assessment. Page 43 December 6, 2000 Perhaps Wayne is familiar with what his clients did. And then that would have gone to the historical board for review and they would have triggered certain findings. One of the findings is always that during construction if you, in fact, do uncover an historical artifact, construction must stop and the system is set into being whereby that resource is protected. Perhaps Wayne could speak more specifically to it. MR. ARNOLD: We can address it -- Wayne Arnold for the record, I'm agent for the petitioner. I have Tim Hall with me from Terrell and Associates who's our environmental consultant; I have Dean Smith from Greater Mining Engineering (phonetic) who's doing our professional engineering studies for the excavation permits. Tim Hall can address your question relative to the historic preservation issue. I'd just like to briefly go over again what our project entails and then we can have Mr. Hall address that issue, as well as the other environmental issues that were addressed. Again, our site's approximately 42 acres located about 330 feet west of Krehling Industrial on the East Tamiami Trail. The site, as you can see from the colored exhibit I've placed over here on the board, we are maintaining an enhanced wetland preserve area on our eastern property boundary. The lake excavation is about 20 plus or minus acres that would be immediately west of that. We're showing an area that's going to be a haul road as well as just natural vegetation to be retained on our western boundary. Our intent, and you can see from the notes in our plan that was provided, that our intent is to, as part of completing our excavation here, which should occur in about a year, final excavation, we would go ahead and take that limerock road that we proposed down to grade and it would be back to its natural grade and elevations. It is a pretty simple project from our perspective. We are about -- I think we met with Mr. Radinski, who I believe has also raised his hand to speak. I think we are almost 1,300 feet from his home on Trinity Place. We are going to be in full compliance with Collier County Blasting Ordinance. We will have to do some blasting here because some of the material is limerock. But again, we'll be in Page 44 December 6, 2000 compliance with that blasting ordinance. Again, our haul road -- I know Mr. Radinski has some issues relative to dust and issues with Krehling. Our road being placed on the western edge of our property puts us almost 2,000 feet away from his residence. But I would be happy to respond to any issues that are raised by him, and if Stan wants to reiterate some of the blasting ordinance requirements, I know there are seismic requirements in there, as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How deep is the yellow section on the lake when you're finished? MR. ARNOLD: It's a little over 200 feet wide, that area just west of the lake. Right now we are proposing -- it's roughly a 20-acre lake with those dimensions. The other alternative we had was looking at potentially a larger lake, but right now it seems like a 20-acre lake satisfies our needs, and we know that that material can come and go in probably about a year. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Will there be the crushing on-site or anything else? MR. HALL: We're not proposing anything other than the excavated material right now. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions from council? MR. COE: I've got questions for staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. HALL: Tim Hall with Terrell and associates. Just to respond to Mr. -- I believe it's Mr. Hill? His earlier question. If you see on the first page, our office actually had two requests in at the same time for different parcels of land, and when we make the request it's for any known archeological or historical sites in the entire section, an entire section of land. The one that came back was in relation to the other property. And if you see on the map they sent the location is just south of Immokalee Road, County Road 846. So it doesn't -- MR. HILL: Section 30 as opposed to section 187 MR. HALL: MR. HILL: MR. HALL: MR. HILL: MR. HALL: Right. It didn't apply to this site. conjunction to the other. That's correct. This site is all in 187 That's correct. I see that penciled in on their letter. It was in Page 45 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Tell me again what the habitat is proposed to be in the yellow area on the map. Is it to be left in an existing habitat? MR. HALL: Well, what's happened, it's a real mix. The yellow area right now is a real mix. There was a wide lane cut for fencing about -- probably about 50 feet wide, when they put in the fence. That area would need to be allowed to regenerate. Currently, the northern portion of the property is mainly-- there's a few cabbage palms, mainly slash pine, wax myrtle, a few scattered palmettos, kind of a transitional pine flatwoods area. More towards the south and the front part of the property, there are more cypress mixed in with it. The road pretty much will cause at least secondary or incidental impacts to that whole strand. But the intent right now is to let everything not directly impacted by the road regenerate. MR. CARLSON: The diagram we have just shows restoration on the west side of the road, not the east side of the road. MR. HALL: That's correct, and that's because that basically the east side of the road would be the staging area. The material would have to get from the pit to the road somehow, so I didn't allow for any restoration there until after the mining activities are done. There will be a restoration plan put in place with the Water Management District and Corps of Engineers. After the excavation activities are done, the road will have to be removed and vegetation installed. MR. CARLSON: So you're proposing the creation of a wetland on the east boundary? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Under any scheme that would have to be replanted and there would have to be a wetland literal zone there anyway on this lake? MR. HALL: According to the county statutes, I believe it's 10 percent of the lake would have to be fixed. In this case, we are going to be taking that entire shoreline, 50 percent of the lake immediately will be planted. MR. CARLSON: Basically, you're excavating a wetland and then you're going to create a wetland and you're trying to keep all of the mitigation on site. What's your track record for making Page 46 December 6, 2000 a marsh? MR. HALL: Right now, it's 100 percent. But I mean, to be honest, I've only done two. One of them is out at Port of the Islands, a 12-acre restoration, and the other one is a small area at The Dunes. That, granted, has only been in place for a year so that one I don't have a hundred percent, haven't been signed off on that one yet. MR. CARLSON: Did you look at just leaving the existing wetland and excavating around it and excavating to the limit of the law as far as your setback from the boundaries, and just leaving that wetland that's existing? MR. HALL: I think the problem with that was the way the wetlands are situated, the hauling, the road to get the material out, would have impacted them regardless. Maybe. Wayne wants to respond to how the configuration of the lake was. MR. CARLSON: Seems like that could have been removed and restored and would have been a minor component of this compared to trying to create a new wetland along the whole east side. MR. HALL: The problem right now is the entire east side, as you can see on the old aerial, was agricultural field, so it's not natural habitat as it is. MR. CARLSON: That's my point. Did you address leaving the natural wetland habitat alone and just excavating to the limit of the setback and getting your fill along that eastern edge to compensate for just leaving the wetland alone? MR. ARNOLD: I think the biggest difficulty in doing that, is that the areas that have formerly been impacted aren't sufficient to get and yield an approximately 20-acre lake, which is where the numbers tend to balance themselves for the price of the land and the price of material that's coming out of that, that we need something around 20 acres. I think if you're suggesting bringing the road up the eastern property boundary and trying to preserve as much of the western portion of our site as possible -- MR. CARLSON: No. I'm asking the question about working around the existing wetland. It seems like there is room to work around it. MR. ARNOLD: We have a minimum 50-foot setback from the property lines for the excavation, I think Stan can confirm that. Page 47 December 6, 2000 That's my understanding, that we have a minimum 50-foot setback for that lake bank. So we'd be pulling from the eastern side at least 50 feet, which our diagram varies, but it narrows to 60 some-odd feet on the eastern property boundary. What we're proposing to show -- I think the difficulty in part of the site is that the wetland system that's there is not a very good system. I mean, looking at the map there is agricultural operations in and around us. There has been agricultural on-site. It's not as if it's a great wetland system to begin with. MR. CARLSON: You're proposing to make a better wetland system that you know is going to work? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's what we're hoping to do. We're trying to provide something that hopefully balances the impacts that we have with the way the South Florida Water Management and Army Corps of Engineers are going to view our proposal. And that is giving them something that lets the western portion of our site revegetate during restoration and enhancement on the eastern side and having the 20-acre lake to give us a little bit of both. MR. CARLSON: Does the wetland on the eastern shore go all the way to the property line, is there no setback for that? Does the wetland go to the edge of the property? MR. HALL: That can go. MR. ARNOLD: It can. We're showing that it does, and I guess the only exception there is currently there is a fence that runs up that property line. But other than that, there is to reason in the world why it couldn't, except maybe an area to maintain the fence line. MR. CARLSON: Any plans for residential development in the future? MR. ARNOLD: No. And I think as you heard Ron mention, this area is outside the urban boundary and right now, the future of doing anything almost other than earth mining and lake excavation is prohibited. I guess we could put one residential unit on this particular site because it's one 42-acre tract of land, and that would be permissible under the current Comprehensive Plan. But until that breaks free and I know there's about 18 months left in the three-year window, I'm not confident anything gets resolved in the next 18 months anyway. So I think -- let's put it this way -- Page 48 December 6, 2000 anything that we would anticipate doing in the future has to come back to this body anyway. There is nothing else that we can do here other than some permitted agricultural use of the land and right now there are a few cattle on the site. