Loading...
EAC Minutes 01/23/2002 SJanuary 23, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, January 23, 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 a.m. in SPECIAL 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 Alfred F. Gal Larry Stone Erica Lynne NOT PRESENT: Alexandra Santoro Chester Soling ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist William Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA January 23, 2002 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 PM Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor III. IV. Roll Call Presentation on Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments Prepared in Response to the Governor and Cabinet's Final Order. Presented by speakers Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director and Bob Mulhere, RWA, Inc. Council Member Comments Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 16, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). January 23, 2002 (The proceedings commenced, Mr. Gal not present:) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's call the January 23rd special meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council to order. Roll call, would you like me to do that? All right. Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Coe. MR. COE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal and Mr. Soling are not here. Ms. Santoro is not here. Mr. Sansbury is here, and Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Here. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We do have a quorum with one, two, three, four, five, six members present. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, we did get word that Mr. Gal will be -- will be here, but he's running a little late. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Okay. Where would you like to start, sir? MR. LORENZ: Okay. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The purpose of today's meeting for the EAC is to begin your formal review ultimately leading to a set of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the Growth Management Plan amendments that will deal with the rural and agricultural assessment. Todate's -- today's amendments are dealing with what we'll call the rural fringe, and I'll define that for you as we get into our present -- presentation. We have -- I'm going to be beginning the lead of the presentation. Bob Mulhere is also here. He's been our contractor that Page 2 January 23, 2002 we've contracted with with this process. He was the former planning director and was involved in the very beginnings of this whole effort. Stan Litsinger is also here. He's the comprehensive planning manager. Other staff members here that will be key that will be able to answer questions and any discussion would be Barbara Burgeson and Mac Hatcher. With that, what I'd like to do is I'd like to go through this presentation and then have the opportunity, however the chair would like it, for questions as we go through the presentation. This will give you an -- an overview of what we consider is the conceptual outline of how we put together some details for the rural fringe. Then I know that the -- this is an advertised meeting. There are a number of public here that I know that we have at least one speaker slip. I'm not sure if-- if there's a requirement for the EAC to have a speaker -- speaker slip, but however the chair would like to handle speakers, and then it's at the discretion of the EAC as how -- how you want to proceed. There are a number of topics in this that's quite a lengthy set of amendments. If you want to get into the detail, staff is he'll -- here to be able to explain some of the detail and the wording as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How many people do we have here that -- that would like to address the EAC on these various items today? Would you raise your hand? (Those wishing to speak raised their hands to indicate.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Student, do you think we ought to do the speaker slips just order-wise so we have a record, or what do you-- MS. STUDENT: I beg -- I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you think we ought to have these folks fill out a speaker slip? We don't usually do that at EAC. What's the best -- Page 3 January 23, 2002 MS. STUDENT: I -- I think that's -- given the magnitude of this, I think that's a good idea, even though it's not usually done. I -- there's apparently one here. I'll see if there are some. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MS. STUDENT: Staff will take care of making those available. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The person -- some folk--if you could fill those out and bring those up to -- Miss Student, will you be the keeper of the slips for me? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. All right. MR. LORENZ: The starting point, if you will, for the presentation, of course, the -- pretty much the whole effort is the final order requirements, and what -- I'm going to just briefly summarize the final order. This is the order by the governor and cabinet that directed Collier County to pursue a series of amendments to ensure that we have a proper natural resource protection within our Growth Management Plan. Very specifically the order has -- I'm going to basically list three types of-- of requirements. The first requirement is to deal with measures to protect prime agricultural areas. The definition of prime -- technical definition of prime agriculture is such that we do not have any prime agricultural lands in Collier County. We have unique lands, agricultural lands by -- by formal definition. But suffice it to say that the agricultural issues, quite frankly, are not in the rural fringe, but in the eastern lands, which is the -- the other part of the rural assessment. A very important component that's related to the rural fringe area is a second requirement, which is to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and habitats to protect listed species, water quality, quantity concerns, etc. This is, if you will, almost the mantra that -- that -- that we have with regard to establishing what our requirements are, and our amendments will be to protect natural Page 4 January 23, 2002 resources along these lines. The final order, however, also recognizes that as we assess the potential of the area to -- to grow and to convert the rural lands, that not only do we want to discourage -- discourage urban sprawl and protect our natural resources, but the order also encourages the county to develop techniques that will be fairly creative in terms of land-use planning. And so as we have crafted the total program, we have been sensitive to trying to develop some -- some fairly creative land-use techniques, and we'll outline those as -- as we go through the presentation. The -- the assessment area -- and I'm not sure whether maybe, perhaps, some staff