The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Minutes 01/02/2002 RJanuary 2, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 2, 2002 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 Sansbury Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Alexandra Santoro Alfred F. Gal Chester Soling Larry Stone Erica Lynne ALSO PRESENT' Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental, Specialist Specialist Page 1 VI. VII. VIII. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January2, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of December 5, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Old Business a. An updated proposal for wetland policies New Business Growth Management Update Subcommittee Report Council Member Comments Public Comments X. Adjournment ********************************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 28, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (403-2400). 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. January2,2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we sit here and call the roll. How's that? How about I call the roll? Barbara said that we could just simply make a note that everybody here is present, okay. MR. HILL: Everybody here is present. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. We have a -- we have a quorum then. How about the -- the approval of the agenda? Anybody have any additions, deletions, revisions? MR. HILL: Move to prove. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill moved to be approved. How about anybody else here? Are you going to second it? MR. COE: So second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, approved unanimously. Minutes from December 5. The minutes. MS. SANTORO: I had a correction. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: On page 28, the man's name is Jeem-- Jim geever, g-e-e-v-e-r. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So noted. MR. CARLSON: I found one minor error. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON' On page 11, I did not suggest that the barbed wire fence have Post-it -- Post-it signs; posted signs. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, posted. MR. CARLSON: Those little -- those little paper things, just --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Those little yellow things wouldn't stay on there very long anyway. Page 2 January2,2002 Okay. Do I hear a motion on the minutes? MR. COE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe made motion. MR. COE: With the changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: With the changes. Mr. Hill seconded it, I think. MR. HILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And-- all in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, it passes unanimously. Okay. Old business. Updated proposal for wetland policies. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. We finally -- staff has been working with the requirements of the final order. We've gotten down to the -- basically the end of the wire with regard to public hearing drafts, and this is pretty much in I don't want to say final form but pretty close to being final form with regard to substantive issues that the staff is recommending for wetland protection policies to go in the county's growth management plan. First of all, what I'd like to do is state that this -- this set of policies is within a comprehensive package that deals with land-use planning, one -- what we have called before the landscape scale, broad, large systems that we are using a variety of land-use techniques of intensity and density and transfer of development rights to the larger systems. And on the site scale, what it deals -- what the county is proposing is the -- is wetlands protection through its vegetation retention requirements and some other types of criteria. (Mr. White entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Let me tell you what it not -- what it is not. It Page 3 January 2, 2002 is not a -- a different set of wetland standards than what the federal and state agencies will apply to projects. This does not duplicate those agencies' requirements. It does not set up additional standards for wetland protection above and beyond those agencies. So at the site, at the permitting step, the county is going to accept federal and state permit requirements for wetlands protection. This we have discussed with the DCA. I guess it was the latter part of November. We met -- staff met with DCA, talked with them about wetland protection policies, to what degree do we have to adopt a different set of standards for wetland protection. The answer we received was, if we have a comprehensive planning process of what we have now is a lot different than a year and a half ago, that this is an appropriate direction for the county to take vis-a-vis the final order requirements and the -- and the growth management plan requirements. I'm kind of using this as a preface because not only staff has gone through a lot of work in developing, if you will, some previous drafts that would have adopted a different set of standards at the county -- county level, but you as a -- the Environmental Advisory Council, we've taken those drafts to you in the past, and you've given us comments on it in that direction. So what I'm telling you now right up front is it's not going in that direction. So it's -- it is -- it's the comprehensive planning process, but it's not a different set of standards for wetland protection. MR. COE: You know, without going through all of the -- you know, the details of the state and-- versus the federal, this is a totally different direction, as you are saying. Is this less or more than what we as a committee wanted you-all to do? MR. LORENZ: My sense would be that it would be less. MR. COE: Why? MR. LORENZ: Because -- because what we have previously provided to the council in the past was a set of standards that would Page 4 January 2, 2002 have restricted wetlands or -- or the impact of wetlands, a very specific set of numerical standards, and those standards in the past draft would have -- would have -- would have overruled or trumped, if you will, the federal and state requirements once the applicant got into their permitting process. And -- and -- and this is no longer the case, so that's -- that's why-- MR. COE: What do you mean, would have trumped? We have stronger regulations than the state and the federal; then state and federal is still going to approve what -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. We would have -- our -- our standards would have superceded theirs for our own review process. MR. COE: Okay. And what's wrong with that if we want to have more strict environmental regulations than that which is required by the state? And keep in mind, we have some very sensitive lands we're talking about here. You know, this isn't Tallahassee, and, you know, this isn't other places, very sensitive, probably one of the most sensitive ecological areas that we have in the state. So why wouldn't we require greater standards? MR. LORENZ: I think that's a major policy issue that this advisory council should definitely-- if that's how you feel, should definitely bring to the Board of County Commissioners. We're staff- - and when I'm talking about staff, I'm talking about myself as a natural resources director working with the comprehensive planning process, because even among staff internally this was -- this was a hard decision to make. But from my -- my working with the -- our planning department, the growth management planning department, and working -- putting together a -- a set of proposals that gets us past the final-order requirements, our noncompliance condition, if you will, this is the minimum set of requirements that we understand talking with DCA officials that will get us past the final-order requirements. If the county wants to go beyond this minimum level, Page 5 January 2, 2002 that's certainly an issue for the county commission to consider. And if the Environmental Advisory Council, after hearing this presentation, wants to move in a further direction and be very specific as to what that -- what direction you want -- or what specifics you want to carry out that direction, that's something that -- that this council should definitely recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. And, of course, staff would facilitate that-- your recommendation to the board. MR. COE: So in a nutshell what you're saying is we've done all this planning for -- I guess it's been more than a year now; correct? MR. LORENZ: Yes. November of 2000 was when we issued the one draft. MR. COE: We've done all this planning for very strict requirements to protect our environment in the county. And now we're going to meet minimal requirements for the state. Why not meet the more strict requirements for the county rather -- and forget the state? MR. LORENZ: Well, remember in the total -- in the total package, you have to realize that what we're proposing not only is just at the site permitting level, but we're -- we're talking about a comprehensive pro -- program looking at identifying our major wetland systems out -- outside of the urban area, and we're recommending that -- low intensity and density land uses in those major systems. We're talking about a transfer of development rights to protect those systems. And that is part of the -- that is part of the comprehensive land use package at the landscape scale. At the site development scale we're simply saying that a project has -- has to meet our vegetation retention requirements. But when it comes to the very specific negotiations of what the wetland impacts are, what the mitigation requirements are, those are -- those will be -- the county will -- will rely upon the federal and state agencies to Page 6 January 2, 2002 issue their permits, and we'd accept those -- those -- those requirements. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: So, if I understand you are -- are we no longer considering this chart approach that we've been talking about for so long? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. CARLSON: Well, I won't miss that chart. I had problems with that from the beginning. I think that's kind of a good news thing. I just didn't like that chart at all. The problem is going with the old approaches of using the state and federal standards, I mean, projects are coming up here with 80 percent wetland loss, 90 percent wetland loss, and we were looking at a maximum of 50 percent. So that's not a positive. That's not good. And the Corps was trying to deal with this with their comprehensive study which, really, nothing really came out of that. So it's a kind of a major disappointment. MR. LORENZ: Well, as I said, the -- we're going through the -- the review process now for all of the -- all of the policies. Later on after -- after this presentation and you get through this agenda item what we need to do is set up a very specific date for the EAC to go through all of the -- the -- if you will, the public hearing draft language of all of the policies for the growth management plan. And -- and, of course, so today and -- and at that particular point -- and even -- even into the -- the month of February, if the council, Environmental Advisory Council, wants to have more specific recommendations to the county commission with regard to what the wetland policies should reflect, then that's something that the council should work on, and we would bring that recommendation to the council. MR. CARLSON: So -- so let me ask you this, just focusing on that one issue of the maximum allowable wetland loss. What if the Page 7 January 2, 2002 county had a policy and we just picked the percentage, said you've got to satisfy all those other regulatory agencies, but in Collier County you cannot exceed this amount of wetland loss, and we pick 50 percent or 40 percent? Is that -- you think that's feasible? MR. LORENZ: It would be -- you'd have to pick the -- you'd have to pick a number with some data analysis to justify the percentage. And so we'd have to come up with at least the rationale and justification for that. To some degree the devils and the details -- one of the problems that we had as staff-- at least certainly I can speak for myself-- is working with the development community, every time we pick a percentage number, they could come up with particular case histories of a particular project where if you apply that percentage number and applied it very strictly, they would be limited to preservation of certain amount of wetlands on site. But what they were able to negotiate with the -- with the federal and state agencies was an environmental -- if you will, environmental outcome, a product that was better than simply applying rigorously our percentage requirement that we -- that we were working with. So I was always finding myself in somewhat of a dilemma. How do I draft a set of policies that would allow for a -- if you will, a -- some type of fixed percentage as a -- what I was always calling a default value but then provide additional flexibility such that an applicant could demonstrate certain criteria to allow destruction greater than that percentage if they were to do X, Y, and Z in terms of mitigation requirements? Every time we started drafting policies along those lines, what I was finding myself arriving at was basically a policy that said whatever they negotiate with those agencies, that's what they've been doing. That's -- that's where the policies started to -- to -- to develop towards. So it became difficult drafting a set of policies that provided Page 8 January 2, 2002 Collier County's standards on a very rigorous basis, yet provide all this flexibility within our policies to allow for those environmental outcomes that are better than just applying the particular percentage set-aside. That became a dilemma. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. Isn't the theory here though by tying this in with TDRs -- maybe this is simplification, is it by adopting state and federal regulations on development plans but also tying in with TDRs, in effect, in the area where you have transferred your development rights, you get a hundred percent retention of wetlands? Nothing happens there. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the areas where the TDRs go is where the state and federal rules come in. So from a net standpoint, I don't know what the answer is. I mean, is it the same? I mean, do we have more retention of wetlands? MR. CARLSON: Well, you -- I hear Bill talking about better projects; you wind up with a better project. But overall the net loss of wetlands in this county is -- it's kind of shocking, and there are going to be water-supply issues in the future where we're taking out aquifer recharge areas which are the wetlands; we're turning them into consumptive areas where they're actually using the waters; the activities occurring on those areas are using water. It's just whacking our water supply really bad. And that's -- that's really, besides the wildlife habitat issue, the water supply thing, it seems to me you can't win at this, if you're taking out that kind of wetland land cover. MR. LORENZ: The -- the agencies -- the data -- it's somewhere in the report. I'll go through the report that I sent to the -- to the -- to the council -- of the 2 1/2 years that -- that the South Florida Water Management District -- they had about 11 to 20 percent increase -- impact of wetlands. If you remember kind of-- well, that one table that you refer -- just recently referred to, plus we come up with the Page 9 January 2, 2002 one -- one function that -- of allowable impact based upon the wetland functionality or the WRAP score index. When you were -- when the county was looking at those numbers, with fairly decent functionality scores, we were still allowing 20, 25 percent of direct impact. When I begin looking at those numbers compared to what the state has been allowing, you know, just on percentage numbers and trying -- this is somewhat of a ballpark estimate on my part, I'll admit, but we were -- but we were kind of in that ballpark. So what I'm trying to justify a -- a -- whether it's the table that we all had some problems with or the fun -- or that graphical function that staff developed and presented to the EAC back in the summertime, looking at kind of somewhat the midpoint, we're still looking at a percentage impact that's similar to what the state agencies have allowed. Obviously they allow an impact, but then there's mitigation requirements on that as well. When we begin developing our own set of scores and if those scores are going to come in fairly close to what the agencies already permitted, then we -- then we also have to specify, well, what kind of mitigation requirements are we going to have? They're going to be different from what the agencies have negotiated. So you get -- you find yourself very quickly -- as soon as you start to establish some additional standards at the county level, you start sliding down that slope of having a separate -- I'll use the term permitting program, certainly a separate program with separate standards that -- that are going to, then, require the developers to come into the county with -- with -- with -- they have negotiated some -- some -- some work with the state and federal agencies. Now they have to meld that with what the county is re -- required to do. And -- and I just couldn't find that -- that our -- that our procedure or method of specifying the direct impact would allow percentages was Page 10 January 2, 2002 going to be fundamentally different from what the state agencies, at least in those year and a half or two years' worth of data indicated what our percentage impacts would be different -- would be vastly different from what they required. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill had a comment. MR. HILL: I was going to say I agree with Ed on that chart. But I thought we had put together a rather singular and unique assessment agreed quantitative method of mitigating method impacts. That's -- you're telling us is thrown out now completely? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it is. At least staff is proposing that we don't -- that we don't use that percentage -- that -- that -- that particular chart or graph that you're speaking of, Bill, as a -- as a standard for specifying what the -- what the direct impacts would be. MR. HILL: I have two questions relative to that: Is our approach one that we want to meet only in fear of the State DCA requirements? We only want to meet the minimum rather than create a controversy if we go with a more strict and stringent requirement? Are -- are we in that position now and that's one of the reasons we're recommending that we only go with the minimum? And, secondly, how -- in the TDR you need an assessment mechanism, do you not, in order to establish that whole quantitative argument for TDR in the receiving and sending areas? MR. LORENZ: When you say assessment mechanism, what are you speaking of?. MR. HILL: Well, if you're going to be a sending -- sending area, one has to quant -- quantitatively determine the quality of the wetlands, and you -- MR. LORENZ: No, no. We have identified the sending areas up front. When the plan gets eventually adopted, those sending areas will be identified in the future land-use map as sending areas. MR. HILL: Regardless of the functionality of the wetlands in Page 11 January 2, 2002 that area. MR. LORENZ: That's correct, because we're talking about a total large system of which taken together it's functioning at a -- at a level high enough for to us have these higher land-use restrictions and requirements placed upon that whole area. MR. HILL: So it's -- it's black or white when you identify the sending area? MR. LORENZ: That's -- that's -- MR. HILL: There's no real detailed assessment of the wetland- MR. LORENZ: That's -- that's correct. There is another flavor, if you will, of a TDR program in which case you could identify a way of-- of getting additional TDR credits based upon a variety of different criteria; let's say the functionality of wetlands or listed species on site. Our consultant who is advising us on the TDR program, Dr. James Nicholas, however, has recommended that the TDR programs work best when there's not a lot of-- when they're simple and not complicated and in terms of trying to add layers of-- or multipliers into the TDR pro -- process, because what that does is that increases your transaction costs to the program, and there's administrative overhead then that-- that individuals in the sending lands, then, have to pay money up front to make those calculations. And then that can -- that -- that has a tendency to have that program not be utilized as much. So whereas that's possible, his recommendation is pretty much keep it simple, and that's been our recommendation as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: First, I'd like to say I agree with Mr. Coe, Mr. Carlson, and Mr. Hill that this is going in the wrong direction. In all -- in many other areas, for example, schools, fire, police, we wouldn't dream of letting the state set the standards for our county. Page 12 January 2, 2002 And our wetlands are as much of importance, and our water supply is as much of importance as all of those things. So it doesn't make sense to me that anyone in the county would want to mm that control of that over to the state and the national government. That control belongs at the county level. As Mr. Coe pointed out, we have extremely sensitive wetland areas here, more so than in all the rest of the state. As Mr. Carlson pointed out, we are losing wetlands, and this is not going to contribute to the preservation of wetlands if we allow destruction of more wetlands. Mitigation off site results in net loss of wetlands, even though that's not the way it's stated. And I think this is going entirely the wrong direction. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further comments? Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I'd like to just focus on something that's in the report. And maybe the difference -- the area we want to focus on as a council is outside of that. But on page 8 of 29, you did include the WRAPs 4 system. MR. LORENZ: Yes. MS. LYNNE: And in a comment in here you talk about the spore of one representing a hundred percent functionality and you've said that .5 which would be the middle of functionality of wetlands, that if it's a .5 or higher that it be preserved on site, and I commend that issue, to the degree required by the vegetation retention requirements. Now, when the subcommittee studied the vegetation requirements -- and it may have changed-- one of the -- one of the high scores at that time would have been the study area, C-2, and the NRPAs, you had recommended at 90 percent vegetated retention. So they could incorporate a -- a wetland up to the 90 percent. They would have -- they could use that to -- as the vegetative requirement on site. So that's an encouragement to the developer, the point being that some of the other areas, study areas B, A, and D, were a lower Page 13 January 2, 2002 percentage. Now, I've forgotten. Some were at 45 and some at 25, I believe. MR. LORENZ: Right. MS. LYNNE: So I'm bringing this up so that perhaps the EAC can focus on that portion of the report that's included, and then maybe we need to focus on the other areas. Maybe we wish, you know, to recommend higher degree of retention with lower than .5 in -- in a different manner because I want you to iterate because you have some strengths in this report. MR. LORENZ: Let me -- I'll cover that. What I'd like to do is eventually get -- I'll walk you through the whole report. Then as these questions come up, this is good to be able to answer them. As you may have noted from my preliminary comments when we're talking about we're working at the landscape scales, that's the big systems, very high preservation vegetation retention requirements in those systems and the opportunity of those systems to sell off the development rights through the TDR program. At the project -- at the site project level where we are going to -- where -- where development comes in and requests to go through our zoning reviews and permitting processes here in the county, what we're requiring is a vegetation retention requirement. Now, we currently have that in the urban area which is the -- we'll call it the 25 percent rule. We will still maintain that in the urban area. And outside the urban area we have different re -- vegetation retention requirements based upon whether you're in a sending or receiving area. Those vegetation retention requirements are -- are more than what we currently have now outside of the urban area, and that's where the -- that's where the -- that's where the wetland issue will come into play for the county, because what we're saying is that you have to make -- you have to retain that vegetation. That's required. Now, there are some off-- there are some opportunities for off- Page 14 January 2, 2002 site preservation as well. That's why we gave you that preservation retention package, I mean, in your -- in your agenda. But to the degree that the wetland are on site, wetlands will be the first type of- - of vegetation land cover that will -- will be retained as part of those vegetation retention requirements. We've also said -- and this comes in where that functionality assessment comes into play is that -- is that the wetlands that have the highest functionality assessment score will be the ones that will be retained on site as part of the county's vegetation retention requirement criteria. Now, remember, the federal and state agencies are looking at kind of wetland functions, and they allow for mitigation requirements to occur based upon the amount of what's the -- what's the quality of wetlands that you're going to destroy on site, and then that translates into higher mitigation ratios off site. The county's requirement here is to say that -- that you will retain the highest-functioning wetlands on site based upon that functionality score. So to that degree we're somewhat-- being somewhat different than the agencies. It's being folded into our vegetation retention requirement policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Walk me through it. I want to get back to the TDR issue because I think that ties into what you're talking about. In the TDR, in the sending areas and the -- there's 14,300 acres of wetlands in those sending areas. What can be done with the wetlands in the sending areas? Can they be developed? MR. LORENZ: Well, in the sending areas you would have a -- depending upon whether you're in a NRPA or a non-NRPA-sending area, you have a vegetation retention and site preservation requirement of 80 or 90 percent. So to the degree that you have to meet that -- that preservation requirement, you're still allowed to, if you will, destroy 10 percent of the vegetation. Now, in that destruction of vegetation, the coun -- it could be wetlands, but what Page 15 January 2, 2002 we're saying is the one site that our functionality assessment in those areas are still going to -- going to apply. So in those areas we have vegetation retention requirement of 10 percent. You can think about it a little bit. If it was a hundred percent wetlands, then that's a 10 percent requirement. Now, our -- our highest functioning score, if you'll recall, in past proposals was a 5 percent, what we called a deminimus impact. So to the degree that's going beyond that initial proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So in the sending areas we talked about backing off in -- in our wetland policy, we had talked about what percentage retention of wetland-- MS. LYNNE: It was 5 percent. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many? MS. LYNNE: Five percent minimum, fifty percent maximum. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. In the sending areas that number is 10 percent. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Or something less. So the only areas we're talking about that this policy affects is the receiving areas? MR. LORENZ: Well, it's going -- the policy is going to affect all of the areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All of the areas. MR. LORENZ: Where you're going to have a higher degree of- - if you will, well, for instance, in our -- in our receiving areas through our analysis, wetland land cover may be averaged around 20 -- 18 to 20 percent of the total site. Now, we have a preservation standard that we're recommending of around -- of-- of not -- of-- of around 20 percent. I'd have to check the numbers here. Too much holiday for me to remember the numbers if I don't look at them. But Page 16 January 2, 2002 what we did is we matched those vegetation -- those site preservation requirements up to that number. So to the degree that -- that we've -- we are allowing the highest degree of land uses in the receiving areas, those areas have the least amount of wetlands, and those wetlands, if you will, are going to be in a more highly altered state. They're more fragmented, less connected to the larger systems, that -- that we think that that's an appropriate land -- land -- landscape scale strategy to allow that development to occur in those areas with the least amount of wetlands. We still have our vegetation retention requirements, and we'll still rely upon, of course, the federal and state agencies to do the permitting of those wetlands within those areas. Again, when we're talking about the total package, we're talking about directing-- remember the final order requirements, 9-J-5 is criteria. We have to come up with a comprehensive planning process that directs incompatible land uses away from wetlands, and we developed that process after we've considered the value, types, and functions and locations of the wetland systems in Collier County. And that's what this whole set of policies is attempting to do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Soling. MR. SOLING: I'd like to speak to this prob -- this suggestion, TDR. As I understand it, you're saying that in the sending area, if you have excessive wetlands and you don't want to -- you don't want to build on it or you can't build on that site, you can sell your development rights to a receiving area. So I am looking at this and saying, "I'm in the receiving area, and I have a couple of hundred acres, and I want to overdevelop it." So I go around, and I find somebody who's sitting on undeveloped land in the sending area, and I buy his or her rights. And I am saying this is the most immoral, unlawful action any government can take, and I will demonstrate why. You're starting an industry of where people will go around and buy development rights Page 17 January2,2002 to overdeveloped land and-- and the people who are living in the receiving area innocently assume that, let's say, just for argument's sake, that they are living on a one-house-per-acre site, and all of a sudden the government is allowing somebody without anybody's knowledge to increase that development rights to maybe 2 acre -- two houses per acre. And I am saying the government, that Collier County is buying a lawsuit, because if I was sitting in this -- this receiving area and all of a sudden somebody is overdeveloping it, I'm going to go in and -- and start a lawsuit. But I'll give you an example, sir. Suppose the government says you're a certain kind of citizen, and we're going to put you in jail and let you sit in jail and rot. What you're saying, I got some wetlands and I can't use the parcel. So I come to this person sitting in jail, and you say, "Hey, you have a vacant house. I'd like to rent it from you, and I'm going to give you money, and I'm going to run wild parties in your neighborhood." And the government is saying, "Go right ahead. Let the person in jail rent out their houses and run wild parties." And I am saying this is the most immoral, illegal action any government can take to have sending and receiving areas and -- and saying I could take my development rights and transfer it? What purpose are we doing this? The fella in the sending area or the person in the sending area is already zoned and has to accept this. And you're saying, "I'm going to go and give you a couple of thousand dollars or a hundred thousand dollars for your rights" when the government's saying, "You can't use those rights." It's a very immoral thing. MR. LORENZ: Let -- let me -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think, if I could, the purpose is is to identify the sending areas as the areas that are environmentally sensitive where the good-level wetland are what he just explained to Page 18 January 2, 2002 us and identify the receiving areas or the altered areas are. And this is a method to be able to preserve those areas that really have environmental significance without the government having to come in and purchase the land, without the people having to pay for the land. And it takes the development rights available. When it goes to a sending area, this doesn't mean unbridled development in the sending area. It's still controlled development. It still has to work under the rules of the county which control density, control types. And that's the whole purpose. It does -- it achieves what we're talking about doing, and that is preserving land without the public having to go buy it. I think it's a good thing. MR. SOLING: Tom, I am saying the government wants to be -- have a policy, let them set the zoning or the regulations to so regulate it. And if they're not happy with the regulations, then they should either increase it or bite their tongues. But I am saying is this, if the sending area is already restricted and you can't build on it, so let it be. Don't let somebody sell these rights. If-- if you can't live with the regulations, then-- then sell your land to somebody else. But it's -- the government should be honest enough to set its zoning or its criteria. I'm not saying the government has to buy the land. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. MR. GAL: The question is how do you determine who determines whether a person has development rights? Is the person -- the Rookery Bay project, does that person who wanted to develop those condominiums, does he have development rights that he could send to another area? I mean, personally I don't even think he had development rights. MR. LORENZ: Well, let me answer the general question, because I'm not familiar with the specifics on that answer, that particular example. The sending areas that we're talking about are listed in -- in the - Page 19 January 2, 2002 - your document, in that one graph. Those particular-- those particular areas right now have the ability -- prior to June of 1999, they had the right of a -- of a density of one unit per 5 acres or .2 units per acre. The final order came in place and imposed a temporary moratorium of one unit per parcel as of that particular time. When the county comes in and begins to add regulations and restrictions such as 90 percent preservation requirement, we are now adopting a set of regulations that are going to impact people's ability to develop their lands. Those regulations, the county is also bound or the counties in the State of Florida are bound by the Burt Harris Act which -- which basically says that as a county increases its regulations, if there's an inordinate burden placed upon the property owner, the county needs to compensate the property owner. That's much different from the federal constitution. So as Collier County has crafted this particular set of strategies, we are very sensitive to the Burt Harris potential challenges from property owners within the sending areas because we have just increased their preservation requirements from basically zero percent, if you will, from a policy standpoint in the growth management plan up to 80 or 90 percent. Now, we need to provide some value for those property owners to be able to recoup, have their value, basically, be -- remain whole. That's what the transfer of development rights is going to do from those sending areas, because we now have just increased the regulatory requirements in those areas, not only from preservation standards but also from the amount of different types of land uses that they will no longer be allowed to do. So in answering your question earlier about, you know, in terms of being -- being sued, putting in the TDR program or putting in these very stringent requirements on the sensitive landowners, we have a -- we have a problem from a Burt Harris standpoint. Page 20 January 2, 2002 Now, the purpose of the -- of-- of those areas, of course, is those are the environmentally sensitive areas, and-- and we will allow the people to -- we won't actually encourage them. We want them to buy into the TDR program. We want them to -- to get out of those areas completely. And if the TDR program gives them the ability to make money on their property, that's great. For me that's a win-win situation, that they will increase the densities in the receiving lands. Now, their -- those densities right now are allowed at .2 units per acre. Using the TDR program will take you to 1 unit per acre. That's still less than what's in the estates. If you go through and go through some very stringent standards and create a rural village, if you recall the community character report of having a rural -- a rural village or a town, compact development with a lot of mixed use within that development. You can go up to 3 1/2 units per acre with a rural village. You still have to use the TDR program. So we -- we are setting a program up such that we want to see the TDR program to be very successful because we want the people in the environmentally sensitive sending lands to -- to give up -- voluntarily give up their rights by selling their development rights to somebody who will purchase them and apply them to development in the receiving lands. MR. SOLING: What you're saying is this: That from antiquity, from way before every time a government adopts a new law -- when zoning first came into -- into being and anytime a government wanted to increase or change zoning, you're saying that the government is liable for con-- to compensate the people who are being affected? When the federal government wants to change the tax law and increases the taxes on people, do I have a right to sue the government because I made money and you're taking more money away from me? I am saying is -- government has a right to change laws, and Page 21 January2,2002 you're all of a sudden trying to compensate somebody for changing a zoning law or a -- a -- an environmental law. And I'm saying is then there's no end to it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One at a time. In the State of Florida there happens to be a law called the Burt Harris law, okay, in the State of Florida. It clearly states that if government unreasonably takes a person's rights away to develop, they have to compensate them. It was passed four years ago, five years ago. MR. LORENZ: In ninety -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And, yes, people in the State of Florida have that right. MR. COE: But I guess my question would be, what's unreasonably changing the law? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's the question. MR. COE: Let's take a case of fools that wanted to do those towers down there by Rookery. Hello! The guy, he's an investor; he invested in land that he can't develop. that? Hey, I used to be a stockbroker. turns bad, tough, you lose. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. We got to compensate him for You make an investment, it I-- I agree with you a hundred percent on that project, but there is some compensation because there's already been some conversation between the Rookery Bay people and him for a dollar value. So it does have a value. Not what he came -- not what he had tried to get on that thing. I agree with you a hundred percent. But there is someplace in the middle and this gets rid of that. This takes the value away from it, and it gives us the ability to preserve the land without having the public pay for it. MR. SOLING: Tom, the county continually changes zoning. They take one area and they up it or they take one area and then down it. And you're saying every time the county or the City of Naples changes zoning, that they're subject to lawsuits? Page 22 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think probably not every time. But a prime example is the Hamilton Harbor thing. The city is being sued under the Burt Harris law. Whether they're going to be successful I don't know, but the law is there. (Mr. Coe left the room.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. GAL: How about a person that buys a piece of property after -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. We're starting to come -- I'm starting to take the role of Mr. White here, and I can't do that. MR. GAL: I'll ask Bill Lorenz. After a person buys a piece of property after the wetland policies have been adopted, are -- can they still partake in the TDR program when they -- when they buy a piece of land knowing full well that it has these wetland policies, regulations? MR. LORENZ: Yes, they can. MR. GAL: Yeah. So, I mean, that is a speculation; it is a possibility. I'm not sure who -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. Okay. Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Relative to one comment that Mr. Soling mentioned, if in the sending area-- in the receiving area there is already a developed parcel, X acres, you cannot as owner of that receive an increased density allowance in an already-developed area; is that correct? I think this was Mr. Soling's objection. And I tend to agree with that portion of his comment, and I don't think we'll be able to allow an already-developed piece of property to suddenly increase its density. It has to be an undeveloped piece that's coming before the county for development with increased density proposal. MR. LORENZ: Bill, I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the exact language that -- that -- I'm not sure that there is any -- any Page 23 January 2, 2002 grandfathering clause in terms of the current approvals, that if somebody wants to come in and has the ability to -- to rezone the property again and increase its density through -- through transfer of development rights. I'm not sure that we have actually precluded that. Bob Mulhere who -- excuse me -- who is our-- our consultant who has been doing the work, was working with the county previously, has been drafting all the detailed language with that. That's something that I need to defer to Bob, and maybe I can get the information back to you specifically. When -- when the EAC does have its final, if you will, some work -- hearings on all the growth management amendments, I'll make sure that Bob is going to be -- be here to answer some of those more planning questions, but I'm going to punt that question for the moment. I want to say that I think you -- that I don't recall any language that precludes that from happening. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. There's -- there's something else here I think is getting lost in this whole process that I have a big problem with, and that is that major portions of the proposed receiving areas are now rural with a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. They are undrained. They are unaffected by the canal systems in the county. Therefore, the water tables are very high. You know, they may not be classified as wetlands, but I can tell you, you know, I run a piece of property next to a proposed receiving area. That land floods. That land has tremendous -- because of the low density, a large wildlife, make no distinction between my property and that property, and they're allowed to roam, and they do. Plus, you have this water recharge, you know, water storage kind of function going on out there. And if this -- if all the potential as a receiving area is realized and this becomes a residential Page 24 January 2, 2002 subdivision and in go the canals and in go the street lights and out comes the mosquito spraying -- and, you know, you have really made a major impact to an area that's now rural and undrained and has -- has great benefits, green space, wildlife habitat. You know, and when I look at the receiving area map, which has a receiving area that borders Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, having that rural land turn into a residential subdivision just scares the hell out of me. I mean, it's just -- I think it's a horrible idea. I'm going to continue to prescribe burn sanctuary. I'm going to smoke those neighbors right out. People living out there now, they're acclimated to fire, you know. So I just think it's poor planning. I think it's just poor planning in -- in those cases. MR. LORENZ: Let me -- you bring up the question of, let's --. (Mr. Coe entered the room.) MR. CARLSON: And -- excuse me. But the other point I want to make is you've already got a vast area that has roads and canals, Golden Gate Estates; if you were going to have a receiving area, why wouldn't it be Golden Gate Estates? MR. LORENZ: Well, to answer your -- the first point you make is -- is the location of the receiving areas. What I put up on the screen there is the -- is the chart that shows where the receiving areas are. Those are designated as R-1. Now, as a -- working under the assumption that there's an appropriate TDR program is -- is an appropriate mechanism here for our -- our -- our growth management plan amendments. Then the next question is is have we appropriately identified the boundaries of sending and receiving areas? And I think those are -- those are some -- some valid points. We -- staff has met with the Corkscrew community which is up in here (indicating). And I'm not sure, Ed, if this may be the area you could be speaking about. All this area you see in here (indicating) Page 25 January 2, 2002 has been identified as receiving areas. We have -- we have requested that Dr. Jim Nicholas, who has done our TDR program, look at possibly pulling some of that area out and not -- not making that a receiving area for a variety of reasons, and that's a possibility that this proposal could be modified and changed such that that particular area or portions of this area would no longer be designated as receiving lands. So that's -- I mean, that's a -- under the assumption that the TDR program is -- is -- is still valid and needs to be fine tuned, that's -- that's -- that is something that we will be looking at. MR. SOLING: May I make a comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sure. MR. SOLING: I'm living through a personal problem, and people ignore everything until it becomes personal. I live in a community where all my neighbors and I spent some money to buy a house, and right across the lake from us within a couple hundred feet is land zoned agricultural. And when we bought our houses, we looked at the zoning map, and we saw agricultural. Now we are told that the county is going to change it to commercial, and all of a sudden high-rise office buildings are going to be built. And I'm telling you we are very incensed, and we're going to hire an attorney and sue the county. And I'm saying it depends on whose ox is gored. You can make regulations, and you can say it's totally innocent. We're going to have a receiving area. We're going to increase the density. And I'm saying that the people in the receiving area have something to say about that. They don't -- they bought their houses or their land with a certain assumption, and you just can't start overdeveloping it. And you're saying -- the other thing, you're worrying about somebody who has rights taken away, and you're giving it -- you're giving excess rights to somebody who -- who never expected to have Page 26 January 2, 2002 them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have some people from the public who would -- anybody want to address the council that's here today? Yes, sir. Is that -- is that an opportune time to do this, Bill? MR. LORENZ: Well, my pref-- my preference would be to step you through the whole report. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we do that first. Okay. Okay. We'll do that. MR. LORENZ: And -- and -- I know for the public that -- that took a look at these monitors, that this is somewhat difficult to see. I don't know if we've got some extra copies of the material, but let me use this as -- as to give you a little bit of an overview of this report. This report, by the way, the format is set up for our Rural Fringe Advisory Committee to review some past actions that they had, what the proposed language is, and also what the dated analysis is shown to support what our proposed policies are. So you haven't seen this kind of format that we've been working through this one particular committee. And just to -- just to give you that orientation. The biggest -- the biggest point just to make in terms of Section 1 of summary of findings and general recommendations, this came out of the conceptual report that we were developing in June, and-- and in terms of staff recommendations, what we recommended back in June was the old policies that we drafted in November of 2000. And, of course, as I noted earlier, that these policies we're proposing now are different from that. But for purposes of the committee and for continuity, Exhibit A of this -- of this package that we gave the EAC just simply re -- repeated those old policies, just to give people a -- a ability to cross-reference what we had initially proposed, and that was a request by the committee. And then Section 2 is -- under staff recommendations is the amendments, proposed amendments, of the growth management plan, Page 27 January 2, 2002 underlined, strike-through format. And on the right-hand side was simply some notes and -- and information to try to point out some very -- some particular details for the-- for the committee as they-- as they went through their work. Section 3 of the report, as I said, is the -- is the data and analysis. Quite frankly, I want to start there because I just want to go -- walk through some of the points that -- that I want to make. We -- we kind of touched on a little bit some details, but I want to give -- provide you this as being the -- the overview. And, again, in the state requirements, I've specified what the -- the Department of Community Affairs -- DCA is the acronym I'll be using -- requires in their criteria for growth -- for growth management plans. And in wetlands it talks about this idea of developing this comprehensive planning process, including the types and values and functions of wetlands, the locations, their sizes, the areas, etc., etc., which, of course, we -- we have done. And that's where when we start mapping the wetland systems in Collier County, we see a lot of the systems that are -- have been in our sending areas, which is the environmentally sensitive areas, are connective, better shaped than the areas that, if you will, are in the urban area and, also, the areas that we have been designated as receiving lands. They have been higher -- much more altered, more fragmented in the urban areas and receiving lands. And it talks about having -- that land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. So, again, at the landscape scale when we look at Collier County, you know, from the -- from that satellite view, what we're attempting to do is to say, here's where the large wetland systems are; here's where they're concentrated; we want to move development out of those areas; we don't want to have those areas be developed. And there are areas in the county that from a wetlands perspective have been more Page 28 January 2, 2002 altered. Less wetlands, less concentration, that's where it was more appropriate for development to occur. That becomes the urban boundary, the urban area, and the receiving areas that are in the -- in the fringe. So that's the -- that's the basis for this comprehensive planning process that distributes the land uses in areas which will have minimal effect and impact on wetlands in Collier County. Also note that in the 9-J-5 requirements is that these re -- the state basically says in their -- their rules that -- that these requirements do not require local governments to set up a duplicative program with regard to wetlands permitting. Also, the final order-- now, this is the final order that, if you will, somewhat goes a little bit beyond the 9-J-5 criteria which we have to meet both the requirements of the final order and the 9-J-5 criteria with these amendments is that basically the final order simply says direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, etc. So, again, we're coming up with the landscape scale, these large systems that have wetlands that we're directing development away from. Those are our sending lands. In the past we have provided you the -- the -- the wetland information in terms of what we are -- we've been using as data analysis. That's simply in that -- that particular graph and appropriate tables. And we talked a little bit about the -- the wetland characteristics, if you will, from sending areas and receiving areas. And Table 2 in this -- this analysis talks a little bit about the -- it provides some statistics regarding the wetland land cover within our - - our units. If you look at primary receiving areas, this is the areas where we -- we -- we are directing development to. Their composition-- their concentration of wetlands, composition of wetlands in those primary receiving areas is 18 percent. So, if you will, 1 out of every Page 29 January 2, 2002 5 acres within the receiving areas will be classified as wetland land cover. MS. SANTORO: Excuse me. What page are you on? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me see. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 18 of 29. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Whereas, if we -- if we go down to some of our sending lands, especially the NRPA sending lands, the wetland land cover is 88 percent. So there were some questions in the past where I've been -- people have asked, "Well, how did we come up with the sending and receiving lands?" and, quite frankly, staff, analyzing wetland land cover, some other requirements such as the priority wetlands for listed species. We've looked at other types of listed species data, and we come up and we've -- we've drawn those boundaries such that we've tried to minimize the amount of wetlands within the receiving areas, maximize the wetland land cover and the other listed species data in the sending areas. Can -- can those areas be tweaked? Yes. But that's -- but that was our basis for trying to draw those boundaries to come up with the sending and receiving areas. The point here, too, is, again, that you think about when we're talking about site preservation requirements, we start having -- for instance, we're proposing a -- I believe, at least a 60 percent, perhaps a 70 percent open-space requirement even in the receiving land developments. Well, if you have to set aside that much land requirement, we're saying in our policies the first place you have to set aside is the highest functioning wetland systems. Then, again, that's where it's working with that vegetation retention requirement. So we have -- again, we've tried to at the landscape scale directed these intensive land uses away from lands that -- that have the highest amount of wetland systems in place. And, of course, this -- this is the map that I had referred to before, and it has that companion data just in a graphical display so you can kind of take a Page 30 January 2, 2002 look at how the wetland land cover maps out vis-a-vis the sending and receiving lands. Now, this is the a table that was presented -- presented before I believe the conserve -- a member of The Conservancy provided the EAC with information -- and, again, just looking at this information, that when you begin to -- to look at what the federal -- or, excuse me, what the South Florida Water Management District has tabulated as what their wetland impacts are, we look at that year, 2 1/2 years' worth of data, on average we have -- 16 percent of the wetlands are directly impacted. When I began looking at the -- our -- our percentage numbers, whether it be the table that we used initially or that other graphical function that was solely based upon the wetland score from a functionality assessment, you know, how much different are we going to be from what the -- what those agencies are -- are allowing. And we would still allow some impact with mitigation. And then -- then at that particular point, then we'd have to justify the percentage impact, come up with a mitigation requirement. We're sliding down that area of coming up with a duplicate program that has different standards at the local level than at the -- at the agency's level. Remember, these -- and our-- our comprehensive planning process, if you will, is we're -- we're -- assuming everything works out right; we're going to have development not occurring in the areas where we have the most wetlands, the highest functioning wetlands. We're going to put it in the areas that have the least amount of wetlands, the lowest functioning wetlands. So when we start trying to develop standards within those areas, then we're working on a very small increment of-- of protection, and I just couldn't justify us developing a more comprehensive permitting type of program for that increased increment of protection in the receiving lands where we're saying that those wetland systems have been the most Page 31 January 2, 2002 compromised. I know the areas that we're going to allow development to occur. In fact, we want development to occur because we want to get it out of the sensitive areas. Again, that's the rationale and the -- and the reasoning behind proposing these policies. MR. CARLSON: And, Bill, getting back to my particular problem with a receiving area right on the border of a NRPA, did you consider any sort of buffering, other than the 50-foot buffer, like a major buffer that would take into account wildlife, habitat, effects on hydrology, the ability to do prescribed bums in the future? Did any of that come into the thought process? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it did. We do have the buffering language -- I know the subcommittee -- I work with the subcommittee working with -- I'm not sure whether it's gotten to the full EAC or not. I can't recall. There is buffering language that would buffer the natural resource protection areas. Now, there is some places, quite frankly, I'm -- I think that we could find -- fine tune a little bit and tweak. The whole point of that was to put a -- land uses that have minimal effects in between the development and the boundary of what we're calling as the natural reservation, those conservation areas and NRPA areas. That's a place that -- that, perhaps again, can be -- can be fine tuned, but those are set of policies that the council will see as part of the comprehensive set of policies that we'll bring to you for your review. MR. CARLSON: Well, I think you do need to look at the location of the receiving areas and what they border. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. CARLSON: And while your -- your motives of transferring development from other wetlands to a receiving area makes sense, in some cases you're putting that development right on top of a really, really high-quality existing natural wetland system. Page 32 January 2, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Right. And I think-- MR. CARLSON: And it is going to cause damage. MR. LORENZ: And I think that that is a very good point and -- and should be brought out as we bring those buffering policies to the EAC for final review. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Back-- back on page 1 of your report, Bill, the italicized portion of the staff recommendation, following that directly, this statement's made: Since the interim restriction set forth in the final order will apply to the eastern land study area, at least through June of next year -- or this year, I guess -- the county-wide minimum of standards need not apply to this area at this time? I -- I don't understand that as a conclusion from what you have italicized in that. MR. LORENZ: Okay. There is -- there is also a policy in the wetland policies that -- that goes to that idea. We have -- we have two distinct planning efforts going on right now for the growth management plan, and you've heard me talk about the rural fringe committee. The rural fringe -- the rural fringe amendments, the amendments that apply to the rural fringe area -- and that's the area that's listed in that -- in that figure in your report -- is going to go on the timetable that those amendments will be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners by the end of June of this year. There is a separate effort occurring, what's called the eastern lands areas. The eastern lands basically is everything that's east of-- of Golden Gate Estates and north of 75. That area has a -- that area has a separate advisory committee. They're on a timetable that goes beyond the June deadline for adopting the rural fringe amendments. (Mr. Stone left the room.) MR. LORENZ: They're still in their formative stages of developing the concepts for all of their wetlands and listed species in Page 33 January 2, 2002 a wildlife natural resource protection efforts. So we don't want to have these policies apply in those areas. Those areas will still be subject to the moratorium when -- when these amendments are adopted. They may come up with a whole different set of policies for those areas, or at some particular point maybe -- maybe they may adopt these policies or some portion of these policies. We don't know at the moment. But we don't want to have these policies to apply to that-- that efforts, if that effort is still ongoing. MR. HILL: But you're-- you're -- moving back up, your italicized portion makes this statement: Protection policies must be applicable throughout the county. It -- it looks like you're making an introductory statement of the applicability and then backing off. MR. LORENZ: This -- remember, this first section was the -- was the comprehensive plan -- I mean was the -- was the conceptual plan that was developed in June. And -- and we had a different set of policies that we were writing at that particular point and would -- would have applied county-wide. The comments that we receive from our -- our growth management attorneys and-- and from other commentors was, well, that shouldn't be the case since this effort is continuing to be ongoing. And I certainly agree with that and -- and so the policies that you have right now that are proposing are different from -- from this initial recommendation back in June of-- of-- of nine -- of 2001. And I'll -- I'll get to that policy -- I'll get to that policy -- specific policy, you know, as I go through the whole presentation. MR. HILL: So we may end up with two sets of requirements simply based upon the location and geography? MR. LORENZ: We -- we could, which would not be -- I wouldn't have a -- when -- when you're looking at the areas that we're talking about, they're -- they're distinctly different. So there may be Page 34 January 2, 2002 logic and rationale for that, but we're not going to presuppose -- presuppose that. MS. SANTORO: I didn't understand your response to Mr. Carlson about the buffer areas, because we discussed that a lot. And he asked, was it considered, and you said, yes, it was, and maybe it still should be in your opinion. But what happened when it was being considered? MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- you remember this process as -- as we've been working with this Rural Fringe Advisory Committee -- they just had their 51 st meeting before the holidays. So we've been working language with them. They have come up with some language that we've incorporated in a draft, and they have a -- for -- for some particular types of land uses, they have that -- we've arrived at a 50-foot buffer distance because that's the distance that the South Florida Water Management District applies. That may be -- that may need to be changed, and I'm -- I'm definitely open to that. And as we go through the process with the Environmental Advisory Council, I get some other input from other-- other commentors, you know, that could be a number that I think that -- I'm not -- put it this way: I'm not comfortable with that number myself, but that's the number that -- that's the number that the -- that the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has arrived at. (Mr. Stone entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: But there's other -- there's other requirements within that buffering policy that you need to -- to review and -- con -- and consider that number in the context of that total policy. So that's -- that's another point of discussion. MR. SOLING: May I get to the buffering problem? Page 9, you say 50-foot buffer from any natural water body. And then you go on to say 25 foot from wetlands. And my question is, 25 feet isn't very much buffering. It's only a car length, but the question I raise, is Page 35 January 2, 2002 it what -- what would it be in dry season as against wet season? How do you determine the 25 feet at any time of year? MR. LORENZ: The -- those -- those standards are from the South Florida Water Management District. MS. SANTORO: Excuse me. I -- I still don't understand this process. Bear with me. Several -- at several meetings that I've been at, the buffering situation has been really emphasized by this advisory council, and the process is going along, and it still hasn't been incorporated. You're saying you're still willing to consider it and you've said that it's important all along. What's going to be different between now and when it goes to the board of commissioners in February? MR. LORENZ: I don't -- I don't know. We're getting together with -- with some other staff members today at one o'clock to go through the whole set of policies and -- and to review them, and that's one policy that we haven't gotten to yet. This is -- this is the old sausage-making analogy. We've got the Environmental Advisory Council with your desires and wishes and input, which we've -- we've taken and worked through with on -- you know, with a number of meetings and their subcommittee. We have the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee. It's a whole 'nother set of folks who, quite frankly, have the primary authority from the Board of County Commissioners to work on these amendments to satisfy the final order requirements, and we work -- been working very much with them in trying to craft language, work through, develop a consensus position as much as we can. We have staff who have certain professional responsibility to make some judgment calls, which we are try -- we -- we take that seriously, and we try to do. And you have the public who have been weighing into the process with us, with their comments, etc., etc. Page 36 January 2, 2002 So what we are trying to attempt to do now is to pull together all of these comments into one public hearing draft that you will see at -- the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee will see. You will make your comments on that, we -- and also the planning commission will also see this. So there's three advisory committees that are going to provide input and feed -- and feedback to the Board of County Commissioners when the Board of County Commissioners has their transmittal hearing at the end of February. So we -- we're -- my job, if you will, staffs job is to pull together the information, build upon as much consensus as we can. And where we have differences, we will highlight those differences to the county commission. And then your role as the Environmental Advisory Counsel is to tell the Board of County Commissioners to say, it's not strong enough here, it's not strong enough here, you need to incorporate more information here or more this or that, and then we'll -- we'll take that to the county commission. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Just one more time. I keep hearing you talking about this plan being based on the landscape scale, you know, and that's good to think of the whole big picture. But then in the -- in the case of the buffering, you use a standard that the -- that the Water Management District uses for individual projects, and they're not thinking landscape scale, okay. So I think there's a basic flaw in where this document is right now, and that is, looking at how the various -- you know, there's a-- there's like a 10-square-mile receiving area there that abuts a NRPA and -- and there's -- in my opinion, 50-foot buffer is not taking into consideration the landscape scale. You know, it's the neighborhood scale. You know, it's a lot- line scale. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. CARLSON: So I just think it's failing at that level. And Page 37 January 2, 2002 we certainly will be opposed to this particular direction. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think I concur with it. I think that this buffering is, again, looking at individual site plans. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Versus the buffering of a receiving area to a NRPA is a different stow, and I think that -- I think all of us believe that. Go ahead. Walk on through. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. MS. LYNNE: I was going to ask you anyways, it brings up the issue. The EAC has gone on record as endorsing Section A as being a sending area and not receiving. I'm looking at this, and I just used the scale and did a mile around the NRPA boundary. Is there any compromise available if we did a mile in from the NRPA boundaries as did a sending area? That still leaves a bit of Section A as a receiving area. I'm just asking you if that's -- well, they were talking buffering and that section. Now, I know the people up there do not wish to have more density. They purchased the property to live in a rural area. But I'm also trying to ask, like, the buffering. I mean, we talked about a mile at one point, 2 miles. I'm wondering if that isn't a possible suggestion to revising this Section A. MR. CARLSON: Yeah, I -- we've talked about it. We've gotten input from wetlands ecologist, Dr. Duever, and, you know, based on studies that were done concerning the impacts of the Golden Gate canal systems, a mile is a -- is a nice buffer for NRPA, and it's -- it's even conservative. It's -- I mean, the effects of drainage canals in this part of the world can extend more than a mile past the edge of the drainage canal. So, you know, a mile is conservative, in my opinion. MS. LYNNE: I'm suggesting that maybe we make the mile -- change it into the sending area. If we took the mile buffer, I was offering this as a possible compromise so that the mile from the CREW NRPA borders be considered sending areas. That would still Page 38 January2,2002 leave a section, a small section, of Area A as receiving. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The only comment I have is let's put some scientific fact behind how far we select. As -- as Ed said, if the people say it's a mile, that's what's needed, okay. If it's a half a mile and that's what's needed, but let's do it by scientific facts when we put that kind of thing in. MR. CARLSON: Well, it's going to be hard to nail that down. Here we are, this vast experiment of trying to institute a transfer of development rights, a program where there has never been one before, and try and balance the environmental areas with the potential receiving areas. You're not going to nail that down completely with available science. And at some point, you know, somebody's got to take a stand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we let Bill finish walking through this thing. MR. LORENZ: Well, let me also again reiterate that that whole set of policy groups of buffering from -- at the landscape scales is not contained within these particular policies, so you're just seeing a little bit of a sliver here of the projects that deal directly with these projects that we expect in the receiving areas, but if there's going to be some buffering requirements, there's going to be another policy group, buffering of the -- what we're calling the natural reservation, the sending areas, as opposed to simply the wetlands here that you see the buffer. But, again, we talked about -- in the Section E of the comprehensive planning process, this Section E is basically what we talked about before of the landscape scale, the project site scale, and the mechanisms that we're going to use. Now, let me -- let me take you back to the first part of Section 2 where it's the actual language, and I'm just going to work -- walk you through the -- the general policies. If-- if you don't mind, let me just give you an overview of the policies and how -- and how we've set Page 39 January2,2002 them up, and then we can kind of go back to them and look at the de - - the details. Objective 6.2 is basically the -- the -- in the growth management plan you have to have objectives and goals, objectives and policies. This is Objective 6.2 that deals with basically protection and conservation of wetlands. Policy 6.2.1 is simply a policy that addresses mapping of wetland systems in the county. That's -- that's a requirement by -- by 9-J-5. That's the criteria for growth management plans. Policy 6.2.2 is basically a definitions policy for wetlands. This definition -- definition of wetlands is the same definition that the state uses not only in terms of its statutory definition but also in what the delineation methodology is to actually delineate the wetlands on site. (Mr. Gal left the room.) MR. LORENZ: That's 6.2.2, sets that definition and delineation methodology out. 6.2.3 is a fairly lengthy policy, and basically it -- in policy form it kind of lays out what the total protection poli -- process is for Collier County dealing with the landscape scale systems, the conservation areas, the sending areas, the fact that we do have an area of critical state concern that has a 10 percent alteration standard. And these are -- these -- these are the mechanisms by which we -- we believe that -- that wetlands in Collier County will be protected. And down -- that's at the landscape scale. Then the next -- another paragraph deals with the point that we will be directing development in the urban area, be directing development in the receiving lands, and that we will be relying upon the county's vegetation retention requirements that are in other policies of the growth management plan and, basically, the federal and state wetland permitting programs. Policy 6.2.4 is dis -- is the policy that sets out the use of either Page 40 January2,2002 the WRAP, the W-R-A-P, which is the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure, and that the South Florida Water Management District is currently using as the' functionality assessment that we will use to rate the function of wetlands on the sites that come to -- to -- for your review, and it also indicates that as the state moves forward with adopting its uniform assessment methodology, that when that gets adopted, the county will -- will basically adopt that through this policy as well. That will -- that will replace the WRAP. (Mr. Gal entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Policy 6.2.5 sets out a little bit of the -- kind of the recipe, if you will, a cookbook of-- of how the county is going to apply its vegetation retention requirements and -- and to preserve wetlands on site. We have talked-- staff has talked about having a -- a -- wetlands of at least 0.5 functionality shall be preserved on site to the degree that they conform to the vegetation retention requirement. So, for instance, if the vegetation retention requirement, when it's applied to a site, says that there's a hundred acres of vegetation has to be preserved on site and there's -- there's 120 acres of wetlands on site of which 60 acres of those wetlands have a functionality assessment of .5 or greater, you're going to have to put those 60 acres of wetlands in your preserve area on site. That's basically what this policy says. We also -- also indicate that wet -- that wetlands as corridors or flow-ways of the project shall be maintained. So that gives us some degree of-- a little bit -- some degree of standards, if you will, local standards, that those -- those flow-ways will be maintained. And then -- but we also say with wetlands that have functional assessments of less than .5 that upland vegetation communities can be utilized to meet those vegetation retention requirements. MR. CARLSON: Hey, Bill, will the new policies still allow planting of native vegetation to qualify as habitat protection Page 41 January 2, 2002 standards? MR. LORENZ: The new policies in the urban area are very similar to the current code which would allow whatever is allowed and currently would -- would remain. I believe it's more stringent, though, in the -- in -- in the -- in the rural fringe areas that you just can't put -- let the landscape requirements -- MR. CARLSON: Well, we -- yeah. We've had-- MR. LORENZ: Well, we'll have to check that. MR. CARLSON: -- because we've had several projects where mature native habitat was destroyed, and then they got all their credit from planting a few little new seedling things. I always thought that was a problem. MR. LORENZ: Right. What -- make sure we have a -- that as a -- as a good comment when we review the vegetation retention policies. I think I've given you a draft. Did they receive that? So that's how these will dovetail together. So that's a point that we'll have to make sure that the language buttresses that. That was -- that was my intent, that it would be more stringent than what we have in the urban area. We'll have to make sure that, you know, the language, you know, matches up our intent. Just -- just -- just to conversate off the side here with Barbara, she can't remember whether we stated that as explicitly as what I'm trying to say was our intent, so We'll have to make sure that that is the case. Part of the item, again, all direct impacts shall be mitigated for-- pursuant to requirements of Policy 6.2.7, which we'll get to later, and then also single-family residents don't follow the requirements of Policy 6.2.10. So there's some specific requirements for-- the way we'll handle single-family residents is somewhat different than these other -- other projects here. Policy 6.2.6 basically sets up, if you will, the buffering -- now, this is the buffering of a wetland that's on site. When you preserve a Page 42 January 2, 2002 wetland on site or a project, these are the buffering requirements for that wetland on site, again, not to be confused with the larger issue of buffering at the landscape scale. That's correct. MS. BURGESON: Can I ask just a quick question? However, when we're deferring to South Florida permitting, none of these will apply; is that correct? We'll defer to what their wetland permitting rules will be. MR. LORENZ: In the case of the buffers, we're saying that this is a shall, and this shall require the minimum requirement. MS. BURGESON: So we will supersede South Florida's permit in some cases? MR. LORENZ: For this particular situation. The same thing with the wetlands. If we have wetlands of greater than .5 functionality assessment, we're saying that those will be on site as part of our native vegetation retention requirements. And so you can see the requirements that we have in the buffering. This is not that much different from the language that we had presented to the council in the past. Policy 6.2.7 is basically the mitigation policies for the most part, reflect -- reflecting the fact that impacts to wetlands will have to have mitigation. We are -- in this particular case we are deferring, if you will, in A and B the mitigation requirements that will be set out by the South Florida Water Management District in their permitting process. MR. COE: Bill, can we-- MR. LORENZ: And I want to -- want to -- want to make one particular case, because this has come up in the past, and I know that this is an area that even from staff's perspective, I mean, if we were -- if we were task-- if we were tasked with coming up with a whole set of policies or whole set of new standards, you know, by the county commission, that we would -- one of our first concerns is, is the use Page 43 January 2, 2002 of mitigation banks under certain circumstances, and I know that the council has had some discussion about that in the past. Let me just say that the local governments are precluded from adopting re -- regulations such that we would -- we would not allow an applicant to use a mitigation bank. The state -- the state's rules and regulations are written that local governments cannot preclude an applicant to use a mitigation bank that's been permitted by state agencies. So I know that that has been an issue -- an issue in the past. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill. MR. LORENZ: Now Item No. -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's take five. MR. LORENZ: Okay. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's come back to order. Bill. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me take you -- stop where we broke off for the break. Page 10 of 29, parentheses 2, which is mitigation, mitigation incentives: We're proposing this section to kind of recognize that maybe there are certain types of mitigation that we as a county would rather see an applicant do over other types of mitigation; rather than making that a regulatory requirement, that we specify very detailed types of mitigation at the county level. Rather than make it a regulatory requirement, we're proposing to make it more of an incentive-based program whereby, for instance, if a -- if a -- an applicant were to create wading bird habitat that's located within a certain distance to -- either wading bird or wood stork colonies, that we'd rather see them do that than go to a mitigation bank, for instance. If we build an incentive for them to do that -- and right now the one incentive is, again, density, a density increase, that that's a way of directing that kind of activity to get -- to get what we would see as Page 44 January 2, 2002 something valuable as opposed to something that we see as less valuable. So we've put this particular requirement in here just -- just to give ourselves a year to work on that kind of incentive program. Tying back to the vegetation retention standards, whole set of policies, we also have a similar policy in there that we would propose creating a incentive program to preserve more vegetation than what we would be requiring. And, again, that more vegetation could also translate into more wetlands preserved on site as well. So rather than create a set -- separate set of standards in the county for mit -- wetland mitigation, we want to incentivise that mitigation activities that we -- have a higher value, and that's what this part of the policy intent is to do. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. Is there any indication that this kind of incentive program works? I know, for example, it didn't with the interconnectivity in new developments in the urban area. MR. LORENZ: Density is not going to work in the urban area. That's because right now I perhaps may have used the wrong terminology, not being a land-use planner, but basically you almost have a right for rezoning of 4 units per acre. The market, what they're building, what the developers are building from a market perspective is around 2 1/2 to 3 units per acre. So giving more increased density for a project in the urban area, at the moment, is -- that's not an incentive. It looks like that will be an incentive in the rural fringe area for the receiving lands, using bonus -- using density as a-- as an incentive because you're starting at such a low amount of-- of density by right in the receiving lands. So there -- there's opportunity here in this policy that -- that we could provide some other incentives within that one year, but we have provided, if you will, a constraint in regard to density that -- that by the policy we will not allow any more than a 10 percent bonus density. Page 45 January 2, 2002 MS. LYNNE: Second question: Do the benefits of these -- the things that you would like to see, are they not going to be overridden by increased density in terms of extra use of water, more garbage, you know, all the other prob -- associated problems? MR. LORENZ: That -- that's a good question, and I think that that's where we have to do the analysis. Again, this policy here is set up such that in one year from, if you will, the amendment that we'll -- we'll come back with an incentive program. If-- if the analysis says that -- let's take the example you just said that it's not worth it. Then I think that we would want to come back and say it's not worth it; the incentive program needs to be taken out of the policy. So I'm open to that. MR. CARLSON: Bill, has the rural fringe committee settled on a recommended density for a receiving area? MR. LORENZ: No, they haven't. MR. CARLSON: Have they discussed it? MR. LORENZ: Yes. The proposal is 1 unit per acre using TDRs. You have to use TDRs to go from the current density of .2 units per acre up to 1. If you do a rural village and meet a lot of requirements to do a rural village, you can go up to -- I believe it's 3 1/2 units per acre. These density re -- these bonuses, also what we're saying in these bonuses is that -- is that they're not -- they should not substitute. You have to do the TDR program first before you get that density bonus here because we don't want this to compete with the use of TDRs, which -- which lessens the value of the incentive program, but we have to establish some priority someplace. MR. HILL: I thought at one time the overall net density would not be increased through the TDR program. MR. LORENZ: Through the TDR program, that is correct. Bonus incentives, however, are -- are going to work on top of the Page 46 January 2, 2002 TDR program. So to the degree that the bonus incentive program is utilized, that will increase in that density of what we currently have. MR. HILL: On a -- on a -- if you use the terminology, on a landscape scale, the two acreages together theoretically have a density maximum at this point in time? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. If you look at the rural fringe, you have roughly, let's say, ! 00,000 acres; that's 20,000 units. A TDR program, you still would have 20,000 units. They're just going to be the way you -- they're going to be all directed in the receiving lands. MR. HILL: But you will not increase over that -- MR. LORENZ: For the TDR program you will not increase. On a bonus density program, however, to the degree that this program is utilized, that will -- that will add more units to the inventory. MR. SOLING: I don't follow you. If-- if I have a piece of land and I get a bonus for a TDR, you're saying you're going to penalize the other property owners to keep the total -- total development in that district to a certain limit? MR. LORENZ: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in a TDR program, if the TDR program works, let's say you transfer all of your development rights out of the sending lands, they're going to go to the receiving lands. You will not have increased the total number of units that you start out -- started out with. MR. SOLING: You mean in the county as a whole. MR. LORENZ: In the rural fringe area as a whole. On top of the TDR program or let's say in addition to the TDR program, we fashion a density incentive program. Those will be created units, if you will, above and beyond what the current inventory of units are. MR. COE: All right. Let's say we allow out in -- way out in the Page 47 January 2, 2002 sticks 1 unit for 5 acres. From the sending unit, you know, however many units come out, there's still going to be one -- I don't care whether it's bonus or whatever it is. There's still going to be 1 unit per 5 acres in the receiving area; is that correct? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MR. LORENZ: No. MR. COE: Just say that 1 and 5 is what it is. It really doesn't make any difference what it is. Say it's 1 and 5. Is that going to change? MR. LORENZ: In the receiving lands you can go up to 1 unit per acre using TDRs and go up to 3 1/2 units per acre if you design with a rural village but still using TDRs. So you will see an increase in density in certain part-- portions of the rural fringe, such as in the receiving areas, but the total -- the total net number of units is going to remain constant in the total rural fringe. You're just shifting them from the sending lands to the receiving lands. MR. COE: Okay. MR. LORENZ: For the TDR-- MR. COE: So the only reason that this would increase in the receiving area would be if they're making these villages? MR. LORENZ: They don't have to do a village to go from their current 1 per 5 to 1 per 1. But if they want to do a village, they can go up to 3 1/2 to 1. So there is a distinction in the receiving areas is what you can do. Now, you haven't seen the language for the -- for the sending and receiving area land uses, nor have you seen the language for the TDR program or the rural -- rural village program. But there are a number of criteria and constraints that are built into that language to say that you have to meet these requirements to -- to go to that 3 1/2 units, for instance -- MR. COE: When will we see all these things? I'm-- we've been talking about this and buffers -- Page 48 January 2, 2002 MR. LORENZ: We need to schedule a time for you at the end of January. And you'll be getting that total package in the next two weeks. MR. HILL: What's the rationale behind this bonus which allows to go beyond the density allowed under the TDR program? I see no valid criterion or rationale for increasing that density beyond what the TDR would allow, which says on a landscape scale the same total density. MR. LORENZ: Well, the rationale, the general rationale is on an incentive program, if we want a developer to go beyond the minimum regulatory requirements as an incentive, we have to give them a carrot such that it -- they say, yeah, this affects their bottom line positively, and they'll take that carrot, and what we get as a community is -- is more wetland protection or mitigation that's done differently than -- than what simply the state may require them to do. Now, the cost of that carrot, we have to ask the question, is -- is it -- is it worth what we're getting, and I think that's the reason that we need to do the analysis that within one year we'll -- we'll assess it to see whether -- whether we can find carrots that the community is worth paying for. The cost of those carrots is going to be less than the benefits derived from what the applicants will do. MR. CARLSON: I have -- I have one question. I'm looking at this map. It says page 19 of 29. And, now, the shading, the sending areas have certain shading; is that -- am I reading this correctly? MR. LORENZ: Let me get to it, Ed. MR. CARLSON: The sending areas are the dark shaded, and the shading is what designates them a sending area? MR. LORENZ: No, in this particular case the shading is whether it's -- we're trying to show a couple of things. We're trying to show on the land cover whether the lighter gray shading is forest and the darker gray is wetland and then the white would be Page 49 January 2, 2002 everything else. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Well, I'm still seeing the S designation which would mean that it's a sending area. Like, for instance, the -- the area of Collier County right under where it says Lee County -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. CARLSON: -- okay. Now, those lands have been purchased by the CREW trust for preservation. They -- would they have sending rights? MR. LORENZ: We're -- the lang -- I haven't -- I haven't -- I don't have the language in front of my -- my head, but I know the concept has always been is that -- is that governmental agencies which the -- with the CREW would be a governmental agency -- MR. CARLSON: I don't think so. It's a private nonprofit land trust. MR. LORENZ: Well, they're -- they're purchasing that land from the Save Our Rivers pro -- Save Our Rivers -- that was set up through the Save Our Rivers program. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Okay. MR. LORENZ: So from that perspective, they would not -- we're not allowing that governmental or quasigovernmental unit to sell off their development rights. That will be -- that will be very specific in there. MR. CARLSON: There goes my endowment. MR. LORENZ: Now a private entity would be able to do that. MR. CARLSON: Oh, we are private. MR. COE: You are private. MR. CARLSON: So Corkscrew Swamp can be a sending area? MR. LORENZ: Yes, you're a private entity. MR. CARLSON: I just got my endowment back. MR. LORENZ: If you want to add that density to the receiving areas then right now, I don't see that we have any policies that Page 50 January 2, 2002 preclude that. MS. LYNNE: If you didn't do that-- MR. COE: You're already warned it's coming. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's keep on going. MS. LYNNE: If you didn't do that, that would be denying Corkscrew or whatever other-- MR. CARLSON: I'd hit you with a Burt Harris lawsuit in a heartbeat. MR. LORENZ: We are not doing it for the public entities, though. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's keep going. MR. HILL: Could I have one quick comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: I'll make it brief. In the past it has been a tendency in other places and also in Collier County to look at net loss of wetlands on an acre-by-acre basis. A lot of this council's considerations have been concerned with function. I'm pleased that in Policy 6.2.7 we've now said no net loss of wetland functions, and you, in several of the subparagraphs, refer to functionality. Do you honestly believe that we can look at the overall function of wetlands and build that into the mitigation process? MR. LORENZ: Well, we're -- yes. But what we're -- what we're saying there is that the South Florida Water Management District permit approval shall be furnished as evidence that this requirement has been met. We're accepting South Florida Water Management District's -- utilizing -- utilizing the functionality assessments that they will be using under the state uniform assessment procedure as being acceptable to Collier County. MR. HILL: In the past I'm not sure that has been realistically valid. Page 51 January 2, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, you will remember the last guy that said no net loss of wetlands. I believe it was George Bush, wasn't it? The other George Bush. Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. LORENZ: Getting down to Policy 6.2.8, basically this policy simply sets up some standards as to how mitigation areas should be dedicated as conservation and common areas. 6.2.9 is simply referencing the fact that as part of the county's EIS requirements, Environmental Impact Statement, that the county would re -- require that the wetland functionality assessment be part of the -- of the EIS submittal. Policy 6.2.10, if you will, that's our single-family resident policy. Currently what the county does is the county simply, within their building permit applications, notes at the bottom of the building permit that the applicant may be subject to federal and state wetland permitting requirements. We do not hold the building permit up until they furnish us with a -- either the permit or a statement from the agencies to say that there are no wetlands on site. This policy -- this policy changes the current conditions for residences within the area of Big -- Big Cypress -- the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, in which case those applicants have to give us -- have to give the county, if you will, proof or evidence that there are no wetlands on site, or if there are, they have -- here is the applicable federal and state permit before we issue the building permit. That's also -- that's in southern Golden Gate Estates and the area of-- area of critical state concern. Outside of those two areas, the county will simply do what it currently does, which is to provide that notice to applicants that there may be wetlands on site. And it's -- and it's their risk to -- to go ahead and clear their land or put their -- their house and fill and whatever they're -- they're doing on site, that if they -- if the federal and state agencies say, oh, you're in wetlands, Page 52 January 2, 2002 then they're subject to the federal and state enforcement re -- requirements. We -- we also -- we are committing, however, within this policy that within a year of the adoption of the amendments that the county will work with the federal and state agencies to see if we can determine a little better screening methodology by which we can give -- tell landowners that they have a either high or low probability of wetlands on site. Unfortunately, with any screening -- screening methodology, we can't -- that's not a guarantee. But at least from a planning process, maybe residents who purchased property -- have properties or are in the market to purchase properties will be able to better determine whether or not there -- there is a high probability of wetlands on site, try to minimize their -- their liability. And if-- and if that pol -- and if that procedure is good enough for a regulatory requirement, we may consider maybe having that as somewhat of a regulatory requirement as well. But that remains to be seen. There's still some problems with using screening tools for this. But the whole point of Policy 6.2.10 is to address, if you will, the single-family residents, hold them out as opposed to large projects, development projects. 6.2.11 is basically the same language we have in the current comprehensive plan, just allows timbering to occur. 6.2.12 really is -- is -- buttresses the idea that-- that-- that-- that developments still can get their density with our -- with our wetlands policy. So if they have to go vertical, if you will, add more -- more units up, they can. But we're not saying that they're going to be limiting their -- that these wetland policies will automatically limit their -- their density rights. 