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions for Mr. Arnold? MR. COE: I got a question for staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I don't know who to address this to of the staff. One of your recommendations to us was "no blasting permitted," yet I'm hearing that the petitioner says he is going to blast. Maybe he hasn't been informed yet of what your recommendations are. MR. CHRZANOWSKI'. If I recommended "no blasting permitted" on this project, I shouldn't have. We recommend usually on a project like this "no blasting" unless you get a permit. And the permit carries with it all the conditions about distances. If I did that, I'm wrong. MR. COE: This says no blasting will be permitted, period. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Are you sure it's not Longan Lake? MR. COE: That's what I'm doing, I'm looking at the other one. I apologize. MR. ARNOLD: That's all right. I think, as we said, we realize we will need to do blasting on this site and we are certainly comfortable with applying the county's excavation ordinance and the blasting requirements to our property. And again, as I said, just to reenforce, Mr. Radinski and the nearest homes are in Trinity Place which is 1,200 feet east of our property through Krehling. And I know there are some ongoing issues with Krehling with Mr. Radinski. Hopefully we are far enough away we don't have an impact negatively on his property CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's hear comments from the public. MR. RADINSKI: Yes, my name is Paul Radinski. I live at 11231 Trinity Place. I'm here today not to put a damper on their project. I don't care if they go ahead with their project. I just would like a little protection for the people on Trinity Place. Over the years we had a little cement problem with Krehling that was cleared up years and years ago because they keep their Page 49 December 6, 2000 roads wet and try to keep their roads clean. My thing is, I noticed a lot of cement crushing going on, and on the eastern boundary of this particular piece of property, seems like they filled in with this particular material. And I was hoping that not just a limerock, a little limerock on top of it, if they are going to run these heavy trucks over this particular cement dust, it's going to be like in back of Krehling. There is cement dust back there, and you drive down that road you can't even see your back bumper. It blows over the entire neighborhood. This has happened for years down there but in the last two years, Krehling has been trying to clean up their act. And what I'm worried about is this excavation is going to cause more cement dust in the air and more filth to blow on our back windows, that blow on our house, that are really filthy. I've got a white house. I got to go rinse off the back of the house every couple of weeks so I can get the dust off, and the cars, too. You can see that in the morning, if the wind is blowing right you can stand in the back yard and see the clouds up 40, 50 feet in the air, just from the trucks from Krehling. In the past on the far side of this particular site, one of the main reasons why I'm here is on the far side of this particular site they call the Dude Pit, and years ago they blasted all the time. They caused so much damage to our particular houses on Trinity Place that we called on the federal government in Fort Lauderdale, which sent people over here to look at the cracks and take pictures of the cracks in the house and the walls. And they went back over to Lauderdale where we waited almost six to eight months to tell us that big mushroom cloud we saw in back of our house was a plane flying 25,000 feet that caused all the damage to our houses. I'm here today to make sure the county sets up a monitoring device in the back part of my property for at least the blasting, and possibly air pollution. And to find out if they use crushed cement that they are doing to be running over raising all this crushed cement dust in the air with 18-wheelers. I'd like to make sure they have certain times; that they are not working any earlier than 6 o'clock in the morning or any later than 9 to 10 o'clock at night. I've had problems in the past where some guy would have a problem with his wife or have a Page 50 December 6, 2000 few too many drinks and drive down to the excavation pit and start scraping rock 2, 3 o'clock in the morning waking us all up with rumbling in our beds. Other than that, I don't think I got anything else to say, except this particular site has been nothing but a bunch of garbage, this whole area. As a matter of fact, you look at this map, I can show you right next to their particular project where they dumped the sludge from 951 that is still sitting on the site, directly right next to their project going in on the Dude Pit. It seems like everything is dumped on us down at that end of town. And once they get in the door, they can do whatever they want. Like Larry's trailer park. We were down there a year ago. I was so upset because they were going to give them excavation permits again to dig again. So when I went down there and tried to straighten all this out, and I tell them I got this paper from the commissioners saying they can't do all this stuff again, he gets the permit to bring the lake up to environmental standards. So after he went through his whole process, I went to Mr. Chrzanowski's office and said there's a different intent, this guy has no intent of bringing the lakes up to environmental standards, all he wants to do is dig the dirt out and sell it to Marco Island. And when they gave him everything he wanted except that he couldn't remove any dirt from the property, it stopped. This is the way this whole area is, constantly. It's nothing but a dumping ground for trying to put rock crushing plants and asphalt plants. In the meantime, we're stuck with five-acre tracts we can only put one house on. We do anything, the county's right down our throats. And the last thing I want say, the environmentalist, when he's talking birds on the property, who the hell would live there, if they burned the whole thing long ago and ran machines in there and let it smolder for a week and then go in there with environmentalist to see it there's any birds in there. I pulled an eagle down from a telephone pole not more than four weeks ago that was dead because it doesn't have a place to go anymore. Because there was birds and gators and there was everything in that area until they burned it all down. Page 51 December 6, 2000 You can come next to my house and you got every kind of bird in the world in my cypress buffer right next to my five-acre tract. I got gators in the back. And it's ironic there is no animals in that particular area. That whole area, they have been completely chased off. I thank you for listening to me, and I hope I get the protection that I need. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Start, give us a quick run through on the seismic requirements and the hour operating requirements of a mining operation under the code. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Whenever there's a blast in Collier County, the inspector that's out there observing the blast -- and they observe every one -- has a seismograph with them. He sets it up on the closest occupied property to the blast. You're not allowed to blast within 350 feet of a structure. They are well outside that limit. Usually the blasting companies have their own seismographs. They set it up, too, just for their own protection. We can have a requirement that they do a preblast survey. 1,300 feet is a pretty good distance and if they hold the charge down -- we've been lowering what they call the "peak particle velocity" which is how you measure how large the blast was. We've been lowering that for the last few years. It always gets approved by the board when we do. Standards are pretty tight. They do have accidents, though. On the hours of operation, the Land Development Code says you can operate 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., six days a week. You can't work on Sundays or holidays. You can tighten that up if you want, but those are pretty good hours, 6:30 to 7. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there a requirement in the code regarding dust control and roads? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, there is dust control, and you have to water and keep the dust down. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: From the council, any comments or other questions? MR. HILL: I'd like to go back to Mr. Carlsoh's question. In the future, if we approve an established created wetland along the boundary that's a fairly narrow strip, what controls does the Page 52 December 6, 2000 county have in protecting that with respect to development on adjacent land? I can see it's agricultural right now to the east, but if a project comes up for some development on the parcel of ground to the east, what protection do we have in the code for that approved marsh or wetland that was created? It's very easily damaged. MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger for the record, development services. Technically, there shouldn't be any encroachments on the neighboring property, and the only requirement I've seen on preserve areas is that they are posted and fenced and we can have that as a requirement, if you'd like. Other than that I can't think of any other. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Steve, on the previous petitions, that whole piece at Davis and 951, didn't we set that up there was a preserve area on the larger tract that surrounded it, so you put the preserve area in the new piece up against it? Do we recommend that, say if a petitioner comes in and it exists, try to recommend that to them in any way? MR. LENBERGER: Well, a lot of times that's determined by the Water Management District, but, yes, we try to encourage that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Further discussion? MR. HILL: How do we handle the gentleman's -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We've got the operating hours, which I think are within his request. We've got the dust control, which I think are in the request. If the blasting requirements were in the request -- MR. LENBERGER: He asked 6 to 9 and our standard is 6:30 to 7. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Probably an enforcement situation that we could make sure he's aware of how to go about if he observes them operating other hours and so forth. MR. LENBERGER: You want to limit it to what's in the code? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. From his standpoint, if he observes them operating at other hours and so forth, how it's enforced and what the penalties are, so he knows exactly what to do if he sees somebody in the middle of the night. MR. LENBERGER: He has my home phone number. MR. HILL: Based on his comment, it doesn't sound like the enforcement has been very strict in the past. Page 53 December 6, 2000 MR. RADINSKI: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the council? MR. HILL: CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. CARLSON: No. Move for approval. Do I hear a second? In favor? All opposed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Five to one. Longan Lakes. Who wishes to testify on this needs to be sworn· (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Disclosure. Have you spoken to anyone regarding this item? MR. CARLSON: Yes. I've had a phone call to my office about this item. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I have received an e-mail about this item. Anyone else been contacted about this item? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with development services staff. Longan Lakes, the petitioner proposes to dig a 105-acre addition onto an 82-acre existing excavation that he is presently in the process of excavating. The entire 186-acre, 187-acre lake, sits on 212 acres of agriculturally zoned property. The expansion is going onto an existing orange grove that has been farmed by his family for quite a while. The lake sits -- the excavation sits at the top end of the Golden Gate main canal on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately up near the location of Mr. Carlson's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, across Immokalee Road from there. We have had some contact with some of the neighbors. I handed out an e-mail that I got this morning, a copy of an e-mail. If you like, I'll read it. I promised Mrs. Ball I would or you can all read it yourselves, whatever your pleasure. And I heard a comment from Mrs. June Grogloth saying that she turned in a petition and wants to know if I got a copy of it. That was also this morning. No, I didn't receive a copy of it. I know Mrs. Grogloth called me yesterday evening and said she was opposed to the petition going through. The existing lake -- there is one item that's important. Mr. Page 54 December 6, 2000 Coe brought up about blasting. The existing petition, when they first went in, they qualified for a certain depth by the "fetch" (phonetic) formula. There was no blasting needed to get to that depth. It was mid-30s, 32 feet maybe. At the bottom of the excavation they hit a rock layer. This time they qualified for a deeper excavation, 56 feet. To get through the rock layer, they want permission to blast. Staff on the blasting issue is neutral. We allow blasting in agriculturally zoned land all over the county. Petitioner tells me that any blasting that he does will be probably once every three months, not a weekly thing like you see at some of the quarries. It's a thin rock layer just a little too -- about 30 feet down. It's a little too difficult to take out by machine and with the overburden on it, we think that blasting is probably the right way to take it out. If you have any questions -- I know the petitioner is going to make a presentation -- if you have any questions or like I say, if you want me to read this letter out loud, I will. I don't believe I gave the petitioner a copy of it. Probably surprised by it. MR. COE: The only question I have is in this thing and I assume I'm on the right sheet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You got it. MR. COE: It says no blasting permitted, period. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was a throwback from the first excavation. They figured it would go through easier if there was the knowledge that the blasting wasn't required because the depth was only 30 feet and they could take it out by shovel. But now they are realizing for this next phase, they are going to have to blast. Like I said, blast is going to be so infrequent and such a depth and the rock layer is so small, that we don't see it as a problem. And blasting is permitted by code in that agriculturally zoned area and it's under the same strict regulations. We'd have to set up a seismograph at the nearest home and you can't blast within 350 feet of a home. Big particle velocity and all those govern. So staff is neutral. We don't care whether he blasts or not. We don't see it as a problem. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How far are we from the nearest Page 55 December 6, 2000 residence? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, from the nearest residence, if we're coming down this berm here, is right on the other side of the berm. When he gets in this area down here he has a 50-foot buffer. He's not going to be able to blast within 350 foot of that residence. That residence, I think, is a mobile home. Whether it's on block or wheels, I don't know. MR. WHITE: If I could just ask Stan, are you saying then with regards to the recommendations and the stipulation pertaining to blasting, are you withdrawing that from the list of stipulations? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have no objection to changing it to our standard blasting stipulation that blasting is permitted if you get the necessary permits from Collier County. We put the blasting stip in before the developer realized he'd have to blast to get down through that rock layer. And through the process, the Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition a couple of weeks ago and they decided to go with the no blasting clause. We told them staff didn't care one way or another. MR. WHITE: Okay. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HILL: That was my question. So as of now it stays in there if we accept the recommendation from Stan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hear from the petitioner? MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name's Ken Cuyler. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing the petitioner. Behind me and with me is Jeff Davidson, who is doing the engineering for the project. I doubt there will be any engineering questions, but he's available to answer any questions if you do have any. Also Glen Simpson. He is an owner-partner. With regard to staff's presentation, you'll note there are a number of stipulations. Petitioner is in agreement those staff stipulations. There are no species issues on this piece of property. There is an existing excavation on part of it. The part that is proposed to be included within the boundaries of the excavation is an existing orange grove with immature trees which will be removed as part of the process. Page 56 December 6, 2000 The gentlemen behind me are available to answer any questions. I would note that I have the unique ability to have an owner-partner who is also an expert in most of the issues that we would be talking about. He's been qualified as a -- both in surface and groundwater management and water management, water resources, expert. One thing we do want to talk about, there appear to us to be a few, if any, environmental issues because of the nature of the property and location of the property. However, with regard to hydrology, we have the ability, in fact, to have a beneficial affect on the environment, on the community, with regard to hydrology, and that is something we'd like to spend a few minutes explaining. And I'm going to ask Mr. Simpson to come to the podium and explain that, and explain the coordination with the district in the future that we plan to have. MR. SIMPSON: Hi. My name is Glen Simpson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. There is really a couple of issues that I think we need to bring to light. One of them and I'd like to address -- I don't know if you want me to do that first or later, which is the blasting issue. And then the other is from what I see the most important issue, environmental issue related to this project, is the effect and long-term impacts it would have to the water resources of the area. Since the blasting was most recently discussed, if you'd like me to talk about that first, I would. Okay. What we have is a very unique situation. The layer of rock that we were referring to is about 25 to 30 feet below the surface. Areas of that rock is only about a foot, two feet thick. If the water is held down, and we can get a machine on the material when it's that thin, we can dig it with the mechanical means and it's much less expensive than blasting so it's obviously a preferred method. What we have found in doing borings in the area that is south of our existing operation is that layer of rock gets thicker and in areas it's about four to five feet thick in some locations. It's basically impossible to excavate through that type of situation without first having the ability to crack it, to blast it. What's important for us isn't necessarily the rock that's there. Underneath that layer of rock is a layer of shell and beach sand. I mean true beach sand, and I know that that has been an Page 57 December 6, 2000 issue in Collier County that has been very controversial. We are very fortunate to have the only deposit of natural beach sand available in Collier County. In fact, we are selling that material presently for beach renourishment. We've got authorization