Loading...
EAC Minutes 10/03/2001 ROctober 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 3,2001 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 8:58 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. Larry Stone Chester Soling Ed Carlson ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney William D. Lorenz, Jr., Natural Resources Stan Chrzanowski, P.E., Senior Engineer Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY CO' ...... AGENDA October 3, 2001 9:00 A.M. Maureen Kenyon Minutes & Records (Back half of) Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of September 5, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions V. Old Business A. Wetlands Policy discussion VI. New Business A. LDC amendments VII. Growth Management Update A. Proposed Amendments I. Buffers II. Minimum clearing allowance III. Density blending VIII. Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee B. Rural Fringe Advisory Committee Liaison 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 September 28, 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. October 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Before we start I would like to say if we can just have one short moment of silence for all the folks in the planes and Pentagon and WTC that we lost. If we can have a moment of silence. Thanks. I was going to ask Colonel to lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but only one problem. MR. COE: No flag. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's call roll. MRS. BURGESON: William Hill is on an excused absence. He will hopefully be in in the next half hour. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The agenda for today, do we have any additions? Deletions? Revisions? MS. BURGESON: I would like to suggest we do the Land Development Code amendment first, since Bill Lorenz is on his way over and the rest of the agenda is basically Bill's. Page 2 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: LDC first. Okay. Mr. Chrzanowski is going to address us today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I will stand back a little further so I can see everybody. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A month ago at the meeting I handed out the revised Section 3.5 of the Land Development Code dealing with excavations. I don't know how detailed you want to get into today's conversation about excavations. The excavation ordinance -- I started engineering in this town in '83, and it was in place then, the excavation ordinance, as pretty near as it existed until this last rewrite with a few minor changes. They track excavations in this town -- and it was never in the ordinance -- the -- you had to go to the -- it was never in Section 3.5 of the ordinance, which deals with excavations. You had to go to the definition's portion of the ordinance to find out that an excavation is when you dig earth over any area greater than 3 feet deep or if you dig greater than a foot deep over 10, 000 square foot. So a lot of retention areas where -- where they had the real shallow ones that were engineered yet -- were over a quarter of an acre for, say, a shopping center qualify as an excavation, and we got a little confusion about that. So we have incorporated that definition into the ordinance right now straight out of the -- into the Section 3.5 straight out of the back of the definition's portion. The one reason -- the big reason the ordinance was rewritten this time so extensively is that maybe 5 or 6 years ago the Board of County Commissioners received a request from A1 McCall, who was a Vietnam veteran, handicap -- gentleman died a couple of years afterwards -- talked in front of the Board of Commissioners, why he couldn't build a fish pond in his backyard. And he lived on maybe 5 areas in the Estates and wanted to dig him a fish pond. Page 3 October 3,2001 Well, the one thing we have about our excavations is that we try to make them at least 12 feet deep. And the reason for that is -- there was quite a scare in the late '80s about hydrilla, a weed that was taking over everywhere. They figured if the bottom of the lake was so deep that acquatic vegetation couldn't see light that the lake would stay relatively acquatic vegetation free except for the perimeter of the lake -- because they had few lakes in town where the acquatic vegetation was pretty near taking over the lake -- they wanted a certain depth of lake as a minimum. McCall could dig a 2-acre pond 12 foot deep would have created a 2-acre pile 12 feet high. Simple math. To do that on a 5-acre parcel, you have got 3 acres left. He had to haul fill off site. Well, the way the excavation ordinance handled fill hauled off of site -- if you were a Better Roads digging the Willow Run quarry 30 million acre -- 30 million cubic yards over 30 years, you were a commercial excavation. If you were A1 McCall digging a 2-acre pond and hauling -- on 100, 000 acre -- 100, 000 cubic yards of fill off site, you were the same class of commercial excavation. So they weren't allowed in the Estates. The board listened to McCall's logic as to why he could not dig a fish pond in his own backyard, and somebody from the attorney's office made the opinion that this was no different than having -- selling a car off of your front yard with a for sale sign, that you had a pile of dirt and you were selling it -- it was so short. It was basically a one-hot deal. It was not an ongoing commercial excavation. So for a long time we issued these excavations in Golden Gate Estates for smaller one- to two-acre excavations. The largest one we ever issued was to Jolley Trucking. He was fortunate enough to have put in -- to have accumulated four parcels, which gave him, like, 20 acres. And we have -- we had a formula if you were 5 acres, you could do, like -- it's in there right now. I think by the time you were Page 4 October 3,2001 20 acres, you were up to 50 percent. So he has a fairly large lake on these 20 acres of land. He's the only one in there that has that. All the rest of them are fairly small. They are done on 5 or 10 acres. Some are done on two and a half. You can dig a decent one-acre lake on two and half acres of land. Most of the excavations in the Estates were done in the northeast comer of the Estates. Up near Corkscrew Swamp it is a high piece of land called Big Corkscrew Island, which the northeast Estates -- if you look at the old U.S.G.S. Geological Survey maps, they call the whole Big Corkscrew Island. You can see that the land there is a lot higher than the other land, and it's -- there is a different type of vegetation. A lot was cleared for farms. And it was cleared because it's a very deep sand. It drains well, and it's also excellent for excavating. So all pretty -- since we don't allow blasting in the Estates, pretty near all the requests that we got for excavation have been in that northeast comer. A lot of you have been there through this history before. I have given this speech a few times. A few of you are new and have not heard it before. The board -- Commissioner Coletta when he came on was getting some questions and pressure from some of the Estates' residents about these excavations. There were a lot of questions. We -- over the years we have gotten questions, like, we had one person called up -- the guy that digging -- excavation on a lot next to her, and it was in the dry season, and the wet season came, and the water level started rising, and she swore to me that the lake was going to keep coming up and flooding Golden Gate Estates because it had been coming up for a month. We get a lot of concern from neighbors up there that we don't see as a problem from an engineering point of view. There were concerns about evaporation, transpiration. The lake might be draining the water table faster than the trees were. There were Page 5 October 3,2001 concerns that the lake could contaminate the ground water table. Well, there is a canal -- there is an extensive canal system going through Golden Gate Estates. Parts of it dry out and people drive swamp buggies in the bottom of it. And we have oil fields right next to us, and that has never contaminated the ground water table. If you change your oil in your backyard and spill it on the ground, you are going to contaminate the ground water table in a way that you can't see because if you do it in a lake, you have a skim of oil on the top. So there are some concerns, and I will admit some are legitimate. But I see scenarios where the exact same thing could happen, and we will never know about it. So Commissioner Coletta had us take another look at the excavation ordinance. And we rewrote the ordinance based on a couple of public hearings that we had. We had a meeting with the Golden Gate Civic Association, a nighttime meeting. They looked at the rewrite of the ordinance, and they expressed all their fears about a couple of areas that looked like one giant war zone with craters in it. We showed them that most of the areas that we have had the lakes shaped such that there is a buildable house on the lake itself. These house lots with the lakes on them, generally the price goes up. There was some concern that the lots would be so high priced that people could not afford them. And I guess when that happens, the price goes down. It's a remarkable economy, whatever. But the rewrite of the ordinance was for that purpose. It's a long time since it had been looked at. When you look at the ordinance, you will see a lot of housekeeping in there; capitalization of letters, punctuation. We got comments from the Collier County Planning Commission -- one member only -- Joyceanne Rautio who sent me, like, seven or eight items. Most of them were -- all of them were housekeeping items. The last one I agreed with. The other-- I think Page 6 October 3,2001 when we meet with them tonight -- I responded to her -- but, you know, if she wants us to do it, we will. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea. It's that kind of items. They are all housekeeping. I handed you all copies -- except I think we mailed two out to members at the last meeting -- and asked you to read them and see if you had any additions, deletions, or any real serious questions about what we are doing. The one thing you might notice is that we have added a lot of classes of excavation. And that-- when we were in this, people kept sending us copies of the excavation ordinances -- Sarasota and Martin County and a couple of other places -- we noticed -- like I talked about Willow Run -- that they treated the large excavation pretty near the same as the small ones. It ended up to where when we charged a road impact fee for hauling of the fill off site on commercial, that the large excavation -- when you did it by a per-cubic-yard cost of this impact fee -- it was fractions of a penny per cubic yards. The small guys -- the guys digging in the Estates was picking up. The brunt of it, you know, 15 to 20 cents a cubic yard. The reason that is is the formula we're giving -- it's a computer formula done by a consultant quite a while ago -- we were given it by transportation -- when you plug in a long term, 30 years, the formula knocks down the cost because it's based on long-term excavation. To our way of thinking, you know, the road isn't looking up at the truck and feeling the weight, doesn't care that it's a long-term excavation or not. We kept saying it ought to be based on a per truck per cubic yard. And we have talked to transportation. And we are -- we have a formula for a new fee that we are going to try and incorporate into this for the next go-around that is going to be based on the amount of damage done by hauling so much fill across our roads per year. We Page 7 October 3, 2001 think that would be a lot more equitable. The other changes we are going to make more equitable; that's the reason you get the classes on excavation. That's why we have done what we have done. And if anybody has any questions or doesn't like something that we have done, we will be glad to entertain and forward whatever is it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Stan? MR. CARLSON: I don't want to be a troublemaker or sound flippant, but by this definition the removal of any materials of depth greater than three feet below existing rate of a four foot posthole or -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. If you read in there, there is something about foundations and pipes farther in the excavation. You can dig for a pipe in the ground as long as you back fill it or put a foundation or something like that in the ground; that's not flippant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else? MS. SANTORO: As I had comments as I went through it, you mentioned 12 foot. You know, the framework. Now this is increased to 20 feet. Why? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: That was one of my questions. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we have found that a lot of areas in the county that water table drops a lot deeper than 6 feet. We have been doing research. The 12 foot -- I went to a seminar up in Orlando a couple of weeks ago and learned a little about lakes. You know, our lakes are based -- our lake depth is based on the veg formula. The veg formula is from a study done in 1973 by a black fellow Eisman for the old water management advisory board. Lakes in the North -- anybody that knows water chemistry knows that water is densest at 4 degrees centigrade. So when a lake in the North freezes, it passes through a cycle where the top of the lake turns Page 8 October 3,2001 denser just before it freezes and the lake overturns, and then it starts getting less dense which is why ice floats. It does not float because of its own oxygen or the oxygen that comes out of it. Up North you get this cycle where a lake overturn. In the South you don't get a similar lake overturn circle, and they decided that a lake should be -- it should have a geometry such that it does overturn. And they figure the mechanism is the wind, so the fetch is to find this distance across the surface of the lake, and the wind can pick up friction below the water against one shore of the lake, and the lake starts to spin and overturn. They found on a really deep lake that only the surface -- 10, 20 feet overturns. And the formula, which is, like, 5 feet plus .015 times the average fetch -- if you have got a lake that is a mile by a mile, it can be, like, 80 feet. You have to be a thousand by thousand to be 20 feet deep. But a 20-foot deep lake still overturns because, I guess, there is still some -- if you have a lake that is just smaller, it has that depth -- it starts not to overturn. But up to 20 feet it overturns. And the water table does drop to where 20-feet deep lake is really only 12 feet deep in a lot of the areas of the county. So you're probably thinking, well, there's not too many counties -- a lot of them I found out -- no limit on lake excavation by ordinance. A lot of them are limited to 12, and a lot are limited to 20. We think 20 is a proper number for our conditions down here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. SANTORO: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And further questions? He did want to comment. Go ahead. MS. SANTORO: Under this section you had an excerpt-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can you give me a number? MS. SANTORO: 3.5.5.1.2. And I was concerned about the exception. The exception to being a commercial excavation is up to Page 9 October 3, 2001 4, 000 cubic yards. Now, I asked my husband-- he has more experience with it. He said depending on the size of the truck, we are talking, like, a large truck, there are still 100 to 200 trip loads to take it out? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: When you say an exception, is it still going to come under guidelines in some other section, or are you -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. We don't thing that is a whole lot. MS. SANTORO: It seems like a lot to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A truck holds 16 cubic yards -- so 16 hundred cubic yards would be 100 trucks, 4, 000 thousand would be 2,500 trucks or something like that-- 250 trucks, something like that. We don't consider that a lot. The 4, 000 number there was -- one of the things that was taught awhile back was there was something in the ordinance that said if you. Were a legitimate agricultural use, you could haul any amount of fill off site as the result of digging whatever you needed to dig to do your agricultural use. And it was based on the fact that a farmer would have to dig a retention pond and dig all of these ditches on his property, and a lot of them had fill left over. And there was no amount of limit to the fill. Somebody came in from agricultural -- which is a permitted agricultural use -- and according to the ordinance we had to let them haul all of it off site because it was all excess fill. We closed that loophole, but we left the 4, 000 cubic yards in for the farms that might need to haul off fill without -- you know, they still have to tell us. We will charge them an impact fee, but they don't have to go through the -- the mechanism of going through a public hearing and getting board permission to do it. It's administrative. They still pay. MS. SANTORO: We did have one here that we felt pretty -- as Page 10 October 3, 2001 an agricultural fishing pond farm when we thought it was really for excavation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There have been a few. But Jim Weeks has ponds full of catfish out there, and he was the first one. And it was assumed that he was doing it for the fill, but he has actually got agriculture going. Jessie Hardy, he's trying to start an agriculture operation. I assume. I hope. It would be nice. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Just to give you an idea of scale 4, 000 yards, to build a golf course it takes 500, 000 yards. 400, 000 (sic) yards is really not a lot of material. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: One of the Golden Gate Estate homes that is built out there on a pile with a drain field, septic tank field to build up for that is 2 or 3 cubic yards. Some of the bigger ones are 4, 000 cubic yards. It's not a lot of fill. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Anything more for Stan? A tie would be politically correct if it were orange and blue. Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Manhattan College of Jasper's, we don't have a -- our mascot was a brother -- one of-- they don't make a tie with him on it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: have anyone here that is going to use petitions, so we don't have to MR. WHITE: No. No. It's CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Thanks. Okay. Do we address -- we don't have any land- swear anybody in, do we, Pat? not -- as far as judicial, no. Where are we going, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Under old business, wetlands policy -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. Minutes from September 5. Mr. Coe, have you read those minutes line by line? MR. COE: I will check. I will-- COURT REPORTER: Wait a minute. Everyone is going to Page 11 October 3,2001 have to speak up. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe makes a motion to approve the minutes. Do I hear a second? MS. SANTORO: I second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second is by Ms. Santoro. Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No opposed. Passes unanimously. Okay. Land Use Petitions, we have none. Old business, here we go. MS. BURGESON: Wetlands policy discussion was just placed on this agenda in case there was anyone from the public that wanted to make a statement regarding that or if anyone from the EAC wanted to add additional comments to our previous discussion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody from the public who would like to speak to that today? MR. CORNELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Make sure you identify yourself for the recorder. MR. CORNELL: Yes. Brad Cornell representing Collier County Audubon Society. We have had a number of comments on the formulation of county-wide wetlands policy. One of the main points that I think I would like to bring to your attention is that there is a problem with wetland assessment when we look at wetland policies, and that has to do with subjectivity of assessment methods that are currently employed. The -- the wetlands rapid assessment procedure that the district uses is an improvement in that it looks at more facets of wetlands function; however, it is still a very quick assessment procedure, and there has been a lot of discussion and criticism for methods of assessment that are subjective where it's a best professional judgment in the field that determines the jurisdictional lines, wetland functions, the quality of the wetland, these sorts of things. Page 12 October 3,2001 So I would suggest that we in Collier County -- this isn't my suggestion -- this is just in reading some of the materials that have come in front of me -- that we look at a method that the Corps was -- and is establishing where there is a wetland type set up for a variety of types. You know, not just one sort of generic wetland that everything is sort of judged against. But we -- we can judge against the perfect wetland in all of these different varieties and that the assessment be more comprehensive. We take more time with it and that we sort of-- we try to eliminate some of the subjectivity. If I can point to the National Academy of Sciences report that is out that makes these recommendations, and it points towards something like -- it's called a -- I believe, it's a hydro-geomorphis modeling system for wetland assessments. The Corps is currently testing this. Is it very comprehensive. It provides for very definite objective values for wetland function, and I think it's something that we need to look at. We also need to advocate for such objectivity with the state legislature and in the formulation of the uniform assessments methodology, which is coming from the state and is being referenced in our wetland policy that you are going to be looking at. Those policies currently from the state's uniform wetland assessment still point to best professional judgment in the field, and that is something that is going to be a problem. Best professional judgment is always going to be suspect. So we would like to advocate the best objective method possible on hydo-geomorphic modeling would be an accepted policy. If you would like to see a copy of this, I'm sure that staff can get you a copy or summary recommendations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. MS. SANTORO: Can I address? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Page 13 October 3,2001 MS. SANTORO: I wanted to address that, and I'm sure it can be fine-tuned. But I think the overall we went through the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3, and so the method we came up with is that if, say, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 is looking at a combination of using hydrology, the plants, the overcover, undercover, and wildlife. That may not be a perfect point system, but I think the concept is still valid. And it could be fine-tuned. And worst-case scenario was the limit on the amendment was 5 percent that can be touched and maximum was 50 percent of jurisdictional wetland. In our eyes it was, at least, better than some of the things that we had seen previously. I'm not sure if I'm -- if it can be addressed, but I think what you are saying is fine-tuning the categories from what I have been hearing, which is possible. MR. CORNELL: Right. MS. SANTORO: I think the overall concept is correct, and it may have to be fine-tuned. MR. CORNELL: Right. The problem with the current -- I mean, looking at all the different functions is great and that going to the WRAP assessment is the right direction. The problem with it is it's still very subjective. And we are going to run into problems. You know, in theory it will work on paper, but in practice in the field it's too short a time and relies too much on potential inexperience of the person going out to do the assessment, and we loose a lot of actual valuable wetlands because of that misassessment. So, right, in theory we are moving in the right direction. Let's go -- since we have the opportunity to do comprehensive county-wide policy, let's go all the way and do it the right way for at least Collier County and advocate that the state do the same. The Corps is kind of hunting down that trail. I think we should too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Page 14 October 3,2001 Director. Let me just provide a staff comment on that. The functional assessment, the state unified assessment of methodology that the State has been working with the Corps is going -- as I understand it, is going to come up for adoption in January. And it has some pre-emption language within that document in terms of pre-empting county governments from using some additional methodology. So from staff's perspective we are going to rely very heavily upon what the state eventually adopts. They are going through their workshop, their public hearing requirements, and at the moment we are certainly not -- the staff will not be proposing to provide an additional methodology or doing any work refining that methodology -- that certainly would not be our recommendation. I think it's just important for me to make that comment on the record. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. I'm confused. We are putting together a wetlands policy now; right? It's based on the three classifications and the things that we have discussed here before. Now does that pertain to what Mr. Cornell is suggesting? MR. LORENZ: We are using the functional assessment as being a methodology -- as an input to our definition of classifications. So we are using that methodology to help us assess what the classifications are. That's -- if you will, that's going to be off-the- shelf methodology from the standpoint when the state adopts it. That's what I'm saying, I'm not recommending we modify that methodology, but we will try and utilize it within our local policies. MS. LYNNE: I still don't understand, but that's okay. I guess the comment that I want to make -- if I understand you correctly, Mr. Cornell, what you are proposing or what that Corps procedures are proposing is that there be a typed specimen, so to speak, of each wetland kind. In other words, a cypress hole, a mangrove swamp, a wet prairie, and that specific criteria be developed for each of those Page 15 October 3, 2001 different types of wetlands. Is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Right. It's sort of a comparative method. As I understand it, not being a wetlands scientist, but the principle being that you have these perfect models for each of the types, and you go out into the field and you look at what you see and compare it to the model that has various criteria that is associated with that and say, "Well, how does it rate? 100 percent as functional as what the model is, or is it 50 percent functional, or how -- what shape is this wetland that I'm looking at in the field? "And it tries to cut down on some of the subjective assessments that goes on currently. And was intended to be objectified in the uniform assessment or unified assessments methodology from the state, but as it stands, it is still relying on best professional judgment. MS. LYNNE: But what you are suggesting what would solve the problem that was brought up before about size because originally we were talking a wetlands needed to be so large to be valuable, and it was pointed out you could have a small perfect wetland. It seems like what he is suggesting solves that problem because you have got a type -- ideal type of wetland, and each wetland is compared to that and not just some arbitrary characteristic that covers all wetlands. I guess I think it's a good idea. I don't know if that's too late to get that into the plan or not. But I think that is a really good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LORENZ: As I said, theoretically and ideally, yes, that would be a good enhancement. The problem is is that we have -- at this particular point we have to adopt policies -- and I will give you the schedule -- that you are going to come to you with the policies in January. You won't know what the state adopts. When the state adopts a uniform assessment, as I understand the pre-emption language, we're not going to have too much opportunity to modify that, and certainly, we don't have the ability between now and at that Page 16 October 3,2001 particular point to do the scientific analyses to propose what those benchmark conditions would be. Because really what we are talking about, we are talking about developing some benchmarks for each individual type of wetland to make your comparisons to. In an ideal world, absolutely. But at the moment we are going to be working with a tool that the state is giving us, and we will incorporate that tool into our policies as best as we can. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What Mr. Cornell is saying, though, the Corps is developing this particular procedure, and the Corps will be utilizing this procedure in their review. MR. CORNELL: They are testing it currently is my understanding, and I would suggest that the State -- that folks in local government advocate to the state that, you know, this would be a better way to protect their wetlands by including such an assessments method in the uniform methodology that is being devised now by the State. In other words, reference the Corps testing of this model and also the National Academy of Science's recommendation, we really ought to adhere to these recommendations. It's a recognition that the assessments methodology that has been used up to now has not been effective. We have seen wetland losses every year since President Bush Senior had declared there would be no more losses in wetlands. And we have seen them to unfortunate degrees. And so the National Academy of Science tried to figure out how can we, you know, improve that situation. Part of our problem is the way we assess them, the way we value or define our wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MS. LYNNE: Is what you are saying that the state is eventually going to make a decision on how wetlands must be assessed, and we Page 17 October 3,2001 are going to have to comply with that regardless of what you guys have worked on so far; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Utilizing the functional assessment is what we will have to be using. That is for purposes of developing mitigation ratios. That's what the development community will be using. So to that degree, yes, we will be using the state's methodology. Is it an input into our own policies. But, I guess, what I'm saying is that from a -- from -- that's the tool that the state has adopted to give to the local governments. For us to go out and try to redesign that tool or add those enhancements, like Brad is talking about, I'm telling you right now from staffs perspective and schedule and degree of competence that we would have to be able to apply to it, we will just not be able to do that. You will utilize the functional assessment as what the state adopts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: You are saying, Bill, if we adopt something more stringent and more rudiment -- better regulation that we have to downgrade to the state standing? We can't have something better than the state? MR. LORENZ: It depends on the specific topic that you are talking about. There