Loading...
EAC Minutes 03/07/2001 RMarch 7, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 7, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building 'F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Sansbury Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe Alfred F. Gal, Jr. William Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist, Development Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA March 7, 2001 1:00 P.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda 1II. Approval of January 3, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions A.Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUD-99-10 "Mirasol PUD" Sections 10, 15 & 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-2000-21 "Terafina PUD" Section 16, township 48 South, Range 26 East V. Old Business A. Continued discussion on Wetlands Policy VI. New Business A. Annual Report- Discussion VII. Growth Management Update VIII~ Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Division Administrator's office no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (403-2385). 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. March 7, 2001 see CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All righty, if we could call the roll, if we have a quorum. MS. BURGESON: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Hill. MR. HILL: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, do we have any additions or corrections or revisions to the agenda? MS. BURGESON: To the agenda, we have one request, and that is to move the old business, the discussion on wetland policy, to the end of the meeting so that Mr. Lorenz can have time to do the annual report and the growth management subcommittee discussion before we needs to leave this afternoon. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the council? Okay, sounds good. MR. HILL: I'd just like 30 seconds under new business for one little item. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir. Okay, how about the minutes from way back, January 3rd. I understand that there may be a correction on one item; is that right, Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: I have no correction. I just cannot understand the language at the bottom of the Page 8, last paragraph. I don't think it's critical. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, understanding that, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes from January 3? MR. HILL: So moved. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill. MR. CARLSON: Second. Page 2 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBU RY.' In favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Mr. Nino. Second by Mr. Carlson. Passes unanimously. MR. NINO: Good afternoon. Ron Nino, for the record. Let me introduce you to the Mirasol PUD. I think you're going to find that the major discussions here are exactly those that fall within your bailiwick. And Barbara will be picking up the mantle after I give some introductory description of what this petition is about. Essentially you have a tract of land that lies -- one section of that land lies within the urban boundary, two sections lie outside of the urban boundary. Two sections therefore qual -- are agricultural, and as much as they're in the agricultural area, qualify for one dwelling unit for every five acres. The urban portion qualifies for up to four units per acre. They've asked for 799 dwelling units. Obviously when you run the math on those numbers, this petition is not about density, because the density is way below that which they could otherwise achieve, even within the thresholds that I've described. The project involves two golf courses, one in the southern portion of the tract. I'm sure a more iljustrative master plan will be shown to you. But in this portion we have essentially 799 dwelling units, a wide swath of preserve land, the so-called flowway, taking up also a portion of the northern section, and then another 18-hole golf course in the northern section only. This petition was submitted prior to the cut-off date for land use changes within the agricultural area. That date was June the 22nd of 1999. This petition has languished in-house for some time because -- primarily because of our concern that we bring to the decision-makers a master plan that has some credibility to it. And this petition in our opinion wasn't sufficiently through the permitting review process that developed the master plans that would have any credibility to it. And we think they were at that point, so we decided, we concurred, that it was timely to bring it forward. A review of this petition for consistency with elements of the growth management plan, future land use, transportation Page 3 March 7, 2001 elements, open space -- coastal management, open space elements, sewer and water elements, are all deemed to be consistent with those provisions, with the caveat that the development of any of the land within the agricultural area would have to be by private pond site systems and not by extension of the county sewer and water system. With that, I would ask -- unless you have any questions, I would ask Barbara to -- MR. CARLSON: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we eased into this so gently, I forgot I need to make a disclosure, because I did talk to Mr. Barber -- have a meeting with Mr. Barber about the flowway concept, which is intensely interesting to me. We talked about the greater Corkscrew watershed and how that's related to this proposed flowway and really didn't get into more details, other details of the development at all. But I did have that meeting with Mr. Barber. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I'm remiss in not asking members of the council, does anyone else want to disclose any conversations they may have had with the petitioner regarding this particular item? Hearing none, go ahead. MR. NINO: I'd ask Barbara -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson, go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Ron, before you step down -- MR. NINO: We need to swear in. MS. WHITE: I was going to suggest that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We ne.ed to do the swearing in. I forgot about that. It's been a long t,me; it's been a whole month. Anyone that is going to testify on this item, please rise and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Yes. As far as cjustering outside the urban boundary and the ag. area, is there still outstanding litigation? MR. NINO: No. MR. CARLSON: Okay. So as far as the courts are concerned, that's all been settled and -- MR. NINO: Correct. The -- our ruling -- our local interpretation was appealed to the board. The board confirmed the planning director's opinion that cjustering was allowed by Page 4 March 7, 2001 the Growth Management Plan. The board concurred with that. And any challenge of that has gone by the wayside. MR. COE: Another question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Is there any other litigation that's pending on any of the projects to include this one? MR. NINO: I can't answer that question. I don't know. MR. COE: Anybody know? Second thing is, I understand that there is somewhat of a disagreement, or there was a direction from Southwest Florida -- or South Florida Water Management that these two, three, four projects coordinate, since this flowway is so important. Has that been done? MR. NINO: Well, we are attempting to coordinate this project with Olde Cypress. I think we've already done the coordination to the extent that Olde Cypress has -- its entire eastern site functions as a preserve area. MR. COE.' My understanding is, though, that Olde Cypress has now gone in to change the plan or something? MR. NINO: No, they haven't. MR. COE: There's been nothing that Olde Cypress has submitted? MR. NINO: Not with us. MR. COE.' With anybody. MR. NINO: I don't know if Olde Cypress is requesting any change to their development order, any modification of their Water Management District permit. I don't know. Do you know? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski, with Development Services. What commissioner -- Councilman Coe is talking about is that -- and I think I e-mailed maybe all of you, maybe some of you, something from the Water Management District saying that they have problems with the project that are not yet resolved, and they are trying to get the three developers to talk to each other, and the three developers so far are not talking to each other. And I believe there is something that -- without the Water Management District here to say otherwise, I can only go by the e-mails that I have, which e-mail was at the end of last week. And they inferred that there was something going on with the Page 5 March 7, 2001 other development, with Olde Cypress, therein for some additional lands to the PUD. MR. NINO: I'm not aware of any application to our office for modifications to the Olde Cypress PUD. MS. BURGESON.' I spoke with Karen Johnson last week regarding this meeting, and she and Richard Thompson wanted to attend this meeting. They had some very serious concerns and wanted to be able to address the board's questions regarding that. However, there was some court litigation that they were possibly going to have to attend today. They were hoping to be able to either get out of that early enough to attend this meeting or hoping that it was going to be postponed. But it appears that since they're not here, and they were very interested in these two projects, that they were just not able to attend today. MR. COE: I'd just like to kind of throw out my two cents. I have a problem with this in that South Florida Water Management has evidently voiced some displeasure on it, number one. Number two, they've requested that the developers coordinate. That hasn't occurred. Number three, evidently Big Cypress has come in -- evidently, just based on e-mail I've seen, they've come in to request a change to something that we already approved that may be a significant change for their overall project. So I have some problems with hearing this project just straight out without having everything done prior to it being presented to our group. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we ask the petitioner if they have any information on Mr. Coe's question. MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the Mirasol development. The -- I didn't see the e-mail that went out, because I didn't get a copy of it. But the issues of the three developers that are in the flowway now, we have been working together for two years. The litigation that they're discussing is on the Wildwood project specifically, through the District. They went through an ERP process, were denied, went through the special masters. Had a hearing. There was a finding. That finding was that the flowway would be a certain criteria through their project, which had to be a ditch section between four to six feet through the Page 6 March 7, 2001 Wildwood project and through the Olde Cypress. So the only revision that I'm aware of that the Olde Cypress would be in for at the ERP level and Corps level is the future flowway being constructed through that, because that's the outfall. Now, at any other venue, whether they're in the county, I'm not aware that they're in the county for their master plan change. Because as far as I know, they have built their infrastructure, their golf course is built, and they are now permitting the pods inside. So I don't see that they would have any reason to come back and change their master plan from that perspective, other than maybe -- I'm aware that they have an interconnect to the north that may not be necessary. That's the only thing that I can imagine. And the Logan Road extension being a little wider. Those are the only issues that I've heard from Olde Cypress. Now, there is a comment that went out on the Parklands project. The Parklands also at one time was to be a part of this flowway. We have not been able to come to an agreement with the Parklands project on how they're going to participate in this flowway. So they are the only ones at this time who are not participating in this flowway because they have a lot of other things they need to do on their project first. But within the three people that are part of this project now, which is Mirasol's project, the Terasina (sic}, which is the old Wildwood, and Olde Cypress, we have been working together. We have the same consultants. We have been -- we are almost completed our agreement. We have met with the agencies based on us being one big application. So I'm not sure what she was referring to. But the only person that we've had interaction issues with has been the Parkland project. And when you see that they're not involved in this at this point, we don't even show their project as part of this. But they can in the future be a part of this. As soon as they finish their other issues within their permitting process, they can be a part of this flowway at this time. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'd like to apologize. I didn't copy the petitioner on the Water Management District's e-mail, because I assumed that they knew that they had problems with the District. MS. BISHOP: Well, and also, we've been in permitting for this process almost two years. That's why we didn't move our Page 7 March 7, 2001 zoning ahead early on, because we really wanted to get this nailed down. This is a regional flowway. This isn't something that just happens in the normal permitting time frames. We've had to do a lot of work, and this includes, you know, south Lee and northeast Collier and the flooding issues with that, and Ed Carlson's issues. So there have been a lot of reasons why we have taken this time frame to do this work. But as far as not working together the three, we are all in agreeance (sic). We are all on the same page with that. MR. COE: Well, evidently South Florida Management District is not aware of that. MS. BISHOP: And I haven't seen the memo so I can't -- do you have a copy? MR. COE: Basically they said that they wanted to have all three put together and talking to each other. The problem I have, Ron, are you and your staff prepared to brief all of these projects, since they're all going to be affected with this flowway? See, we've approved the Olde Cypress project -- MR. NINO: MR. COE.' MR. NINO: Yes. -- as it was presented to us -- Correct. MR. COE: -- I think with some changes that you -- that your staff recommended. MR. NINO.' Correct, and we're -- MR. COE: Now I'm finding out that there's something's totally new. MR. NINO: And we're currently reviewing Terasina (sic). MR. COE: See, I'm prepared to bring Olde Cypress back, since it's a PUD. Don't they have to come back to us? MR. NINO: If there's an amendment that needs to be reconsidered, yes. MR. COE: Well, see, we don't know if there's an amendment. MR. NINO: We don't know if there's an amendment either. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I do know that Olde Cypress -- MR. NINO: It may not necessarily be the case that the PUD has to be amended to accommodate the Water Management District's requirements, because there is a considerable preserve area within Olde Cypress that may simply mean a modification of Page 8 March 7, 2001 the permit, which would not necessarily require an amendment to the PUD. MR. COE: See, we don't know that. In other words, we're going to have a presentation -- MR. NINO: Well, they're here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, they're here. Why don't we have -- MR. NINO: They're here, and let's let them have a go at it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, why don't we have Ms. Johnson bring us up to date. MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd request that you have her sworn as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. And I al -- some other individuals came in. Anyone that has not been sworn in on this item, would they please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Johnson? MS. JOHNSON: Excuse us for being late. There was an accident on 1-75, so it took a little while to get here. Could you discuss a little bit what you're talking about so I know exactly what you want me to answer? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Mr. Coe --we have not begun discussion of the item on Mirasol as yet. Mr. Coe had brought the fact that -- regarding e-mail, and we did receive from you, regarding the questions that South Florida has regarding the projects, how it ties in with the Olde Cypress and how it ties in with -- Wildwood is it, the other project? MS. JOHNSON: Wildwood. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And your concerns. And Mr. Coe was requesting that we examine your concerns before we start reviewing the project. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. I think basically in the e-mail what I was getting at is a number of the projects out in this basin overlap. And the District is trying to process them concurrently so we can look at all the issues from a cumulative type of standpoint. The flowway proposal originated with the Mirasol project. It came out of some internal discussions where we had -- we recognize we have a flooding problem in the Bonita area, as well as a drainage problem in that basin. And we were asking the Page 9 March 7, 2001 consultants to sort of think outside the box, if you will, to try to address issues. The Wildwood Lakes project, which is now I believe Terafina, under your name, came in before the actual Mirasol in the flowway proposal, and as a result now they overlap in regards to that flowway. Then we also have Olde Cypress, which I heard you discussing when we came in, which is the old Woodlands DRI project. And part of the discussions in the Wildwood Lakes mediation, as well as in the Mirasol discussions, is everyone is on the same page, that there does have to be a piece of the flowway constructed through the Olde Cypress preserve. And that will require a modification to the existing Olde Cypress permit. Any final approvals or actions on Wildwood Lakes are contingent upon that piece of the flowway, because without that piece of the flowway being constructed, the flowway will not work. Mirasol understands this as well. To date we have not gotten a permit modification request in. The other overlap we have out there is the Parklands Ronto development, where it's our understanding through the PUD Parklands must provide access off of Immokalee Road north. That access overlaps with the access to Wildwood Lakes. And currently we have two different designs for the roadway and roadway drainage from the two projects. So that's another area we're investigating as an area of overlap between those two projects as well. I think that's the size of it. We have two or three others in Lee County as well. But I think that's all of Collier County. MS. BURGESON: Karen, can South Florida Water Management District require Olde Cypress to do that modification, to put this in, or are you -- MS. JOHNSON: No, Olde Cypress currently is in compliance with our existing permit. This piece of the flowway is only required as it goes to the Mirasol proposal or the Wildwood Lakes proposal. If Mirasol and Wildwood Lakes presented alternative proposals where we didn't need this flowway concept, Olde Cypress would not need to modify their permit. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Is there anything in the Mirasol submission that is contrary Page 10 March 7, 2001 to what you people think need to be done in that? MS. JOHNSON: We have not finished reviewing the Mirasol submittal. And part of the problems we've encountered is that in trying to mesh two or three projects, we're -- consistently one or another of them is behind on the most recent information. The latest information we've gotten from Mirasol, we feel we're closer to getting a semi-natural artificial flowway that may work the way we've envisioned. We keep flip-flopping on designs, and we're still working with some of the other agencies on concerns such as wildlife and wetland hydro periods and such. So until we get everything in at once where we feel it all jives, we're not prepared to say whether the flowway is going to work or not at this point. There's also, you know, a lot of legal issues as well, who's going to maintain it, who's going to build it, you know, who is it going to go to ultimately. A lot of that stuff still remains to be worked out too as the assurance is in that this thing will really function in perpetuity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Question for the petitioner. Will you be addressing in your presentation what's going on with Olde Cypress and any work you may be having going on to assure that flowway access? MS. BISHOP: We were -- we will. And also, just to clarify, that application was submitted, according to our consultants, a month and a half ago to the Corps, and the District. So now we're wondering how come the District hasn't seen that modification. MS. JOHNSON: Well, the original application has, and we've had substantial amounts of information coming back and forth. MS. BISHOP: For the Olde Cypress specifically. MS. JOHNSON: No, not to my understanding. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, Corps has theirs, and so now we're wondering what happened to yours, so -- but they were made a month and a half ago, and apparently there's a black hole, so we have to figure out what happened to the application. But the -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But everyone is talking and everyone is working together -- MS. BISHOP: The owners for Wildwood and the owners of Olde Cypress are related, so there is an ongoing cooperation. Page 11 March 7, 2001 We've gotten letters from them saying we're in. So we do have in fact those in place now. The attorneys are finishing up the legal end of it, which is getting the who, whats, when, wheres, hows, as far as that goes. But we have made those determinations and we have come to agreement on how we're going to do it, who's going to maintain it, who's going to build it, all of those things. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I would again remind you that should you approve it in its present form, you obviously appreciate that that form will have to change based on the Water Management District's ultimate permitting decision. With all respect, I suggest that you ought to hear the petition, you ought to hear Barbara's presentation, and then deal with the applicant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson has a question for Ms. Johnson. MR. CARLSON: You probably can't answer this, but I just want to ask it, because in reviewing these two projects, there's a substantial amount of impact to jurisdictional wetland in both of them. If the spatial extent of the existing wetlands out there was greater than is proposed and there was less impact than these projects proposed, would -- I mean, would that just maybe eliminate the need for an artificial flowway like this? MS. JOHNSON: My understand-- a lot of it goes back to the south Lee County watershed study that was done after the flooding in '95. The problem is that what we have there now, even without the development, is not sufficient enough to balance the water flows that come from all the way from Lake Trafford during sizeable storms; not during the smaller storms but during a sizeable flooding event. What this was an attempt to do, because when we did Wildwood Lakes, we look at the historic basic storage or flood plain compensation issues, totally separate from a wetland standpoint. And what it showed is that even the, quote, upland areas on that project would be inundated in a 100-year storm, which is your level of review for a flooding event of that size. And what that meant, that any time you fill that area in that 100-year flood plain, you have to compensate for it somewhere else in the basin, because you've displaced that water during that storm event. Page 12 March 7, 2001 What we've realized in the consultant's -- in the consulting community as part of the partnering program we do, realized was that there is no place really left in that basin, that entire Corkscrew Basin, where you could put uplands that don't flood back into the floodplain and compensate for that removal. So they started looking at the alternative methods. The purpose of the ditch, we can leave all the wetlands there but we still wouldn't fix the flooding event. The purpose of doing either a lake system or a channel was to try to get the peak levels down. The purpose is not to drain the wetlands but to instead of having it peak up so high and stay, it would come up and then go down and level off. What we're looking for, though, is some type of regional benefit. At this point we're still toying with the issue of whether it's a lake footprint or a channel footprint, do we require mitigation for that actual footprint or do we only require mitigation for wetlands that are filled or excavated within the project itself. Because we're trying to balance it with a regional positive effect; i.e., Bonita Springs won't have three feet of water for three months, like they would. Or the Cocohatchee isn't taking on more water and flooding people downstream in Collier County. So we already know the capacity isn't enough there. And the engineering proposal is to have a more positive outfall. But that would have weirs in it so we're not consistently draining the system. But when we needed to, we could get the water out into the Cocohatchee and down into the bay and allow it to come down. MR. CARLSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne? MS. LYNNE: Just before you got here -- the e-mail that you sent out indicates that -- appears to indicate that you don't think that the various developers are working together. And then just before you came, the representative for the petitioner said oh, no, we've been working together for two years. Could you just explain? MS. JOHNSON: Based on the last -- we've had several mediation meetings with the Wildwood Lakes or the Terafina people. We've had a few meetings with Mirasol. You know, the Mirasol people, in our opinion, from what we've seen submitted Page 13 March 7, 2001 based on our meetings, have tried very diligently to have everybody come to the table. I'm sure the petitioner would agree, there's so many attorneys involved at this point, you're never really sure who's agreed to what. And until it's actually in writing, we're not sure they've resolved anything at that point. We keep hearing, you know, we're going to do this, and then we go to a different meeting and we hear something else. So, I mean, I know they're working and they're meeting together. What comes out on paper will be the final assurances that we're going to require. MS. LYNNE.' So what are you looking for in terms of the developers working together? What would you like to see if you could have it just the way you want it? MS. JOHNSON: There's several questions that we heard. A lot of them have to do with who's going to construct the flowway, how is it going to be constructed, and it has to be phased appropriately. And of course Wildwood Lakes, which has been in mediation hearings for a couple of years now, is on a tighter time frame than Mirasol at that point. And they're also supposed to be coordinating with the Olde Cypress development, as Karen has indicated. You know, you have related parties there and supposedly they're on board, but we still haven't seen anything to process. We need to know, you know, where's the dirt going to go. You dig a channel or lakes, you know, who's going to use the dirt. Because you can't use that dirt until you have a construction permit, and if somebody's in for a conceptual permit, you know, they can't do anything with that dirt. Who is going to be the long-term managing entity of it? We're talking three, possibly four different property owners, which will ultimately turn into homeowners' associations. Is there going to be a CDD, is one development going to be ultimately responsible for it? We've also discussed the possibility of giving it to the Big Cypress Basin to manage, you know, but the Basin has certain qualifications attached to accepting responsibility for that. One of the caveats we have told everybody is that this flowway and the outfall have got to be built, constructed and functioning before any dirt is put in the floodplain area. So Page14 March 7, 2001 timing is a big issue, that this has to be the first step in the construction process. Because we can't start filling the floodplain before we've got the construction there to make sure we're not going to cause the flooding upstream any worse. So there's a number of overlapping legal mechanism type issues. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. NEAL: I'm Jerry Neal, and I'm representing Wildwood, which is Terafina. The plans that are submitted with South Florida Water Management does show that the flowway, as it is to date conceptual, hopefully close to approval, goes through Wildwood/Terafina and it goes through Olde Cypress. In the documents and in the agreement at the mediation between South Florida and our client, it was agreed that the section through Olde Cypress would be built, constructed by the developer of Terafina, and that the southern one-third of Terafina would be constructed at this time. The stub of this proposed channel goes to the eastern boundary of Terafina, where Mirasol will pick it up and take it on through. In the documentation that was submitted last week to South Florida, they made a requirement in our homeowners documents that we indicate and show that the responsible party for the maintenance of the flowway through Olde Cypress would be the Wildwood/Terafina people. That is now the documentation. It was submitted last week. Also, part of that agreement says that we'll take care of all of the channel, as well as the flowway within the Wildwood project. The attorney for Wildwood has come to an agreement with the owner of Olde Cypress, and that documentation was supposed to have been sent to South Florida last week. It was a separate submittal. We submitted our package from Naples and he submitted his from Tallahassee. It should be to their hands, because there is an agreement between Olde Cypress and Wildwood. The difference that may be between those two developments and Mirasol is the fact that we're going to construct the channel flowway through Wildwood and through Olde Cypress. They're going to construct through Mirasol. That Page 15 March 7, 2001 is the only difference that we have. There is no difference in agreements or concepts. That's the only difference is who's going to do the construction. It's shown on the plans that we're going to do this. It's submitted. It's in mediation we're going to do this. It's well documented that the two parties are going to work together. And I'm surprised now to hear that they do not think that the parties are working together. Because actually, the same environmentalist that is working with Mirasol is the very same one who filed for the amendment to go through Olde Cypress. MR. COE: Now, this is the amendment to what we approved. MR. NEAL: This is to put the flowway with a channel 200 feet wide, four feet deep, meandering through that preserve area. And it would also be totally revegetated with certain types of plants for certain zones of water depth. And so you -- so you actually have the same company representing both Olde Cypress and Mirasol. So I don't understand where there's no communication. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question. Karen, you did say there is a commonality of ownership between Olde Cypress and Mirasol? MR. NEAL: No. MS. BISHOP: Not technically. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not technically, okay. MR. NEAL: Not between Mirasol -- MS. BISHOP: The consultants. MR. NEAL: The consultants are -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The consultants are the same. All right, why don't we go ahead and have Barbara make -- just go ahead with our -- what we usually do on a project. I think we've clarified -- Mr. Coe had had some questions; we clarified that people are talking to each other. Maybe not to the degree -- MR. CARLSON: Allie Santoro has -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, Allie, I'm sorry. MS. SANTORO: I just have one clarification. You mentioned Wildwood, that you were managing. I don't know if that's the homeowners' association is going to manage the flowway in that section. I don't know who the "who" is, and I want to be sure I understand who's going to maintain it and manage it and so forth. Page 16 March 7, 2001 MR. NEAL: It was the very point of South Florida Water to explain exactly how it's going to be handled. It states in the homeowners' documentation that the developer's responsible until such time as it's turned over to the homeowners' association. These homeowners' association documents have been reviewed by South Florida Water Management, and it states in there that the developer is responsible up to the time of turnover. At the time of the turnover, the people on Terafina or Wildwood are going to be responsible for the maintenance of that channel as it goes through Olde Cypress. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BISHOP: I want to clarify just for the Mirasol end of this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BISHOP: It is our intention to have a CDD on this property that would be the entity that was responsible for the construction and the maintenance of this facility. The flowway, as it goes through Mirasol, is going to be a little different than it is going to be through the Wildwood and the Olde Cypress. We -- after meeting with Fish and Wildlife and EPA on our site, they would like to see some bird wading habitat, so we are going to go with a string of lakes to increase bird wading habitat. And I think the number where we're sitting at now is almost five miles worth of shoreline for that habitat. The ultimate goal, though, was to -- the intent was for the flowway to really be managed by Big Cypress Basin and Clarence Tears. So we'll be maintaining the look of it but ultimately Clarence would be the entity who we are looking to be the manager, since he's the big water king in that area. The center of our preserve, we were looking to enjoin that with the entity to the east of us, and I believe that's CREW, the CREW lands. To ultimately the CDD will control it, we'll create an agreement with the CDD with Clarence so that he's not having to deal with five entities, and then from there we'll be maintaining the look along our respective properties, because we believe we'd probably do a better job than that guy with the sprayer that nukes all the vegetation. So that's the kind of things that we're looking to do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Everybody's familiar with what a Page 17 March 7, 2001 CDD is? Council? MS. SANTORO: Would you explain it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MS. LYNNE: No, I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tell me the chapter. Chapter 190 of Florida Statutes sets up a legislative ability to set up a taxing district which has various powers such as drainage, things of that source. And basically it's a state regulated thing that was set up back in the days of the original DRI legislation. Originally it was kind of a carrot, that if you did a DRI you had the ability to do a CDD. It is a -- let Mr. White explain the statute. MS. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. CDD's, Community Development Districts, are regulated under Chapter 190, and they are given certain general powers which include, for example, managing drainage and other traffic, and typical things that are part of the infrastructure in a large development. Additionally, they can have some special powers, but they have to request those. They're done, depending on their size, either by ordinance or by I believe an administrative rule and hearing. And typically they serve, as you will, at the function of a master homeowner association or a homeowner association, I guess would be the typical type of entity that they're analogous to. Their funding is that generally which is I guess partly given to general purpose governments, but these are viewed as somewhat of a special purpose government, if you will. They have their own boards and act to a certain degree with their own budgets independent of the county. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: I'd like to make -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara, would you like to go ahead with the -- what's the pleasure here of staff? MS. BURGESON: Let me make a very brief presentation on the environmental issues on this project. I think that if Tim Hall wouldn't mind, it probably would be better for the board to listen to a full more detailed description by Tim. He has a better understanding of not only this project but how it fits in together Page 18 March 7, 2001 with the other projects in the area. Just a brief overview. The Mirasol project is a 1,555-acre undeveloped tract of land right now. Just a very brief history on the site. It was at one time hydro-axed I think probably about eight years ago, to take out most of the mid-story on the property, which was used at the time for cattle grazing. And as a result of that, a great deal of exotics have come in to those areas that were cleared of the mid-story. South Florida Water Management District claimed 1,298 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site, which makes those wetlands jurisdictional to Collier County. The remaining 250 some odd acres of uplands consist of pine flatwoods and a small portion, about eight acres of land that is almost exclusively exotics, and that's Brazilian pepper. As I reviewed the ElS, there were some discrepancies between the material that submitted on the acreage between the ElS and the site plans that were presented to us. That difference was 15 acres. And I've stipulated -- I just went through that, even though there were some discrepancies, went through that in my staff report and just required, as one of the stipulations of approval, that that be resolved prior to the PUD document going forward to the board so that we have the appropriate acreages listed in the PUD master plan. The petitioner is proposing to impact 582 acres of wetlands on site. Their mitigation originally for that impact was to preserve and to restore and improve the -- not only the environmental aspects but the flowway and water management aspects of the remaining 792 acres of wetlands on site. Staff has a concern as to whether or not that is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, conservation coastal management element section, which requires no net less of wetlands. So again, as a stipulation of approval, we've stated that in order for staff to accept this, there may need to be a great number of off-site wetland acreages provided for mitigation to make sure there's no net loss, or there may be some additional wetlands to that will be preserved and added to the 792 acres of on-site wetlands. There is also a difference in the description of those Page 19 March 7, 2001 wetlands that will be preserved on-site. 792 acres encompasses the entire wetland boundary of the preserve area. However, it's actually -- I think it's about 100 acres less that will be retained in its existing native vegetation communities. The balance will be those created flowway lakes along the north and south boundary of that preserve area. So even though the entire boundary of the preserve is 792, some of that is going to be recreated into lakes, so it won't be kept and retained in current existing conditions. The petitioner did rather extensive listed species surveys on the project; identified a number of protective species that are either utilizing the site, utilizing adjacent properties or have a great potential to utilize this project, either in its current condition or more likely in the future when they've done the mitigation, removed exotics and enhanced the wetland area. It will encourage those protected species to come back on the site and use that, probably for foraging habitat more so than they are right now. The species that were identified on-site were wood storks, mostly along on the southern edge of the property, because the property itself is too heavily invaded with exotics. It has very little actual on-site lake or shore area for wood storks. So it's basically along the drainage canal along Immokalee Road that the wood storks are using the property right now. Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed on-site, as well as some possibility for black bear to be currently using the site as foraging habitat. The consultant had identified that black bear exists and uses the property immediately adjacent to, and some indications that it is also foraging on this property. The agencies were concerned about the possibility of red-cockaded woodpeckers and Florida panther using the property. Again, because of the current conditions, because of the exotics that exist on site and conditions with an elevated flooding level right now, they expected, after discussing it back and forth for probably the past year or so, that neither of those species are currently utilizing this site; however, in the future with the improvements, they expect that they may come back, particularly the RCW and the panther, for reutilization, either as foraging habitat or as cavity trees. And staff has recommended approval of Mirasol PUD, with the stipulations that were listed on Page 8. It's all on Page 8 of Page 20 March 7, 2001 your staff report. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I have one other e-mail to share with the council that I got on Monday and didn't forward to the petitioner either. It's from Jim Mudd, the public utilities director. And in North Naples, the sewage treatment plant is operating over capacity. He says that a consent order is coming our way from FDEP. DEP is only issuing DRI permits until the new addition comes on line to the plant. Mr. Mudd will be here at your next meeting to present news on the plant and the new aquifer storage and recovery system. At that time he'll probably tell you what the status of the plant is. He said what the petitioner will be told is that they can build at their own risk. No pre sales will be allowed until the north plant extension comes on line. And he would let them know that they will only be able to get a DRI permit from FDEP, but there's some limitations presently at the north plant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Petitioner-- excuse me. MS. SANTORO: What's the framework for the north plant then? Was there any? Is there a time frame where -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, he says they're presently under -- they're expanding the plant and he expects the addition to be done in November. That's if everything goes according to schedule and we don't have a hurricane this summer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. This is going to be a little different than what we normally do. Because this is so complicated, we have actually a power point presentation to go through the water management end of this flowway in the project, as well as the environment. And so we're going to go ahead and have the engineer present that for you, to give you some idea of what we're doing. I did want to address the stipulations from staff in general. We had no problem in general with everything that was stipulated; however, we did make some language changes to some degree of what the staff has asked for, which are in the sections now, has been reworded. So it's not exactly like staff has. So I want you guys to look at those and just see that. We did -- the gist is there, but the wording is a little bit different. One of the issues that we have is that we're still going Page 21 March 7, 2001 through this permitting process, and that, you know, we are out for public notice, and that as soon as this public notice is over, then we will have comments from other agencies and that we may have to make more changes to this plan based on that process. And so we want to have as much flexibility to be able to give -- if there's more shoreline that we need or if we need to readjust our preserves in some way, that we have that ability to do that. And then this whole process, as far as the no net loss of wetlands, is a part of the basis of review for the agencies, so that we feel that they're -- that's going to be covered under those permits, the Corps permit and the District permit. And we will have Fish and Wildlife and the Game Commission will all be a part of that. And that our permit at the end will encompass all of their comments and recommendations. So that language is just a little bit different than what she has, so I wanted you to see that. Now, Rick Barber is going to start with the drainage end of this. And once we go through this process, after we're completed, if you have some questions, then we have brought all our staff here so you guys can hopefully get the answers that you're looking for. MS. BURGESON: Karen, do you have a copy of that proposed language change that you're -- MS. BISHOP: Yeah, they got a new PUD. I don't know, I'll check. MS. BURGESON: Do you have an extra copy of that PUD? Because I haven't seen that. MS. BISHOP: It's right there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we take a break just for a second. Are we trying to find some stuff here, or-- MS. BISHOP: We're going to make copies for you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, let's just go off the record for just a second. Let's get the paperwork up so the lady down here doesn't go nuts trying to record what's going on. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, can we go back on the record now? Can we bring ourselves back to order here? And identify yourself, sir. MR. BARBER: For the record, Rick Barber with Agnoli, Page 22 March 7, 2001 Barber and Brundage. And I'm going to say we several times in this presentation, and that "we" refers to the engineering company, not Mirasol. Because we've done a lot of work on restoration of flowways and it's confused some people before. Before I start, anymore e-mails from anybody? Thank you. We're really presented with a unique opportunity with this project. And I'm excited about it. Because we can really get a regional benefit, sort of a public/private partnership. And in spite of what you heard in the beginning, we have made a lot of effort in trying to get the three property owners to cooperate with each other. And they really have. I mean, there's agreements and that sort of thing. They're not formal legal agreements that Water Management District would like to have, but as you know, those things take a while to hammer out. So with that said, what I'm going to do today, and I assume that you want the 15-minute presentation rather than the two-hour one, so I'm going to move this right along. Just to give you an overview of the watershed and what we discovered in the south Lee County study, which is really a misnomer, it's really the Corkscrew Imperial Watershed, which runs all the way from Lake Trafford to the Imperial River and the Cocohatchee and all those outfalls. I want to tell you what the adverse conditions were that we had in 1995 and why we were hired to do the study that we did, along with Johnson Engineering. I want to briefly show you some of the area improvements that have taken place in the north, mainly in Lee County, but they all affect the same watershed. And that's the reason that you're going to see things about Lee County today. And then we'll go specifically to this flowway project and I'll give you an overview and tell you what the site assessment and the restoration objectives are. If you can see the yellow band around this -- and I think you've got an exhibit up there. What we found in 1995 was that there was a lot more water coming through some of the outfalls, like the Imperial River, than we thought possible. Back then we thought the Imperial basin was like about 86 square miles. And there's a lot more water coming through there than we could account for. So we went through and identified what the ma]or outfalls were and then looked at what their capacities were and then Page 23 March 7, 2001 also looked at how they flowed in 1995. And this gives you an idea of what the outfalls were. The Estero River up at the north end of the basin. There's a north and south branch. Halfway Creek. Then some minor creeks in Bonita Springs called Rosemary and Spring Creek and Oak Creek. They -- Oak Creek and Litner (phonetic} Creek go into the Imperial River and out. And of course you read about that's where the majority of the flooding was. I think there was like 1,700 people evacuated for eight weeks there. 390 homes and trailers were destroyed. About eight million dollars worth of damage in the 1995 flood. As we swing into Collier County, at the south end of the basin, you see that we have the Cocohatchee east and west, the Corkscrew Canal and Camp Keais Strand. We researched and came up with capacities of all these. And what we discovered was that when 1-75 was constructed, they put the right size conveyances underneath the road; however, they failed to put the tail to the end, if you will, or the headwaters to the tail waters. And some of the property owners, when they were faced with all of a sudden having a bridge facing their land where they had sheet flow maybe two or three inches deep across their property before, now they have a bridge with a conveyance, and so their reaction was to throw a berm up. And that really caused a lot of the problems that we saw in '95 up in these northern outfalls. So a lot of the water that would have normally flowed out Halfway Creek and the Estero River flowed south into Bonita Springs. The arrows are just showing you about what we thought the direction of the flow was back in '95. This is just a few slides of some of the flooding that took place in '95: This is looking towards Worthington from the north. This is Bonita Beach Road, flooded. It was the main evacuation route out to 1-75 and it was unusable. This is a road that intersects with Bonita Beach Road and runs out towards the river, Edith Drive. This is Imperial Bonita Estates and there's a bridge in the background there that you can see, if you're looking at the presentation. One of the things that allowed us to produce a model of the Page 24 March 7, 2001 watershed for the first time was that Johnson Engineering went out and actually did cross-sections in areas that had never been topo'd before. Prior to this, the water management District and engineering firms around used the USGS five-foot contour maps. Well, as Mr. Carlson will tell you, five feet of elevation difference in this area can mean miles of, you know, length that -- the usual slope of land here is about a foot per mile, and probably in this watershed it gets to a quarter foot per mile in some of the areas. So we finally developed this generalized one-foot contour map, that I think you have a copy of up there. That allowed us to produce a computer model where we could use the information we gathered about the outfalls and use the contours and be able to predict that we made certain alterations to the watershed what would happen to the flood levels. These are just examples of what that computer model looked like. Recent area improvements, starting up at the Estero River, that was the condition the river was in, which is beautiful from an environmental standpoint, but if it has to function like a piece of infrastructure like it does now, those overhanging branches collect debris and reduce the capacity of the stream. So this river was cleaned and snagged. This was the crossing under Corkscrew Road in the south branch of the river. It was way undersized. This is what's there today. I didn't mean to go back through that so quickly. But this was a joint project between the Water Management District and Lee County. This is the flowway that now has been constructed at the Brooks project on Halfway Creek. This was a bridge that's been taken out across Halfway Creek. Florida Power and Light decided they could live without it. This was the railroad crossing, and it was improved of four box culverts. And that was a South Florida project. The Imperial River had to be cleaned and snagged. And remember I showed you the bridge at Imperial Bonita Estates? And this is the new bridge that was constructed with FEMA money. This was a house that flooded in '95. It's since been purchased and removed from the floodplain. This is the new weir that's been constructed. This was FEMA money and Water Management District participation with Page 25 March 7, 2001 Lee County. This will allow us to control how much water gets into the river and be able to bleed down some of the areas faster. This is a project that Mr. Carlson did. He replaced four 36-inch pipe with four 72's up on a tram road, which would let water come down through the Corkscrew swamp a little quicker. This is Camp Keais Strand, in eastern Collier County. It really drains Lake Trafford south. But we found an old road; I'm sure Ed knew about it, but there were a lot of us that didn't. The road's up here at the top, if you can see the curser. We found that that holds up water and makes it flow to the west, rather than let it go down Camp Keais Strand, at the same time that you're trying to rehydrate Fakahatchee Strand, which Camp Keais Strand feeds. So one of the outcomes of that '95 study is we'll be able to get the cooperation of the property owner and have more water go down the Camp Keais Strand. These were satellite monitoring stations that are going to be added out in the swamp, so we can tell what the water levels are and tell is we have problems ahead of time. And of course one of the things that's going on out there is the CREW land purchase, the CREW trust purchase, so that some of the impact can be lessened and some of the land restored. Recent restoration successes like we're going to try to do here at Mirasol is The Brooks. That's the way it looked in '97. That's the way it looks today. And what that was was a ephemeral pasture, and now it's an open flowway. And one that you can see from your car as you travel down Goodlette is the Cocohatchee Strand and Pelican Marsh that was -- had all the exotics removed from it. Now, this is Collier's really first chance at restoration of a regional flowway. And when I say flowway, this is really a remnant of what