Loading...
EAC Minutes 09/05/2001 RSeptember 5,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, September 5, 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 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro Alfred F. Gal, Jr. NOT PRESENT: Larry Stone Chester Soling Ed Carlson ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Asst. County Attorney Stephen Lenberger, Env. Specialist, Dev. Serv. Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Maureen Kenyon Minutes & Records AGENDA September 5, 2001 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda IlL Approval of August 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions Special Treatment Permit No. ST-1045 "Henry John McVicker" Section 23 & 24, Township 51 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business VI. New Business 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 Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 31, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). 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. September 5,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we call the September 5th meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council meeting -- to order, I should say. And we have six of us here which I believe is a quorum. Would someone like to call the roll. MR. LENBERGER: Carlson called in with an excused absence. Coe. MR. COE: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Stone. (No response.) MR. LENBERGER: Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Soling. (No response.) MR. LENBERGER: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Hill. MR. HILL: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Show that we have six folks. Okay. We have the agenda for the meeting in front of us. Are there any additions, deletions, revisions to that agenda? MR. LENBERGER: None. But Stan would like to discuss an item he handed out this morning. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Chrzanowski. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I was going to do it under new business. You want me to do it now? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If you'd like to, go right ahead. MR. COE: We got to approve the minutes. Page 2 September 5,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we approve the minutes real quickly, and then we'll take a look at that. MR. HILL: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Coe. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, passed unanimously. Now Mr. Chrzanowski. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. I'm Stan Chrzanowski with development services engineering department. And the item I handed out is a rewrite of the county's excavation ordinance, which is Section 3.5 of the Land Development Code. Over the last many months, this item has been looked at by every department in the county that has any concern about these type of items, like transportation, utilities, stormwater management. They all received copies. They all made comments. It has been reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Committee Subcommittee. I think it's being looked at by the DSAC later this week. It's going to be looked at by the Collier County Planning Commission and then eventually by the Board of County Commissioners. I've given you a copy today so that you can have a month to review it prior to the next meeting. If you have any questions, you can bring them up then. I attached my card with my e-mail address to each one so that if there's a question that you have that you think I might be able to answer via e-mail, you can e-mail me, and I'll do it that way. And then I can -- legally I think I can forward it to everybody else that we're making this change for this following Page 3 September 5, 2001 reason; or I'll tell you why I don't want to make the change, and then you can bring it up at the next meeting. That might save a little time that way. By way of reminder real quickly, if you look at the map of Golden Gate Estates -- and a lot of this rewrite was prompted by what's going on in Golden Gate. Up in the northeast comer of Golden Gate up here, this is Ed Carlson's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary up in there. This is an area known as Big Corkscrew Island. It's -- the pink marks are every excavation we've permitted out there. It's all deep sand. We don't allow blasting in the Estates. You don't have to blast in deep sand. You can just dig. The water table is the groundwater table. It's the table in the canals. It's the table in the lakes. It just follows the water table up and down. It comes up in the summertime within a foot or two of the ground. It drops down 6 feet in the wintertime. That -- most of the excavations that we've permitted out there, almost all of them, are up in that area and for that reason; it's a very good sand. That is what prompted this rewrite. But the last time the ordinance was rewritten was a long time ago, and you'll see a lot of housekeeping in that rewrite. The deletions are all struck through, and the additions are all underlined, so it should be pretty clear as to what we did. And come next month you can question me about anything you think that you don't agree with that I've already told you I agree with. Any questions? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? We will agenda this for next month's meeting to review. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. We do have a question, Stan. MS. LYNNE: Does this apply only to Golden Gate Estates? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. This is every excavation in Collier Page 4 September 5,2001 County. And you'll see we have different types of excavations, and before you ask, the reason for so many types of excavations is there is some intention on making the way we collect fees or -- assess and collect fees a little more equitable than it is now, and this was done with an eye toward that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Land use petitions. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services, planning services department. The petition in front of you is for a special treatment permit to allow for a single-family home site on Keewaydin Island. The petition was brought to you last month, and the petitioner is requesting a site alteration slightly over 13 percent of the site. As I mentioned during the last meeting, the Land Development Code allows for administrative approval of single-family home sites on ST-zoned land up to 10 percent site alteration. At the last meeting, you requested to see a revegetation plan. If you remember correctly, staff requested that petitioner revegetate about -- let me look at my notes. Excuse me -- that the petitioner replant about 6,000 square feet of native vegetation on site, basically double the area exceeding the 10 percent site alteration allowed by administrative approval. You had wanted to see site -- a revegetation plan. We had sent that out to you. And I am here and the petitioner is here to answer any questions you may have regarding the proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. McVicker? Questions for staff from the council? Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: Could one of you tell me what experts were consulted in providing this plan, developing this plan? MR. McVICKER: For the record, Jack McVicker -- Henry John McVicker. Excuse me. I worked with two consultants on this. One was Dwight Oakley, who is a local architect but also has experience Page 5 September 5, 2001 in landscaping, familiar with Keewaydin Island and native plant species; Michael Scheller (phonetic), who is owner of Franciscan Gardens Landscaping here in town; also Jerry Robinson, who works on Keewaydin Island extensively and-- as a landscaper, and he worked with us as well on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other comments? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. MS. LYNNE: Which of these people has expertise on the biology of an offshore island? MR. McVICKER: I couldn't tell you what their biology expertise is, but they all have experience in planting in coastal areas. We used some reference materials as well. There are a couple books. I shared one with Stephen Lenberger that we used as a guide. I did not review their credentials extensively, but I felt assured, through some of the work that they had done previously, that they were qualified to make recommendations. MS. LYNNE: What was the book? MR. McVICKER: Excuse me. I'll bring it up to you, but it's called Landscaping for Florida Wildlife, Recreative -- or Recreating Native Ecosystems and Your Yard. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for Mr. McVicker or for staff?. I -- you know, I look at this, and we've done -- not on Keewaydin but in a lot of other areas, and I think he's done a very nice job on this, over and above. MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve. MS. SANTORO: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion by Mr. Coe, second by Ms. Santoro. Any discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: One question. One item that was discussed last month, and that's the location of the septic tank on that, quote, Marco Boulevard, unquote, right-of-way. Page 6 September 5, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, they're going to put a traffic light on top of it. MR. HILL: I know that road probably won't be developed, but is it necessary to put that tank right in that right-of-way? MR. McVICKER: No, it is not. That was chosen because that's a vacant piece of land that was reasonably close to the house. That could be moved. I can tell you that we're going to file for a vacation of that right-of-way, along with some other landowners down in the adjacent area, to try to get that formally vacated. But at the time that the plans are submitted for construction, we certainly will put that wherever the county requires us to. It does not need to be there, no. MR. HILL: It's not an environmental issue, but I'm sure the Planning Commission will be interested in something like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any further discussion? Any input from the public? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the -- excuse me? MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You got to wait until I ask for the vote -- in favor of the petition? MR. COE: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed 5-1. Thank you very much. MR. McVICKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Old business. Do we have any old business? We've already discussed new business. No other new business? MR. LENBERGER: No new business. No old business. Page 7 September 5,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who would like to give the growth management update? MS. SANTORO: I will. You received our minutes in the mail. It's up to the council as to whether they would like to make a formal motion. Basically we were addressing the habitat section in the rural fringe assessment reports. And there was some dissension, but not with our committee. There are two things that I would like to impress upon you, that we looked at the staff's proposal. And the staff's proposal had, one, a site preservation requirement so that if it needed to be restored and there was a native vegetation, this would be under this standard. And the second was a native vegetation standard where there's already existing strategic habitat, that that would be looked at as well. So the staff recommended using these two criteria with the percentages and to come up with the amount of acreage to be preserved or saved, and the greater of those would prevail. Now, there was some conflict with other committees. They did not want the site preservation requirement, and I'd like to see if the EAC would like to promote that, the two standards. The second thing were (sic) the percentages, and we concurred with staff's higher percentages. Basically what staff did was take the strategic habitat percentages within each of the areas, A, B, C-1, C-2, D, and the NRPAs and use those percentages saying that, for instance, if 90 percent has native vegetation, then preserving 90 percent overall in that area would concur. So I would -- the committee reinforced using both criteria, the site vegetation and the native vegetation standards, and also concurred with staff's higher percentages in each of those sections, A, B, C-1, C-2, D, and the NRPA. So it's up to EAC if they would like to also promote that, but that was the subcommittee's feeling. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources Page 8 September 5, 2001 director. Just to let the EAC know that as a result of hiring Jim Nicholas (phonetic), our economist, to look at the transfer of development rights program, TDRs, we are looking at coming up with a different alternative for calculating the preservation standards for different areas. Let me -- let me modify that statement a little bit. We are looking at -- at changing the areas for which we're going to be making the calculations for the preservation standards, because what we've realized as Dr. Nicholas has come on board is that we're starting to craft the sending zones for TDR programs, and sending zones are those environmentally sensitive areas that we want to send development rights out of. So we want to send them to what we call receiving areas. The receiving areas are those areas that do not have a lot of environmental sensitivity, and those receiving areas, for instance, are Areas A and D, for instance. There are portions of Area C. I think we've shared that map with you at your last meeting. So instead of coming up with -- with preservation standards for Areas A, B, C, D, what we're looking at is recalculating the numbers based upon sending areas and receiving areas. So staff has committed to doing that because we feel that that will fit well with the proposed transfer of development rights program if it is determined by the economist to be viable and marketable in Collier County. We would be applying the same methodology that Allie had mentioned to you earlier, that we would be looking at -- still we'd be looking at for the receiving areas, for instance, a site preservation standard based upon total project site. In addition, we'd be looking at a native vegetation retention standard based upon the amount of vegetation there and the proportion of vegetation on an average condition that has been identified as strategic habitat. Again, we'd be kind of shooting at that 90 percent level for retention. Page 9 September 5, 2001 So we will still be applying those same procedures on the sending and receiving areas as opposed to simply the areas that we identified earlier as A, B, C, and D. So I just want to let you know that we're still going to be making recalculations here and that it may be premature for the EAC to take a position right now until you see how those other calculations come up. The effect of those calculations, we think, is going to be that the receiving areas are going to be more -- have the same characteristics because we've identified them as being not environmentally sensitive based upon a whole host of parameters that we've looked at. So we'd like to think that when we make those calculations that we'll get areas that are going to have smaller site preservation standards and smaller habitat preservation standards because there's not a lot of habitat in those particular areas the way we now have drawn them. On the other hand, the environmentally sensitive areas, which are going to be the sending areas, will have very high preservation standards because we have now aggregated those areas to the degree that they are highly environmentally sensitive. They have a lot of habitat in those areas. So we will see a difference between the sending and receiving areas. The advantage of this is that -- is that we won't have a lot of different standards for different areas. The areas will be -- have identified as boundaries more along the lines of the environmental future as opposed to right now when we've identified Areas A, B, C, and D, and we've broken them up. Those were an initial disaggregation of the areas based upon some topographic type of features, a road here splitting the area, certain other locations. So we think that this next set of calculations is going to get closer to a better preservation process. So I just need to let you know that we're in the act -- action right now of re -- of making those recalculations. Page 10 September 5, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any questions? Yes, sir. MR. COE: Have buffer zones been addressed yet? MR. LORENZ: They were addressed in the conceptual plan just very briefly. We will be -- I have a staff working graph now that I've circulated among all the internal staff and some of our consultants for a set of buffer policies that I hope to release September 12th. The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, their next meeting is September 12th. I expect to put that in their hands at that date. They are to review those at their next meeting on -- I believe it's September 26th. That should be a Wednesday. So on the 12th when I release those policies, I can release -- I can -- I'll provide a copy to the -- all the EAC members, because these will be the -- these will be the -- the working drafts for which we will have actual amendments and -- language and amendments to the current Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for Bill? MS. SANTORO: No. It sounds like you're going to use some of the same standards, but the percentages in the areas may change. So I think what you're saying is you'd like a response at some later date on more specifics? MR. LORENZ: I think there are -- yes. The answer's yes. But there are two issues that -- in terms of developing the methodology, and you touched on them. And one is whether or not to have a dual standard, that is a standard that's based upon a set-aside on total project size, in which case, for instance, you may have a hundred- acre site that's completely farm fields, and we will have -- for instance, at 25 percent preservation on that site, you'll have to set aside 25 percent of a denuded farm field as a preserve area, establish it, take -- clear the exotics, and have it be restored into a preserve area. That's the effect of having that kind of standard. The other standard would be -- of course, is the vegetation Page 11 September 5, 2001 retention standard that -- and this is where it works, for