are state statutes or rules that expressly state that local governments are preempted from doing anything different, and where that is explicitly stated then there is a pre-emption. Everyplace else we would have the local discretion to adopt something different or more stringent. That would be a policy decision from the county commission. CHAIRMAN STANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. BAUER: Mike Bauer, Audubon of Florida and Collier County citizen. I would respectfully request that this board take a look at that uniform statute, that Florida statute for a couple of reasons. One is the Estero Bay Management, a group of many Page 18 October 3, 2001 professional biologists, have already examined it and is making comments on it, because they found it to be less helpful than the existing rapid assessments procedure. They see a lot of problems with it, and, in fact, Professor Winterham of Florida Gulf Coast University has experimented with, giving it to his wetland class and having them to apply the standards. And he found the variation coming back from within his class was so great to make the thing useless. I would make a recommendation that you take a look at it. If it is a tool that is going to be used by the county, that you know what is in there and have some idea of how effective you think it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I-- MS. LYNNE: I'm sorry. I have a question. Which tool is it that isn't working? MR. BAUER: The one that the -- Agency of Bay Management and the professor at Florida Gulf Coast University think is going to be ineffective is the new statute that is being proposed, the Uniform Wetlands Assessment Act. I think that is the language. I'm not positive what it is. It's proposed to replace the rapid assessment procedures. And, in fact, it's more vague. MS. LYNNE: Is this something that is being proposed at the state level or county? MR. BAUER: At the state level. MS. LYNNE: At the state level. MR. BAUER: And they are taking input right now on the language at the state level. MS. LYNNE: So you are asking that this board review that information and possibly make recommendations? MS. LYNNE: I would respectfully request that you do that. Take a look at it so you know what kind of tool is being proposed to look at wetlands and used to identify wetlands. Page 19 October 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, can we do that? Just get something back to us so we can all review what the state is proposing? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We will do that and take a look at it and agenda it for next week. Okay. We have a fairly tight time frame here, so let's move forward. Barbara, what are we doing next? MS. BURGESON: The next is growth management updates. And Bill is going to the presentation. MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the growth management update, as I noted last time, is that we are at the moment working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee with very specific policy language that is going to be the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. So that's the effort that we are pretty much within. Let me give you a schedule because I think this is key to understand what our-- plans are. We will be having a Board of County Commission transmittal hearing. At the moment the date we are looking at is February 20th. The Collier County Planning Commission, we need to have their review by February 13th. And we have tentatively scheduled an EAC review by no later than January 23rd. I believe that's a fourth Wednesday. Now, Staff, we are recommending that you have at least one meeting outside of your regularly scheduled meeting to cover this material. It's going to be quite extensive. I will be giving you further updates as we move along as we see these dates are coming about. We are trying to keep it to this schedule as much as we can. It puts, basically, the EAC in the mode that in the month of January by the 23rd you are going to have to make recommendations to the county commission on the amendments that the -- will amend the Growth Management Plan dealing with rural fringe area. Page 20 October 3,2001 These amendments will deal with county-wide policies, such as wetlands -- wetlands policies will be part of that -- and other wildlife policies, so we are working on the detailed language of that information. You have already gone through the wildlife policies initially and given me some input. I'm coming up with the second draft of the wildlife policies that you and the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee will see again. Kind of getting back to transition with the wetlands, quite frankly, the wetlands policies have been very, very difficult. I have been working with my staff, with some representatives from the development industry. We have been working with Audubon and some other enviromental organizations to try and come up with some language so at least we can develop some consensus for the framework and the concept. We are not there yet at all. Nancy Lenanne, who is our attorney, with Carlton Fields out of Tallahassee for growth management has set up a meeting with some DCA officials to get a little bit more clarification for the wetlands policies -- or how we can maybe craft some wetlands policies. At the moment what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to create a framework by which I can at least identify what I'm going to call a status quo type of alternative. But however we structure it, then I can at least have the analytical analyses to say, "This -- our -- our best estimate is that if we apply these policies, this will translate into what we have seen in Collier County in the past several years" -- at least that's a benchmark. And then from that framework -- certainly from a staff perspective, we certainly don't recommend anything less than that. But how much further you go up or would be more restrictive in what we have to tweak in the policies to do that, then I will try and identify that as well. So that's the framework that I'm trying to work on to at least be able to provide the analytical work for the language. Page 21 October 3,2001 But this is -- this is an issue, quite frankly, that is going to be coming to you later rather than sooner. So just -- the kind of discussion we had earlier, that is all good potter for the discussion. There is possibilities that we can develop policies that we can ultimately we can fine-tune it, you know. It's not pre-empted -- that it will be a year or two out. So, I mean, there is still some ideas that I think what we just discussed can be incorporated, but I guess what I'm also saying is that our time frame to get the transmittal hearing to the board in February, eventually their adoption is in May, for us to have these amendments to meet the final requirements of June of 2002 -- this is for just the rural fringe. This is not the rural land. They are on a schedule that has been pushed back a little bit farther. So that's kind of where we are in terms of the overall picture for the growth management update. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we take a break for just one second? I would like to recognize Commissioner Mac'Kie. I believe I read something in the paper this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys have very important work to do. Don't drop it. Do it. are the ones. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Especially policy decisions; those Good luck in your endeavors. Enjoy West Palm Beach. I lived there for 52 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I won't enjoy the drive back and forth. MR. LORENZ: The next item on the agenda is proposed amendments. We have provided you -- I believe you have the buffers minimum clearing allowance and density blending packages. Those were mailed out to you. These are -- these are working drafts. In fact, the rural -- since the mailout, the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has already met on all three of these items. The minimum clearing allowance, for instance, let me cover that because I can Page 22 October 3, 2001 cover -- I can cover what the fringe committee has proposed and what we just resent out -- and it was last night. It was yesterday evening that Bob Mulhere was working on it. Patrick White has all the drafts, and he was just asking me which one is the most current draft. So it's a-- it is really a work in progress. To the degree we are trying to get the information to the EAC, again, to facility your ultimate review and recommendations in January is why we are trying to do this. So if you can bear with us in terms of drafts. But what I will try and do is try to cover the issues as best as I can from what the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has requested and what staff will be making changes, so I can kind of incorporate that in my discussion on these items with you today. But for the clearing allowance, I think the biggest thing is that we are taking the word "minimum" off because that was somewhat confusing to everybody, and that clearing allowance package is also going up to -- I believe the final figure was about 25,000 square feet that we would allow any property owner -- that's their -- that's their clearing allowance. Any property owner can clear up to 25,000 square feet, if you will, with no questions asked. That recognizes the kind of information that you have in your packet of the house pad and some other uses. Now, the language that has also been developed along those lines, that does not include a fire buffer. So somebody can come back to us and say, "We want 25,000 square feet for clearing, plus the fire buffer," and we are going to allow them to specify the fire buffer in terms of some -- there is some criteria that Bob Mulhere is looking at from the fire district because we don't want to be able to specify a minimum standard. Remember, too, when we start talking about a fire buffer, it's not -- the fire buffer will not be the complete clearing. That will be the ability to clear out the underbrush and the fuel load for the property. Page 23 October 3, 2001 There is going to be some language that is going to tie to that. The other thing is that from a-- we will give them a certain allowance for the driveway, but we are also going to allow some additional clearing for the driveway as well. That language, as I said, was just held last night. I don't have it to be able to hand out to you. Those were the issues the Fringe Advisory Committee brought up at their past review, and those were the -- generally