from the Florida DEP for our material to be used in beach renourishment without testing that most of the other sites have to go through because they are familiar with our material. We're pursuing the beach renourishment contract with Collier County to supply that material from a local site. Another by-product of that is the shell that's used for driveways. It makes a good pervious surface driveway and cart paths in the development instead of having pavement that water basically has to run off. It's a really good thing to use that. It makes a beautiful entrance and driveway to homes and it can also be used in large areas where trucks and things are parked. You don't have a lot of the run off situations that you normally do, In order to access that material though, we have to get through that rock. We know that that rock layer is not uniform. We know that the amount that we would have to blast is limited, but without doing an intense drilling operation which is basically what you do when you prepare for blasting is, you go in and drill the holes spaced apart, we won't know exactly where we need to blast. Our preference economically is not to do it. It's just very expensive. But in order for us to access the material that's at the additional depths, it's basically going to be necessary for us do it. So I'd like you to consider that. And also consider the fact that it would be something that would be done very seldom. It just isn't something that we do very frequently. The other issue of water resources, in order to dig the fill material down to that layer of rock, we dig it dry. We have much greater control over the quality of the material. This particular fill material that we have is a mixture of large grain quartz sand and some clay. That's being used primarily for drainfield sand. We at one time started out with the regular fill operation and we found our material really was better suited for other than fill uses and our fill operation has been moved to an existing pit. We bought an existing pit in a different location and all of our fill Page 58 December 6, 2000 operations moved there, and that allows us to focus on the special materials. In order to dig that material we have to dig it dry. We dewater in order to dig it. Now, when we dewater it isn't pumping it off-site. The way our operation is designed is that all the water that we pump is pumped into a cell or an area that we have already excavated and held on-site. From that area there is also a ditch that's a recharge trench that goes around the perimeter of the area between wherever it is we are dewatering and any off-site areas where there would be impacts. We hold that water elevation higher than what the natural water table is so that there is always that water being forced into the ground and creating a hydraulic sink between whatever it is we're doing and the off-site area. Golden Gate main canal was mentioned. The area that we are in there is very little flow in that so it would go stagnant or even go dry if we were pulling water out of that. We have that hydraulic sink between us and the canal, so we are actually letting water seep into it a bit to minimize any impacts we would have from drawing the water down close to us. That's how we protect against off-site impacts to wells or wetlands or anything that would be in the area. For me, putting on my environmental advocate hat, the most exciting thing about where we're going to go with this project is we are in discussions with the Water Management District to come in and add a weir at the southernmost boundary of the property that we excavate, and include that canal as part of the lake and put a back pump on that weir so that when the water's available in the canal, instead of it running town the canal system and into Naples Bay, we can capture that water and store it in that lake and raise the old water table in that lake at a higher level. That will provide a significant amount of recharge to the aquifer system in that area. It will also reduce the amount of run off that's going through the canal system. Instead of the district having to open all of the weirs and let the water out ahead of a storm, they actually can pull some of that water up on top because it's the highest area between Naples and Immokalee -- pull some of that water and stack it up on top of the hill so that they can open the available storage in Page 59 December 6, 2000 the drainage system without having to dump it off to Naples Bay. For me that's most exciting part of what we're doing, is that we're going to be able to create about a 200-acre storage facility that will have significant impacts. I was on the Big Cypress Basin Board for five years and I have a real fondness in my heart for trying to solve some of those problems because it's very difficult. But those are the two issues that I thought I should mention and the you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions from the council? MR. HILL: I have two brief ones. I'm very unfamiliar with this type of operation. How do you control siltation from your water and excavation process getting to the canal? I understand you want to put this weir there, but is siltation a problem when it flows off-site? Mr. SIMPSON: If it were to be flowing off-site it would be, but we don't have any water that does flow off-site. And what we have between where those infiltration trenches are, we have a stilling base where the water is pumped in, it has an area that the velocity can slow down. With that slowing of the velocity it allows any heavier particles to drop out within a given area. MR. HILL: The other one that the public that addressed the council on the previous excavation was talking about rock crushers and dust and so forth. When you excavate this rock, whether you do it mechanically or by blasting, do you plan to crush that up for aggregate or take it off-site? MR. SIMPSON: What we have been doing is that rock material that's there, we have just been hauling it -- taking that layer off of the top of the shell and we run it through a screen system. The material that goes through the screen is less than three inches, the size of the screen is three inches. That material is sold for stabilizer to go under the bottom of roads or some people just use that for rock roads going in and out of the area that they are accessing. The large rock that isn't broken up to that three-inch or smaller size, rolls off and we separate it out, and we've been selling that for rip rap. There are some boulders that come out -- you can sell rip Page 60 December 6, 2000 rap up to 36 inches which is the majority of it. There are some of the boulders that do come out that's larger than that, and we've just been saving them. What we thought we would do is just wait until we had enough of them to warrant it and just hire someone to come in for a week and crush all of them at one time. And then use that for stabilizer. A small portable crusher -- well, we've been working on this for over a year now, and we still don't have enough boulders to warrant even considering bringing someone in. At some point in time we probably will. But it will be, you know, maybe once every three or four years that we would do that from what I see. MR. CARLSON: I have a question about your water management system while you're in the process of excavating. You say that you pump the water in holding cells? MR. SIMPSON: Right. MR. CARLSON: You have like a perimeter?. What did you call it? MR. SIMPSON: Infiltration trench. MR. CARLSON: How do you regulate the level of that so it doesn't overflow and go off-site? MR. SIMPSON: By the rate of pumping. MR. CARLSON: Somebody is watching the level? MR. SIMPSON: Yes, we have a staff gauge in the major receiving body that the water pumps into. We have a staff gauge that is in there, and I trained our staff to, two or three times a day, they watch that staff gauge. And at a certain level they reduce basically the RPM's of the pump to monitor the flow rate. If we get a lot of heavy rains or something where it starts to -- if it gets up pretty high, we've got a point that we cut that off and that's about a foot below ground surface is where we stop. Since we don't have any runoff or anything being concentrated, all the rain that falls on basically is right there. We don't have a problem with buildup beyond that. MR. CARLSON: From what you're saying is, for sure, without rain you won't be this discharging waters off-site and even with rain you could adjust it so you wouldn't be discharging water off-site? MR. SIMPSON: Right. We just turn the pumps off. What happens in the rainstorms is that it shuts down the businesses Page 61 December 6, 2000 that are receiving the materials whether it's shell, dirt, rock, whatever. And it takes them longer to get dry enough to get back into operation than it does for us to shut down, pull our equipment out, and let it sit a day. For two years that's been the way it's happened, so never even had an issue there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In some of the correspondence we have it relates back to February 1999 approval by the Board of County Commissioners where there were stipulations for work only Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Was that factual? MR. SIMPSON: No, sir. That's -- the requirements that we have are basically on our existing permit is basically what's in the ordinance. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was discussed in the board hearing. I think that's where she got it from was one of the minutes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It was not part of the approval? MR. SIMPSON: It was discussed in the hearing a couple weeks ago, but you're referring to our existing permit? 7:OO CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. p.m. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, the existing permit. That's the standard, 6:30 a.m. to Six days a week? There is a comment here that supposedly work was being done on Sunday. Are you aware of it? MR. SIMPSON: Only thing I can think of somebody was changing oil in some equipment on Sunday. But we usually do that Saturday afternoons because the truck drivers don't like to work, they like to watch football games on Saturday. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You have to remember that the board will fix the hours of operation depending on the input of public as they come in for the final hearing. If I may, I was out at the site a week ago and everything Mr. Simpson tells you is factual. He is dewatering to the outside. We had some complaints from the neighbors about their wells because of the dewatering. But he's put the water between him and the wells. We had Ms. Grogloth said that she was getting sand in her well so we sent out the chief inspector, Bob Stringer. He looked Page 62 December 6, 2000 at the well and he said that the well is kind of old. It was not properly sealed when it went through the layer, and he's not surprised to see sand coming through. He said it's a common problem and has nothing whatsoever to do with the excavation that's going on next door. Yesterday I called Steve Nagel because of the complaints and Steve also -- Steve Nagel is the local South Florida Water Management District field inspector. He went out to the site and looked at the site and he said that everything they are doing is fine. He doesn't see any problems with it. They have their no notice permit and he has no complaints. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further discussion? CHAIRMAN MS. SANTORO: Can I go back to that letter where you mentioned the February 9 meeting, the commissioners stipulate that excavation and hauling operations were limited to Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:0 p.m. with rare exceptions at the current Longan Lake so forth. So is that the operational standard that you knew about? MR. SIMPSON: No, ma'am. That's incorrect. That information that you have there is incorrect. CHAIRMAN MS. SANTORO: And the other thing is, it seems like they are concerned with similar things. There was -- was given testimony this morning about watering the pit road to prevent the dust from coming up, the number of truckloads, and the operations being outside of the law. And I think that's twice today that we have heard very great concerns about that. MR. SIMPSON: Those are legitimate concerns of anybody that's next to a pit, and those primarily come from some of the rock quarries we have. There are different types of pits and different types of operations. Where they have the crushed rock for the roads, the limerock, those do generate a lot of dust, and that's what's used on a lot of the roads out there. The type of material that we have -- and I point out -- the crushed rock, if we were to crush the rock and use it, it would have the potential of generating a lot of dust. But the material that we use on our roads is that sand and shell that I was basically describing; has very, very low dust acidity. But in addition to that, we normally water our roads twice a day. We have a water truck with a little boom behind it and it Page 63 December 6, 2000 goes around and waters the roads so that we don't have any problems. One of the benefits of doing that is it helps keep your roadbed firm and you don't get ruts and the trucks don't leave ripples if you keep the moisture content up. So there's a lot of reasons other that just trying to keep the dust down for us to do the activities that keep the dust down. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: When I was out there the site was dry and I didn't see any dust. Most of the dust problems we have are from limerock. limerock is a mix of everything from a three-inch stone down to what they call passing the 200, if it's a silt or a clay, a very fine dust material so when you drive on it, the dust comes up. But these larger pieces like he's using, the shell and even the sand, they may blow in a heavy wind, but they generally don't dust up. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any further questions of petitioner or staff? Anyone from the public that would like to address this item. Yes, sir, have you been sworn in? (Speaker sworn.) MR. EDUARDO: My name is Eduardo, we live maybe a short distance from the place. And our concerns have been precisely with the wells and the pump. We have all our neighbors, most of our neighbors, and roughly I represent some of them because some are sick and some not even knew that there was going to be a meeting, a hearing. We have seen the last few months abnormality in our pumps. We have cows, we have pump for them to water. We have seen the pumps going so fast going down even though we are experiencing a drought or whatever. But we have been there for 10 years, I've been there for five years, and it's something that has been abnormal. So about three months ago I was talking to one of my neighbors, and I was explaining about, you know, the well and the pump and so forth. He make a reference, "Well, you know, they are excavating and so forth." So it begin to create a little concern. Some of the neighbors called some of your people, and I don't want to be in conflict with trying to be in conflict with no one, but a neighbor talked to Mr. Nagel, you mentioned about it. Mr. Nagel said that the company had been fined a couple of times for pumping water into the Page 64 December 6, 2000 canal, and that has been our concern. Some of the people that have been watching it say, yes, they are pumping water into the canal. Personally, I haven't seen because I really don't know how this thing is operated. Instead of keeping the water like he saying underground, they have been pumping to the canal which goes to the Gulf of Mexico, that's been our concern that's why we are here. We don't want the ponds for the cows go dry, our well go dry. One of the neighbors well, the gentleman was referring to, sand came out a couple of times the last few weeks and might be because there is no well down, but never happened before the eight years he has been there. So there's a lot of things that are happening which is not normal and we are concerned. Mr. Simpson, and I hope he do whatever he said he will do in the way of putting the water back to the ground because that's a lot of people being affected. I hope it's not the case, you know. But the background that we have on the information that we have, and I cannot tell you which is true or not, but I know we have talked to Mr. Nagel. Is not too promising when the person has been fined maybe a couple times, and I don't know they are doing the same thing. So that's my concern and concerning us and whatever we don't have any problem. We live on Lilac Lane and we have good relationship with the pit. But that's our concern because it effected the life of the neighborhood and also our animals, you know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sir, could you just give us your last name and street address? MR. TABRAUE: Tabraue, T-a-b-r-a-u-e. I live 1440 Daffodil Court. It's just about a hundred yards off Immokalee Road. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MR. CUYLER: Ken Cuyler. If I could we want to address this quickly. We don't have any problems with any legitimate concerns of neighbors, but obviously, it's one of the many functions of this council to separate general rumors and general discussions from facts. The company has not been fined for putting water into the canal. I'll have Mr. Simpson address that and I just very briefly Page 65 December 6, 2000 just get it on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Cuyler. MR. SIMPSON: With regard to the ponds going down, Mr. Tears is in the back of the room, and I just happened to be at a presentation he made a couple of days ago that said it's the driest season in the last 10 years. So I'm not going to ask him to come up and say that, but if you have any questions about that, I guess he would be available to let you know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MS. SANTORO: I am wondering, in the county where I'm from we had a lot of mining operations, and one of the things that was done was conditional permits so that every so many years the operations could be reviewed both for reclamation, the end of the work or some kind of wrap up programs. Does the county do that here? MR. CUYLER: I shouldn't step on Stan's toes but this, in fact, is a conditional use and we are going to the Board of County Commissioners and we are talking about language to have a review. Obviously, if you have a business function with a very large capital expenditure, you don't want a set time period for it to conclude, but we have no objection to a review period within which the county would be able to look at whether we're doing what we said we would do, functioning as we should, whether there's been any issues, and Stan can add whatever he wants. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The Collier County Planning Commission, when they met a couple of weeks ago, put a stipulation that the project would be reviewed in five years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Further discussion? Pleasure of the council? MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve with a change on the county recommendations, paragraph 8.3 says no blasting was permitted unless proper county permits are received and approved. MR. NINO: Excuse me. Another speaker. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize I did not see. Lilac Lane. MS. SCHAEFER: I, too, am a neighbor. Maxine Schaefer, And, yes, it is dry now, but it was wet earlier this Page 66 December 6, 2000 season, very wet, and yet for the first time in the nine years that I've lived there, the pond did not get fully full. Now, I don't know what causes that, that's not my expertise. But I know it was abnormal, as much water as we had and it really was a lot of water earlier this year, was it not? That there seems to be a problem. So that's a concern to me, because we have cattle and if the water goes down, how can you keep them adequately watered. And there is not much in the pond and it really didn't fill even when it was raining, what's happening? So thank you for addressing it and studying it. MR. CARLSON: How deep are these ponds that your cattle are dependent upon for water?. MS. SCHAEFER: My pond is, I think it was built -- I'd have to see the papers, the permit, but I think it was dug to about 11 feet. MR. CARLSON: Well, that should hold water except in the very driest years. And I can tell you, we measure rainfall and water level every day at Corkscrew Swamp just down the street from you. We had a very modest wet season, we did not have a lot of rain. We have the lowest water levels, I will confirm what Mr. Tears and the Water Management District are saying. We have the lowest levels for this time of year that we've seen since the great drought of '88-'89. Which was incredibly severe, we could get even dryer than that this year if we don't get some sort of frontal system to bring us rain. I am planning right now with my staff for a very bad drought, very bad fire season. And any shallow ponds in a year like this are subject to going dry even if it's a one-in-ten or a one-in-twenty year event. And Mr. Simpson who was born and raised out there knows that some of these drought years can be very, very severe. And we are set right now, and again, this could all be alleviated if we got a lot of rain; it can happen. But we are -- the stage is set right now that we could possibly have a very severe drought, dry year. And you might want to have some sort of contingency plan to water your stock. MS. SCHAEFER: May I ask you one question? MR. CARLSON: Yes? MS. SCHAEFER: You're stating how dry it is now. I was Page 67 December 6, 2000 referring to earlier in the year when we were having daily heavy rains. MR. CARLSON: Right. MS. SCHAEFER: Now, that's when it did not get as high as it had been previously. MR. CARLSON: And it the not in Corkscrew Swamp either. MS. SCHAEFER: Okay. That's what concerned me because when you have a lot of rain, where does it go? MR. CARLSON: We had a very modest, moderate wet season this year. MS. SCHAEFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I didn't understand the question here. We are close to being finished, aren't we, Barb? MS. BURGESON: No. We're done with the public hearings, but after that we have a presentation by Villaren's (phonetic), so if you want to continue just to the end of the public hearing items, and then. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, very good. You all just want to push on through? MR. COE: Yes, I've got a motion here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion is on the table. I need a second. MR. HILL: If I may, what's the average or typical well depth out in that area for residents? MR. SIMPSON: Well, I don't really know. I know what we did when we first moved out there, and I think it's what most of the people do. There's a water supply available, it's a water table down to -- and the wells go down to 40 to 60 feet. But we had our well replaced and went on down to around 120 feet because that's where you get through the confining unit into the lower Tamiami. There's an abundance there and the water quality is much better. The water table water has a lot of tanens in it and makes everything red. I know that's what we did living out there, and that's what I would assume the new wells that are going in are going to that depth. But I don't really know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: I have a little historic --just take me 10 seconds. When I moved into that neighborhood the 1974, there Page 68 December 6, 2000 was a neighbor who would put in a well for you by hand, and he would hand-drive these wells, his name was Bud Hester, he was just a local ranch hand, cowboy, jack-of-all-trades. He was putting in, for $100, he would put in your well. And he stopped at the first pumpable water he would get. Some of those wells were 15 feet deep, and guarantee you, they are still the operation in that neighborhood. I'll guarantee you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did you have a Model A? Okay, Mr. MR. COE? MR. COE: Back to the motion. Make a motion to approve with the following changes in the staff recommendations of paragraph 8, subparagraph 3. "No blasting will be permitted unless the proper county permits are received and approved. Okay. That's the only change. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: Only change. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? Discussion? Hearing none, all in Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. The item I believe that you're on is the Growth Management Plan update. And let me take a couple minutes and talk about that. As you recall, the process that we've been going through with two advisory commissions, the Rural Fringe and the Rural Lands Committee, is going through the process of data collection and analysis. We've also gone through an evaluation methodology. In other words, what kind of information are we going to use to evaluate various land use strategies and use to actually make recommendations to the County Commission. The next step is to evaluate various land development strategies that can help protect natural resources. Once that is done, the plans are to go to the Board of County Commissioners with a conceptual plan for some general direction from the County Commission, and then with that general direction, then we would develop a set of objectives and policies that would Page 69 December 6, 2000 amend the existing growth management plan. That's the overall process and steps that we've outlined in the past. The Rural Fringe Committee has gone through the process of the data analysis pretty much 90, 95 percent complete with that, and they've discussed alternative land development strategies. They've developed their evaluation methodology, and now, where they are is developing that conceptual plan. What I've given to you here is titled, Development of Natural Resource Protection Strategies for the Rural Fringe. This schematic that I have on the screen, basically the boxes that you see there such as land use designations, NRPA special treatment overlays, each of those boxes essentially are the elements of a final conceptual plan that the committee will take to the Board of County Commissioners to the degree that the committee specifies the details within those boxes, and the County Commission then will give us direction and say, yes, that looks pretty good in terms of what you're recommending within that box, That will be the conceptual plan, and you can see that the number of elements there that we're taking the committee through is the land use designations, getting the committee to -- for instance, under NRPAs, number one, are the boundaries proper that we've identified the NRPAs basically a year ago. If they are, do we need additional preservation standards or development standards for allowable uses within the NRPAs. Are the allowable uses within the NRPAs that we've adopted through the interim requirements of the final order. Are they appropriate, or should we have different allowable uses. Answers to those questions, as I said earlier, will formulate the conceptual plan. For the Rural Fringe Committee, which staff is the lead working with the Rural Fringe Committee, the Rural Fringe Committee is essentially answering those questions now. Last meeting that they had, they basically covered land use designations and NRPAs. So we will step them through these boxes. We've given them, of course, additional information to help them have some factual analysis to help them answer those questions for each of those boxes, and we would like to be able to get to the Board of County Commissioners sometime -- I guess the way the schedule is now, we're hoping December. December's not going to Page 70 December 6, 2000 happen. I imagine February because it does take some time to work through as a Committee of 10 members to come to consensus as to what they want to recommend. That's where the Rural Fringe Committee is. The Rural Lands Committee, Wilson Miller is the consultant that has been developing the data and analysis for the Rural Lands Committee, and the Rural Lands Committee has received a preliminary or initial presentation from Wilson Miller in terms of the data that's been collected for that particular area. So they haven't gotten through the process where the Rural Fringe is, and of course that was anticipated. The Rural Fringe Committee was set up to try to go through the requirements sooner and earlier than the Rural Lands Committee. One other point, and it kind of-- this is maybe the segue into the next item on the Wetlands Workshop. In your packet today was the memo that Bob Mulhere and I prepared for three advisory committees, the EAC and the other two, Growth Management and Plan Oversight Committees, to begin to review and conduct public workshops on what we're calling, county-wide minimum standards that will apply county wide. They would be, if you will, the foundation for which then build on additional standards or additional protection mechanisms as being proposed by the Rural Fringe Committee and Rural Lands Committee. We've added EAC into that mix to conduct the reviews because these policies not only will apply in the rural lands, but they'll also apply in the urban boundary, and if they were to -- for instance, if they were to be adopted as you see them now, that would be the requirements that the staff would apply to the projects that you would typically see through your review process. So the other component that the -- of the growth management plan effort is to adopt these county-wide minimum policies along with the specific recommendations within these two areas. MS. BURGESON: Is there any kind of time scheduled for a final presentation for the Board on the county-wide policy proposal, any anticipated date? MR. LORENZ: The schedule I was working with before the Fringe Committee was working on this because we're going to Page 71 December 6, 2000 marry up the Fringe Committee's conceptual plan and eventually GOPs for their area with these county-wide policies. That schedule would have been in April. I think we're a little off of that, now, maybe a month or so. So I don't see it happen, I don't see that these county-wide policies would get to the Board of County Commissioners earlier than April, sometime a month or two after that. MR. HILL: We're still looking what, June, 2002? Is that still the -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. HILL: What is TDR? MR. LORENZ: Transfer of development right. MR. HILL: Oh. And can I have a copy of that memo you referred to, that you and Bob -- it wasn't in my packet. MR. LORENZ: It wasn't in your packet today, the wetlands? Okay. I've got one here. MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I'd like to ask the Board, the item that we're looking at next is the discussion regarding the Wetland Workshop that was presented to this Board a couple of months ago. Whether the Board wants to have a discussion on that today, or whether they'd like to hear Bill's presentation on what our proposed wetland protection ordinance or language is, and then maybe put that off until the next meeting to discuss both of those items, and then the other option might be, if there's anybody from the public that would like to speak on the wetland workshop, we could do that today, or we could postpone that until next month. I think that what Bill's going to present to you is a significant change from our current policy, and that it probably behooves you to listen to that before having a discussion on the wetland workshop information that was presented to you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What would you say about going in and hearing Bill's presentation, then giving us time to really digest what we have in front of us; agenda this for next month's meeting? At the same time, other people in the community that may have interest will have time to review it also, and then we could get into discussion next meeting. Does that sound like a good idea? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, may I just suggest that you ask if Page 72 December 6, 2000 there is any public input today as part of that process before Mr. Lorenz has the opportunity to make his presentation because I think just logically that might be the best route to go. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we have anyone -- Mr. Durham doesn't want to talk -- that would like to address the proposed wetland ordinance? Hearing none. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Thank you. The letter, the memo, the November 7th memo that you have in your packet, talked about proposed minimum county-wide policies for wetlands, vegetative communities, and wildlife protection. For the purposes of my presentation today, I'm simply focusing on the wetlands, since that was the prior effort of the EAC, and what I'd like to do is two things. One is to give you some rationale as to why we propose what we propose, and secondly, to kind of boil the policy language down into some bulleted points, of which case my presentation summarizes, and that's what I have also passed out to you, just on your break. And for the public's sake, I do have a copy of the memorandum with the policies, and also a copy of my presentation, too, if the public would like to have it. Remember that we are in the state that we're in because of the Governor's final order, and it deals with -- and this is part of the overall assessments that we're doing with these other two advisory committees -- but the operative language here is that we have to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and upland habitats, et cetera, et cetera. So, at one level, the final order is somewhat broad in the sense of directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands and wetland systems. More specifically, however, is that when we do propose -- when we do propose the amendments to the Department of Community Affairs, DCA, the amendments are going to be tested or reviewed against what we call a "9J5" criteria. That's the criteria by which the state -- we have to meet in our growth management plan, and you can hear I pulled out some language and information from the 9J5 criteria. In the first paragraph, we're talking about protecting the wetlands and functions of wetlands through a comprehensive planning process. In your past workshop, I talked about a comprehensive planning process, working both at the landscape scale or the big picture scale, if you will, and also at the site Page 73 December 6, 2000 development scale or the project scale. And the policies that we've proposed in your plan were both at the landscape scale and the site project scale. We also must take into account the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions, and locations of the wetlands. Again, I'll walk through as to how we've done that on the landscape scale, the big picture, and also the site scale. The other information that 9J5 does provide for us is that mitigation -- it recognizes that there cannot be a zero impact to wetlands systems, so it does set up a process for which a mitigation is allowed. So therefore our policies do provide some criteria for mitigation of direct impacts of wetlands. I know you don't have in your presentation a color version of this, but I want to make a couple of points here, in terms of the total process of wetlands protection that we're proposing in our policies. Our policies talk about looking at large areas of wetland protection, and previously you've seen, and I'll have some quantitative information here shortly, that in our natural resource protection areas, for instance, this area here is the crew natural resource protection area. Of course the area in green is your wetland systems. That's an NRPA. The south -- at the moment, the south Belle Meade area is down in here. That's an NRPA. You can see that within those two systems as examples that these are very large, connected, contiguous wetlands systems, and in some cases, a better state than let's say the wetlands systems that are within the urban area or maybe in north Golden Gate Estates. The point is here is that in our comprehensive planning process, we have adopted or proposed a policy that reflects that natural resource protection areas is a process, a mechanism, to protect large wetlands systems and through the recommendations of the two advisory committees. For instance, we will have very stringent land uses or allow -- we'll have a very small set of allowable land uses within natural resource protection areas and for those allowable uses, we'll have very stringent site development standards. We will use the NRPA -- staff is proposing to use the NRPA concept as a wetland protection mechanism, and you will see that. That's identified in your policy. So that, again, is at the landscape scale. Page 74 December 6, 2000 The other thing, the other aspect of what we currently have, and this map kind of-- this -- I can see my -- right here, within the conservation land use designations within Collier County, we have 706,000 acres of wetlands within currently conservation designated lands. That's 20 some percent of the wetlands within Collier County. That's another 20 -- excuse me, about 75 percent of the wetlands within Collier County. Again, we will rely upon these land use designations, the conservation land use designation, to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands within these areas. That still leaves 25 percent, if you will, within Collier County that we have to deal with, and 25 percent of roughly a million acres is still a significant number of acres, so the point of it is, is that we can't rely completely on the landscape scale to protect all of Collier County's wetlands. But those are important components of our total wetland protection strategy. So let me talk about how we're going to address wetlands at the site scale, the project scale. First of all, what we have done, and if you remember the 9J5 criteria where it talks about classifying our wetland system, staff has gotten together and developed a proposal by where we will call wetlands either Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands. This is not, if you will, a -- these classifications are geared towards allowable impacts within those wetlands that fall within that classification scheme. Class I is -- being our highest protected wetlands because of their location, their type of system, their functionality, et cetera. The classification system for wetland type appeals with the bulleted points up there. We are looking at wetlands that are connected to surface water bodies, those wetlands that are flow way wetlands and other connected wetland systems. And we also recognize that isolated wetlands of different varying size thresholds have various degrees of importance or value. Also remember that in -- especially in Collier County where we have such altered conditions that we have functional impairments of wetland systems within the county. Going back to the NRPA concept, remember that the NRPAs, for the most part, are very large wetlands systems that have smaller amounts of functional impairment, and that's why we have specified a very stringent set of land uses within those areas and why we will be proposing some very strict site Page 75 December 6, 2000 preservation requirements in those systems. But in the wetland classification system that we're proposing that's going to be dealt with on a project site review level, we are -- we've identified percentage of Melaleuca and upland as an indication of the degree of functional impairment that a wetland has, and also either the presence or an absence of a surface hydrologic connection also deals with the functional impairment. So the way the process would work is that typically through the ElS process, we will then require a consultant to propose to staff, which you will then see in a land review, so many acres, or a map of so many acres that are to be classified as Class I or Class II or Class III, based upon the definitions that we have proposed in the policy. And then each class of wetland -- classification of wetland, you would have impact restrictions. Class I wetland, you can have no more than 5 percent of a Class I wetland to be directly impacted. Now, there's some offset language there. There is some -- if you will, some default language that recognizes that if there is some situations that exist that the only reasonable use of your property, you'd have to impact 10 percent wetlands, that will be provided for in the policies. But the basic premise here is that you cannot impact more than 5 percent of Class I wetlands, and we also recognize that there are riparian rights with regards to boat docks on wetlands that -- your shoreline wetlands, if you will, so that we will insure that you have a boat dock, at least one boat dock, on a property. MR. CARLSON: What's the 5 percent based on? Who picked 5 percent. MR. LORENZ: Our outside counsel talked about developing a classification system whereby you have a classification. Your highest valued wetlands systems should have a de minimis impact, and typically a de minimis impact could be anywhere from 5 to 10 percent impact. So I think the percentages have been selected based upon the value of what we consider the wetland systems to be, recognizing also that this does not substitute for the Federal