was there. Because of man's intervention in a lot of places, roads, berms, that sort of thing, what used to be maybe 10 miles of sheet flow has been reduced to almost 270 feet. And I'll show you what that means here. That's why we have to go to a channel system with weirs to control it. The restoration objectives were to restore and create wetlands to approximate historic conditions and functions, improve the conveyances, as Karen explained to you -- Karen Johnson, with the Water Management District -- to alleviate flooding from upstream, and also to improve the 'wildlife habitat Page 26 March 7, 2001 that's out there. Where we're talking about is near Broken Back Road, which is next to the Mulepen Quarry. It's about 1,100 acres in total size, and serves as a flowway between the Imperial Corkscrew Basin and the Co¢ohatchee River. This was a -- an attempt to figure out what the flows that other projects were going to allow from the north down to the Cocohatchee and make sure that there was enough conveyance there to serve all these requests that were being made. Those are the nine sections we're talking about. The Mirasol project is Section 10, 15 and 22. In our site assessment, we looked at habitat height, hydrology, vegetation composition, wildlife utilization, as you're going to hear from Turrell & Associates, and also adjacent land uses. One of the things that we had available in a computer model that I told you about that we did the hydraulics on that we could predict what was going to happen in the 315 square mile basin was we added a component, sort of an ecological assessment. Rayanne Boylen (phonetic) worked on this for us. And what she did was inventoried all the vegetation in the 315 square mile watershed, and then when we made predictions about water level changes, what that would do to the vegetation and consequently the wildlife usage. So that's part of the study that we're doing here. The same 315 square mile watershed, but focused on this Cocohatchee west outfall. That was just an example of the type of flux mapping that she did to get us there. This is about what we think the flow looked like in -- prior to Piper's Ranch being developed and the berm around it. We think sheet flow went as the diagram showing it, a wide, wide area. After Piper's Ranch was developed, we think that's the way it looked, where it came around the farms to the north and also the Mulepen Quarry. So we had about two miles of sheet flow in 1995. And you remember that's when the storm was. This is the way it looks today, after the Olde Cypress project was constructed. And also the berm along the north bank of the Cocohatchee River. It now restricts the flow to -- well, to the smaller area, which I'll show you in a minute. Because of that restriction, in 1985 there was a wetlands Page 27 March 7, 2001 jurisdiction map produced for South Florida, and we had 507 acres of wetlands on this site. This is Mirasol itself. And because of the things that had happened since 1985 -- as I mentioned, the Olde Cypress project being built and the berms on the north side of the Cocohatchee -- we now have 1,317 acres of wetlands on site. So it's gotten much deeper out there. Because of that too, I guess the -- and Tim Hall with Turrell is going to talk to you more about this. That, with the hydro-axing that took place, the melaleuca infestation has gotten much, much worse. After the berm was built, this is how it looked in 1999, after about a six-inch storm. You can see that there is a lot of water that comes down that way. But the bank wasn't really constructed to accommodate it. The berm that was constructed, they had 14 24-inch pipes that were laid on the land surface, and that was supposed to help equalize the flow, but it didn't seem to accommodate it. This is how the outfall looks today. There's about a 1,000-foot weir there, with rip-rap in front of it. What we're proposing that the Mirasol outfall to come out is next to a piece of commercial property that's being developed as we speak. We expect to have a pipe connection so we reduce the erosion possibilities, and an upstream weir there. Here's the distances between that piece of commercial property and the Olde Cypress Golf Course. So remember, I told you we had at least two miles of sheet flow in 1995 and we're down to 270 feet between that commercial property and the golf course construction. So that's why conveyance really has to be added, to make the system perform and work. We could go in and build Mirasol today without adding the conveyance or the flowway restor-- do the flowway restoration. We could just pipe it into the Cocohatchee. But we knew that this outfall was one of the last areas that could take this kind of water, and we knew that this would be a regional benefit. And the project sponsor really felt it would be the most responsible thing to do is to build the flowway that's being proposed. Water Management District feels the same way. That's the current configuration, as you can see. It runs down through the Wildwood or Terafina project, into Olde Cypress. On the Mirasol project, we're showing it as a series of Page 28 March 7, 2001 lakes that are connected by a four-foot deep conveyance. Those are some of the benefits to improve hydration that stays wet longer into the dry season, higher quality conservation, after we get done with the restoration efforts in the center of it. Enhanced habitats. Turrell is going to talk about that. And really promotes the natural vegetation, because we won't have those two-foot high, three-foot high peeks. We do propose two sets of weirs so it's a cascading system; one out at the Cocohatchee Canal and two up in the Mirasol project itself. That's so it's stepped down very gradually; try to hold the water as high as the natural ground that's there. The advantages that we see really is about a seven-tenth difference in a 25-year storm. Between -- and this is at the project itself. It makes a better difference up in Bonita area, because in the '95 floods, we found the water levels at the Kehl (phonetic) Canal and the Kehl weir were exactly the same as they were at 951 in the Cocohatchee Canal. What it means to the ground around there is that even in the normal wet season after say a four or five-inch storm, we had two feet of flooding on the site. And in an improved condition, we hold that down to about 12 inches. So those wetlands that normally get inundated will still be inundated, it just won't be as high. I'll flip through these graphs pretty quickly here. This just shows again that the peeks are taken off, what you find out there now. That's the typical section as it goes through the Wildwood and Olde Cypress project. It's really four feet deep. We say four to six here, but they're going to limit us to four in the permitting process. We show an area on the shelf -- or the literal zone of the flowway that is designed to trap feed source for wood storks, as the water slowly subsides in the dry season. That's true to scale what the section will really look like. And those -- that's the summary. We want to restore the historic drainage patterns; we want to improve the conveyance that's going over the site now; and we hope this will -- or know this will help alleviate the flooding. These are some of the critters that live near or around there that Tim Hall is going to speak about. Page 29 March 7, 2001 And again, this is really a regional solution. It's not just the Mirasol project, it's a public/private thing that we're trying to accomplish here. And we hope this goal gets accomplished. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Barber? MR. CARLSON: I have one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: That was a new piece of information for me with the jurisdictional wetlands in '85 versus '99. Who did the '85 wetlands delineation? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Have you been sworn in, sir? MR. HALL: Yes, I have. Tim Hall, Turrell & Associates. That depiction of the 1985 wasn't an actual jurisdictional determination, it's a jurisdictional estimate that I believe was done as part of the state-wide inventory for upland versus wetlands. That's what that information was taken from. MR. CARLSON: By? By who? MR. HALL: Who did it? The maps are available up at the South Florida Water Management District offices. MR. CARLSON: So they were done by the Water Management District, State of Florida, Fish & Wildlife Service? MS. JOHNSON: Basically I think they -- I don't know if actual staff at the Water Management did it, but they basically used aerial photographs, et cetera. The District staff actually has been on the site two or three times over the past, I would say, five, six, or seven years to do different jurisdictional determinations. We did one before the hydro-axing took place. We've done a couple others. We did kind of a thumbnail one when the CREW trust was looking at purchasing the property. None of those have ever formally been adopted as formal jurisdictional boundaries. The line we're working with now is the line District staff feels is appropriate, and is based on soils, hydrology and vegetation. Wetlands were not created on the site in the past five years, in District staff's opinion. MR. CARLSON: Well, if that's what that '85 map is, I have experience with looking at those wetlands designations based on high level aerial photography, and I have found them to be very inaccurate in a lot of cases. MR. HALL: Right. I know, sir. And I'm not disputing that. Page 30 March 7, 2001 That's just a depiction of what is shown in the record, as far as what's available to myself as a consultant to review. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else for Mr. Barber? Hearing none -- one minute break. How's that? Two; make it two, (Recess.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are we ready? Okay, Ms. Bishop, what's your next little plan here? MS. BISHOP: Todd Turrell is going to go through the birds and bunny part of this, and the vegetation stuff, along with Tim, to -- just to bring together the environmental end of this. And at the end I'll have a little summary about some of the internal project stuff and then just what the whole -- you know, just what we're trying to accomplish. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay. Go ahead. MR. TURRELL: And my name is Todd Turrell, and I'll keep this as brief as possible. I think you all are starting to realize the complexity of this project. Both Rick and myself have been working on this property for eight or 10 years. And it's kind of come to the point where we think the project's together enough, you know, to bring it in front of you, which is why we're here today. My firm has been retained to lead the permit effort with both the Water Management District and the Corps for Mirasol, Wildwood, Terafina, whatever it is, and also Olde Cypress. So all three of those owners are on board. I wanted to clear that up so there is no further confusion with that. And you can imagine the difficulty in getting three large owners together like that. There's an application pending with the Corps of Engineers. That public notice should come out here probably within the next 30 to 60 days. Those same applications are in with the Water Management District. I -- Rick's gone through the flowway for the most part, but I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that in between the two blue lines you see there is entirely preserved lands. The owner is, in the Mirasol case, preserving nearly half of the land out there. Now, you've heard that a lot of that is wetlands. And we're the current jurisdictional, with the Water Management District is what we're -- what we're going with. We're not disputing that in Page 31 March 7, 2001 any way. However, there's no question that over the last 15 to 20 years that some of the land on this site has gone from uplands to wetlands. And I've got some pictures and documentation of that. But the mitigation ratios and the way this is processed is completely on today's jurisdictional. However, time has not been kind to this land from a standpoint of driving it into more wetlands. The existing conditions out there are mixed pine and cypress wetlands, with very extensive invasion by melaleuca. There's a couple isolated small cypress domes. Those cypress domes are being preserved in their entirety. And then there's some remnants, saw palmetto and pine uplands. Where's also some large saw palmetto prairies out there where all the palmettos are dead because they drowned. And I've got some pictures of those coming up. What has degraded this site is surrounding agricultural practices. They actually pump during the wet season onto this land, which elevates it even above what the flooding that has caused by the watershed basin changes that Rick went through. The southern two sections were hydro-axed. And of course cattle grazing's ongoing. And all of those have led to an extensive amount of invasion by melaleuca. Here you can see some of the agricultural activities that are around it. This shows some of the pumping that goes on. That arrow points to the south. That is our project that you're looking at to the south. Those agricultural fields you see in the foreground pump into that area and it runs right down onto this land. This is one of the areas that I told you about where these are palmettos and you can see this in a number of areas out there. It's an old palmetto prairie that was once an uplands that is now in a jurisdictional area and the palmettos are dead. And as far as we can determine, they drowned. Because in that area right there, you'll have two to three feet of standing water in today's condition, and certainly that was not the case 15 years ago, or the palmettos would have never grown there in the first place. So once again, we're living with today's jurisdiction, but we want everybody to understand they are adversely affected by Page 32 March 7, 2001 watershed changes in the region. There's that same thing that Ed~ that you had questioned. I don't -- I really don't think that that is too far off. And if you went prior to 1980, maybe back into the Seventies, certainly the amount of uplands and wetlands on this site might be flip-flopped. And I truly believe that by looking at the site. There's another picture of another palmetto prairie area that is dead palmettos. And it gets so wet out there -- you'll see a little seedling pine there in the foreground -- it's so wet you don't see any four or five-year-old seedlings, because sooner or later, it may not be this year, but next year the water will get so high the pines drown. And those pines are drowning in areas that are pine flatwoods. They're hydric pine flatwoods, but they're pine flatwoods. Last summer about a third of the upper area burned. This is an area that was not hydro-axed. Strangely enough, now what's coming back into there is melaleuca that's just as dense as the areas that were hydro-axed. So the melaleuca map in red here is 50 percent or greater melaleuca. Pretty much after the burn that occurred, everything you see in red there is going to be 75 percent or greater melaleuca. So not only in the development areas is it melaleuca, but also in the flowway area it is heavy, heavy, heavy melaleuca. That's why the mitigation on-site in between the flowway is incredibly expensive to get the melaleuca out of there. But we feel that has some regional wildlife benefits that Tim Hall will get into. This is just a couple of different locations that we wanted to actually show you a little bit of video footage of what's actually out there. It will just take just a second. That arrow shows where we are on the property, what you're about to see. Okay, this is in one of the former palmetto areas. You can see the palmettos in the foreground. And I don't know, is that sound just coming through here only? It's basically -- that's a pan view of dead palmetto prairie that has drowned. This video is the burn area where the melaleuca are coming back real heavy. The black you see are the pine trees that are burned. All the other green you see in there is invading melaleuca. MR. HILL: Was that a planned burn or an accidental burn? MR. TURRELL: No, it was a lightning strike. And that fire Page 33 March 7, 2001 stretched all the way from the Mirasol project down into what is Wildwood. And I would venture a professional guess that that entire burn area will be 75 percent or greater melaleuca at the end of the day, because the seed sources in that area are just overwhelming everything native. And this is a view of a typical area of the melaleuca in there. And you can see how dense it is. I don't know if you can hear that, but what I'm saying is that the melaleuca is so dense that the native wildlife in the area basically can't use it. Barbara had presented part of that in her staff report. And our plan is by removing all that melaleuca out of the 700-acre preserve to add habitat that -- some of the endangered species and -- okay, with that, Tim? MR. COE: Could I ask you a question, please? You said you also represented the Olde Cypress project. MR. TURRELL: That's right. MR. COE: Could you tell us what amendment they're coming in with? MR. TURRELL: You know, as far as the county is concerned, I really don't know what -- I really don't know what would be required, if anything. We are simply modifying an existing South Florida Water Management District permit and Corps of Engineers permit. So what we've applied for is a state and federal modification. George? MS. BURGESON: The only -- may I just interject something here? The only thing that we might need to consider is that typically preservation areas cannot be cleared or filled or ditched or dredged. So we need to take a look at how the PUD document is written in terms of that language for the preservation areas. We may have to readdress that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir? MR. HERMANSON: My name is George Hermanson with Hole-Montes. We also represent Olde Cypress. We did all the engineering on the project that's built now. And I guess I was going to say something before Barbara mentioned that, that the land use really for the Olde Cypress is not changing at all. Where the flowway is going to be is all preserved. It's in a conservation easement and so forth. If the Page 34 March 7, 2001 staff determines that we really have to run an amendment through to sanction the construction of flowways through there, we can do that. I don't believe that's true, but we'll -- if we have to do it, we'll do it. MR. TURRELL: And I will add that we're mitigating for the impacts down in Olde Cypress, and those ratios and stuff have been pretty well hammered out with the Water Management District and the Corps. MR. COE: Well, the only reason I brought this up two or three times, and I don't know if I'm misunderstanding or somebody else is misunderstanding, but when that project was brought before that project and approved, we approved it in that there wasn't going to be ditching, changing and what have you in the flowway. It was just going to stay the way it is. Now I'm kind of figuring out that you all, whoever you is, are take making changes to that and there may be some ditching, moving, shoving and pulling in that area that was very specific to us that it wasn't going to occur. And if so, doesn't that have to come back before the EAC? MR. TURRELL: I don't know the answer to that. What we're proposing to do will be in accordance with state and federal permit modifications. You know, we're just modifying an existing permit, we're not permitting new roads or anything else in there. It's simply -- MR. COE: What I'm saying is we have two different things here, two or three different things here. MR. TURRELL: I know, it's-- MR. COE: You've got federal and you've got state and you've got us. Us, we approved it as it was in our understanding when we approved it. Specifically there was going to be no changes in that flowway, if I remember correctly. I'm not positive. Now, if so -- and then you all go out and now you're permitting with the state or federal or the and it's a change to what we approved, doesn't it have to come back to us for reapproval? You know, I'm just questioning. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.} MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, also from Hole, Montes & Associates, planning director. I'm not an attorney, you know that. However, my general Page 35 March 7, 2001 understanding of Chapter 380 requirements which govern, amongst other things, how developments and regional impacts are structured is that when changes are required to those plants by state or federal permitting agencies, that those changes may move forward without necessitating amendments to the DRI. And that's kind of a vested right type protection, as I understand it, provided that they're driven by environmental considerations. I just offer that for the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Olde Cypress is a Chapter 380 DRI? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. CARLSON: Can I ask a question, just before you leave the mike? Because this is very important to me. This is critical to me, this whole idea that artificial manipulation of the water, the pumping from the ago fields has turned former upland to wetland, and now we're looking at wetland impacts and jurisdictional impacts to former uplands. I mean, I think that's really-- I mean, to me it's crucial. And so I'm looking at drowned palmettos. Have you done any maps? Have you gone back to good aerial photos from, you know, the really great ones from the Fifties and the Sixties that are at the Soil Conservation Service Office and tried to quantify just how much upland was converted to wetland by the present water management strategies around the site? MR. TURRELL: No, we haven't. We have not gone back to historical aerials, Ed. We -- I don't know, have we mapped old palmetto prairies that are so obvious? MR. HALL: Tim Hall, with Turrell & Associates. I have requested some of that data, and we are working on it. One of the problems with that is again what we determine is going to be based on just what we can see, not anything that was actually ground truthed. The other thing with the old information that may show different vegetation types is that the way that wetlands have been determined has changed over the course of years. Different vegetations and all have been deemed as different -- at one time, you know, if you had pine trees, it was considered uplands. And the way that that has been looked at has changed over the years as the science of wetland determination and the importance of Page 36 March 7, 2001 wetlands has increased. So that's -- it is in the works, but it hasn't been completed as of yet. MR. TURRELL: But I might mention one other thing, though, Ed. I was at dinner a couple weeks ago at a lady's house that immediately abuts this, and they've lived there for 20 years. In the last five to 10 years they've had events where they've had to move out of their house because the water got so high. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. So I think if you talk to some of the locals that actually live down there and ask them if that water has gotten catastrophically higher in the last decade, you're going to get a unanimous yes. So -- and I believe that to be true from what I've seen in the field. And we can try to quantify areas of palmetto prairie, because that would be the obvious uplands that has transitioned into wetlands. But I would say that that's not all that's transitioned. I'm sure that some of those pine flatwoods were formerly upland pine flatwoods. All of the pine flatwoods now are hydric pine flatwoods. The only uplands left on-site are the palmettos that were high enough that they didn't drown. But essentially all of the pinelands on there are now hydric jurisdictional. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: How does the section on soils information fit with the wetlands? Because all of the information on soils indicates that these soils are all wetland soils. MR. TURRELL: Yeah, we don't deny that. But palmetto prairies are not jurisdictional. MS. LYNNE: Okay. My only comment is, is that as someone who has interviewed people from this whole county, over especially the Big Cypress and Everglades area from the Twenties through the Fifties, that there's been huge changes in water level that aren't necessarily due -- I mean, in this case it might be true that it's due to the agricultural practices. But historically speaking, there are dramatic changes in water levels in the natural system; and even that the propagation of some plant species and animals are dependent on those large fluctuations. MR. TURRELL: Well, I think -. and I'm not blaming everything hydraulically that's changed out there on the agricultural Page 37 March 7, 2001 pumping or practices, but what Rick's presentation was trying to show you is due to things like Piper's berm, some of the other areas you concentrated a 100 square mile watershed that used to sheet flow all down onto Immokalee Road, it's all coming through this property now, because it can't go anywhere else. So I really, really don't think there's any question about the increased hydro periods. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, I think someone that grew up in the woods in Florida looking at those dead palmettos and those palmetto roots, there's no question in my mind that two years ago it was pretty high up in the air. MR. TURRELL: I've stood in those palmetto areas in three feet of water, you know, with stuff like arrow root and stuff floating by. I mean, that doesn't happen except for maybe in a hurricane or something. And that happens almost every year out there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay, any other questions? MR. HALL: Tim Hall, with Turrell & Associates. I was just going to go through some of the species' concerns on the site. You're kind of going to hear me be very repetitive. You've already heard Rick and Todd talk about the elevated hydro periods, the infestation of melaleuca, the way that it's spreading, and the degradation of the existing systems that are there on the site. Most of the endangered species that are either occurring or were recognized by the wildlife agencies as having the potential to occur on this site need upland support for -- to meet their needs, either for denning, for feeding, for resting. The uplands are a critical part of that support and the echo system necessary for really all of the species that were -- with possibly the exception of wood storks all of the species that are current on the site. So I just wanted to run through them real quick. The Florida panther is probably the most notable. While no sign of panthers have been seen on the property, none of the radio telemetry data shows that the panthers have been on the property. They do show that in 1989 there was a panther that crossed through Section 11, which is the section immediately to the east. And in 1995 there was a panther that came up to the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and 951 and then turned around and went back. So those are the two -- the closest Page 38 March 7, 2001 instances of radio collared animals on the property. There are animals that are known to use the CREW lands, Corkscrew Swamp. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission advised me that they believe that there's an uncollared animal that is using Bird Rookery Swamp, which is three miles to the east. A panther can travel 10 to 15 miles in a night in part of their forage activities, foraging activities moving throughout their home range. So with animals known to be within that 15-mile radius, we have to assume that there is the potential that the animals would come onto the site. However, because of the degraded condition, there's a limited forage base, there's limited denning opportunities. We don't believe that the property as it exists right now offers a very viable environment for their use. Black bears are very similar to the Florida panther in that they have pretty substantial home ranges; they travel across big open areas; they feed a lot on mast, tree seeds, acorns, palmetto berries. Occasionally they will take the tops out of palmettos or cabbage palms and eat the hearts of palm. And again, it's a matter of restoring -- getting rid of the melaleuca, taking the peeks off of these flooding events, allowing those upland areas to regenerate and create a more viable habitat for the black bears as well. The wood storks are -- there's a large population. And I believe, from what I've read, it's getting larger all the time. Or at least they had a good year. And in connection with that, there are the flowway and the lake system that's proposed to go through this property. As Rick said earlier, or maybe it was Karen, you're looking at the two edges of that flowway, as well as that entire -. the areas where it's only four feet deep at different times of the year, that entire 200-foot section will be available. As the water levels rise or drop, they'll have different areas of that cross-section available for feeding or foraging. Our intent is to make that a non-level surface, so that it won't be like a concrete dike. It will have different areas that will pool at different times. This helps to concentrate the food source and give the wood storks a little more opportunity to forage. That entire distance adds about six miles worth of shoreline Page 39 March 7, 2001 for them to utilize. MR. CARLSON: Can I ask you a question about that now? MR. HALL: Sure. MR. CARLSON: Because the artist rendering that we saw with that shallow flowway is not the cross-section that's going to be in this project. The cross-section that's going to be in this project is dominated by lakes, unless I'm mistaken. MR. HALL: Well, no, the cross-section in this flowway is dominated -- it has pools that will remain open water year round. However, the edge of those lakes will be a more -- a gentler slope that's normally found within a project, and the connectivity between those lakes is still that four-foot cross-section. MR. CARLSON: But how deep are those lakes? MR. HALL: That hasn't exactly been hammered out yet. Somewhere probably between 12 and 20 feet is what we're requesting. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, but then those areas won't be available for wading birds, because they're -- MR. HALL: No, the areas -- those areas won't, but the shorelines along those areas will. So that's what I was saying is that there's about six miles of shoreline, but in the four-foot sections, as the water level raises and lowers, that entire cross-section of that four-foot areas -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah, but there's very little of that in this project, in the Mirasol project. There's very little four-foot deep sections. MR. HALL: All of the -- yeah, all of -- there's less than in the remainder of the flowway, yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Thank you. MR. HALL: The fox squirrel and the red-cockaded woodpecker, I'll kind of talk about those at the same time. Both of them, like the open pine flatwood community with limited midstory, they like the open fields of view. That's not available on this property as it exists right now. The concentration of melaleuca again is just too thick. The pine trees that are left on the property are stressed, whether its due to the rapid fluctuations in water levels, the elevated levels now during the rainy season, the drought conditions that we're experiencing now. You can kind of see a measure of that stress when the fire went through that Todd had Page 40 March 7, 2001 talked about. A lot of the pine trees that were burned in that fire did not survive. And as most of you I'm sure know, that pine trees are normally suited to fire. They need fire to help maintain their community. And the fact that the fire did go through killed them is just a measure that the trees were stressed to the point where they couldn't withstand that added problem, that added concern, The benefits of the flowway as we're proposing it would be not only the stormwater and flood management, but the fact that we have taken into account the -- you know, the environmental issues, the species issues on the site. We're trying to provide a large contiguous system within the three projects that has connectivity to lands that are already held in the public trust, in the CREW system, to maintain that connectivity and to clean -- to get rid of or eradicate the exotic infestation and help the reestablishment of the native communities that were historically there on the site. And that's really about all I have to offer. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? Bill? No? Okay. MS. BISHOP: Okay, to recap, I wanted to address the -- Ed's concerns about the lakes. Just to let everyone know, we did in fact originally have the four-foot to six-foot section there and it was based on a field meeting with EPA and Fish & Wildlife, where they were not -- they didn't like that system and wanted us to put lakes in so that we had more of a cross-section availability for birds. We will in fact have those four-foot sections in between the lakes. And it's kind of hard to see on that master plan, but on the bigger plans here, you can see that we have lakes, and then in between the connection is a four-foot swale cross-section. Furthermore, we'll also have littoral areas, and the water at high points I think will go from one lake across the flowway up to the other lake, so you will still see more availability for the wood storks than you do now. I mean, I enjoy seeing them on the ditch on Immokalee Road there, because that's the only time I've seen them ever. We have tried to do what we were requested by the Fish & Wildlife people and EPA to try to address their concerns about getting more wading habitat out there. Page 41 March 7, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Well, it might make sense to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, but it makes no sense to me. You'd have more habitat there with a four-foot deep ditch all through the property than you do with those lakes. MS. BISHOP: Well, but there is a reality to -- the water level sits -- I just happen to live across the street from there. The lakes at our project sit about seven foot below existing ground. And that's pretty much all year round. And as of -- we've had that project built now since '96, and the water has never ever gotten up to where it reaches my wetland in there to recharge that wetland or to go back -- or to go out the control structure. So yeah, I understand what you're saying about the four foot, but then there is some opportunity that with the littorals and some of the shaping of the lakes, that we might be able to provide still some longer habitat periods. MR. HALL: Yeah, if I might, you have to consider that the water table in that area drops between three and five feet. So during the -- the very heart of the dry season, the standing water in those lakes is going to be the only water there. So that shoreline will still be available; whereas, the four-foot section will then be dry. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, my point is for wood storks, a lake shoreline has very little value -. MR. HALL: Right. No, I understand, because of the slope and the fact that they only feed in a certain depth, you're limited to the actual area. Even though the lake may be 200 foot wide, there's probably only a foot of usable area along the shoreline. MR. CARLSON: And the fish he's hunting can escape. MR. HALL: Right. MR. CARLSON: So you really never hardly ever see them hunting in that sort of habitat. MR. HALL: Right. And I do understand that. But we also need to consider that the project is being designed for the whole spectrum of wildlife, and we've done what we can for the wood storks. And the opinion that we were given by the Fish & Wildlife Conservation Association is that the -- or I'm sorry, Conservation Commission -- was that the open water would provide a long-term benefit for a lot of other species as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY-. Thank you. Anything else from the petitioner? Page 42 March 7, 2001 MS. BISHOP: Well, I did want to notice that we were actually saving some existing vegetation within our project, which is the cypress domes that we have highlighted, which is really the only thing worth saving. And we have made sure that we were able to do that. So I just wanted to make sure everyone noticed that, that yes, you saw the melaleuca maps, and yes, it's a mess, but there are still a couple little places where we've managed to save those domes and work around them so that they're not obliterated like everything else will be obliterated. Also, I want to point out, the financial end of building this flowway, which is something we've not really touched on, the economics of this. This flowway, the cost of digging these lakes, just through the Mirasol project alone, is about four million dollars to do this. So you're looking at having to come up with an economic way to be able to afford to be in this public/private partnership and to be able to provide the funding, as well as the construction to be able to make that work. So that works hand-in-hand with our project from that perspective, and I wanted to make sure you guys knew that. Any questions? MR. CARLSON: Will that fill be stockpiled and used in the project? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. We'll use that fill on the golf course and then we do have a substantial amount of rock on the site and we'll be using -- setting up a crushing operation to use the rock on the roads and underneath the building pads themselves. We'll be using stone wall construction so that we have the ability where we can save. The intent is to try to create -- I mean, it really -- I mean, anyone that goes through these projects now know that it's really not a good thing to have a big farm field where there's been no vegetation, how long it takes for your project to have some character to it, some age to it. So the way that we're setting up this project is that the intent is for us to try to save as much vegetation on a lot-by-lot basis or on a tract-by-tract basis by utilizing construction practices such as stem wall construction, as well as maximum lot coverages, those kinds of things, which are on or beyond anything that Collier County would require to us do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any more questions from the council or the petitioner? Yes, ma'am. Page 43 March 7, 2001 MS. SANTORO: I'm just curious, and it really doesn't have as much environmentally, but you have a second golf course up in the northern corner, but I don't know whether there's access above or whether you're just going to have a small private road or m~ MS. BISHOP: Well, Parklands, right now there is access, just to give you a kind of transportation element. Okay, never mind. There is an easement through here. It's the Livingston Road east-west easement. The 951 corridor, which of course nobody wants to discuss necessarily starts here, comes across and ends up here. It is our intent to utilize the Logan Boulevard, which exists now, to come across here and to add -- to go into our course through the existing proposed easements that are here. Now, the Parklands, I've seen their plan recently, they propose to bring Logan up and bring it up to this point. And in that case, then I will not be doing this, I'll be utilizing the internal public roadway system that they will have up there. And also I want to stress that we're still not finished working through our environmental process and our configuration. That golf course may change, that flowway may get larger, it may move. So right now this is the best plan that we have that we've submitted, but we still haven't finished our public. We're out for public notice at the core level, and so we will have other commenting agencies, and so there may be some changes to that degree. MR. CARLSON: I'm not done yet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You're not done? MS. LYNNE: I'm not either. Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: The stem wall construction. I'm trying to envision the stem wall construction. You're saying that the elevations of the floors in these homes will be set at a certain level so they don't flood. MS. BISHOP: Right. MR. CARLSON: But you will not have fill dirt around these homes, you'll have native vegetation? MS. BISHOP: We're looking to have a pad area that will have some vegetation around it. But the stem wall will keep you from having to fill these areas. We're going to have a buffer across the backs of all these Page 44 March 7, 2001 lots that are intended to be natural buffers, I want to say similar to what you see at Collier's Reserve, and that you are going to be mandated to protect and even revegetate these areas around these homes. And the stem wall construction keeps you from having to put fill, which in fact kills the native vegetation. I mean, a pine tree can't take six inches of fill on it, let alone three or four feet. So that's the intent, to start from the beginning, looking at how we can go about trying to -- the stuff that's out there, which is hard to see, as you saw those videos. But if we see a tree in there or a group of trees that we can save, then we'll be looking to remove the melaleuca and not put fill in there, to keep them in their natural states, and with enhancement. MR. CARLSON: How much of the project is detached single-family homes? MS. BISHOP: A majority of it. MR. CARLSON: So my vision of a home with a lawn with a lawn service is not what's going to happen here? MS. BISHOP: Well, actually, we will have a service to that degree. There will be a little area around the house that has that. But the majority of the lot, which is a bigger lot than what you may see in some of the other subdivisions, will have areas that they're not allowed to go in, and that they will not be allowed to maintain. They'll be maintained as a part of the preserves and the common areas from the master association and the CDD. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: The golf course and the water flow is going like this. What about the fertilizers and so forth used on the golf course, are they going to be dumped into our flowway? MS. BISHOP: All of the -- well, as the -- the way that the flowway is designed, and I may have to get Mr. Barber to discuss that more in detail -- is that the -- they're interconnected to some degree. But all of the golf courses go into a secondary drainage system that goes into the lakes before it goes into the flowway. So there will be no direct flow from our project into the flowway because the flooding event that our project takes in flooding from the flowway at that time. And we'll be using all the water quality practices that are required by all the agencies. Page 45 March 7, 2001 And I think that the great thing about the technology nowadays is that more and more golf courses are being built in areas where the concerns of pesticides and herbicides have reached a pointed to where their shelf life is a couple of days and then they're gone. MS. LYNNE: Is that true, Ed? MR. CARLSON: Not nitrogen and phosphorus. MS. BISHOP: Well, some of them, but -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I want to take -- MS. BISHOP: They -- but you limit the uses when -. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me make -- MS. BISHOP: -. you do those. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I have to take issue every time that's brought up, okay, because I've got 10 years of examining outflow from golf courses with the practices that are used today, and the requirements the District has on retaining on-site. I can tell you right now that I doubt if there's a golf course around here right now that the quality of the water discharged from the golf courses is a higher quality than the receiving body, that the time release on things -- and yes, there are some nitrates and phosphates, but two things affect that: Number one, the economics of how you apply it. You can't just go out there and spread it all over the place anymore because you can't afford to. And secondly, the manner in which the internal water areas are constructed with the littoral zones and everything, that we're getting some tremendous water qualities. And I just came back from a conference on just this item and how many of the EPA people were there and saying -- the EPA has done studies on this -- that the golf -- quality of golf course water in the last 20 years has improved like 500 percent. So I will match that the effluent that comes off our -- or the discharge that comes off our golf courses with any body of water natural in this county right now. MR. CARLSON: Even mine? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Even yours. MR. CARLSON: You're on. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE.' I'm sorry. Ed, do you agree with that? I understand that the golf courses are being better Page 46 March 7, 200t managed, and I guess what I'm asking you is what have you put in place do that? Because as far as I can tell, South Florida Water Management is saying we're going to create this big flowway. And if there's going to be a lot of nitrogen and phosphates dumped in, is that going to be a problem? And it doesn't seem like a good place to be putting in a lot of fertilizer. MS. BISHOP: Well, and keeping in mind that what's coming, this water that's coming in is from ag. pumping and from places that aren't necessarily doing water quality before they send it to me. So the water coming in that flowway I'm guessing is probably at a lot lower quality than what I'm having inside my project. And what you'll get is the mixing of some sort, which would bring the water quality back up. But most of the chemicals that I'm aware of now that they're utilizing have a -- need to start breaking down within 24 hours. MS. LYNNE: Those are pesticides. But nitrogen and phosphorous and those cause a lot of trouble in some areas. I don't know if they are going to cause trouble in areas here. I mean, for example, if there were a lot of nitrogen and phosphates coming into the wetland preserve, that could stimulate a lot of growth of cattails, right, which would outgrow everything else? MS. BISHOP: Actually, our owner's here, and I was asking if he's finished that yet. We are working with a golf course architect, as most of the projects that I've worked with lately, where the intent is to bring that maintenance level down to a minimum, try to create more natural air so you're not having to put so much of the pesticides and herbicides on there. But I don't -- MS. LYNNE: Excuse me, you keep saying pesticides and herbicides and I keep saying fertilizer. Those are different things. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Fertilizer, excuse me. I'm sorry. MS. LYNNE: No, no, it doesn't-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I meant in my response fertilizer, okay? MS. LYNNE: I heard your response. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You heard my response. And I'm telling you, I've got 15 years experience doing it. And your Page 47 March 7, 2001 premise that golf courses emit all these nitrates and phosphates is wrong. And there is no facts to prove it in what goes on today. 20 years ago you were entirely right. Today you're not. MS. LYNNE.' And a different question. Is there going to be access to that golf course off 9517 MS. BISHOP: Which golf course, the northern one? MS. LYNNE: The northern golf course. MS. BISHOP: Well, depending on which way 951 goes, it is the intent that we would have access off of either that road or another internal road. It could be that road, but if that road's not built within the, you know, time frame that we need to utilize that area, then we'll use whatever roadways are available at that time. We're not going to be a part of the 951 -- the building of 951. We have been required by Transportation Department to reserve the right-of-way, but they don't even know, they haven't done their corridor study or any of those things, so we don't know which side it's going to be on. We just have a provision that says okay when you figure it out, let us know and we'll work with you to -- on the right-of-way alignment, is essentially what we're going to do. MS. LYNNE.' So you could have a lot of your private traffic up and down on 951 then, if that's the quickest way to get to the golf course. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's remember something, we are the EAC, not the county traffic -- MS. BISHOP: Well, and keeping in mind -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- county commission on traffic, okay. MS. BISHOP: -- too that our -- one is that they're two separate projects and that the internal project, the project on the south, is not going to be connected to the one on the north. They're not the same ownership, as far as the people who live there don't automatically have the right to go up there. The other thing is, too, that we have three miles of 951 within our project in that the access that we would have at the most would be two access points; one is that you see on our southern project, and then on the northern project if in fact at the end of our permitting that northern project's configuration is still there and not moved somewhere else or not changed. But Page 48 March 7, 2001 that's two accesses in three miles, so that's still a limited access off of 951. MS. LYNNE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: One more parting comment. You had your soap box. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, you got it. MR. CARLSON: This will be about 30 seconds. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You got it, Ed. MS. BISHOP: Is this going to hurt? MR. CARLSON: No. No, it's not. But it's about the question of the nutrients and the discussion that just went on here. You know .- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' We have a different opinion. MR. CARLSON: Well, the wetland communities here, this whole natural system, evolved in very Iow nutrient conditions. You know, the Everglades and the Big Cypress, the amount of nitrogen phosphorus historically in our systems was trace, very, very Iow. And so when you add those, even small amounts of those nutrients, it has tremendous impacts on the plants communities. Now, there's a golf course program that people associate the word Audubon with the golf course program, and they encourage golf courses to do all kinds of good things like use less herbicides and nutrients. Okay? But the reason that the National Audubon Society is not a part of that is because it's very expensive to document exactly what effect that sort of golf course certification program has. If you did the science and did the water quality analysis, I'll tell you what, it would cost you a lot more than the few thousand bucks it cost you to get certified now. It would be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the science isn't there. And that's just the fact that yes, less nutrients are being applied and coming off, but nobody knows exactly how much. MS. BISHOP: Well, and I also might want to suggest that that map I gave you that shows that the watershed for this area is 300 acres, that a lot of that is farm fields. And I would guess they use fertilizers on that farm field. I could be wrong, and -- Page 49 March 7, 2001 pesticides and herbicides. And that there is no -- if you look at some of these, they don't have the sophisticated water quality systems that a planned development has or that a golf course has. And that they're being pumped over. Some of them do, okay. MR. MONTGOMERY: Let me just say something on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. Hold it. For the record? MR. MONTGOMERY: Neale Montgomery. There has been water quality monitoring going on between the golf course and the Gulf on Bonita Bay's project for over 15 years. Pelican Landing also was required by that county to do between the golf course and where the water discharges to the bay, water quality monitoring now since I want to say '92. That data was assembled and turned over to the county and that's been spanned for that whole course of time. And what they found is that there isn't any adverse impact from those golf courses on the water quality. And that data has been gathered on an ongoing basis. And Karen's already told you some of the reasons is because fertilizers and pesticides are so expensive now you can't afford to do that. And while not everybody's an Audubon course, I think the regulating agencies are starting to make you file those kind of criteria that says, you know, reduce the areas, you know, that you have the manicured stuff so you can reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides that you have on it. You know, use more natural vegetation that require those things. And those sort of things are happening. And that's a lot of reasons why you're not seeing the adverse water quality. And plus, I think in the older days they used to use Nebacure (phonetic) on the golf courses, and that's not allowed anymore. MR. CARLSON: Well, to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I've got to say something. That's not true. MR. MONTGOMERY: Not here anyway. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's not true. MR. MONTGOMERY: Yeah, it's been outlawed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, Ma'am, not yet. But Ed, you're right. And just in the fact that the research has not been done to the degree, and presently the USGA, in Page 50 March 7, 2001 combination with the Superintendents' Association, has budgeted about five million dollars in the next two years to do the studies just as you're saying, to see what effect this program really has. And I think you're going to see more factual information, to answer your question. But you're right, there's not enough factual information for me to say what I said -- MR. CARLSON: And then to do a good experiment, you know, the opportunity is to know what the baseline concentrations were before these golf courses went in, that opportunity is not there anymore, so -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, moving right along. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Any other questions the council has for staff or for the District? MR. HILL: One quick one, Mr. Chairman. When we started out, we questioned the fact that the people are not getting together. And as I remember, Parklands was also mentioned in this consortium. Are they -- they're not involved in the actual flowway, though, are they? MS. BISHOP: At this time they're not. It's anticipated that they will be a part of the flowway at the time that they get their other issues within their project resolved. But at this point they're not a part of the flowway. But you can see that it's -- MR. HILL: So the footprint will change then? MS. BISHOP: Well, the flowway, the final permitting of the flowway, maybe before the northern lakes get built, maybe it crosses the Parklands property. Maybe they have an extension of the flowway at this point. We haven't really looked at what they're doing, because they have a lot of other issues they need to resolve first. But you can see by virtue of the way this thing is prepared that they can in fact, you know, with contribution of land, as well as this channel, can be a part of that project, a part of the solution for issues here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. GAL-- One question. The general development commitments that you provided to us, is that in response to the staff comments? MS. BISHOP: Right. The one specifically that she -- there was two or three of them on there that she specifically had Page 51 March 7, 2001 requested some things. We had language there that was a little bit different than what she had, so I wanted to point that out to you directly, that we weren't saying no, we don't want to do it, but we worded it a little bit differently. MR. GAL.' And will the staff have opportunity to provide additional comments, or no? MS. BISHOP: I'm not sure. Until the BCC hits, the staff has plenty of opportunity to comment on the project, till we go to the BCC. And at that point all the comments are usually completed by then. So we still have to go to the Planning Commission, as well as the County Commission. MS. BURGESON: Yeah, I would not recommend changing any of the staff stipulations in the staff report that staff's recommended. However, if there's changes to the PUD document that Karen wants us to take a look at that we can either agree upon, as long as they're not in conflict with what this board wishes, that we can work on that between now and when that goes to the Board of County Commissioners. However, if we're asked -- if I'm asked to make some changes that are in conflict, there would not be any opportunity for that to come back to this board. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Even the utility director Jim Mudd's comments about no pre-sales, I'd be willing to say that that would probably be better brought before the Board of County Commissioners than added as a stipulation now. MS. LYNNE: Why? Why should that wait for the BCC? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because the BCC probably has the final word. It's pre-sales of the condo that -- or the development that you're not allowing. You could put it as a stipulation now if you want, but the BCC will look at that same stipulation and decide whether or not they want it. It will be brought before them. MS. LYNNE: Isn't it an environmental issue, though, that -- to hold the CO's back until completion of the wetlands area, the flowway? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, it's not the flowway, it's the expansion of the North Naples -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Utility plant. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- wastewater treatment plant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. People here from the public Page 52 March 7, 2001 that would like to address the Mirasol? Please come up. And have you been sworn? MS. BOGGS: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Please come up and identify yourself. MS. BOGGS: Susan Boggs. B-O-G-G-S. And I'm here purely as a private citizen who's been a property owner in Naples since 1966. And I do have a question. How much of this development extends beyond the urban boundary? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who would like to address that? Could somebody address that? Section 22, which is the southern end, is in the MS. BOGGS: MS. BISHOP: urban boundary. MS. BOGGS: MS. BISHOP: Yes. The section where the golf course is on the north side and the Section t5 in the center is over the urban boundary. MS, BOGGS: Well, correct me if I"m wrong, but I thought that Governor Bush had placed a moratorium on development outside the -- MS. BISHOP: We were submitted prior to that moratorium, so we are exempt from that -- from Governor Bush's moratorium on those areas. However, our project, we have been keeping up with what's been going on with that fringe and rural committees. And the stuff that they are bringing forward for approval are the same things that we're doing here already. Without having to be mandated, we are doing those kinds of things. MS. BOGGS: I'm not for one moment suggesting you're not trying very hard -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, no, no. MS. BOGGS: -- to do the right thing. I've just been here such a long time, and the very thought of -- is it 799 more units on that death trap known as the Immokalee Road? Fills me with horror, quite frankly. And it's nothing personal. MS. BISHOP: No, no. And of course, keep in mind the density is already available there, that we're not asking for more density; that the density that we're having is actually less than what we could put on those things already. Page 53 March 7, 2001 MS. BOGGS: I know. And I wish I could just put a stop to the whole thing, but of course I can't. And the other question I have is -- and it's not really a question. I think it's unfortunate that necessary flowways to protect particularly the environment and the species has to be paid for by a developer and not by the county. And again, this is no offense to you at all, but it smacks of the inmates running the asylum. MS. BISHOP: Well, I would think that that may be -- perhaps that might be a good thing, since the county taxes would have to go up and then everyone would be paying, even though I'm all -- when it's public -- MS. BOGGS: I would be prepared to pay more. I really would. MS. BISHOP: Right. But the coffers -- as we know from our transportation element, the coffers just aren't there. So if these things need to be built, the only way that the public can get these is to go into partnerships. But keep in mind that the public is ruling the permitting process here. It's the state and the feds that are determining what I have to do. I'm living within their rules. So I'm just writing the check. After they tell me we've beat you up enough, write your check. MS. BOGGS: Okay. You just gave me a wonderful opportunity to say what I thought. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am? MS. BURGESON: I just wanted to let the board know that Ron Nino had to attend another meeting up at Development Services. So if there's any more planning questions specific to this project, I will probably not be able to help you with those answers. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am? MS. AVALONE: My name is Kathleen Avalone and I'm co-founder of the Citizens for Protection of Animals of Southwest Florida. What we would like to see is the northern section, which is outside the urban boundary, and in Priority II Panther Habitat kept as the preserve. And if there must be two golf courses, which I'm not sure why there should be, but if there must be, put the second golf course in the southern part, which is outside the Page 54 March 7, 200t urban boundary, instead of planning units for that section. Is that a doable thing? MS. BISHOP: No, ma'am. I mean, we may be able to utilize the golf course. The golf course on the north end at this point, like I said, they're still going through the permitting process and that golf course may move from there, but the urban boundary line is the smaller piece on the bottom line. And to make this project viable, first to be able to pay for the flowway, we have to be able to sell the project. We have to be able to sell people to here and buy it. If I can't sell the project, then I can't afford to build the flowway. And unfortu -- MS. AVALONE: Well, I'm not saying the whole southern section being golf course and no units. I'm just saying instead of dividing it up that way, take the northern section, keep that as a preserve, since it abuts the CREW lands, and the section that you've already designated as a preserve would make it a larger one. MS. BISHOP: Well, I would have to utilize that golf course to the south, which means I would push everything to the north. And I'm not suggesting that's not a doable thing. I'm not -- as a matter of fact, that may be something that during the public notice process that we end up doing to answer comments such as yourselves or EPA or Fish & Wildlife. And we are not going to say no to that. Obviously it's the economics of getting this to work. I have to have two golf courses. Can I utilize them on this south half? Perhaps I can. We can do that analysis and see. And that will be a part of this permitting process that we go through with the Corps and the District. So that is a part of that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. MS. POPLOCK: Ronnie Poplock, Collier County Audubon Society. Wow, I guess great minds think alike, because I was going to -- I had very similar thoughts to Ms. Avalone in terms of the golf course being on the north of the -- that would be great if that could be moved down below and let that land up north alone. That's what I was thinking as well. And I'm thinking -- I'm not a golfer, so I don't know why Mirasol needs two golf courses. But I think if we're talking about words like responsibility today and conservation today, probably Page 55 March 7, 2001 the most responsible thing here to do would be to leave that golf course up off the north, if that's doable, you know, if it's feasible. So that would be -- I guess that would be what I'd like to leave you as the Audubon's suggestion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Okay, council, do we have any more questions for anyone? If we do not, what's the pleasure? Mr. Carlson, you started this. MR. CARLSON: I started this? Well, I'll tell you, we get project after project that comes to us and we look at these projects with wetlands that aren't wetlands, because there's no water. And, you know, we put up with all this wetlands loss. We voted for a lot of wetlands loss on this board, because there's absolutely no way to restore or rehydrate those wetlands. So here I'm looking at a project, I'm reviewing this project and here's wetlands with water finally. And I'm going my God, they're taking off 50 percent of the -- more than 50 percent of these wetlands in this project and finally we have viable wetlands that's totally unacceptable. And now it turns out that water is the enemy here. I mean, we can't win. You understand my frustration here. Here we finally have real wetlands with water, and water's bad here. And there's more wetlands than they should be, because there's more water than they should be. MR. GAL: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. GAL: Does this group of people here have authority to approve a project with a stipulation that the golf course in the north is moved to the south? Is that within our authority? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, sir, I don't think we do, unless there's an environmental -- a strict environmental reason that we are stipulating that. MS. BURGESON: The EAC and previous boards that functioned as this board does did have the authority and did at times require that projects be brought back to them. We saw not too infrequently projects that were continued to future meetings with redesign, and they were asked to redesign so that environmental issues could be better addressed. MR. CARLSON: Well, you know, I look back at the history of what we do, 'and the Land Development Code is very subjective. And you read things like shall be no unacceptable net loss of Page 56 March 7, 2001 viable naturally functioning wetlands and that sort of thing. And I believe it's county policy not to count exotic removal as mitigation for wetland loss, that's another thing we've got to consider, and that the development should be cjustered to have the largest contiguous wetland area and the least amount of impact. And I mean, a project came before us, the Winding Cypress. And -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I couldn't vote on it. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Well, we passed it like that. I mean, they preserved 80 percent of the wetlands on that site. And they did it by I think having better cjustering. The residential units were closer together and they had more multi-unit stacked up buildings. I don't want to get too technical for you. But, you know, if we do set a precedent here about what's an acceptable wetlands loss, then I have a religious problem with writing off 50 percent of the wetlands on the site because it's going to be single-family homes and two golf courses and it just takes that much space. I mean, I just -- I have a real problem with that, especially we got -- we finally got wetlands with water here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Did you address me, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, I just wondered if you had a comment, sir. MR. HILL: Yes. I have to agree with what Ed's saying. What appears to me to be a positive in this effect is flood control. And I think there's a reasonably good mix here between preservation of a certain amount of wetlands and the establishment of a reasonably good solution to what has been a flood control problem. I would love to see more of the wetlands preserved, and I think they could be. And I can't give you a figure, but I think more could be preserved, and the flood control process take place. Now, this goes into the economics of the situation, I agree. But if there is a partnership between private and public efforts from an economic standpoint, as well as environmental standpoint, I think maybe we can solve both of these by a better cooperative effort, both economically and environmentally. Page 57 March 7, 2001 Therefore, I am prepared to approve the concept in this particular project, but with significant changes in wetland preservation, which I think can be accomplished. In light of what the time window seems to be in all of this, I think all of the heads can get together, the four potential developments, South Florida Water Management District, and I think we need to ensure that the comments made previously at the very beginning of this discussion are taken to heart. And my final comment would be I don't want to vote on this project until I see a little more cooperative effort and some agreements and mediation take place between the interested parties. In that case, my vote would be at this time not to approve it as presented, with the caveat that we all work together a little more stringently to put together a better proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Santoro? MR. HILL: Does that make sense? No. MS. BISHOP: Well, if you're asking me, I'm going to suggest to you that, you know, I could appreciate that that memo made it sound like we're not cooperating, and that isn't the case. There is one element of the four properties that seems to be not cooperating yet, but they will get their ducks in a row and they will be a part of the big picture. The project after us, which is Terafina, which is Wildwood, they also are in this, and they are also here to say we are in this. We have spent two years working on this. There has been cooperation. Some of the details are still ongoing, but this is still at this level is zoning. This is not, you know, we're going for the environmental permitting at the state and the federal agencies, which has been ongoing and which we have -- the client has spent a tremendous amount of resources and dollars to get us to here. So the zoning end of this, which is why we're here today, is something that we believe can be voted on positively with the knowledge that the District, as well as the Corps and all the other commenting agencies that go with those two permits will bring us to the point where we have the best project that could be permitted and that everybody is on board. Because if I can't get my permits, if for some reason I don't get my permits, then all the zoning in the world does not give me Page 58 March 7, 200t the ability to build this project. It's just zoning. It's not permitting. I still have to do that. And if I cannot accomplish that, then my zoning doesn't mean a thing. So you need to keep that in your head that it doesn't mean a thing if I can't get my permits at the state and federal level, and that I will have to have that cooperation to get those permits. So I believe we're going to be there. And since the consultants for Terafina and Olde Cypress are here, I believe you'll get on the record that they are on board with the flowway, that the details of the agreement with the attorneys is taking a while but is going to happen, or I won't get my permits. I mean, that's a given. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Santoro, do you have any comments? MS. SANTORO: Well, I listened to Bill, and I didn't know if he was voting to table this, but I -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm still wondering that myself. MS. SANTORO: I know. MR. HILL: I'm on the verge. MS. SANTORO: I would be more comfortable tabling it for one month to have Southwest Florida get all the information in writing that supposedly is floating around and have them come back with a more comfortable feeling that there's mutual cooperation. And I know you've said that, but there's papers that are here and they haven't got -- I'd also -- that would give a chance I think for developers to look at the suggestions from county to the one-to-one mitigation of the 582 acres. I don't see that as specifically addressed. The addition of staff's recommendation, the addition of the additional 9.7 cypress wetlands acreage. I just -- and you have given us a sheet today. I've read it. It's pretty general. I'm not comfortable with all or the lack of all the information that I need to make an absolute decision to vote on it today. MS. BISHOP: And I'd like to just suggest that the funding for this project is going to be based on getting the zoning. And we were scheduled to see you guys last month, and without the quorum we were pushed to this month. And that another month would put us in a place where we may have problems with this entity that we are trying to create here. Page 59 March 7, 2001 And that as far as the one-to-one mitigation, I want to point out that the -- that anything above 75 percent melaleuca infestation is not considered in the Collier County policy as natural viable functioning wetlands. And so we do take a little exception to the fact that someone's going to want a one-to-one mitigation on these when the fact is that this stuff is melaleuca, and what am I mitigating for when that melaleuca's gone, there's no vege -- MS. BURGESON: I need to interject here. That doesn't -- that's not true. To say that it's greater than 75 percent melaleuca does not mean than it's not viable wetlands. It does mean that it may not be considered viable native vegetation. MS. BISHOP: And functioning. MS. BURGESON: But with the soils and the hydrology, that can still be a viable functioning wetland. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, obviously we have some disagreement with that, because we've done a lot of research. But still, notwithstanding that, that this is still just zoning, and that this is not the permits to build this project, and that we still have work to do to get that done. And that I was under the impression that the -- that this board looks at that from that perspective, knowing that I still have to do all of that permitting at that end. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Well, I fairly well expressed myself all day long. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. MR. COE: So I don't have anything further to say. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You just said it. Ms. Lynne, what do you have to comment? MS. LYNNE: I'm concerned about the amount of wetland that's being taken out of use here. According to the soils report, this is all hydric soils. This is all viable wetlands. We're looking at taking out some 500 acres of wetland, and that's a significant amount, in an area where we've already looked, as shown by your displays, where we -- it's already a bottleneck. And this project's talking about taking out another 500 acres from a bottleneck. I do like -- I do like the effort that's gone into the proposal to date. The job done by the environmental consultants I thought was good. The species lists were good. And I think there's some Page 60 March 7, 2001 real potential here. At the same time, I think there needs to be more cjustering and more preservation of wetland. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal? MR. GAL: My recommendation if any is that we vote on it up or down today, subject to stipulations, and that we don't table it or that there aren't any further discussions. If I'm going to approve today, I approve it subject to some sort of stipulation, if it's possible, that the project redesign so that northern portion is moved to the south. And if there has to be a second golf course at that, to move so that land abutting the CREW preserve remains. And I'd also, if I was going to approve it today, it would be subject to stipulation that any language -- or recommendations by the staff, that their language remains exactly the same and it's approved contingent to that. MS. BURGESON: Typically if there's any design changes, then it's continued and brought back to this board, but not for staff to just administratively review. MR. GAL.' Well, we could theoretically approve it and then it would have to come back, though, as redesigned, correct. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Yes, sir. MR. HILL: One additional positive thing that struck me. In the Environmental Impact Statement on Page 7 in the wetlands, the statement's made that according to the 1985 Southwest Florida Management District FLUCS maps, the wetland area in the site has increased almost threefold in the last 15, 20 years. No where is there a justification or reason that has caused that rather unnatural increase, other than perhaps flood situations in areas that feed into this. Is there a reason for that increase? MS. BISHOP: Well, what we believe is that we are the direct result of cumulative and secondary impacts of projects that have been mostly ag'd itself of upstream. And this is what happens because of all the things that were -- that the ag. works, as well as some developments have happened upstream, all of a sudden now we're getting all this water. And frankly it doesn't -- at the agencies they don't care how you got wet, they just know you're wet. So you're permitting from today's, not from what happened Page 6t March 7, 2001 before. Yes, we can see it. Yes, that's a part of our argument, that, you know, that we are now having to deal with the cumulative and secondary impacts of other peoples actions. And so we feel that, you know, we shouldn't be penalized to that degree, because we're being stuck with this. So now we're working to do this. We're preparing a plan and a project that takes a substantial amount of money to do, that has what we believe to be a regional benefit, and what we believe, you know, with the policies and the comp. plan, which Policy 6.2.3 says altered or disturbed wetlands are considered not viable, not naturally functioning degraded wetland ecosystem. So we are going to take something that's already been identified as something that is not some of the stuff that we would like to save, and create what is not out there now. So, you know, we're looking at the bigger picture here and not just the fact that we've got some numbers, we're going to take numbers minus numbers and here's what your numbers are. It's -- this is not just a numbers game. This is a game that started 15, 20 years ago and that has -- this project has become inundated with this water, and now we're stuck dealing with it, and here's what we're going to do to solve that problem. Because this problem's going to be here whether or project's here or not, you know. And the fact is to some degree, you almost consider this a taking, because permission's been given to pump across our property and it wasn't given by us. So we're stuck with that. And we're trying to work this out. We've created what we believe is a plan that -- and notwithstanding the comments about the northern golf course, that may in fact be something that we end up doing through this permitting process, that what we are doing is making every effort to make this project something that's viable for us that we can afford to fix this public entity which is going to be a flowway and a big preserve area. MR. HILL: Well, a lot do these wetlands that exist if in fact the statement is true has happened and you said it's largely agriculture. Potential -- possibly. MS. BISHOP: Well, I gave you those maps to look at so that you could kind of see for yourself. Those maps are really very, very revealing, if you look at the -- it's mostly ag. There are some Page 62 March 7, 2001 developments to the north here. You have Parklands, and just to the north of Section 10 is Section 3 in Lee County, and that's also a farm field, which you saw on our slides. To the east of that is Section 2 and 1. Those are also farm fields. And they were also bermed up. So the water that used to come there now goes around and comes through us. MR. HILL: Yeah, but I want to pursue that, because we've had a discussion about nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, et cetera. In the past 15 years there's been a tremendous amount of efforts put into constructing wetlands for wastewater treatment. And I'm not so sure that these wetlands may not be serving that very viable function, if indeed this is an agricultural runoff. I mean, we seem to say well, there's melaleuca there, therefore, it's not a viable wetland. Well, I'm not so sure. And maybe we need the data that we were talking about earlier, to see indeed what the water quality is in here. Because it may well be serving as a functioning filter for the agricultural runoff, whether it's pumped or whether it's naturally flowing through the property. MS. BISHOP: I would say that's probably to some degree. But the water backs up. I mean, as far as the filter goes, you're not having the grasses. You don't have the understory, you don't have the ground cover, that like, say, the sea of grass, the Everglades, if you fly over that you see the sea of grass, you don't see melaleuca. I mean, that's not a part of what they call the sea of grass. So here what we have is melaleuca, no mid-story, no understory, and it's dog hair melaleuca. And it's hard for me to believe that what is going to function as well as what we're proposing, which is to remove the melaleuca, allow for some natural plantings to come back on their own, as well as us to be planting areas. And then creating the flowways itself allows for some attenuation