the changes that staff is sending back to the advisory committee for their final review. In your next mail-out packet, I will mail out the most recent draft that we come up with. MR. COE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. COE: You keep talking about the minimum clearing application. It seems to me this is the maximum allowable to clear. MR. LORENZ: That's -- it's not. For instance, roughly the 22, 000 square feet -- this is where the staff is revising the language -- if that approximates -- if you have for a 5-acre lot -- that for a 5-acre lot that is 5 percent of clearing. MR. COE: Is this maximum or minimum? MR. LORENZ: Excuse me. It's 50 percent. The -- if you have -- if you are under-- if you are in a restricted preservation standard, such as a NRPA area where we are proposing a 90 percent preservation or 10 percent clearing area, we are going to allow you for very small acres to allow -- for a greater than 10 percent clearing. When you get to about that 5-acre lot, that's where you kind of-- the numbers become equal, and then for larger properties a 10 percent -- 10 percent allowance on a 40-acre property tract allows you to clear 4 acres. So it's not a maximum. It's an idea of minimum. It was confusing with people. So we are just going to call it -- you are guaranteed clearing up to -- of 25,000 acres. Then to the degree that preservation of-- 25,000 square feet -- then to the degree Page 24 October 3,2001 that a preservation standards allows you to clear even more, then you will be allowed to clear up to the preservation standards. MR. COE: Why not just use a percentage? That covers it clear and simple. MR. LORENZ: Well, because when you come down to a percent of a very small lot, you are talking about a small -- a very small clearing standard for a homeowner. It's somewhat -- think of it being a sliding scale giving a greater amount of percentage for smaller lots for more reasonable use of property. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Is there any thought -- any thought on it regarding -- we are saying a house pad is 5,000 square feet; that means a house is, say, 3,500 square feet liveable area, that pretty much limits someone who wants to build a big house out there. Or does that slide also? MR. LORENZ: Well, like I said, when we developed this one particular table, we are talking about a 5,000-square-foot house. I mean, we are not saying that you can only build a 5,000-square-foot house -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay. MR. LORENZ: I think the new number is now 25, 000 square feet guaranteed. You can clear-- take away all the trees in 25,000 square feet. It's your choice what you want to put on your lot to do that. But what we use these numbers for, like, the excavation ordinance, just to give you an idea, okay, if you had a 5,000-square- foot house and if you have this much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: In theory if you have got 25,000 square feet, you could put -- make that all in house and have no fire buffer? MR. LARENZ: Well, for the fire buffer-- for the new Page 25 October 3, 2001 language, we are going to allow you to still have some degree of clearing for a fire buffer over and above the 25,000 square feet. We certainly don't want to get into a position where we are forcing homeowners to put themselves in some jeopardy with regard to fire protection. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Mr. Soling. MR. SOLING: I brought this up at the subcommittee meeting. If I was a developer and bought very, very, very, very large parcels and found that the county's restriction were horrendous, I could subdivide the parcels into individual lots and then homeowners would be exempt from the restriction that I would have because I'm an individual homeowner. MR. LORENZ: The -- at the moment -- everything moving forward, if you have a very large property and you are going to subdivide it, that's going to come under -- that's going to start to come under our requirements for your subdivision. MR. SOLING: What supposed-- MR. LORENZ: So you are going to have to preserve -- you are going to set aside some preserve area within that subdivision -- within your subdividing the preservation of vegetation that we are specifying. MR. SOLING: So I'm looking at a lot of land here in North Belle Meade or Golden Gate -- MR. LORENZ: Right. MR. SOLING: -- all of these people don't have to comply with our standards for a very big piece. MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- that's true in terms of the subdivision. But when they come in for -- when they come in to get a permit to clear their lot, they are going to be subject to these new amendments, these new requirements. MS. SANTORO: Isn't this around a half a acre? Page 26 October 3,2001 MR. CARLSON: Yes. MS. SANTORO: Right around -- MR. CARLSON: Most of them are going to be 5 acres. MR. WHITE: Even in the Estates there are plenty of 2 3/4 parcels of that size that are kind of half, half, half splits. So, I think what Bill is trying to communicate here is that the sense of minimum applies only in terms of thinking about it from the end of the telescope that gets you to the idea you can clear up to this amount no matter how small, and in that sense we are talking minimum, not that you're not entitled to clear more. Either in under a fire buffer or under some preservation standard that would get you up to the full 10 percent on a very large parcel that getting greater than 10 acres. MR. LORENZ: There again is where you break even -- I will call it breakeven point. It's hard without seeing a graph. When you get to a 5-acre lot, that's a 10 percent -- that's 10 percent. Well, we are not proposing anything more restrictive than 10 percent in terms of over preservation standards. So when you start -- even when you start -- when you start getting higher than a 5-acre lot, even with the most restricted preservation standards, you are going to be able to clear greater than 25,000 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: About 10 percent. Right. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: What I was trying to find out is, if somebody is given this 25,000 square feet, can they build something and not have a fire buffer? I don't want people to be able to use up their fire buffer and then end up being a fire hazard; that's what I'm asking. MR. LORENZ: Do you have Bob's -- MR. WHITE: I don't have it. Maybe we will just try coming at it from a different angle. As far as the 25,000 square feet goes, that is exclusive of fire buffers for single-family residences. MS. LYNNE: Except-- MR. WHITE: I know that has changed. Page 27 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Right. MS. LYNNE: Okay. All right. MR. WHITE: Got it? MS. LYNNE: All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Everybody-- anybody have any more questions regarding the minimum clearing standards? Okay. Bill, what is the next one? MR. LORENZ: The next one would be -- let me go to density blending. Bob Mulhere is right here to be able to handle density blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bob. MR. MULHERE: I was waiting to be called in. MR. LORENZ: Just -- Bob was not a speaker. The EAC just has the older draft for density blending. I know that you just sent out revisions from the fringe committee. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. LORENZ: At least that's what they have in their hands. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA and consultant for the county on the rural fringe assessment. The committee is reviewing this, and I guess you probably know already, and all the other draft amendments that we are preparing including at this point buffering standards, the enfringment in subdistricts for the rural fringe, golf course provisions. With respect to the density blending, it is intended to only apply to the two subdistricts that directly abut the urban area. There are four subdistricts proposed, and only two actually abut the urban area. The revision between the drafts that you have and the final draft of the committee endorsed are relatively minor. Let me see if I can off the top of my head remember those. I think one was to restrict just to the two subdistricts that abut the urban area, but originally it was proposed, I think, to apply to all four subdistricts, but there is no Page 28 October 3,2001 reason to when the other two don't abut the urban area. The second was that the density blending -- there is a little more clarification in the language where it ties the provision of density blending to retaining or preserving the highest quality of natural vegetation and habitat on site. So, remember, the concept here is that if you have a project that exceeds 80 acres in size and has -- includes land that is both in the urban area or the urban fringe and rural area, you can locate your approved density no higher than you would otherwise be permitted. But you can take your urban density and relocate that to the rural portion of your project, or you can take your rural fringe portion -- or you can take your rural fringe portion and relocate that to the urban area of the project. But the premise -- what you have to demonstrate in doing so, you are retaining the highest quality of vegetation on the site and habitat. One example that has been shown to illustrate this is -- I think it's the Naples Grande project down in Area D, which is the one along Tamiami Trail -- there was a project there that is exempt from the assessments because it was submitted prior to the final order deadline, but still demonstrates in which the best natural area in that project was located in the urban area. And the rural portion is cleared farm fields. Under the provision as they were today or are today, the applicant would not be able to relocate his density from the urban portion to the cleared farm fields and then would be able to clear most of the urban portions to put its density in there. And so it makes sense to be able to shift that in exchange for preserving that higher quality native vegetation; that's the concept behind it. And the revisions were relatively minor that the committee made in accepting it. There was one other thing that escapes my mind. MR. WHITE: Do you want to look at it? MR. MULHERE: There was one other. Maybe if I take a quick Page 29 October 3, 2001 peek at it. There was one other minor revision. There is a requirement that that if they are going to avail themselves of the density blending they have to come in the form of a PUD. And the rationale behind that we would at least be able to have