instance, on -- if you have a hundred-acre site and it's a hundred percent vegetated, then the retention standard is going to be higher to be able to capture a lot more vegetation than would simply be able to be captured if you had the 25 percent site preservation standard. So it's a little bit of a -- it's somewhat of a -- it's a little bit of a safety net on -- and you use the higher number. But that's the effect of having the dual standard, and that's -- that is an issue. MR. COE: Why have a dual standard? If a guy's got, say, a hundred acres of farmland that was originally vegetated with whatever was out there, another guy's got a hundred acres of untouched trees, bushes, what have you, why have a different standard? Land is land. Why not have them both go to the 40 percent, for example? MR. LORENZ: I think it's the recognition of existing conditions of what's there now. If we have -- we can -- we can craft the standard -- excuse me. Our methodology is still trying to shoot for a 90 percent preservation of habitat within the whole fringe area, but that's based on averages, because we know that we have some sites that are a hundred percent denuded; some sites are a hundred percent vegetated. So when we try to apply the average condition to all the sites, we know that we're going to have some sites that are going to be higher or lower. So that's why we developed the dual standard. The site -- the preservation -- site preservation standard allows us to at least bring it up to a point where it would be restorative in the case where it's denuded, and the vegetation retention standard ensures that we don't take out too much vegetation on the site because we'd be applying that lower site preservation standard to it. So because we're developing the numbers on averages, that's why we determined that we needed to have the dual standard. MR. COE: Totally confused me. I still say 40 percent is 40 Page 12 September 5,2001 percent, for whatever you got. I mean, it's, like, you got a fort, and I got a fort. What's the difference? MR. LORENZ: Well, you're -- but we don't have that. We -- you're analogizing the fort to land. What I'm saying is that -- I'm saying that each site is different based upon the amount of vegetation that is present on the site. MR. COE: Okay. I see that. But if the goal is to preserve, on one hand, what's already there and the other one is to bring the land back to a natural standard, why not bring them both up to 40 percent? That's -- I'm just -- MR. LORENZ: I'll give you an example. When you look at the numbers, in one of the areas we had the preservation standard worked out to be 35 or 40 percent, but the vegetation standard worked out to be 60 percent. So in that particular case, if you wanted -- if you have a hundred percent vegetation, if you applied a -- let's say if you took the average in that particular situation, you'd still be losing more vegetation on that site because it's a hundred percent vegetated. MR. COE: I see what you mean. Yeah. MR. LORENZ: So, I mean, it's kind of like one of those -- it causes some complexity in the regulations when you try to account for it. You know, I mean, there's the old adage of keep it simple. But, you know-- MR. COE: But, you know, when you throw in the buffer also into that -- I know one of the things that I have real problems with with any projects that come before us is this 25 percent preservation is all stuck on the buffer. We strip down everything in the middle, and we have this little 15-yard buffer around commercial property, whatever it may be. So how that 25 percent is applied is very important and whether it's going to relate to the property that's next to it. MR. LORENZ: Let me modify my statement in terms of the Page 13 September 5,2001 buffering policies. The buffering policies that we're developing now are policies that will provide buffers or buffer language to large conservation or preserved areas, such as -- let's say if we have a project in the rural fringe that may be adjacent to the CREW project, the buffer language that we're developing now will be applied to projects that are adjacent to conservation lands. At the moment we're not developing the language that deals with individual projects that -- that are set aside. We will have some language later on that will deal with that. On the wetlands -- for instance, on the wetlands protection, we do specify -- the policy language that we've currently drafted, we've specified a 50-foot buffer which I think is consistent with what the water management district provides but -- MR. COE: It's been my experience on this board that when we talk about the 25 percent vegetation to be on the land, that the developers almost invariably take and that 25 percent is in a buffer around the -- which is -- it's -- environmentally it appears to be almost worthless. As a matter of fact you remember the one project where the guy wanted to put all the turtles in the -- in that one little buffer that was, like, 15, 20 yards, something like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tortoises. MR. COE' Yeah. Turtles, tortoises, they're all the same thing. MR. LORENZ: We are developing, just to let you know, a different set of standards that will be applied to the urban area and a different set of standards that will be applied to the rural fringe area. At the moment standards that we are proposing within the rural -- within the urban area basically are not that much different from our existing code. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE' Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Satisfied? Okay. Good. Any other questions Page 14 September 5,2001 for Bill? Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I just have a comment about the -- in terms of biological and ecological value, the value of land that currently has native vegetation on it is higher than land that is farmland. And, to me, that would be the ecological value in requiring 90 percent of that to be preserved and less of the farmland to be preserved because, at least so far, our effort toward reestablishment is uncertain. So something that's already there is more valuable, so that would be my comment on that. My other concern with this is the buffer areas. If we're transferring development rights from one area to another, there's the potential for having a big development right next to natural areas, and that's not going to be good for the natural areas. MR. LORENZ: When we begin crafting the language for the receiving areas -- that's where we'd be talking about dumping additional density, in those receiving areas -- we will be developing specific language of how that can be clustered. In utilizing those TDRs to increase their densities, we will provide language to ensure that there's going to be as -- or minimize the impact to any conservation lands that perhaps that receiving area abuts i~ecause it will abut some type of conservation land or at least a sending area, which is environmentally sensitive lands. So when we craft those regulations for how you can utilize your TDRs to increase your density in a clustered development, we will address that concern. At the moment the pol -- the buffer language that we're working on now is base -- is more -- is more general than that and simply provides guidelines and criteria for what you can and can't do when you have a development adjacent to a conservation land, but it's not -- it doesn't have any additional requirements that would be developed through the TDR program. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Any other questions Page 15 September 5, 2001 for Mr. Lorenz? Hearing none -- MR. LORENZ: I would like to add one thing, and it just came up in terms of the -- I believe the -- I'm not sure whether it got in your packet or not. The letter from the rural fringe chairman, David Ellis, did everybody see that, a copy of that? Perhaps the chair may want to read it or at least pass it through. That -- this dealt with the EAC's recommendation to look at a modification of the sending and receiving areas. And the rural fringe committee heard the -- at least I provided the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee the EAC's position paper. They -- they felt that the EAC needs to provide them some more information, some more -- some more study of that issue and would like to have a representative attend one of their meetings or at least try to develop some type of working relationship with -- with the EAC. You may want to consider that. I know in the past that EAC members have attended the Rural Fringe Committee's meetings. We are now getting down to a point where we're starting to discuss language. And the intent, also, in the total scheme of the schedule is to have the EAC provide a review-- a final review and recommendations in January, mid- to late January 2002. So everything is starting to move quickly. One thing I would like to just ask the EAC is to start to be -- thinking flexible of holding some special workshops because as we develop the schedule and bring it to the RUral Fringe Advisory Committee, we're on their schedule, and we may not have the opportunity to run the language by you initially. So there's going to have to be some -- maybe some joint review or some mechanism to be established to help provide that committee some degree of input. But I'm not sure whether you can always take -- have a formal position through the EAC simply because of the way that the schedule and materials go out to the Rural Fringe Advisory Page 16 September 5, 2001 Committee. But I will be providing the EAC with all of the drafts from now on of all the material that we're developing language on, so you will get the same package that the advisory committee is getting, so that hopefully will help expedite your review and deliberations when we come to you for your final positions in January. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I know Ms. Santoro has talked to Mr. Ellis. What's the feeling? Should we have one of our own attend a rural fringe meeting? MS. SANTORO: I would be glad to, but they have it at four to six, and that's my problem. After work I'd be happy to, but I can't go at four. MR. COE: What time could you go, Allie? MS. SANTORO: I get out at 5:00, and then with traffic, probably 5:15. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would anyone else like to attend, since Ms. Santoro -- timewise she can't do it? MR. COE: I can't do it either. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How about Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: I put it down for the 12th at four o'clock. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. LORENZ: I just put on the screen here, just to show you that their -- they've calendared their meetings. September will be the 12th and 26th. October will be the 3rd, 10th, and 24th. November will be the 7th, 14th, and 28th, and December will be the 5th and the 12th. And it's a recognition that they may have to add some additional meeting times in there, so at this point it's very, very ambitious. It's a lot of work and a lot of material that's going to be developed between now and the end of the year. The current schedule is to bring it to the Board of County Commissioners, the transmittal hearing in February, so that's why we Page 17 September 5, 2001 wanted to have the EAC meeting sometime in January. And it's going to have to be some special meetings that you will have to hold. We're just not going to be able to get all of this through in a couple of hours. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we add -- could you ask Barbara to add a regular agenda item under growth management subcommittee that Bill's going to attend just for a short report every month of what happens at the rural fringe meetings, just a report on rural fringe attendance or whatever we want to call it. MR. HILL: Is there any particular item that the council would like me to take to the fringe committee on the 12th? MS. LYNNE' Yeah. I think the buffer issue is a big one. MR. HILL: They have in their possession our TDR, which included a semi-recommendation that a mild buffer be used for NRPAs based on drawdown -- water table drawdown, so they know we're talking about severe buffer restrictions. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That report was provided to them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else for Mr. Lorenz? Hearing none, any comments from the councilmembers? MR. HILL: Since that's -- let me ask the council to review that report that's in your hand on the TDR that came before us last month. Make sure you review that and let me know before the 12th if there's anything in particular you want to emphasize or disagree with on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We'll do. Very good. Mr. White is with us, has been with us for a month or so. And I just wondered -- ! haven't heard anything on the status lately, Mr. White, but where's the old hearing examiner question and procedure and everything presently? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. To the Page 18 September 5,2001 best of my understanding, we're at the place where some of the LDC amendments that are being brought forth in this cycle are precursors, if you will, or requirements that the Board of County Commissioners had asked the staff to bring to them for their review and consideration, in particular the public participation plan. And pending the satisfactory approval of that by the board, I believe that that's one of the central elements that need to be met before the board will go ahead and take a look at bringing into effect the hearing examiner provisions. As far as the more administrative and managerial aspects of that, I'd have to defer to staff, in particular, perhaps, Administrator Dunnuck on that. And I on t have any ~nformat~on other than they're d! · working actively on this particular special cycle of the LDC amendment and have discussed to some degree, I'm not sure what, what they're going to do with respect to the actual process for solicitation and review of potential applicants. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you know if staff plans to bring the -- you know, the actual -- what was the term you used, Mr. White -- how it's going to work and how the input's going to be and so forth before the EAC just for their input before it goes to the commission, regarding the hearing examiner? MR. LENBERGER: I believe that was -- next agenda will have the proposed LDC amendments that are in the current cycle. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Set it next time? All right. Any other comments? You know, this is one meeting I was hoping was going to run long because I have a dentist's appointment, and unfortunately I'm going to make it. Come on up, sir. Yes, sir. MR. CORNELL: I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm representing Collier County Audubon Society. And I just wanted to compliment and Page 19 September 5, 2001 applaud you as an advisory board for taking a look at and reviewing the rural assessment that's going on. I know that there are two advisory committees already seated that are looking at this by name in their mission, but as a -- as a growth management policy advisory council yourselves, this is very, very appropriate. And I want to applaud you very much for doing that and encourage you to continue that. I know that we, in the public, and the committees themselves can really use the information that you provide them and your opinions, so please continue what you're doing with that. I also wanted to support what staff is saying about focusing on sending areas. Really, our sending areas in the rural parts of the county are big systems that -- they're -- that's what we want to protect. So in whatever way we can leverage the values that exist throughout the rural area and focus the protections on these large systems, like Camp Key (phonetic) Strand and OK Slough, our NRPAs, and the other public lands and projects like CREW, we need to do whatever we can for those. That means the largest buffers for those. If that means that we're sacrificing some of the receiving areas, unfortunately that is going to have to be part of the trade-off in the long run, but we need to find ways to do that. And I also want to encourage you -- you mentioned that you want -- you're going to send Mr. Hill to the rural fringe. I want to encourage you also to take a look at what the Rural Lands Committee is doing because they, likewise, are accelerating their meeting schedule. In October staff and the consultants have laid out a schedule to start examining land use scenarios, which is essentially proposals. They will be proposals to look at, what are we going to do with all the data that has been gathered around -- in the Immokalee area study? How are we going to put that on the map? What are we going to protect? How is agriculture going to fit into this picture? And I Page 20 September 5, 2001 would encourage you to keep close tabs and provide input on these land use scenarios that come forward from that committee. Keep up the good work. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Brad made a good point, and I apologize for not briefing you on the Rural Lands Committee as well, but they will be meeting at 5:30 on September 17th -- that's a Monday -- out at -- I believe they're still going to be out at OrangeTree, the middle school there out at OrangeTree. MR. CORNELL: Corkscrew Middle School. MR. LORENZ: Corkscrew Middle School. That's their-- that's their advisory committee meeting. Then on September 26th, the Board of County Commissioners will be hearing a presentation on the rural -- on the progress of the Rural Lands Committee. So they will have -- they will be conducting a workshop from 9 -- probably from 9 to 12 on September 26th in their-- here in their chambers. And they will then hear an update of where that -- that effort is going and the information that has been gathered to date there. So you may want to just put it on your schedule there to either attend or watch it on -- it'll be on Channel 54, I'm sure. MR. HILL: Would you put both committees' schedule and appropriate board schedule and send it to us? MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. HILL: I didn't get all those dates down. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any further public comment? Hearing none, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:47 a.m. Page 21 September 5,2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 22