for the -- any of those issues or herbicides or pesticides to be dealt with in the lake system itself. And keep in mind that we say the word lake. I mean, these are glorified ditches all through Collier County. We call these things lakes, but the intent is to convey water. So ultimately the receiving source of this is the Cocohatchee, which is another ditch. So there is a series of these until it reaches the outfall. Page 63 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Mr. Hill? My comment is, you know, I understand where Mr. Carlson's coming from, because it's one time we got a lot of water. Most of the times we're looking at wetlands that have been degraded and vegetation's changed and melaleucas are in there because we don't have any water anymore. All of a sudden we got something that's water. But I also have a problem with hearing someone say these are viable productive wetlands when I look at a picture of dead melaleuca roots and nothing but -- I mean dead palmetto roots and nothing but wetlands. I mean, obviously this site's been altered. It's been altered in the opposite manner than most of the sites that we see. And something's got to be done to bring it back. We've got the opportunity here that I think is an opportunity that I haven't seen occur before. We have three or possibly four landowners who are willing to work together to create a somewhat natural flowway system, which is something I've never seen before. And it's something I know the District is looking to see. I have full confidence in Mrs. Johnson's operation that none of these individual developments are going to get a permit unless everybody works together. It's not going to happen. And I think that -- you know, I look to the District to solve those kinds of things. And as far as I can see, they do those in this case. They know there's a problem, and they know there's a problem upstream. There's no -- and from the floods before. And this will help solve that problem. And I think that we're missing an opportunity here to move forward in somewhat which is a public/private multiple landowner operation. And is it perfect? No, it's not perfect. Maybe the golf course needs to be moved. I don't know. But by saying not moving forward with this is saying, you know, we appreciate working together, we appreciate the effort that's being taken here, you still have to work on it a little bit. The staff has made some good comments, the District is going to make a heck of a lot more comments, but let's move forward. And I think we're missing an opportunity if we don't do that. Okay, what kind of action do we want to take? What's the pleasure? MR. CARLSON: One more question. Who's responsible for Page 64 March 7, 2001 long-term compliance? Who inspects for 20 years from now the melaleuca situation or-- MS. BURGESON: Collier County has annual monitoring requirements, but that is only until build-out of the project. And build-out of the project is when it is at that point where it's I think 80 percent complete. After that point it's -- it is strictly up to the homeowners' association to comply, unless it's turned in as a code enforcement violation. And even on the annual monitoring reports, we often don't get responses. For instance, we've submitted two, three and four years of annual monitoring reports that may all read about the same that say there's an exotic problem in your preserve areas that needs to be fixed. Sometimes it ends up having to go into a code enforcement case to resolve the issue, because we're so understaffed that we just don't -- it's difficult for county staff to be proactive in making sure that those projects maintain their required agreement to annual maintenance for exotics. MS. BISHOP: And might I suggest that once this is a conservation easement, that it's in perpetuity that I have to take care of this. So by the District and the corps permit alone, I have to keep this area free of exotics. There is no choice. And the intent -- what our intent is on this project, after we get it ready and are finished with the plantings and the restoration and the creation, is to turn it over to CREW to see if they would like to have that. Then that becomes theirs. And from that perspective, then they would be the entity; after we've made it all nice, then they're the entity who would keep that up. But the conservation easements don't allow you to hurry the vestation (sic) or you are in violation of your permits and your easements. MR. CARLSON: There's a big difference between the CREW project and the CREW trust. MS. BISHOP: True, I understand that. And this is the trust. MR. CARLSON: So are we looking at the CREW, the South Florida Water Management District via the CREW project would inherit the conservation area? MS. BISHOP: In they want it. I mean, obviously the homeowners associations are ulti -- in our permitting process, it's going to be the master association CDD that's going to be ultimately responsible for the permit now. If they choose to want Page 65 March 7, 2001 this from us, then we will give that to them. But obviously they'll have to maintain the same level of exotic free area as we will as under the CDD. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Oh, Allie, excuse me. MS. SANTORO: Could I expand a little bit? I'm waiting for-- it's Karen, right? I'm waiting for a response. It's not just this project, but then we have the one next door, then we might have Parklands, then we're going to have Lee County. I think you need an overall person that's monitoring the program. And I'm not belittling the county if they don't have the money. But this is regional. So who's going to take a look? Who's going to monitor? Who's going to make sure that the homeowners in one section keeps the materials functioning versus the somebody who's got a more sophisticated water operation? MS. JOHNSON: Karen Johnson, for the record. That's a good question. That's some of the questions we've asked. We've heard them talk about a CDD. That's one of the options we proposed for the attorneys up front, because that would put together under one umbrella. Karen mentions giving the property to CREW. As some of you know, CREW does not have the ability -- or the CREW trust does not have the ability to manage or restore lands. Therefore, by default it actually goes to the Water Management District through the CREW program. The caveats on that are that we require audits, phase one audits of the minimum of the property before it's given to us. It also has to either come with monies to accomplish the restoration and the long-term management or they will have to do the restoration up front and monitor it for a minimum of five years until the District agrees all the restoration is successful, and then we can take over the management. But that also comes with a price tag. The District is not -- no longer funding management of mitigation areas for private landowners. So those are similar questions of the questions we're asking of each applicant through the process, and specifically as regards to flowway. Any on-site preserves we feel can be managed on a project-by-project basis via homeowners' association. But for the flowway itself, we would like to see some type of overall entity, and that's the paperwork we're still Page 66 March 7, 2001 looking for back to us. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Johnson, am I correct that you wouldn't issue a permit until you're satisfied that there will be somebody to maintain it? MS. JOHNSON: That's correct, we will not. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions? Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Very quick, Mr. Chairman. I guess I sounded more negative than I meant to sound, but I would approve the project, considering the importance of the flood relief and flood control, if somehow we can build into the approval an attempt through all the agencies to look and see if we cannot achieve the same thing and preserve more acreage, more wetland acreage, effective wetland acreage. Maybe that is part of what you're going to do, and maybe that's part of what the permitting agencies are going to ask you to do. But if it goes through here with an approval, I certainly would want that very strongly stated in the approval that we don't like the magnitude of the wetlands which are lost, even though some of them are very badly infested with melaleuca; that somehow we create and solve the same problems and save more effective and functional wetlands in the process. MS. BISHOP: I think that's a great idea. And I'm sure Mr. Neiswander, who's owned this property for a pretty long time, wasn't too happy about not having as much uplands as he used to have either, so, you know, our process will be to, through the agencies, to take their comments and to justify our project through that, whether it be moving the golf course, less impacts, whatever it may be, mitigation, adjacent mitigation or buying upland for mitigation. All of those things are a part of that process to get your permitting. This is just zoning. So this doesn't give me the ability to do anything more than to move to the next -- to the Planning Commission and get their review and then to the board. I still cannot even pull one local permit without having the Corps and the District permit in place. MR. HILL: From an economics standpoint, is there any way to build Lee County into the economic picture, since we are alleviating Bonita Springs? MS. BISHOP: You've been talking to Clarence Tears, haven't you? I can tell. Page 67 March 7, 200t Unfortunately getting that -- you know, opening that Pandora's box would probably turn this project into a 10-year ordeal, trying to get everybody together on this. We've accepted the financial responsibility to do this. That's the whole point here. We have taken that on and have decided this is how we're going to do it, and so that's what we're trying to accomplish through this process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Barber? MR. BARBER: Rick Barber, for the record. One of the things I tried to show you in the beginning was that there has been a lot of effort on Lee County's part to alleviate some of the things that we saw in '95. A vast majority of the water that comes down through here is from Collier County. If you go out to Lake Trafford in that area, in Ed's area north of there, that is Collier County. So it's Collier County water. Not that water knows political boundaries. But this is the first opportunity for Collier County to get involved in the process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, would you entertain a motion with that particular stipulation that you just made? MR. HILL: Yes, I would. I move we give tentative -- that's not fair -- we give approval to this project, with the stipulation that in the ensuing permitting process every effort is made to have total cooperation between all agencies and developers, and an attempt be made to increase -- or decrease the impacted wetlands, the loss of wetlands. Is that too lengthy? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sounds good to me. Do I hear a second to that motion? MR. GAL: I'll second the stipulation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion. Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All opposed? MS. SANTORO: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Four opposed. The motion fails. Four negative, three positive. Do I hear a replacement vote? Folks, we've got to do Page 68 March 7, 2001 something. MR. GAL: I'll move for approval of the project, subject to staff recommendations and stipulations provided to this council earlier. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, the motion is to approve it as the staff recommendations are in the staff report; is that correct? MR. GAL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second to that motion? MR. HILL: To get it on the table, I second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. Discussion on that motion. Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion. MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. Opposed? MR. CARLSON: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Opposed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It fails, five opposed, two in favor. Is that correct? Okay, Mr. Carlson, why don't you try. MR. CARLSON: Oh, boy. MR. HILL: Ed, I know you're -- if you'll let me interrupt, I know how you feel, and I'm sympathetic, but I think we have an opportunity here to make some positive steps in Collier County from the standpoint combined effect of flood control and wetland preservation. So I would hate to see us lose this opportunity to make some substantial statements to both developers and the county. Maybe my motion was not strong enough to say that, but I hope we don't lose this opportunity to make some progress. MR. CARLSON: Well, a statement is what I'm trying to make. I -- this project has a lot of positive points. The flowway concept and working together is very positive. I just think if we're going to send a message to anyone who proposes developing in an area that is this wet and has this much jurisdictional wetland, that when they're looking at cjustering and they're looking at designing their project, that they are bending over backwards to have a minimal impact on wetlands that have water. And I just -- I can't send the message otherwise. I just can't do it. Page 69 March 7, 200t I would recommend denial, based on the fact that as subjective as these objectives are that we have before us, you know, we don't say in this county there'll be zero wetlands loss, we don't say 90 percent -- or 10 percent loss is okay or 20 percent loss, we don't have that number to work with. We have these words like acceptable or unacceptable. And if I have to vote, it's going to be when I look at this development plan, even though it looks like there's a lot of preserve there and there's been a lot of work in working with this flowway, and I respect the work Mr. Barber's done, he's worked very hard, when I look at the proposed development and I look at has the development had the least amount of impact, has the cjustering had the least amount -- been designed to have the least amount of impact, I just don't feel it. I just don't feel that way. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second to the motion? MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Coe. Favor of the motion? MS. SANTORO: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One, two. MR. CARLSON: (Indicates.) MR. COE: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Three, four. Opposed to the motion? Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Two. MR. HILL: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Three. The motion passes four to three to deny -- recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. BURGESON: No, it does not. We need a vote of five for it to be a motion. To be a formal motion, the board needs five votes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We didn't get it. MR. GAL: What was that? MS. SANTORO: No action. Page 70 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay. MR. COE: Vote for denial again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, vote for denial. Okay. Basically support of Mr. Carlson's motion. Poll the County Commission -- I mean poll the council. Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Nay. MS. LYNNE.' Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Nay. MR. COE: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye. MR. GAL: Nay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Same thing, four in favor, three. So it seems that we're at a deadlock on that. So at this point there has been three -- excuse me, two motions before the board that have failed; one to approve, it fell four to three, and one to deny, it -- MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I could rise to a point of order, I believe the two motions, 4-3, both passed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed, excuse me, you're right. MS. WHITE: There's a distinction as to whether they constitute official action on the part of the council. I think that you have two parallel motions that I believe will send the same message, which is that there was a recommendation of denial, although it's not official action on the part of the EAC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I think that's all we can do, unless the council wants to try something else. MR. HILL: Well, didn't this arise in one other project, that if we don't have official action, the BCC doesn't see it, unless they read the minutes, but if there is an official action, it gets to the BCC? Am I correct? MR. BELLOWS: No. For the record, Ray Bellows, principal planner. The staff report in the executive summary that goes to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners reflects the action by the board and will say how the vote was taken, reasons for denial and that there was not an official -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, thank you everybody very much. Page 71 March 7, 2001 MS. BURGESON: You need to take a break? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we take a little break, Barb? Folks? Thanks. (Recess.) MS. BURGESON: Just as a matter of timing, I wanted to go through the -- I wanted to go through the rest of the agenda here very quickly. We have this one other PUD, land use petition for Terafina. Since Bill Lorenz had to attend another meeting at 3:30, he had to leave. However, Mack Hatcher is here, and Bill wanted to try to have Mack make some presentation or discussions regarding the annual report, and also to get the commission's comments on the wetlands policy. If there were any issues that the commission wanted to make sure that staff had for Bill's review, we were going to stay and allow the commission to present those positions. The growth management subcommittee discussion on Bill's part, obviously we'll have to wait till next meeting, unless one of the committee members wants to bring the board up to date on that. And I'm not sure how long the members are available, if we're going to keep a quorum. I just wanted to get everybody's -- a feel for -- MR. COE: I'm good till 5:30. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm good for the duration. How's the rest of them; how are we doing? MS. SANTORO: Good for the duration. MR. GAL: I'll be here forever. MR. HILL: Would you put that in the form of a motion? MS. LYNNE: I'm here for the duration. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, it looks like we have six -- where are we, six right? Yeah, we'll have six people to be here past 5:30. Okay, let's go ahead with the agenda, Barbara, if we could. Staff people the same thing? I mean, do we want to try one of the staff items before we hear the petition, or what do you want to do? MS. BURGESON: No, we're all fine. I probably will be leaving a little bit early, so if you could just run the agenda without me, that's fine. Page 72 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Barb, it will be very difficult for me, you know that. Okay, go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: Do we have to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Yeah, swear in, everybody that's going to comment on this one. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the principal planner with the planning services. Petitioner is proposing to rezone 646 acres from agriculture to planned unit development. As was previously discussed on the last petition, this project is located in the urban residential area. It's adjacent to the Mirasol PUD that was just heard. To the north is the Parklands PUD. To the south is the Olde Cypress PUD. The petitioner proposes 850 dwelling units. The master plan also provides for 126 acres of golf course and open space and approximately seven acres for a golf course clubhouse. There's also a proposal for a village commercial area that will serve the development. The subject site is located in the urban residential district on the Future Land Use Map, which permits these types of uses. It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan in terms of density, which has a base density of four units per acre. Proposed density of this project is about 1.3 units per acre. It's consistent with the traffic circulation element and the other elements of the Growth Management Plan. I'd be happy to answer any planning questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Questions from the council? Hearing none, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. The subject property, as Ray mentioned, sits next to the PUD you just heard, Mirasol. Mirasol would be this proposed PUD in the map on this area here. And Terafina would sit immediately to the west of it. It also shares a portion of the proposed flowway, which will go through the project and down and through Olde Cypress, as you've already heard plenty about. Page 73 March 7, 2001 The site, as you can see from the aerial on the wall, is all vegetated. Noticeable features are some cypress domes. They sit in this area here. The cypress surround areas, which are mainly herbaceous, with deeper water vegetation, mostly willows, some pop ash, things of this nature. There's also a cypress dome in this area. There are also cypress areas more scattered and spread out in a slough type setting on the lower east side of the project. Most of the project is heavily invaded with melaleuca. You saw a slide presentation earlier about a fire which went through Mirasol. That fire burnt extensive areas of this PUD, mostly in the center, on over into this way here. I did have a chance to walk the property with the consultant. We took a transect. We walked up to this way through the pine flatwoods on this portion, through the edge of the cypress dome. We walked up through this way. This area is heavily invaded with melaleuca. I do have a picture of the staff report. It was -- most of the pines were dead. Pretty much all of them are dead. And it looked pretty ghostly when we walked through it because the frost had just went through and actually killed the sprouts on the melaleuca. So there were -- there was no green pretty much for this whole portion when I walked it. It was pretty depressing. We took the transect back this way. There's an extensive area of pine flatwoods in this portion. Looks pretty nice. I have a picture of it in the staff report. And then we went down to this portion here. This area has the mixed cypress I was just talking about. The petitioner is proposing to preserve all the cypress domes, as a matter of fact, all the cypress on the project, except for what will be needed to construct the flowway. The cypress dome shows up here, the one we walked through, and the other one sits on this portion of the property here. This portion preserve, as proposed, is mostly upland. The project site has quite a bit of wetlands. It's 646 acres total. It's 533 acres of wetlands. And the petitioner is proposing impact of a little more than 50 percent, 280 acres. Mitigation proposed will be construction of the flowway, and that will be in this area, this large preserve, on the eastern portion of the project. Removal of exotics and also revegetation Page 74 March 7, 2001 with native species. Apparently there have been discussions with the Water Management District. They're requiring about a million dollars worth of off-site mitigation for compensation for wetlands losses on this property. As far as protected species on site, protected species, the only one observed as far as animals was a Big Cypress fox squirrel on the western portion of the project. There are some documented cavity trees on the northwest portion of the PUD, but those have since been abandoned and the trees are dying. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Tim Hall is here also to answer any questions specific to the site. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Lenberger? MR. CARLSON: Water levels. What are the water levels on the site? MR. LENBERGER: I put the elevations in the staff report. Let me get those for you. MR. CARLSON: Does this project suffer from the same water regime as the previous project? MR. LENBERGER: No, it's the same as the other project. MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole, Montes & Associates. I'll be very brief, as I think the presentations have highlighted some of the saline points. MS. LYNNE: Can you speak a little louder? MR. DUANE: Yes. MS. LYNNE: I can't hear you. MR. DUANE: We are an 850-acre -- 850-unit project on almost one section of land. We are proposing 274 acres of both uplands and wetland preserve areas in our project. It's depicted on the wall there in the dark green areas, are our preserve area which comprise about 45 percent of the project. I would point out to you that's substantially in excess of the minimum requirements, as it should be for this project. But I note that we have almost exceeded by twofold the base requirement of 25 percent. We have a recommendation of approval here. I concur with your staff that we comply with your comprehensive plan as it exists today in the ~half a dozen policies that are set forth in your staff report. Unlike the project that was before you today, we are entirely in the urban area, and we're sandwiched in between Olde Page 75 March 7, 2001 Cypress and the Parklands. So I think there are some distinctions we can make between this project and the project that went before you today. We are also working toward regional solutions of the flowway as you now know. We are far along into the permitting process, perhaps even a little further than the project that you heard earlier on your agenda. Karen can ad-lib for me. But we hope to have our permit, if we're lucky, as soon as May. But we've also been in the permitting process for some time. Well, that was my optimistic prediction. We've been at this for some time, just like the project has that was before you. And if you look at our master plan here, we only have t40 acres of our section in actual area for residential development or residential pods; albeit, we do have a golf course that's approximately 120 acres in area or so. And I would be frank with you to tell you that were we -- unlike the project before us that had two or three sections of land, to reach out in this project and go beyond the preserve areas that we have here, we either lose the golf course or we lose our 140 acres of residential development, which supports our 850 units, which is a gross density of about 1.3 units per acre. Not a high density project. I think Ray pointed out to you that we're entitled to four. But a predominant pattern of development is going to be single-family for this particular project. Just to close, my opinion, we meet your requirements and we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. And our team here consists of Mr. Barber, whom you heard earlier, George Hermanson, senior vice president of my company, Jerry Neal, who's also a project engineer. Tim Hall, who is our environmental consultant. And I'm the consultant on the planning and land development issues, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, can we take a break for just a second, because we're going to -- (Brief recess.) MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Hermanson to make just a brief comment. MR. HERMANSON: Just to bring you up-to-date on one issue. Page 76 March 7, 2001 As you notice, there is really only one stipulation that staff is recommending, which is that we sustain our South Florida Water Management permit. And I wanted to give you just an update on where we are on that. Notwithstanding the fact that formalization of the agreement of the properties has to be made to maintain the flowway like you discussed earlier, I believe the technical issues on the project are substantially resolved. We made a re-submittal to the South Florida Management District last week. And I think we have addressed all of those satisfactorily. We may get a couple of clarification-type issues that may come up, but I don't believe there's anything substantial with respect to the plan. So I think we're doing pretty good on the Water Management permit. We can resolve the agreement issue on the flowway. We'll be all set. And, of course, our Corps permit is in with the other permits that are going to come up for public notice before. So I think -- I'm pretty optimistic about our permitting situation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question to the petitioner? Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: This particular development then is within the growth management line, is it? MR. DUANE: Yes. It's entirely within the boundary of the urban area and it's straddled in between projects that already have zoning to the north and south of us. The Old Cypress PUD has -- COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Whereas the one next-door is -- MR. DUANE: Right. The one next-door was a little further to the east and abutted the CREW lands. So I appreciate you recognizing that. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: And there's no problem with water or sewers for your particular location? MR. DUANE: Well, we're served by the same sewage treatment plant that you may have discussed earlier. And there will be improvements coming on-line. And if the capacity is not there when we're ready to pull permits, then we won't be putting houses up, only infrastructure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: How much of the project area is jurisdictional wetland? Page 77 March 7, 2001 MR. DUANE: I would refer to Mr. Hall, but a substantial portion of it is jurisdictional wetlands, as I understand it. 533 of our 646 acres. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So what does that work out to; does somebody have a calculator? But basically my question is -- COMMISSIONER COE: 95 percent, 94 percent. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: How then does the design of your residential project minimize impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands? MR. DUANE: Well, we've minimized our impacts by providing you almost 300 acres of our section and contributing to a flowway and preserving an upland area that Mr. Lenberger pointed out to you that is already here. And we've concentrated our development in the areas of lower quality wetlands. I think I'm just echoing Mr. Lenberger at this point. But have preserved the heart of it, as we should do. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: But if this was an area that is already wetland, why would protecting 300 acres for a flowway -- why -- I mean, that just seems like a given to leave the wetlands in wetlands and minimize the spatial extent of the wetlands it's impacted. I mean, you're not giving anything by giving away a couple of hundred or 300 acres for a flowway. It has to be there. MR. DUANE: But we're also giving areas outside the flowway. We're substantially exceeding your minimal requirements that we should. We comply -- and I don't mean to be flippant, Mr. Carlson. We comply with Objective 6.2, 6.2(10), 6.2(13), 6.3, 6.4 and 6.4(6) as determined by your staff. I think that also needs to be given some weight today. We comply with your requirements as we understand them. And we're allowed a certain allowed -- a certain amount of latitude in impacting these lower quality wetlands, provided that we provide the mitigation that is called for in your plan as it exists today. Would you disagree with that? I am not trying to be argumentative, but I will just leave it at that. That's on the record. Your staff will -- COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, I just think that -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can I do one thing real quick that's Page 78 March 7, 2001 important in the middle of this because Karen has got to get out of here for a second? Can you -- you don't? Don't you guys have to head back pretty soon? I just wanted to stop for a second and see if you all had any comments on this particular petition, anything you wanted to say on this petition. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you guys. I'm sorry. MR. THOMPSON: Richard Thompson, for the record. We have a lot of history on this project. I mean, we denied it two years ago. It has been, what, two, two and a half years in mitigation trying to come up with a plan that works. We are getting closer to an engineering plan for the community. However, we did get a set of plans last Friday -- which the last time we sent out comments on this we were still lacking plans for the flowway. We now have a set of plans for the flowway and we have a set of plans for this development. And the two don't match. So we're still having the failure to communicate that we discussed earlier about the flowway and the design plans for this are not utilizing the same information and the same assumptions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would the petitioner like to address that? MR. DUANE: We agree with the stipulation that we've got to get a permit and we have to resolve these issues with the district. Just off the plans here -- I'm not sure this is the best forum to -- MR. THOMPSON: It's not. MR. DUANE: So-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, okay. Thank you very much. We really appreciate you ali's input in coming to see us today. I know you guys had a tough time getting up here. Okay. Mr. Carlson, I interrupted you. Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: I forgot what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It happens when you get old. COMMISSIONER HILL: Age does it. COMMISSIONER COE: With the hair goes the brain. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: You were stating that there is going to be loss of wetlands here and that there is no obvious effort at minimizing the impact on the wetlands. I believe that's what you were talking about. Page 79 March 7, 2001 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: I guess one thing that bothers me -- and I don't know if it's important or not. Maybe other people on the Board know. I don't like to see cypress domes destroyed even if -- and put into the middle of a flowway. Cypress domes have got some really useful functions. And just to flood them out I don't think is, in general, a good idea. MR. HALL: Tim Hall, for the record. I just wanted to address both yours and, I think, some of Mr. Carlson's concerns. The jurisdictional on this property showed that there was 133 acres of uplands. The problem is that the uplands aren't all contiguous. They're not in one big lump sum. They're spread out all throughout -- throughout mostly the western portion of the project, which is where they have attempted to put the residential and the golf course development. The developer has also attempted to -- or has also managed to design the system to where those wetland areas are still hydrologically connected to the flowway in a manner such that when the -- when the elevation within the flowway preserve that was presented during the last presentation elevates, that water has the potential to flow back into the internal preserves and act as additional storage capacity for that drainage basin. The cypress dome is not being impacted. The two cypress domes that Steve had mentioned are not being -- the one is contained in the preserve area that you see in the lower corner. The dark green. That's one of the domes with a buffer around it. It is not just the dome. There is some upland and marginal wetlands surrounding that dome. So it is not right up against the development. It is contained within it. And, as I said before, it is still connected hydrologically so that the water table within the dome will elevate and lower as it does now. The other preserve up to the north contains mostly uplands. The applicant, the developer -- we could have minimized our wetland impacts by constructing some of the residential and some of the golf course within those uplands. However, those were the areas that historically had the RCWs. And based on conversations with the wildlife agencies, it was determined that an attempt would be made to keep those areas in preserve and hopefully entice the woodpeckers to come Page 80 March 7, 2001 back into the area. It's wide enough and the existing vegetation, with a little management -- basically some removal of melaleuca that's coming into it and some mid-story management, taking out some of the wax myrtle or that mid-story vegetation and opening up the views between the remaining pine trees, would help to facilitate that. I'm not arguing that there's a lot of -- there are a lot of impacts -- wetland impacts associated with this as well, but some of those impacts are a result of conversations that we've had with wildlife agencies in an attempt to preserve the uplands that are necessary to the species that would be utilizing the area. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So the trees didn't burn up in that red-cockaded woodpecker area; those pines are still fine? MR. HALL: No. The trees that had the cavities in them -- I believe all but one are dead. The one that is remaining was being used by a downy. The one cavity -- the one remaining cavity was being used last year by a downy. I apologize in that I did not do the original threatened and endangered species survey on this site. I have done some follow-up work since I became involved with it. And I have seen no other activity. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Okay. MR. HALL: The fire -- as I had explained earlier on the other one, the fire caused a lot of damage through there in that the trees that were already stressed -- I believe because of the fluctuating water levels, the fire either killed them outright or stressed them further to where the bark -- a bark beetle infestation came in and killed off the rest of them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for the petitioner?. COMMISSIONER HILL: What's the distribution of multifamily and single-family? MR. DUANE: The 850 units can be either single or multifamily. It's the option of the developer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER HILL: Could you further minimize impact on the wetlands by cjustering -- and I'll use the term high-rise, multi-story as opposed to single-family; the concentration? MR. DUANE: Well, that's theoretically possible, but the -- the preference for my client is for this to have more of a mix of Page 81 March 7, 2001 single-family uses than multifamily uses on the project. If we did what you suggest, which is, again, possible, we could probably avail ourselves of a great number of more units in this project. But we've chosen to keep it at a Iow density project at about one dwelling unit per acre. MR. HALL: Tim Hall again. Something else I might just want to draw your attention to briefly is that the preserve on the eastern boundary was designed to match up with either what's existing or what is proposed for the developments to the north and to the south. The line on the southern boundary matches up with the existing Old Cypress preserve boundary. It doesn't -- if we went further to the west, you would have the preserve up against the residential component of Old Cypress. And on the north side, it matches up with the boundary that is proposed in the Parklands DRI. Another thing that the developer did was he did give up some of his residential lots to -- to keep wooded areas so that, in essence, a corridor or at least a -- there is a pathway from all of the preserve areas to the larger preserve area without anything having to go through somebody's yard. There's either a forested or a golf course connection from all of those preserve areas to the large preserve area outside. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? Hearing none, what is the pleasure? COMMISSIONER HILL: I guess it needs to be said -- and back to my question about multi-story. The County, and in particular this Council, has the charge to protect the environmental aspects of Collier County. When you come to residential development with the requirements that are stipulated in the land development code, particularly with respect to wetlands, functioning wetlands -- I don't want to sound nasty, but developer's preference as opposed to multifamily versus single-family I don't think is a major -- is a major factor in what we can consider here. We have to weigh property rights and the environmental problems. And that scale is not easy all the time. And you can get the same density -- you can get a higher density if you want, more towards what is allowed, and still minimize -- further minimize the impact on wetlands. And that's where we're coming from. And that's a difficult Page 82 March 7, 2001 balance to -- to find. And I think we need to perhaps put more pressure on developers to consider those sources. MR. DUANE.' I understand your point. And my point is that this is a market-driven project. I don't know that there's a market for high-rise development at this location. Cjustering, we all use that term. But we have 140 acres out of our 650 acres that we're actually constructing units on. So that represents a minority of the project area. But I understand your point, but the market is for a plan somewhat what you see today. I'm not aware that there is anything that mandates us to be multifamily or single-family, but philosophically I understand your point entirely. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many units are we planning to put on here? MR. DUANE.' There would be a maximum of 850 units on 646 acres at 1.3 units per acre. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But I mean on the 140. MR. DUANE: On the 140 it would be probably closer to six or seven units per acre. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Six or seven units per acre. You're talking multifamily housing. You're talking villas on 50-foot lots or you're talking two-story condos. MR. DUANE: Or the density goes down. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. Or the density goes down. COMMISSIONER HILL: I understand that. But all I'm saying is to look for a balance between environmental impacts and density. I think that's one of the problems this Council has in resolving proposals of this nature. Okay. Any other discussion on this CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: particular petition? Okay. Public comment. Yes, sir. I forgot about that. Nobody is here. MR. NEALE: Jerry Neale. I just need to stress one thing that -- unfortunately they have left. But the wetland issue of this development has been approved and it was approved by South Florida Water Management somewhere around September~ November of last year. The only thing we're working out is the flowway design as to what kind of channel. I don't know if you were aware of the fact that South Florida is on record. They have already approved the plan, as far as Page 83 March 7, 2001 impacts and our proposed mitigation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The pleasure of the Council. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just ask that if there is any disclosures required regarding contacts -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I forgot about disclosures. Sorry about that. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did anyone have any discussion with the petitioner regarding this item? Hearing none, what is the pleasure? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I thought that when the South Florida Water District people were here they still had some concerns. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: On the flowways. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: gave the permit, but -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Yeah. And he's saying that they That's not what he said. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COE: Only on what impacts for the wetlands. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Oh, not the flowways? COMMISSIONER COE: Not the flowways. MR. HERMANSON: May I try to answer that? Hermanson again. I don't really know what Richard was saying. George There was -- we had a very extensive meeting with him about a month ago before we made our last submittal. He said the flowway cross section you have doesn't match what we are looking at here. He has put these dimensions on here. He put them on just like you said. And so I don't really know what he means by they don't match. But on the way out he said, "Let's have a meeting next week." So Rick and I are going to go up and resolve it. It's just a matter of putting the dimensions on the drawings that he wants. And maybe we're having a misunderstanding there, but that is not an issue. We'll put any dimension they want. It is not a problem. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think it's that simple. The district did tell me that they have other problems with this Page 84 March 7, 2001 project as they were leaving. MR. HERMANSON: Did they say what? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. I don't know. MR. HERMANSON-' The only -- I can bring our comment letter that we got. There were no concerns within the project. As Jerry mentioned, the wetland issues have been resolved. We have had no additional comments about the wetlands. There were a lot of clarifications as to the way the drawings appeared. We've taken care of that. We may get a call on some minor-- straggler issues is what I call them. But I don't know what the flowway issues -- other than possibly some dimensional changes and formulating the agreement for the maintenance of the system. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The district has left and I have heard two people in a row say that they don't have any problems with this project. But they did tell me that they do before they left and they hung around purposely to talk about this project, so -- MR. HERMANSON: About the flowway? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, no. About the whole project, yes, and the flowway. They said that the big problem with the flowway was that the two sets of drawings that they have don't match. But they told me they had other problems with the project. I don't know what they are. MR. HERMANSON: I don't know. Maybe it's a question of.' Is the glass half full or half empty? I don't know how to -- I don't know how to address those, Stan, because that isn't the tone of their letter at all. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the bottom line is that you don't get a permit until they agree to it. MR. HERMANSON: That's correct. We have to cross every iITi,' CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. NEALE: May I interject one thing? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY-' Excuse me. MR. NEALE: The points that we're referring to that have already been approved -- because we are going through this procedure with South Florida Water Management, they are documented by the attorney on our side, the attorney for South Florida Water Management, and the mediator attorney that was appointed by the courts. So the things we're saying, we can give Page 85 March 7, 2001 you the legal documents that say what we're saying is the facts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Very good. Okay. Let's decide what we're doing here, folks. Mr. Hill, you were so articulate before when you put that one together, do you want to try it again? COMMISSIONER HILL: No. I have -- I have a problem with what's been quoted here as -- with respect to the procedure. We now find that supposedly, according to the representative of the developer, that South Florida Water Management District has already approved all of the wetland considerations. That disappointments me if that is the case. That that has been done prior to it coming before the Environmental Advisory Council. Something is it out of order here if that indeed is the case. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, really the unfortunate fact is that South Florida doesn't pay a lot of attention to us when it comes to wetland designations. COMMISSIONER HILL: Well, maybe we have to change that or at least try to change it. I mean, if this Council is to have any viable position in Collier County, maybe we need to strengthen our horns a little bit or sharpen them or do something with it. Maybe we'll be heard at some point in time. We've been given the charge of coming up with wet -- improved wetland ordinances. Well, good heavens, why waste -- spin our wheels if nobody is going to pay any attention to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, the County Commission will be paying attention to us. And that's the process. COMMISSIONER HILL: Are you sure about that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: South Florida has their set of rules. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But that's where that wetlands is going to go. I mean, South Florida has their set of rules that they follow -- they have to follow. And what -- you know, those rules are not necessarily -- as I mentioned when we were talking about our wetland ordinance, they are not necessarily the same rules that we're putting together. They're very close, but those rules are not going to change for something we do. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Page 86 March 7, 2001 COMMISSIONER SANTORO.' One of the things that we're looking at is wetlands ordinance. And I have heard two developers come in and say -- one specifically said 75 percent melaleuca, well, then it is not jurisdictional wetlands. It is interesting that both of these projects are coming in with 50 percent of wetlands being affected and they're melaleuca infected. We all looked at that and said we don't want that greater than 75 percent making it a Type III. We want anything with a flowway being a Type I. So our mentality is saying, "Don't affect more than five percent at the most of an area." And you're all coming in affecting 50 percent. And I think this is -- and on top of that we had -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Remember, that's an ordinance that has not been passed by the County Commission. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I know. But I'm saying mentally this is what this Board is about. And the question that the South Florida Water group came and said they still have questions on it, the question that the design is not minimizing -- I looked and you don't have to have a golf course or a clubhouse. That's 133 more acres that you could give to the wetlands. So the question is.' Is the design the greatest to allow for the least impact on wetlands? I think these are real questions that are coming up. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that somewhere in our equation when we're looking at things -- it is like a conversation I had one day with a staff person who was very -- that said, '~/hy do you need 18 holes; why can't you just have 177" There are some viabilities to a project that we have to look at. And the viability is it has to be matched with the environmental concerns. To have an 18-hole golf course is something that this developer is attempting to bring in within the wetland regulations that presently exist. Whether -- again, whether it's perfect or not, I don't know. I think we have an opportunity again here with the flowway set up and a considerable number of -- a high number of wetlands preserved and enhanced because the quality we have out there. And, again, I think we're missing an opportunity. It's not perfect, I10, Does it mess up a lot of areas that are wetlands, according Page 87 March 7, 2001 to Mr. Carlson? I agree with him 100 percent. But what happens if this doesn't happen? Where does this land go? Where does that other piece of land go? There gets to be more melaleucas. There gets to be more fires. There gets to be more people dumping trash out there. This is an opportunity to start turning things around in this particular area and creating some flood relief and creating some positives, although there are some negatives. And that's -- that's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I just want to add to it. I don't want to be totally negative. I had wanted to see both of these tabled for a little bit of looking at the design of the South Florida Water Management Group. So I'm just -- I'm just not completely sold right at this point. It is not that I think it is totally bad. And I do think it's good. The flowway needs improvement. You will help prevent flooding up in Bonita Springs. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay. Where do we move on this? Somebody has got to make a motion one way or the other. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, let me ask one more thing real quick. Maybe there's no quick answer. But this went before the South Florida Management District governing board and they recommended denial? MR. HERMANSON: Yes, it did. I wasn't involved in the project at the time. I believe the flowway area was smaller. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. Well, that was going to be my next question. What has changed since that? MR. HERMANSON: Well, the flowway has gotten larger. The flowway, as a concept, didn't exist at that time. It was maybe in some people's minds, but it wasn't brought to the point where it is now. This would not have participated in the flowway. So the difference is the flowway is a little bigger. They're participating in the flowway and the off-site mitigation. Those are the three big things that have happened. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Was there no flowway just because the land to the east was just not slated for development and that was going to be the flowway? MR. HERMANSON: I think when Mirasol jumped in that's when the opportunity came and that's when Mr. Barker's firm got involved in trying to bring the solution to help not only these Page 88 March 7, 2001 projects, but help the -- the environmental issues and the flood issues~ too. That's what really jump-started it. Until that happened, there was no way this project could stand on its own and say, '~Ne can do this and help the area." And I did want to mention one thing. I hope you all aren't concerned with the fact that we are -- maybe aren't as far along with the Water Management District than we are. I realize that this is more complicated than most projects that you've seen. But in the vast majority of cases the zoning is approved first or is issued first. Very seldom do I come to this Council and say, "1 have my Water Management District permit already or my Corps permit." The majority of cases that comes a little later. We're usually in the process, like we are now, and we have a lot of questions that have to be answered yet. Because that's much more detailed than land use. This is just land use. We have to -- we have to put every dimension on the drawings just the way they want it. And that's the way it's going to be on this one, too. So I would hope that the fact that we are not inches away from the permit doesn't concern you overly so because that's the way it is on most projects. COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HILL: Based on excessive impact on wetlands and the questions which seem to exist with respect to South Florida Water Management District, I move we recommend denial. COMMISSIONER COE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Coe. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER GAL.' Aye. COMMISSIONER SANTORO.' Aye. COMMISSIONER COE: Aye. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many is that? One, two, three, four five are committing denial. All in favor of -- against the motion to denial say aye. Page 89 March 7, 200t COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion of denial passes 5-2. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Bill Hill had something on new business that he wanted to talk about. COMMISSIONER HILL: Very quick. I -- with Bob Mulhere's resignation, I would like to see the Council go on record thanking him for his support of the Council and his efforts to Collier County and wish him the best in his future employment. I move that we put that in the form of a resolution or whatever. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So moved. Do I hear a second on that? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Second. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I believe it's passed unanimously. How is that? COMMISSIONER HILL: One of us should write it, I guess, maybe. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I would like to see Mr. Hill write it. How about you, Mr. Carlson? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER HILL: I thought that that would be the Chairman's -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We'll get it done. COMMISSIONER HILL: I guess I fell into that one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We still have a quorum. (Commissioner Carlson left the Boardroom.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Stan, are you going to be running this thing from this point on with Barbara gone? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I wasn't intending on doing that, no. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: *** Okay. We have -- do we need to have the comments back on the wetlands ordinance? Does anybody have any further comments from staff since our last review of that? I think we were pretty thorough on our last review, were we not? COMMISSIONER GAL: Did we finish our last review? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: As I recall, we were down to the last page of the last section, which was more the technical part Page 90 March 7, 2001 of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought we had the technical part pretty well done; that we were down more to the procedural part. But, very honestly, I don't remember. COMMISSIONER HILL: Didn't we resolve the Class I, II, III totally; did we resolve that table totally? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Which was the -- COMMISSIONER COE: I'm still folded to this spot, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's where we left off. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I understand. I don't know at this point. COMMISSIONER COE: If there's anything wrong, it is the Chairman's fault. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It is probably my fault. You know, the buck stops here. MR. HATCHER: For the record, Mac Hatcher, Collier County Natural Resources. Bill indicated that you all had gotten down through Policy 1.1.6. (Commissioner Carlson enters the Boardroom.} COMMISSIONER HILL: What page number is that? MR. HATCHER: Page six. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't remember. No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HILL: What was that -- which -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page number six. MR. HATCHER: Page number six about halfway down the page through Policy 1.1.6 down to Policy 1.1.7. COMMISSIONER HILL: That's where I have it marked. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think I have it. Okay. Page six, 1.1.6. Let's have some input to staff on what we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER COE: Well, we've got the I to I ratio. I just have some problems with a developer being able to take, say, an acre of land that's wetlands that he is going to be able to make, say, $2 billion on and he's going to go and buy mitigated land for, say, $1,000 an acre and that's mitigation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think you're going to find -- COMMISSIONER COE: Help me on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY -- few and far between if you're going to take an acre of land in gross and make a million dollars on it. You may make a lot within a particular community that you make Page 91 March 7, 2001 a half a million dollars on or something of that sort. But that's the part of the community which includes all the buffers and all the preserved areas and all the golf courses and everything of that sort. So I don't think that is a I to 1. MR. HATCHER: Mitigation ratios are supposed to be based on function. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Function, right. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. MR. HATCHER: And mitigation should require that what gets set aside provides the same or similar function to what is developed. COMMISSIONER COE: Okay. That answers that question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'd say we've got I to 1. Any other changes? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, wetland function is the way it should be. COMMISSIONER COE: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page six, Paragraph 1.1.6(1). COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Do we really want to do this now? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY'- You know, I don't really think so. I don't think our mind-set is there right now. I know we have been putting it off, putting it off. Why can't we set up to take the -- our next meeting and set aside the very first item we do in the next meeting before we hear anything to get this thing out of the way? COMMISSIONER COE: I mean, I will come in at 8:00. I don't care. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. I will come in early. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm up early. COMMISSIONER HILL: Good idea. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What time is reveille, by the way? COMMISSIONER COE: 5:00 by me. I don't know what it is for you civilians. COMMISSIONER HILL: Yeah. Taps is at 4:00 though, not 5:00. COMMISSIONER COE: Taps is as early as we can do it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't I call Barbara on the telephone and try to set something up or we set aside a couple Page 92 March 7, 2001 of hours at our next meeting and tackle this issue? COMMISSIONER COE: I don't think it will take us very long. It should take an hour and a half. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Mac, do you know what is on the horizon for us on the next meeting, as far as permit applications? MR. HATCHER: No. I'm not -- I am not up on that. I can give you -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me just give her a call. MR. HATCHER: *** I can give you, I guess, a brief update on what Bill's got kind of tentatively lined up in the not too distant future in terms of the growth management issues. The -- we're having a Board workshop on April 17th. And he's intending that we will return to the Board of County Commissioners for formal direction on May 22nd with an updated draft of the conceptual plan for the -- for the rural fringe area. And so that's what we're shooting for on the growth management issues. He has also given to me some copies of the old annual report and kind of set up a schedule that he feels like you all need to follow for the production of the annual report. He'd like to get a -- well, the annual report, I guess, is supposed to be done each year obviously. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Exactly. MR. HATCHER: It should list the achievements for the prior year, its objectives for the coming year and highlight environmental issues that need further study. And he's shooting for a first draft on your next meeting, April the 4th, adopt a report on May 2nd, and present to the Board of County Commissioners on May 22nd. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: So he's going to present something -- an initial draft for us to review and comment on? MR. HATCHER: Well, last year, I guess, Mr. Hill did -- COMMISSIONER HILL: Last year I produced the first draft and had him bring in the items that we took care of, items on record, and then we refined it here at a Council meeting. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Yeah. Just e-mail us. COMMISSIONER HILL: Do you have copies of last year's? MR. HATCHER: Yes. Page 93 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Why don't we do this. Why don't we go ahead and any input that you may have on that, pop me an e-mail on it and I'll try to come up with a draft, as Bill did last year, and we'll go from there. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Achievements and goals. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' I think those are the kind of things we are talking about. COMMISSIONER HILL: And I would say it is a good opportunity-- and it's actually future plans and missions or Council concerns. I think it's a good time to say something about where we should be going or what we should be doing or what the concerns are. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where do we -- just a quick question. Maybe Steve can -- where do we stand in regard to the special master situation and all that and our function when the special master-- if that happens. Is that still something that's being worked on? COMMISSIONER COE: The judge is supposed to know about that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' I'm sorry. I forgot about the judge over there. MR. WHITE: I'm assuming you're referring to the hearing examiner. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Hearing examiner, I'm sorry. MR. WHITE: Quite honestly, in the discussions that I've had with Mr. Mulhere and others on staff, I think you all are pretty secure in maintaining your seats until probably the turn of the year in terms of actually functioning as a Board considering rezoning and other types of matters that are part of your lists of powers and duties. But, thereafter, I believe as to matters that pertain to zoning or excavations and things along those lines, that those will be heard by the hearing examiner and a recommendation then made to the Board in writing on those particular projects. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. MR. WHITE: I'm sure they're going to be looking to you for policy direction and to give you an opportunity to spend more time in your efforts and talents in that regard, rather than in considering individual cases. Page 94 March 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. Okay. If we would, as I said, if anybody could -- in looking at last year's annual report, they can fire me an e-mail me over the next three weeks any input they may have in putting together what we can do, what we've achieved and what our goals are for the next coming year, and then I will attempt to put that in draft form for the April meeting. *** Growth management subcommittee. Do we have any report from our growth management subcommittee? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: We've had two meetings. And basically we reviewed with Bill Lorenz what the rural fringe committee has been doing. And Ed is going to be attending the eastern committee. Basically there's two committees. One for the closed-in section called the rural fringe. And then the eastern land committee is the one farther out. So we hope to have representation on both committees. And the last meeting -- and Ed looked at it. Bill wasn't present. But I was trying to -- I was a little hesitant on our values of Type I, Type II, Type III. So Bill had given me what they called the wrap, which a lot of the developers use for the environmental assessment. I made a chart for our committee and for Bill Lorenz taking the points and trying to put it back into Type I, Type II or Type III. I know what we think is Type I and probably what we have as Type III, but I wasn't comfortable with what is in the middle. So I am hoping that the subcommittee will take a look at the chart and see if that helps at all. Staff was interested, but it has to be quantitative and clear enough for them to do it on a point basis. So that's what's been happening. COMMISSIONER GAL: That's for wetlands? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: For wetlands. COMMISSIONER GAL: So you're taking the wrap score like zero to one -- COMMISSIONER SANTORO.' Yes. COMMISSIONER GAL-' -- and coming up with a point that is Type I? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: A numerical -- well, yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, remember that analysis is a South Florida Water Management District mandated analysis. Page 95 March 7, 2001 It's not developer generated. They use the wrap to do that initial look. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: I thought it was interesting because it had several different aspects that you look at. Like one, being the best, like the canopy cover and so forth. And so I thought perhaps that would be useful if the subcommittee is to bring it to you and take a look at it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: *** All right. We have -- any comments from individual members of the Council? COMMISSIONER COE: Is there any consideration at all as to following these two projects with one of the members of the Board up to County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SANTORO: You know, I would like that because I would like to see if-- if we have any impact on them and exactly what the feelings are of the other boards. It would be interesting. COMMISSIONER COE: I mean, the reason I say this is that I have seen too many times where we give a thumbs down on a project or have numerous questions on projects, they go before the Planning Advisory Board and they get a finger wave, 7 to 0. They pass it. And they run it up to the County Commissioners who don't have the amount of time that we do and that the Planning Advisory Board does, so they just figure, "Well, the Planning Advisory Board passed it 7 to 0, so we'll let it go and the heck with the tree huggers." That's the impression I get. Now, there is enough questions on these two projects right here -- and I realize one was a total turndown and the other one was kind of a half turndown. There's enough questions on these projects that this needs to be presented to the County Commissioners in such a way so they understand that these questions are critical to this County. If there is any projects that have come before us at all that have more questions, I'm not aware of them. COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER COE-' If these questions are not resolved prior to going to the Board -- and keep in mind, our minutes for our meeting don't go before the PAB. They never get to see them. They don't go before the County Commissioners. They don't get to see them. Page 96 March 7, 2001 All they see is a staff summary. Nothing against the staff, but the staff is putting in a paragraph or two about, "Well, it's 7 up, 4 to 3. You know, they had these various concerns." Well, we've just spent three or four hours blabbing about two very critical projects to this County for a couple of reasons; because of the flowway that is hopefully going to solve some of the water problems. But on the other hand, are we solving the water problems in order to give the developers more land to develop on? Is that why we're doing this waterway? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Mr. Chairman -- excuse me. MR. WHITE: Procedurally, it would seem that there would be two options that you may have in that regard. One would be, of course, that each of you or any of you or all of you could appear individually at the Board hearing and request to speak as part of the public. Or if you wanted to do something perhaps a little bit more formally, you may choose to delegate perhaps one of your members by a voice vote to speak on behalf of the Council. I would think procedurally those are the two choices you may have. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: You mean we don't have the choice of writing a group -- I mean, if I have the right as a member of the public to come to the BCC and speak, don't I have the right as a member of the public to also write a letter to the BCC? MR. WHITE: Certainly that would be an option. And I neglected to mention that. I had assumed from the tenor of the discussion that it was something that you wanted to have an actual human presence at. A letter, of course, drafted and approved by the Council, signed by the Chair or each or all of you would be appropriate, as well. MR. LENBERGER: You also may want to coordinate the timing with the planner, the project planner, and see when it is scheduled for the BCC. I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You actually go through -- I mean, in one of your projects you will go through all three steps; you will be the point guy? MR. LENBERGER: No. The environmental staff usually does not get involved with the Planning Commission or the BCC, Page 97 March 7, 2001 unless we are specifically asked to go. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who actually makes the presentation to the Board? MR. LENBERGER: The planner does. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' That's what I mean. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' The planner does, okay. MR. LENBERGER: So you should contact the planner to see when it is actually scheduled. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: In that case that would be Mr. Nino or Mr. Bellows. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Sure. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Can I address the second issue? One is immediate and one is ongoing. And we used to -- with elected officials, we realize that they get so much mail. And if you have a lot of pages, they don't read it or you're reading for the first thing. So our environmental council used to do a summary sheet just kind of quick and dirty. They would attach the minutes to it, but here are the highlights. And that -- and most of that would get read. And the other thing is it's repetitive. They see that you're doing something. It is not just in the report. It is easy for them to look at and they may focus in on a couple of points of interest. So that might be something you would like to consider. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Is it a problem, Mr. White, do you think in just asking staff to attach the minutes of the meeting to the recommendation from staff showing the vote when it is passed onto the Planning Zoning Commission? MR. WHITE: I believe -- I'm sorry. I believe it is possible to do so. In fact, if it were ever challenged, certainly that would be part of the record for the case. The minutes of your hearings. COMMISSIONER HILL: I have a feeling that they wouldn't look at it. I think the most effective thing would be for you or an appointed member of this Council to physically be there when the item is considered by BCC or the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER COE: The other thing is these minutes are not available until, what, 20, 25 days after the meeting; is that correct? Page 98 March 7, 2001 Two weeks, okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Two weeks. COMMISSIONER HILL: I think the most effective way is for somebody to go, particularly those which are critical, like the two we have had today. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think that the presenter before the Commission should be a member that was in the majority on the voting thing. I mean, I'd like to do every one, but I don't think that I would be the best presenter up there if I was not in the majority vote on a particular item. And I think -- COMMISSIONER COE: Even a summary sheet. If you send them a stack of stuff like that and say, "This is a summary sheet of what we voted on, why we voted for or against." Just -- you know, like you say, that's real simple. And they can take a look at the stack of stuff that we had to go through and realize this is in summary and these are the problems that we have. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: As someone who has spoken before the Board as a private individual on a number of issues over the last year, I have seen the Board often ask staff or the developer what the EAC recommended and the answers have been particularly unclear. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY.' Okay. COMMISSIONER LYNNE: In some cases to the point of obfuscation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I noticed in my exciting life in watching the Naples City Council Planning Commission the other day on television that the procedure that Mr. Crowl (phonetic) uses is that when he polls for the vote he requests a vote and a reason for the vote from each of the individual members. Is that something we should be doing? COMMISSIONER HILL: Which raises another question, Mr. Chairman. I think we ought to present a unified front, too. We may each have our individual reasons for voting, but if this Council votes 5 to 4 or 6 to 2, or whatever, I think we, as members, need to be unified in presenting that as a Council decision. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I agree. COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay. I did speak to the Board when we were doing the NRPA definitions. I'm not sure my reception Page 99 March 7, 2001 was that well taken. And maybe it was because of what I said. I think we need to be there if we have a particularly important item. One of us should be appointed or more than one to physically speak at the -- before the Board. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think very easily if we have a vote on a particular item and that item is -- you know, the majority on that vote, if one of the members of the majority is appointed right at that time to take the position to the County Commission. I will talk to Barbara about that. Okay. Is there anything that we want to talk about? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Well, I was just going to remind Mr. Coe that there was a project that we approved and the Planning Commission approved that the Commission denied. COMMISSIONER COE: Which one was that? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CARLSON: SANTORO: CARLSON: SANTORO: COMMISSIONER CARLSON: what the difference was? It was Little Palm Island. I voted against it. But as a group we approved it. I know you did. And the difference --you know COMMISSIONER COE: What's that? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Public input. An emotional issue with living, breathing, cute little crawling tortoises. And that was the difference; public input. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I know that there was one project that we went 7-0 against that I know the Planning Commission passed. I don't know what the -- that was the fish farm. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER the blasting for-- COMMISSIONER background on that. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER fish farm. LYNNE: That was passed. SANTORO: That was the excavation and COE: Well, the fish farm there was some SANTORO: In the NRPA. COE: There was some background on the CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But, I mean, we went 7-0 against it. COMMISSIONER SANTORO: Oh, yeah. And they voted for it. COMMISSIONER COE: That's why I told you about them trying to contact me. I knew what was coming and they didn't get to me. Thank, God. Page 100 March 7, 2001 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may. As a point of order, it seems that if -- and I don't know what the schedule is for either of these projects' time line to the Planning Commission or the Board, but I would presume you probably will have time before your next meeting to consider whether you want to appoint someone for either or both of those projects to appear before the Board. But I just want to remind you that if you don't make that choice today, you may lose the opportunity. I just want to point out that there is a risk there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you want to do it right now? MR. WHITE: I don't believe it will actually be heard by the Board prior to your next meeting, but it may be that the Planning Commission has it on its agenda upcoming. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It should be in two weeks, I think. MR. WHITE: Typically that's the track, but I don't have any facts to back it up. I just want to point out that you run the risk of losing the opportunity perhaps if you don't make a choice today. COMMISSIONER COE: If you want to call Barb first and then call us tomorrow. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I will find a schedule and then I'll get a hold of one of you all over e-mail and see what you want to do. Okay. Any other business? Yes, sir. MR. HATCHER: I think I overlooked one other thing. We also have a Web site up on the growth management plan rural fringe and rural lands issues. And you can link to it from the Colliergov. net home page. And it's a community character link. And it includes a discussion of the rural fringe issues and allows public comment on the Web page. I wanted to make sure that you all knew about that. The other thing is the rural lands committee, the eastern property area, Wilson-Miller has completed their initial data analysis and presented their report to the rural lands. That is also available on the Web page. MR. LENBERGER: Also you mentioned the agricultural clearing in the NRPA. That's scheduled for the BCC next Tuesday. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other discussion? Page 101 March 7~ 2001 Hearing none-- COMMISSIONER HILL: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Move to adjourn. How does that sound? Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER CARLSON: You've got a second and a third. COMMISSIONER HILL: We got Mickey out by 5:30. COMMISSIONER COE: I'm out of here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you all very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:25 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY: Cherie Nottingham and Kelley Marie Blecha Page102