several public hearings in which we could examine the staff, and then elected officials advisory board could examine how they are going about saving that best natural area. And -- oh, I remember what the other point is. The other point is there will be higher -- as proposed -- we don't know exactly what yet, but there will be higher preservation standards in the rural fringe subdistricts than we currently have -- preservation and open standards than we currently have in the urban area. The idea this is a continuum from urban, which has lesser preservation -- native vegetation preservation standards and open space standards to the rural fringe, which will have higher than-- hopefully to the eastern rural ends which will have higher preservation standards. So if you prevail yourself of this option of density blending, you must meet the higher -- whatever the higher preservation standards are for the entire project. So even on your urban lands, if you are going to blend your density, you have got to meet the preservation standards that we adopt for the rural fringe, which will be -- although we don't know what they are right now -- I can safely say they will be higher than we have in the urban area. And I think that is a summary of that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Mulhere? Just reading in the paper about urban and blending, the lawsuit that went down, the judgment was made in Martin County where they said the county violated the blending of two particular products and had an apartment against the other and said tear the thing down. Page 30 October 3,2001 MS. LYNNE: That's not blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They used blending in the description of it. MR. MULHERE: I'm not familiar with that. My guess is -- I'm not familiar with it -- but just on face, my guess would be there was some violation of their comp plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Violation of comp plan. MR. MULHERE: By amending our comp plan, we wouldn't have that problem. We would be able to do this. Really, all along it's something that makes sense. If we are getting to the objective of protecting habitat and vegetation in that area, that is really the principle behind it. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions on the blending concept? Okay. Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: The other items is on buffers. Again, that was mailed out last night, as well. So the committee did have some discussions. And let me work you through the discussion of the committee at least and tell you how staff handled it. I will kind of work off both of my notes here. If you -- on page 2, it would be page 2 of 11. Policy 6.8.2 at the very bottom, you will see where Policy -- yes -- 6.8.2 talks about a -- okay. Wait a minute. It's page 2 of 10 now off of your draft, excuse me 6.8.2 where it talks about a 1,000-foot distance. There was some -- some confusion as to whether we have a 1,000-foot buffer or as policies -- as objective -- excuse me -- as policies 6.8.1 says this is a review distance in terms of where we would subject a development to review and then provide these criteria. I simply made -- made the language change to just clarify that this is not a 1,000-foot buffer. It's simply a review distance; so that's the language that -- that the committee or the discussion that the committee had said there. So that would have changed. Page 31 October 3, 2001 The next substantive change of discussion that the committee had, if you go to page 3 of 10 and you come down to 1 (B) where it starts off to say "Where woodstork," et cetera, et cetera, there is some concern that these standards may be too restricted or may be -- may be able to be modified through a review of other jurisdictional agencies. This would be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fresh Water-- the Florida Fresh Water-- the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. I keep stumbling over their whole new name. Because the development still has to work with these agencies and develop some type of Wildlife management plan. So what we -- what staff is proposing back to the committee would basically be under-- under B where we have a parenthesis 1, 2, 3, we will add a parenthesis 4. And this would say, "These requirements shall be modified on a case-by-case basis if such. Modifications are based upon the review and recommendation from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation." We put a little bit of-- I like to call it upset language that if those agencies determine that -- that these distances as strictly applied within this policy do not work as well as something else for a particular site project, then we get those recommendations from those agencies, and then we can relax these distances. It's what I call upset language. It provides some flexibility. One of the difficulties -- this is a little bit of a side note here or editorial comment on my part -- our dilemma from the state is that we have to draft policies that are specific and measurable. And there can't be a lot of weasel words in them. They have to be fairly definitive, and many times if you specify a 10 percent requirement, we are going to have to follow that 10 percent requirement if we don't have any other -- if you call it upset or exception language. We know in the real world that many times that if you apply it just the way it's drafted without consideration for very site specific Page 32 October 3,2001 requirements or something else that is going on, that that application of that number is not going to give you a better project than if you do it differently. Certainly as a staff member, I don't want to be in a position we want to vigorously adhere to some number that we have established -- essentially the way we have been developing these policies. To the degree that we can build some flexiblity into it and allow for some exceptions to the number with proper valid criteria to make those exceptions, then I'm trying to craft the language to allow that; so that's the spirit and the intent of this language within this section. MS. LYNNE: So does that mean if for some reason these regulatory agencies in developing a plan thought more than 1,000 feet or 300 feet or 1,500 feet were necessary in order to protect them, that that would follow through as well? MR. LORENZ: I think it cuts both ways. MS. LYNNE: Just makes sure that the language makes that clear. MR. LORENZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is 1,500 feet as relates to storage and so forth. Are you dealing with that? MR. CARLSON: I don't. U.S. Fish and Wildlife doesn't. There are some results of some studies in North Florida by the Florida Wildlife Commission. MR. LORENZ: The buffer for woodstorks? MS. SANTORO: 322. MR. LORENZ: If you go through the data and analysis of the table -- MS SANTORO: It was 322 was what the actual figure. 322 was, I believe, was the actual figure? MR. LORENZ: No. For woodstorks they came up 1,500 feet was based upon Bald Eagle requirements. Page 33 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bald Eagle? MR. LORENZ: They did not have in the report that I read, which was the -- it's a 1994 buffers -- it's for East Central Florida buffers, the data they summarize, they could not find any specific number for woodstorks. I have just -- just -- I have researched the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Multispecies Recovery Plan; they do not have a specific number. MS. LYNNE' So the point would be that if later a specific number did come up and it was greater than this, you would have a basis for enforcing a larger buffer area. Or if you had a particular use that was so intrusive that the ordinary buffer set up is not adequate, that you would be able to enforce a larger buffer range to protect the species. MR. LORENZ: That can certainly be accommodated in the language revision that I read to you because it says, "Shall modify on a case-by-case basis." The constraint, though, upon the recommendation by one of those two agencies. The other alternative if somebody does come up with an appropriate number or set up a number for woodstorks that we can latch on to, we can create a policy amendment later on or management plan and incorporate that new information with the new standard later on and put it in the plan. I would still, however, recommend that we continue to have this upset language in it. MS. LYNNE' Yeah. I just think if we can upset it one way, we need to make sure it goes both ways. MR. LORENZ: Right. We are not saying on the lower end; we are saying modify. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We are saying on both ends. Also realize that the committee has not yet seen this, so I'm getting ahead of the committee with this language. Page 34 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I wanted to reiterate -- you have not had a chance -- I gave a copy of the minutes -- a couple of things the committee would hopefully go back to work on in this area unless it's already been done or referred to. But one of the things was the wording taking out the word "wetland" where it said "Proposed development shall demonstrate the ground water table drawdowns will not adversely function to allow upland functions as well as wetlands functions." And Mr. Comell was asked to bring in some research to our next committee meeting or help to advise staff. We are trying to take a look at what is an allowable water drawdown or, you know, looking at distance or devices. If we come up with a measurable figure of allowable or not allowable water drawdown, we can go back to either it has to be -- nobody can be within this distance or else there might be some mechanical devices can be done to protect the water from being drawn down past a certain amount. I thought that would be of something of interest to you-all. The other thing is the conservation designation was allowing current agricultural uses and that I think is going to be revisited to see if some of the agriculture uses such as schools and towers and mining and excavations might be rethought so that the conservation might have some different criteria and does not have a permissible land use. So I just wanted to mention those three areas. MR. LORENZ: Let me cover those in a little more detail. I will walk through. Those come up at the end of this document, and I can ask some additional for you. If you turn to -- let's see -- your page 6. MR. SOLING: One. MR. LORENZ: Your page -- I have some other stuff. Let me get some other information -- your page 4. Actually, it's