6.2.13 is simply a policy that says that it is not intended to duplicate federal, state, or regional agency regulatory wetland permitting programs. Page 53 January 2, 2002 And Policy 6.2.14 -- I believe, Bill, you had mentioned it earlier -- is exactly that that language seemed to be confusing up in Section 1. This is a policy that says that's going to apply to all of Collier County except as those areas that are going through that planning process as part of the final order requirements. I -- hopefully that -- that language, that policy, is -- is adequate. Objective 6.3 is -- is the object -- has the policies that deal with submerged marine habitats. I don't think that we had made any substantive changes from these policies from what the -- the Environmental Advisory Council had seen in that November 2000 draft that -- that takes you through these policies, you know, very specifically. (Mr. Hill left the room.) MR. LORENZ: But let me -- let me add the one thing as how these will operate, again, with the other policies, the vegetation retention policies. We have vegetation retention policies as a group, and we also have wildlife policies as a group; then we have the wetland policies as a group. Vegetation retention policies specify, depending upon whether you're in a sending, receiving, or urban area, how much vegetation you have to preserve on site, so you make that calculation through those policies. Then-- then the question is, is, okay, that gives you the amount of acreage that you have to preserve on site. The wetland policies basically say that if you have a functionality assessment of greater than .5, those wetlands of greater than .5 have to be part of that vegetation retention requirement. But to some degree that's not what we have in our code now, so it gives us a little bit of a way to say, okay, here's the gross acreage you have to retain. Now, here is the very specific wetlands that you have to retain. (Mr. Hill entered the room.) Page 54 January 2, 2002 MR. LORENZ: And then we also have some policies in the vegetation retention group and the wildlife group that talks about listed species. We'll also be -- if you have listed species habitat, you have to set aside that area as part of your vegetation retention requirements. So, again, as a -- it's difficult sometimes bringing sometimes some of these policy groupings the way we've had to do it piecemeal so that you have the whole -- the whole picture, but that's how these policies at the site level will work. Again, at the landscape scale, the way they're working is identifying the sending and receiving areas and having proper -- and having high-preservation standards in the sending areas and -- and the limitations of land use of densities and other kinds of land uses in the sending areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. All right. Thanks, Bill. Anyone have any questions for Bill? Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we hear from the public? MR. COE: I'd like to throw out just a couple of concerns of mine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Obviously we're a little beat after several hours of your testimony here, Bill -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It was exciting. MR. COE: Yeah. We were real thrilled. But I'm still very concerned that some of the things that we have expressed concern about with this EAC is making sure that we do impact the environment as much -- or as small -- as little as we possibly can through buffers, as we've mentioned, and also through some pretty strict regulations. And it appears to me that now all the work over this last year, year and a half or so has been kind of not all the work, Page 55 January 2, 2002 but at least much of it now is for naught and that now we're going to accept the minimum and, in effect, just what South Florida Water Management District and the engineers require. If so, there's really no need for this council. And I'm just really concerned about that. I feel like I don't know who to blame, and maybe that's the wrong thing to say, but I don't think that -- that our feelings about a strong environmental policy have been fully reflected in this document here, and that concerns me. It concerns me when we talk about Corkscrew and putting development right up to the edge of Corkscrew. I mean, we saw from the presentation from that good doctor that we needed a minimum, a conservative buffer of at least a mile and that -- I mean, it's like nobody said anything. It's like, hello. We've wasted our time. I'm concerned about that. And several times you've been asked these questions about whether the buffer is going to be considered. And you say, well, there's room for fine tuning. Well, when is the fine tuning going to commence? Because we're looking at doing a workshop towards the end of this month and having this whole bag of wind thrown at us at one time, and we've talked about this for months, and these concerns are still here, and we're not seeing the documentation showing where our concerns are being met. So I -- I hope I'm not speaking just for myself, but I'm concerned about this because it may be too late at the end of this month to voice these concerns that we've had for a year and a half. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Bill? MR. LORENZ: What I would -- would want the EAC to do as we go through this process, very specifically articulate where -- where you see that they're deficient. You mentioned the buffers, some ideas of mitigation. Very specifically you've heard some testimony -- if you take a position that you want to see a mile as a buffer, we'll carry that recommendation to the county commission. I Page 56 January2,2002 can -- I can act -- when we get a little bit further, I can talk in a little more detail. You recall that Mike Duever when he talked about a mile impact. I asked him specifically the question, well, doesn't it -- doesn't it matter whether or not -- matter how much of a draw-down you have and that could be lessened with smaller draw downs, and he said yes. So that's an example -- I use that as an example to say that the council may have some concerns, and staff has heard the concerns. Sometimes we agree with it; sometimes we don't. We will make a recommendation, and you-all have the ability to say we -- we either agree with staff or don't agree with staff, and we carry that to the county commission. You know, that's just -- this is the process. As we're working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, they've expressed a ton of positions that we -- we haven't agreed with either. And we've heard it. We've tried to incorporate it in as much as possible, and then we make a decision in the final -- final product, and we'll go through the transmittal process. So that's -- I don't know how else to be -- that's as straight as I can be with you as I've very much taken the comments and tried to incorporate it as much as I can. But this is a -- this is a draft that staff is putting together to take to the county commission as a transmittal hearing, and we -- we will reflect all of the advisory committee's comments, either positive or negative or specific changes that they would recommend. MR. COE: So you're going to present all the sides to the county commission. It's not going to be just, well, we're going to discount this, we'll count that? How is this going to be presented? Because we've already -- those have been on the committee for quite a while. We've written several times our concerns, specifically buffers. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. COE: Several times we've expressed our feeling on that. Page 57 January 2, 2002 And I want to make sure that does, in fact, get presented. MR. LORENZ: What -- what I want the council to provide is that if you have a list of, let's say, the buffers, the buffer is an issue, then somebody -- somebody on the council needs to -- when you see everything else we've put together, somebody on the council then needs to make a motion, say I move that the language for buffers or the concepts shall include 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever, and then you vote on it, and we'll carry that to the county commission. I don't want to be in a position where -- where I'm trying to represent the general thinking of the council without you taking a very specific vote on -- on particular items that you want the county commission to consider. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: To answer your question, Mr. Coe, in my experience -- and I haven't heard Bill testify, but in my experience the planning commission generally just gives its recommendations and, unless it's asked very specifically, will not discuss anything else. Allie, could you-- did I understand when you were talking about dealing with the mild buffer, were you making the suggestion that in between each NRPA or conservation area there be at least a mile of sending area before the receiving area starts as a way of dealing with the buffer? MS. SANTORO: We had a workshop that you weren't here for, and that was one suggestion by the professional. And I had brought it up, especially with Section A because the receiving area goes right up to the boundary of the NRPA, and I was trying to use that as, perhaps, a criteria to change that section. The EAC has already recommended that Area A be a totally sending area, and I was asking if that was not a possible choice to split Area A with that mile being used as a sending area and the rest being receiving area. But to answer your question, that is one criteria that was raised Page 58 January 2, 2002 at-- with the experts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Does that sound like it will work to you, Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Well, the whole -- the buffer concept that -- to my mind, was that the area involved in the buffer wouldn't have to be a sending area, that you would just maintain the rural density that exists there now with all the improved -- without the kinds of improvements you need when you go to a residential subdivision. I mean, you know, you don't need the hard surface roads and the canals and the street lights and that 1 unit per 5 acre rural density. So just leaving it the way it is and just not changing it is, in my mind, a legitimate buffer. And it's -- it's not, you know, buying back the land or -- or, you know, taking people off the existing rural zoning. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MR. COE: Do you want to make a motion? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Pertaining to the door situation, you'd prefer not having anybody there at all, if you had your druthers? MR. CARLSON: I don't know how to respond to that question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: As a sending area it would be a better buffer if there was absolutely nothing done to the land. It doesn't necessarily have to be a sending area. It could be either that or a rural density, 1 to 5. MR. CARLSON: Correct. MR. COE: Well, the advantage of keeping it the way it is though is that it doesn't permit greater development out here; it just keeps it the way it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, some of it may not be Page 59 January 2, 2002 developed yet. MR. COE: Correct. But if you keep it 1 home, whatever it might be, per 5 acres, and you keep it that way, that doesn't permit someone coming in, attempting to change the zoning and transfer that over here. MR. CARLSON: Uh-huh. MR. COE: It just says, we're going to leave the zoning 1 for 5 right here. So you want to make a motion on that? Let's see if we can get a second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Was this -- is this the time to do this, or is it time to do this when we come back and review this thing at the end of January? MR. LORENZ: That would be my suggestion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. I think we need to put all our thoughts together and when we come back at the end of January be prepared to do this kind of thing. Is that reasonable? MS. LYNNE: Well, I'd like to hear the public comments. But I also think that on an issue as important as the buffer, if the council feels that that's important, I think maybe that message should go through now. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, it's not the time -- I mean, we're going to come back. We're going to comment on that issue. At that time we revise -- we request additional items to be put in there. I don't really see to do something now when everybody is not prepared. It's up to the council. What do you want to do? MR. COE: How much more -- how much time will staff have after we give you our, quote, final recommendations to put all this together? Because you know this as well as I do. You know, I'm not bringing something that isn't old. We've discussed this, and we beat this dead -- dog to death, and now we're looking at the same old junk. And we already know and you know that we want stricter regulations Page 60 January 2, 2002 than what has currently been thrown to us in this document. MR. LORENZ: Remember, all the documents you've received so far have been working drafts. We're trying to get information out on the table, get comment, get feedback. Staff has taken your comment and feedback, and to the degree that we consider it, they have gotten in some of these drafts. You haven't seen the wildlife policies. You haven't seen the native vegetation policies. But I've put those together and used a lot of the EAC comments that you had given us back when. The point of it is it's an iterative process. We are coming to the transmittal hearing draft, in which case we're pulling all the comments from all the commentors -- MR. COE: When will that be done so -- MR. LORENZ: January. We want to try to get the EAC to have a -- a meeting in the end of January, and we'll have the -- we'll have a complete set of language for all the amendments provided to you with -- two weeks before that meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So we're talking about a week or so that we're going to be -- as I said, today at one o'clock we're pulling the language altogether. MR. COE: But can we make changes? Can we make changes during that workshop or whatever you want to call it in January and give you enough time to make sure that that is transmitted to planning, all the other groups that you have to work with to eventually get it to the county commissioners? MR. LORENZ: What we will do in-- what we will do in January is when you have your work -- when you have your recommendations, you will -- you will give a set of motions of we want this change, we want this, this, this, and this. We will take that information and then we'll create -- we're not sure how exactly it's going to look, but in the past we've called them side sheets. And Page 61 January 2, 2002 those side sheets will reflect what your motions are, and they will be located fairly close to where your issue is in terms of the final hearing draft. Those motions will go to the county -- will go to the county commission. Now, after hearing what the EAC says, what the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee says, what the planning commission says, and that various public testimonies, at all three of those meetings, staff will then assess and say -- go to the Board of County Commissioners and say, you know, the language says here for the wetland policies, the EAC has made a recommendation of thus and such. We think that's a good recommendation, and we would support that recommendation, or we may say, that's the EAC's recommendations, and -- and we consider the staff-- the transmittal language that staff put together as being the recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners. So we -- we will have the ability to assess the comments from all of the advisory committees and go to the county commission and say we agree with these comments or don't agree with these comments. But the -- but the county commission will see all of the comments, see all of the advisory committee's concerns and recommendations, and we will -- that's -- that's what the county commission will see. MR. COE: I've got one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. COE: One more question a little bit off the subject. I noticed in going through my stack of many things this Bonita Springs ordinance on the turtles. Has anything been done on this? I thought we were going to try and see if we couldn't incorporate this into our ordinance concerning the beach and what we permit down there or not permit and see if we couldn't come up with something that would be applicable to us as well. Page 62 January 2, 2002 MR. MR. presented changed? MR. LORENZ: No. I haven't worked on that. COE: Because aren't we into the cycle where it needs to be to the county commissioners if we want to get this LORENZ: I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I thought we were finished with the beach. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson. The Board of County Commissioners is hearing their presentations on the LDC amendments, I believe, January 9th and then two weeks after that. MR. COE: So we don't have enough time to do it then? MS. BURGESON: Right. At this point, I would suggest if you're interested, is have somebody from the City of Bonita Springs make a presentation on that ordinance to you and-- and go forward from there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I don't want to get off the subject but, Barbara, were we not supposed to get something in the mail explaining what the commissioners had passed with reference to the changes that went before them on the turtles and the beach vehicles? MS. BURGESON: Last June, yes, it should have been mailed out. MS. SANTORO: Okay. It hasn't been yet. It was in the minutes that you were going to do so. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I'll make sure when I get back to the office we get it mailed out. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I'd like to get somebody from Bonita to do a presentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Page 63 January 2, 2002 MR. HILL: I have a comment in defense of Mr. Lorenz's comments and his work. I think what we need to realize as a council is that the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee has been structured and established by the county commissioners as the prime conduit for these considerations, and the Environmental Advisory Council is setting to the side with the ability to recommend their opinion with respect to specifics in the final transmitted document that will go to the commissioners. We don't enjoy a formal position in this like the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee. And I think-- as Bill has explained, I think this is the best way for our comments to be sent on to the county -- the Board of County Commissioners. I don't think it's fair to criticize Bill at this point for not placing all of our recommendations and informal considerations in the document that's being presented. We will have our day in the sun at some point in time at the transmittal. So I -- I think what Bill has outlined for us is legitimate. I think it's within the restrictions placed by the Board of County Commissioners in establishing the rural fringe and the eastern lands committee. So I think what he's proposing is certainly proper and appropriate. We need this month, then, to come up with our formal recommendations with respect to the policies and objectives outlined in this document. So I think -- I think we're on target, and I don't think we've lost any impact that we can have under the established procedure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we hear from Mr. Cornell. Is that okay? MR. LORENZ: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. Thank you for the time. I know it's been a long meeting. I have been still working on this wetland policy myself, and -- and I Page 64 January 2, 2002 still have some thinking to do about it. And I haven't had a chance to talk to Bill any more about it. But I have some initial impressions and ideas, some positive and some negative. First, the negatives, the bad first. And this is -- this has to do -- assessment problems with WRAP and the uniform assessment methodology which will succeed it. I've talked about that before, and I'm not sure that -- anymore that local government has a whole lot of capability to address those issues, but I still see them as problems. Wetland assessment is the foundation for preservation. If it -- if it scores high, it gets preserved. If we don't have a good way of assessing it, in other words, if it's too subjective, we have a problem with that. I'm not sure right now what to do about that, and that may be an issue with the state, not with Collier County. Second, site and vegetation preservation requirements are good, but the sending area mitigation ratio is a problem if it's just 1 to 1, that -- even though it's only 25 percent mitigation allowed off site, I think that's too low of a ratio, and there needs to be more incentive to do on-site preservation. If our sending areas are truly our most pristine sensitive lands, we want to incentivise on site preservation, but the 1 to 1 doesn't seem to do that, in my impression. Acknowledging all of the discussion about buffering, I, too, am concerned about buffering, although I think we do need to recognize that we're looking in these policies at just project buffering and not landscape -- scale policy. I do think it might be a good idea to reference the buffering policies in the wetland policies just to distinguish the -- the two kinds of buffering issues. I think there still is very much the issue of how are we going to effectively protect wetland functions with buffering. And one way would be to incorporate buffering land within the reservation boundaries. In other words, NRPAs include that lmile so you don't have this -- this issue of development abutting your -- your highest-quality lands. And -- Page 65 January2,2002 you know, and there are ways to work that out and compromise it. And, you know, land-use leniency within that -- within a range within that buffering land, you know, maybe can straddle the boundary of the reservation. I don't know. But, anyway, that-- that's my impression on that. Fourth, there's a big problem with -- if you're looking to the vegetation and site preservation requirements to protect your resources, there's a big issue with allowing exemption of agricultural land uses. And this is something that's going to have to be addressed in order to make these policies effective, I think. There's a -- in-- if you read your vegetation preservation policies there, you'll see a specific policy exempting agricultural. This is the way it is now, and this is also the way it is at the state. It's also a state problem, but local government can go above and beyond what the state allows and requires. And I think in this instance our resources are -- are good enough that we should. So we should eliminate that agricultural exemption. Otherwise we have undermined our policies. Fifth, there's a problem of allowable uses and preserves in conservation lands. If you look in the Land Development Code and future land-use element and in the definitions of conservation lands and in association with reservations, some of those land uses are not appropriate. And ! think we need to address some of those problems. That's a -- I think that's an easily fixed problem. On the positive side, on the -- in the big picture, I think Bill and staff have done a really tremendous job. TDR program and site -- veg -- site and vegetation preservation requirements are very powerful tools. If we eliminate some of these problems I mentioned above and fix some of the loop holes, I think that we do have some very positive and powerful ways of protecting most of our resources. If you look at the issue of resources on receiving lands, which is what a lot of our discussion today has been -- your discussion has Page 66 January 2, 2002 been centering around, if you combine the site and vegetation preservation requirement policies and the TDR program with other policies that have been written that perhaps we haven't discussed as much, like the rural village and the clustering policies, I think that we find ways that -- that the resources on the receiving lands do get protected pretty well. I'm still looking at these myself. But my impression is that the receiving lands are protected better than we think by only looking at the wetlands policies. However, you know, I -- so I think we need to look at all the policies, and that's going to be helped by your -- your workshop at the end of the month. And, finally, I think that it's a very positive step for the county to identify a way, even though it's not actually going to implement it directly and may not do it at all, but I would encourage the county to find a way to make single-family home permits contingent on agency permits where there are wetlands involved on site. And I would ex -- this is such an important issue that I would recommend that this be the policy for all development. Why are we doing this, this sort of, you know, parallel process? Let's just -- you know, if we're going to defer wetland policies to agencies on any account, let's require those permits up front before we start issuing permits on -- on the local level. So -- but I think that, you know, there's some first steps outlined there for that, for single-family homes in northern Golden Gate Estates. That's a good idea as a start, so I applaud that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. LYNNE: I've got a couple questions for Mr. Cornell. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. CORNELL: Oh, sorry. MS. LYNNE: You said that some of the uses in conservation lands you felt were appropriate. Can you specify? MR. CORNELL: Inappropriate? Page 67 January 2, 2002 MS. LYNNE: Inappropriate, I'm sorry. MR. CORNELL: I'm writing this without looking at them right now. But in looking at them before, one thing that comes to mind is golf course roughs. Now, that's not in the conservation land's definition right now, but it is in the vegetation preservation policies. The golf course roughs can be part of the preservation. I'm not sure that's an appropriate use because golf courses inherently have a lot of negative factors involved with them. And this is a debate in the rural fringe committee right now over whether to allow -- and there's a big push to allow golf courses themselves in sending areas. I think this is really a bad area. The whole ideas of golf courses in preservation lands is a bad idea. So that's one. I want to -- I want to look at them again to answer your question more specifically, and maybe staff can -- well, they've obviously -- they've written the policies. I'll have to look at those again and get back to you. I'm sorry I can't answer those specifically. MS. LYNNE: That's okay. A similar question, you were talking about fixing loop holes in the TDR requirements. Is that something you're prepared to speak on or would you -- MR. CORNELL: Oh. Well, some of those had to do with the negative issues I outlined. MS. LYNNE: Oh, up here? MR. CORNELL: Yeah. It's not just only with TDRs. I like the TDR program. I think you couldn't ask for a more powerful mechanism, a more powerful tool. You know, it's got a lot of pluses. I mean, nothing is perfect. But I think, in general, it's moving the development away from our resources. The issues that-- the loop holes that I'm talking about are what - - what allowable land uses are going to be left after you've moved those units off. You know, it's still going to be in private hands. What can the private landowner now do with their land which they've Page 68 January 2, 2002 sold their development resources or their development units? That's an issue. That's one of the loop holes. The other one -- another one is -- I'm sorry. I've lost my train of thought -- thought. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. LYNNE: That's okay. MR. CORNELL: I'm sorry. MS. LYNNE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Stuff like that. Any other questions? Bill. MR. LORENZ: Just a point of clarification, Brad. When you're talking about the land uses within the conservation lands, was that specific to the land uses we've identified in this particular set of policies? MR. CORNELL: No. MR. LORENZ: That was in the conservation land designation on the future land-use map. MR. CORNELL: Some of that, yes. And that's being referenced as talking about what residual land uses remain on NRPAs and sending lands after the units -- the development rights have been sold off. I think that's -- still seems to be an open question. And if you're going to use conservation lands as a model, I don't like all those uses. I'll have to look at those again to remember what I don't like, though. MR. LORENZ: Just for the council, that's a set of policies that I don't think you've seen yet that Brad is referring to. But we -- we all -- I believe that we have limited, and you'll see another draft of-- of land -- allowable land uses in the conservation lands be much more stringent than what you probably have already seen. MR. CORNELL: Good. MR. LORENZ: Certainly with what we've got in the plan now. MR. CORNELL: That's good. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal. Page 69 January 2, 2002 MR. GAL: Before we make our recommendations on this wetland policy, are we going to be able to see more detailed policy with respect to the TDR program? MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. GAL: Exactly how it's going to work? MR. LORENZ: Yes. You will see -- we are creating a consolidated draft of all of these amendments into one or two documents, probably a conservation and coastal management element and the future land-use element. And all of those policies and how they all work together with all the tie-backs will be all in this, if you will, one consolidated set of policies. And that's what we expect to get to you in the next couple of weeks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to address the council? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, anyone else want to discuss the wetland policy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, okay. Any new business? Barbara, do we have a date set for this January, or should - - can we discuss that? MS. BURGESON: I spoke with the manager's office this morning, and they said that the 23rd, which is a Wednesday, is available from 9 to 3 if you can schedule that -- that date. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can everyone check their schedules for the 23rd? MR. COE: As far as I know, I'm okay. MS. SANTORO: I won't be able to come. MR. COE: You won't be able to? MS. SANTORO: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are you okay? Bill? Page 70 January 2, 2002 MR. HILL: Fine with me. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Chester? MR. SOLING: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: of us. MS. LYNNE: What time, Barb? MS. BURGESON: From nine to three. MR. HILL: That's when it's available. So there's only going to be seven CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, that's when it's available, yeah. MS. BURGESON: It may easily take that full length of time. MS. LYNNE: Yeah, agreed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Bring a burger. Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, bring a burger. MS. LYNNE: So we're reserving that officially now? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, also make a suggestion that I can work with the subcommittee again prior to that meeting and -- and be available to help the subcommittee flush out the issues, you know, in all of this -- this time between then and now. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good, very good. MS. SANTORO: I can -- yeah, is there a date? MR. COE: The 23rd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. The subcommittee. MS. SANTORO: No. He's saying meet as a subcommittee to thrash out some of the issues. MR. LORENZ: Right. We can get together later or if you want to set up a time now. MS. SANTORO: When is your -- your other meeting? MR. COE: This one's the 23rd. MS. SANTORO: No, no, but the -- Page 71 January 2, 2002 MR. LORENZ: 16th. MS. SANTORO: Do you want to meet after the -- the other meeting which would be 5:30 on the 16th? MR. LORENZ: Well, they may go longer because this is going to be one of their last meetings, and where before they were kind of breaking at 5:30, that would be the only difficulty with this -- their last meeting. MS. SANTORO: Could we pick another night? MR. LORENZ: Yeah, that works for me. MS. SANTORO: Another night or-- MR. LORENZ: Yes. If you want to do it that week, the 17th would be fine. (Mr. Stone left the room.) MS. SANTORO: 17th, 5:30. MR. LORENZ: I'll have to check on availability of the room. I'll get back with you and put out a notice, let you know the subcommittee meetings. MR. HILL: I defer to those of you that are paying for my social security by working. You pick the schedule. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Point well taken. MS. SANTORO: Okay. The 17th, 5:30. MR. HILL: Conference room E? MR. LORENZ: I have to check the availability of the room, and I'll get back with you. It may not be available, but usually it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Growth management update, I guess we talked about those things. Subcommittee, we're talking about that. We've talked about that. Does any council members have any comments? MR. HILL: I have a question. Ed has a document, and Barb wasn't sure what the source of it was. It's Mr. Nicholas's report on the TDR. Can we somehow uncover where that is available? Page 72 January 2, 2002 MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure whether I sent that out. What's the date on it, Ed? MR. CARLSON: November 23rd, 2000. MR. LORENZ: I think that's the latest one. MR. CARLSON: It came over the Internet to me. I can't remember who I got it from. MS. SANTORO: I received it in the mail. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I got it. MR. LORENZ: Nobody else got it? MR. COE: Not that I remember. I mean, I could have thrown it around in a file, for all I know. MR. LORENZ: That report, perhaps for the summary that I can -- if everyone wants a copy of it, I can get a copy of it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I would love to. MR. LORENZ: I'll make sure it gets out to everybody. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We stand adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:40 a.m. Page 73 January 2, 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 74