and state permitting programs. So you still have to get a Federal or state wetlands permit. Page 76 December 6, 2000 But in terms of Collier County's is that a Class I wetland, we're saying, is so important that no more than 5 percent, which is what we're calling a "de minimis impact" can exist. MR. WHITE: If I can interrupt and give you a comparison in the last case in the public hearing that you heard that was a matter pertaining to the number of truck trips, and in that instance, a 5 percent change, if you will, in the number of trips, is considered to be less than significant. Again, that would be arguable under the law, something that was considered to be de minimis, just to give you a rough parallel. MR. LORENZ: And then so forth down through Class II, 25 percent impact restriction, and then Class III is 50 percent. Now on Class III wetlands, what we are saying is that if you preserve selected upland vegetative communities that we've kind of identified as some criteria within the policies, that you may impact up to 100 percent of Class III wetlands. Class III wetlands greater than -- let's say you have a Class III wetland that's greater than 75 percent Melaleuca infested, it still maps out as a jurisdictional wetland but is so severely altered, if you ever some more valuable upland habitat on your property, county requirements would allow you to have up to 100 percent impact of that wetland if you preserve those specific upland communities. So that's the process. What the proposal there is to try to get some additional upland habitat as well. There's also a -- now I use the term "variance process." The county attorney may propose a different term other than variance, but the point of the process that we're talking being is that if these -- if you go through and you have these types of impacts, you're going to have to have the Board of County Commissioners approving those impacts in a public forum. MR. HILL: It may not be pertinent, but you use the term "variance." When we talked about the appointment of the independent facilitator -- is that the correct term? Variances were going to be in his purview. At least as I read the newspaper article. MR. LORENZ: Well, um-- MR. HILL: Is that the same use of the term "variance"? In other words, is that facilitator going to handle variances in this wetlands impact? Page 77 December 6, 2000 MR. LORENZ: Well, let's take that public hearing officer concept off the table completely because that came in after this. So if that goes through, we'll have to make some modifications to what we've proposed. MR. HILL: Okay. MR. LORENZ: What we're saying here is that if there are any exceptions, that they have to be granted by the Board of County Commissioners. And again, Marjorie Student has given me some feedback that she would like to see some other term used other than variance, but we haven't gotten to the point of what that term is yet. In your policies, also we have some policies that deal with buffer requirements. Here's what's the operative points; the 50 foot buffer. Within that buffer you have to maintain the invasive exotic plants or keep them removed. There would be passive and recreational conservation uses allowed within the buffer, and we'd also require that the buffer be platted as a conservation easement. As I said earlier, the 9J5 criteria does envision that mitigation would be allowed. We've specified in the policies certain mitigation requirements. On an area basis, we're saying that you have to have at least a one-to-one ratio area basis. We're not proposing -- staff is not proposing a broad or encompassing mitigation procedure. We are going to rely very heavily upon the Federal and state agencies on negotiations that the applicants will conduct with those agencies, but what we're saying is that in the final result, you have to have at least an area or area basis, it has to be at least that much. You trade off functionalities, et cetera, et cetera, is fine, but it has to be at least one-to-one area impact for one acre mitigated for. If there's any loss of storage or conveyance volume in flow way wetlands, that volume has to be compensated for on site. One of our concerns is that when we start destroying wetlands and mitigating someplace else, we lose storage, and what we need to do is in flow way wetlands, it's critically important for downstream flooding that that storage be compensated for. Our mitigation requirements would not give any credit to basic exotics removal because we require that anyway for purposes of invasive exotic control, and we make come Page 78 December 6, 2000 recommendations that where mitigation, certain guidelines of mitigations will be preferred in NRPAs and in Collier County, be required for any off site mitigation for impacts that occur within Collier County. The mitigation sites would also require conservation easements, and then they would also have maintenance requirements within the mitigation areas. That's basically kind of a bulleted outline of your wetland policy that was contained within that memo. As Barbara said, what we really wanted to do today was to kind of give you feedback from your last wetlands workshop where you actually asked, well, Staff, what would you come up with. Having discussed it without outside counsel, this is kind of our proposal that we're putting on the table for you of the EAC to conduct public workshops. We have also asked the other two advisory committees to conduct public workshops, as well. After we receive some preliminary comments from those public workshops, staff will then create a second draft, from which we will then request each of the advisory committees to give a vote up or down or vote some modification language, in which case then we will take that package to the Board of County Commissioners. That was that April time frame that I talked about earlier, which may be slipped a little bit now, but these policies would then go to the Board of County Commissioners, together with the conceptual plan for the Rural Fringe Committee that deals with the wetlands policies. I have to also -- now, I know we're talking about this is a wetlands workshop, but we will also be asking for comments on the other two policy -- the other two sections in that memo that I distributed to you that deals with native vegetative communities and wildlife issues because all together, these would be our minimum standards that would apply county wide. The Rural Fringe and the Rural Lands Committees may propose some additional restrictions on top of them, but this is what we propose as our foundation, as our minimum standard. MR. HILL: I've heard you say, Bill, and it goes back to previous -- when I was on the Board before. Did you say that this counsel was sponsoring public information sessions with respect to wetlands? Did I hear you say that we were holding public Page 79 December 6, 2000 forums? MR. LORENZ: On October 6th we conducted a workshop on wetlands -- MR. HILL: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- which was a -- no action was taken in the context of the workshop. What I'm saying now is, you need to move from -- you need to make a transition from workshops into receiving public input and then making very specific recommendations as your charter allows you to do and is your duty to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. HILL: And we have not held a public forum, per se, as yet? Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's what we're proposing to do at the January meeting. Is that correct? MS. BURGESON: Yes. We'll put that on the agenda for January. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Bill, thank you very much. Anyone have any additional business they'd like to discuss? Do we have anything else to discuss, Ms. Burgeson? MS. BURGESON: Yes. We have one other brief matter. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One other item. Excuse me. MS. BURGESON: And that is that Bill Hill and Erica replaced -- let's see, they replaced lan and replaced Jack Baxter on their memberships. What I need to determine is if Bill has a preference whether he wants his term to expire in April of 2003 or 2002. MR. HILL: Have you approached -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They'll probably go to make it as short as possible because he's so hard to get along with. MR. HILL: I realize that. So you're saying 20017 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, let's go for three. MR. HILL: No. MS. BURGESON: Does it matter to you? I can give you a call back after I talk with her. MR. HILL: It makes no difference. MS. BURGESON: Okay. MR. HILL: Well, the shorter the better, according to go the Chairman. (Laughter.) MR. COE: I'll second that. You're a lot of help over there, Bill. Page 80 December 6, 2000 MR. WHITE: Since the County Commission, when they appointed each of the newest counsel members, didn't give direction and left it to this Counsel. We're in essence asking you to make that decision, and you can do that as formally or informally as you choose to, just so long as it's a consensus decision. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, why don't we formally make a motion that Mr. Hill's term go to -- MS. BURGESON: To 2003? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 2003, and Erica's term go to 2002. Second to that? Everybody agreed to? So move. MR. HILL: What's Mr. Coe's vote? MR. COE: I don't know. I was voting for Bush again. MR. HILL: Two in the hand's worth two in the bush. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else you'd like to discuss? Ms. Burgeson, can you tell us the update on where we are on filling the -- you mentioned to me earlier on the two vacancies at the present time? MS. BURGESON: Sue Filson has advertised those last two vacancies, and hopefully they'll be presented -- I'm not sure if they'll be able to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners, probably not, because they need 30 days of advertised time. So they'll probably be appointed the very beginning of January, and we should have both of those new members on the February meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. MS. BURGESON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We are adjourned. Page 81 December 6, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:52 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAYE GRAY AND TONI SHEARER Page 82