the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4. There was some concern about when we talked about wildlife corridors from the committee that was Page 3 5 October 3, 2001 wildlife for unlisted species or listed species. We have redrafted language in here that will contrain the language for listed species. When we speak of listed species, of course, those would be the federal, state lists of threatened, endangered, or species of special concern in the case of the state lists. So that was -- we have constrained that a little bit with wording that way. We also added under the D provision where it says, "The county shall consider the recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in delineation of the corridors." Again, the idea of utilizing the recommendations from these agencies is in the review process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We add another parenthesis, parenthesis No. 4 to add to the use of where it says, "Use of appropriate roadways, crosses and signage, "again, we added, "Any other techniques recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Agency." Again, we are trying to build into these ideas that there may be some other techniques that would be appropriate, that if we don't have this language somebody can say, "No. You are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan." But I think it works both ways too. And then we added, I think, No. F, where right now that ends at E and F. It says, "The county shall consider the recommendations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida -- when considering the placement of open space to natural reservations." The whole idea of the concept behind this buffering policy is not to say, "Thou shall have a 100-foot buffer" or "Thou shall have a 200-foot buffer." We are saying that you need to put your less intensive uses up against the natural reservation. It's hard to be able to determine how much area that is going to be. That depends upon the border, if you will, with the natural Page 36 October 3, 2001 reservation. Where the appropriate open space is depends upon what is in that natural reservation or what is going to be the more intensive land use. So there is a lot of-- a lot of site specific conditions that are difficult to draft in the policies. Again, the point here is, again, to utilize those agencies to help with the location because those agencies may say, "You know what? Forget about buffering this reservation up here in the northeast comer. You know, we would rather see you put all of your open space down here in the -- in the southern portion of your project." And that recommendation then can be utilized by the county to -- to accept the development and still be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I will have to apologize. I will have to leave. I'm going to turn the chair over to Mr. Coe. (Chairman Sansbury exits.) MR. COE: Any other comments? MR. LORENZ: Let's see. I have to go through my notes. To pick up on what Allie had mentioned earlier in terms of the conservation uses, if you go to -- the reference here of the page reference in your draft is, I guess, it's page 6. Bob has gone, but Bob has also been working on a set of policies that will modify these conservation uses. And I'm not sure whether those were mailed out as well. We have been doing an awful lot of drafting in the past week. I can tell you in his discussion with mine -- for instance, under the conservation designation section, currently we allow earth mining. We are proposing that be struck out. I also know that community facilities, we are not recommending those to be allowed appropriate uses of conservation land. So just to speak to -- to the point that you made earlier, you will see the proposed changes of this conservation designation in your Page 37 October 3,2001 next mailout, and we are limiting the uses in the conservation lands to a much greater degree than what we have here. A little bit as a related note -- and you probably all have not been involved with the details of this part of-- part of what we got in the hot water, as well, with regard to the Growth Management Plan back in '97 was school siteing. And we will have language in the plan regard -- we have already proposed -- we will limit school siteing to receiving areas. So we have already talked with a representative from the school board, and he's aware of generally the receiving areas that we are looking at and feels very comfortable with that language. CHAIRMAN COE: Didn't the school board buy some land in a questionable area like in the rural fringe? MR. LORENZ: Yes, just a couple of months ago. It was up in the southeast comer of B-2, B-3 in the rural fringe. At the moment we are looking at that. Quite frankly, staff has hedged a little bit. We are just calling that as a neutral area -- that was before we knew about the school board stuff. We might have to figure out where we are going to have receiving and sending area. If we have a third designation. That is another analysis that is ongoing, as well. We don't have final word from our consultant that is looking at the transfer and development rights program because that is what sending and receiving is related to transferring the development rights. MR. CARLSON: I'm wondering about the definition of school. If, say, an entity like the CREW Trust or Audubon wanted to have some small educational facility or conservation land or near conservation land, what is a school? MS. LYNNE: Related to that, the same kind of thing. Suppose you had a conservation group or even a church or socially minded group that wanted to build -- preserve the entire area but have an educational facility there. Page 38 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Yes. MS. LYNNE: Preserve the whole area in perpetuity that you are going to have a center and nature trails and something like that. MR. LORENZ: Ed, I'm not sure. I see a way of addressing that. We do have -- we do maintain Item B where it says, "Dormitory, duplexes, and other staff houses" that may be provided in some sort of conservation uses. We might be able to put dormitory, duplexes, and other staff housing, educational facilities, you know that are -- somewhat adjunct to -- to that and that's -- that's -- make a note of that myself to talk to Bob about that. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: Are we still -- have you finished? MR. LORENZ: No. I wanted to cover-- well, actually, the -- Allie had mentioned the conservation uses. You will see some revisions to those. The Rural Fringe Advisory Conunittee did not get to discussing Items 2, 3, and 4, which is the wildlife protection criteria, stormwater management systems, and then Item No. 4, which is the language that tries to deal with the impact of drawdowns or more broadly speaking changing the hydro period at the boundary of the natural reservation. So the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has not addressed those yet. Those -- that will be the point where the committee needs to continue its review of this -- this effort. And there is a note in the committee's draft that, like, for Item No. 4, I note that the end of the last meeting a member of the public comment was identification of wetlands and wetland functions regarding the potential impact, so I kind of picked up comment, Brad, just to make sure that we have continuity with the review of the rural fringe advisory committee. Beyond that that's all the information that I wanted to bring the EAC up to speed with in terms of these policies. And I do agree with the comment that Allie made and maybe Brad will speak to. I think Page 39 October 3, 2001 there is room for improvement in the language of Item No. 4 in a couple of different ways. And I have been struggling with how to come up with a quantifiable way of doing it. I have talked to Ed, with Brad. And I have to get in contact with Mike Doover. There are some techniques that Water Management District does specify some specific quantative criteria that can be used, if we were to utilize what they have in their basis of review that I'm sure would pass muster with DCA for something measurable and specific. I know Ed is leaving there and wants to weight in terms of that criteria, but that is an alternative for us to look at. With that, that's everything that I had that I want to cover. MR. CARLSON: Just for the record, for the benefit of my subcommittee members, when I recollected that a study that was done a long time ago that -- that I was trying to remember the results, and it seemed to me my recollection was that -- that the impact of canals, basically, the drainage impact, the rule of thumb extended about a mile from the canal, that study was done by a woman known as Flora Wang in conjunction with Center of Wetlands, the University of Florida, and the Corps of Engineers. She was looking at the impact of the canals in Southern Golden Gate Estates and surrounding property. I believe the Fackahatchee Strand preserve and found the drainage influence, the ground water influence of those canals extended 12, 000 feet from the canal. So it was twice as far as I remembered it. It was over two miles. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: I have got a question. Seems to me that when you are talking about the ground water system that it often says that an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydro period. And I don't think reasonable assured is good enough. I think that ends up being one of the subjective professional judgments that depends on which professional you have Page 40 October 3, 2001 got talk up talking to you. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me -- let me cover something. As I said, the Water Management District does have some specific criteria and the references of Section 6.12 out of their basis of review for when they issue an environmental resource permit, and that specifies very specific numerical standards to ensure that your water control elevation that you set is properly separated far enough from the wetland-- the wetland edge so it would be, quote, no adverse impact to the wetland. This gets really complicated. The language would be -- would allow for a separation distance producing a grading of less than or equal to 0.005. That would be the language that I would drop into this policy, and it will be very specific and measurable. And there is some additional information in the basis of review-- and if you want to refer to it, that's why I gave you the site. We can get -- pass muster with 9J35 for specific criteria. There is some -- perhaps, some concern that that does not adequately protect the -- the -- let's say, the wetlands in terms of what that separation distance would do and what the drawdown at the wetland edge would be, because it does not specify a specific drawdown. The -- some more background. The Mark Brown -- we had ground water buffer in developing the standards for East Central Florida utilized a performance -- what I will call a performance standard of one inch, so that he developed some buffer distances that would work in certain habitats in east central Florida that would translate into the order of 100 to 550 feet separation distance. That -- that assumed that those numbers would protect the wetland from anything greater than an inch drawdown -- an inch drawn down is .08 feet. That was the standard that he utilized for proposing the methodology that he proposed for East Central Florida. I have done some -- I have done some analysis myself on utilizing his methodology in applying the .08 feet standard to Collier Page 41 October 3, 2001 County, and you can certainly utilize -- we can certainly consider utilizing that standard as well. Now -- this is part of the other thing that Allie mentioned that we talk of wetland functions. At the boundary of the natural reservation, we are not simply talking about wetlands because the boundry that we have defined in that reservation may be an upland system. What we are really talking about is not so much the wetland function but maintaining the appropriate hydro period as measured at the moment of ground water withdrawal at the boundary. And I would certainly be proposing language that takes out the wetland function that makes it more generic, such that we are talking about a ground water level that does not impact the natural reservation boundary whether it's a wetlands or upland. Because we know we can drain certain upland type or transitional type communities to the point where we have adverse impacts as well. So I think the language can be broadened, and I would be proposing some of that as basis of discussion. And the next question is -- is what methodology do we utilize whether we look at the Water Management District's number of a gradient of .005 and some other attendant language, or do we pick from Mark Brown's recommendation of a drawndown of no greater than an inch. Or do we have some local knowledge data analyses that suggest another number or another approach. That's why I need to be talking with Mike Doover. He's going to be the guy to -- to inquire on that. MS. SANTORO: That's the area that the subcommittee is going to be looking at at the next meeting. So if you like, perhaps we can come back with the review of it -- the information at that time. MR. CARLSON: I would-- since we do have quite a bit of data on ground water and the impacts of drainage for Collier County, I would be real cautious about using Mark Brown's studies for Central Page 42 October 3, 2001 Florida. The geology and everything would be very different. MR. LORENZ: I used his methodology -- from a ground water methodology is an appropriate methodology to use and then utilized Collier County conditions, average conditions, coming up with some numbers that I have calculated, which I really haven't shared with anybody but -- but I'm using for myself to get some general feel for what we are talking about. But, yes, when I input the slopes in Collier County for its ground water table, we are talking about much greater distances than would be available to Mark Brown's. I would not be using those hundred at all. But -- but what he did with the modeling methodology that, if appropriate, to Collier County, which generally is, he specified an end result of no more than one inch. Now, one can argue that, you know, it should be less than that or it can tolerate something greater than that; that's what I don't know. MR. COE: Any other comments before we get to the subcommittee report? MR. CORNELL: Do you want public comment now? MR. COE: Go ahead. I'm just trying to get through the day. MR. CORNELL: Only if you want it right now. MR. COE: Go ahead. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. You need to restate your name. MR. CORNELL: Brad Comell for Collier County Audubon Society. On buffering, there was one particular buffering issue that would -- because of its sort of keystone nature and only umbrella situation that you need to pay particular attention to, I think all of us in Collier County do, and that's a panther habitat. If a project -- I would suggest if a project is in a panther habitat then all of your available and required preservation land and open-space mitigation -- everything in a project is potentially buffer, I believe -- buffering Page 43 October 3,2001 quality. Put all of that against your natural reservation conservation act just automatically. So you don't have any of this sort of to and fro. If it's panther habitat, primary or secondary, then you automatically -- the project has to put all of its buffering lands against the conservation lands. I think that will be a reasonable way to approach that a second sort of large issue that you are going to have to deal with -- and I think Erica Lynne brought this up on ag policy. You are going to have to deal with, you know, if you want to talk about what allowable uses there are on conservation lands, like NRPAs, you are going to have to deal with the issue of concluding agricultural uses in those policies. And as currently stated in county policy, county growth management plan, ag is exempt from many of the standards and policies that govern protection of natural resources. So for this whole scenario to work, you are going to have -- I will suggest to you -- that you need to consider ways to include agriculture, you know, in the language. And, third, in that same vein, I think there are lots of problems with the allowable uses of conservation designation lands. We do need to take a look at that and adjust some -- make some major adjustments. And that's all that I have. MR. COE: The subcommittee report. MS. LYNNE: I just have some questions for Mr. Cornell. When you are talking about the panther habitant, I mean, that sounds good, suppose you were balancing habitant -- panther habitat up against this area when over here we have a pristine wetlands. I would have a hard time saying we have to move all of that area down there and dredge and fill the wetlands. MR. CORNELL: I grant you that. I think that a lot of the pristine wetlands are probably have been taken care of and the large system boundaries and where they are isolated pristine wetlands and maybe that -- that is something to consider, although I think it's going Page 44 October 3,2001 to be a big juggle with panther habitat. It's one of the most endangered species. The more buffering you can provide for panther corridor, wildlife corridor, the better off we are going to be. But that should figure into the equation, I agree. MS. LYNNE: The other thing I wanted to add, when you are talking about agriculture policies, when you said you wanted to find ways to include agriculture in here, did you mean make these restrictions apply to agriculture? MR. CORNELL: I would say in this entire rural assessment and attempt to satisfy the governor and cabinets final order, what we are doing is trying to adopt policies in Growth Management Plan amendments that will protect natural resources. If you do not include agriculture in those policies and procedures or GOPs, then that's going to undermine your efforts. So, yes. MS. LYNNE: So you want something in the language that says "These policies -- agriculture has no exemption from these policies," is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Either that or specifically name -- name the standards that you are going to apply, perhaps, intensity standards. Ag can be permitted in these areas but only in such and such intensity. In other words, apply some agriculture as well, yes. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. SANTORO: I have given you a proposal. I just want you to amend one of the statements. The second "whereas" the letters SWCD standing for Collier County Soil and Water Conservation District. Basically, what I'm hoping the council will do is endorse the concept of promoting a corridor for the panthers between the C-2, the study area, and the panther habitat lands that the State has designated and is preserving. I have given you some of the support out of the Growth Page 45 October 3, 2001 Management Plan or the growth -- yeah, Growth Management Plan. (Mr. Hill present.) MS. SANTORO: Some of the group are even rural conceptual strategy report. It is very timely. What I'm hoping is that you will endorse these so you will allow the subcommittee and EAC to communicate this to the Golden Gate Study Group and the Eastern Lands Committee is timely also, because this area is very sparsely inhabited. It is a time for incorporating this concept and working with it. What you are doing is allowing us the flexibility to go forward and try and come up with a corridor which may occur through many different devices. It may be conservation easements, or it may be the government taking land; it may be some other land. There are other various techniques. MR. COE: Who is going to pay for it? MS. SANTORO: If it's conservation it can be a credit to the current owners. There are also a couple of government plans that have monies for conservation easement. It depends what techniques it takes. MR. COE: Any comments? MS. SANTORO: Or maybe a combinations thereof. MR. SOLING: I just add, Allie's note, there was two major areas and that there was a little strip of land that isolated these two areas. Her -- our desire is to connect these two areas, so if the panther was in one they can easily move to the other area. Right now, I guess, they are doing it if they are living there, but this area can be developed without consideration for panthers. MR. COE: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. SOLING: Well, I will move Allie's request to allow the committee to move further on this matter. MS. LYNNE: I second it. MR. COE: We have a second over here. All for? Page 46 October 3, 2001 (Unanimous response.) MR. COE: All opposed? (No response.) MR. COE: Passes unanimously. MS. SANTORO: That's it. MR. COE: Anybody have any other comments? are adjourned. (Proceedings adjourned at 10:40 a.m.) Very well, we There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned of the Chair at 10:40 a.m.) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN THOMAS W. SANSBURY TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY EMILY C. UNDERWOOD, RPR Page 47