could, perhaps, do some more work with the lighting there, but all of Collier County -- the rural fringe is basically this area that we're looking at right here. That's the area that -- that our -- our amendments will -- will focus on, except for some amendments that, if you will, are what we're calling county-wide, but they will not include what we're calling the eastern lands study area, which is this area here (indicating). This -- this area has gone through a separate tract with a separate advisory committee. They're still in the formulative stages of their conceptual strategies and protection mechanisms. So for -- for all of our effort today, we will basically be excluding this eastern lands area that you see here. The rural fringe area is roughly 93,000 acres. It includes a number of-- of-- of different areas. And for the purposes of getting you oriented and you getting some terminology here because -- I'm not sure some -- to some degree some of the EAC members have been involved in this but from -- from some of the preliminary work, and some others may not. And, of course, the public -- use some terminology here. N-R-P-A is the acronym for Natural Resource Protection Area. These -- these are areas that the -- part of the final order required Collier County to adopt a set of interim NRPAs to be Page 5 January 23, 2002 refined and revise -- possibly revised through the rural assessment. So we have natural resource protection areas in the rural fringe. Basically the -- they're the CREW natural resource protection area and the Belle Meade CARL natural resource protection area. (Mr. Gal entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Initially when we developed the set-- set of planning for the -- for the fringe, we also broke the area up into Areas A, B, C, and D. And also we broke out what's called the study area. The study area is roughly this area right here (indicating). This was not proposed as a natural resource protection area but as part of the remedial amendments the county has to consider as to whether it should be a natural resource protection area. The other areas that we identified -- initially we just simply said Area -- Area A is up in here (indicating). This is basically the Corkscrew community. Area B is along Immokalee Road. Area C is everything north of 75, between 75 and the estates, and then Area D is down here along 41. So these were our initial planning units in the rural fringe area. We use this slide for a couple of things. One is -- of course, it depicts the kinds of general land cover that we have in the rural fringe. I want to make a couple of points about data -- data sources. We've used the South Florida Water Management District's land cover database in our analysis. This data-- this database is areas that were identified in 1994, 1995 to the degree that we have additional data that was presented to staff. Staff has modified this database, along with other resource-type database giving current information. And so whereas we're use -- using the '94, '95 land cover database, it has been updated to the degree that we have information to update it. The second thing to note is also we worked with the GIS in our analysis, geographic information system, based upon databases that we have gotten from the state and a variety of different agencies. Page 6 January 23, 2002 And these -- these -- these analyses as we start-- and I use the term "slicing and dicing" the area up and try to calculate the numbers, you automatically establish -- work about a 2 or 3 percent kind of error into some of the figures. From a planning standpoint, we feel -- feel that this is acceptable. The South Florida Water Management District's database, they say that their accuracy at what's called a Level 1 accuracy is plus or minus 10 percent. So as we go through the -- the numbers when we start trying to assess significance of how different the numbers are, I just want to make sure that everybody is aware a little bit of the -- the accuracy requirements and-- and the databases that we're dealing with. The other point I want to make about this slide is you can see right here that wetlands consist of 61 percent of the -- of the rural fringe area. Not surprisingly, Collier County as in historical Collier County was, you know, certainly above 80 percent wetland systems. With development, variety of different kinds of development, and land alterations, of course, our current wetlands are substantially less than the historical wetlands. But this is the wetland -- when we talk about wetlands, we're also talking about the wetland cover that's listed by the South Florida Water Management District. It -- it does not completely equate to jurisdictional wetlands that you would go out in the field and identify through the state statutes, whether it's a state jurisdictional wetland or forest jurisdictional wetland. But this is an indication of wetland systems in the county. We'll talk a little bit more about the distribution of wetlands in the rural fringe. A major point here is that the natural resource protection areas consist -- cap -- capture, you know, three-fourths -- more than three-fourths of-- of the wetland land cover in the rural fringe area. Page 7 January 23, 2002 I think another important piece of information here is that -- is that the study area that I identified earlier also -- it has a fair amount of wetlands captured within it. That's 9 percent within the study area. We have looked at a variety and -- and a number of parameters to help us gauge what the natural resource characteristics are of the rural fringe area. Working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, we identified a number of evaluation factors. I didn't put that slide in -- in the presentation, but we looked at -- at wetlands, we looked at listed species. We looked at upland habitats, we looked at conservation areas and degree of fragmentation, and pulled together a fair amount of information to start the process. And what I'm going to do at this point is to just list a couple of the key pieces of information that we pulled out that I think give you a good sense of-- of how the error -- area is characterized. This is priority wetlands for listed species. Not only -- this information comes out of the -- the old, what's called the GAP report. This is the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission report that was established in the early '90s. A little bit about this -- information about this, the underlying map data for this database was satellite imagery from the mid-'80s, and so when the -- when this report is -- has been -- was published in the early '90s, this was the database that it had. Now, again, although we couldn't change the listed species information within the database, what staff has done is every place where in the South Florida Water Management District database that we have updated the land cover, when the land cover goes from some type of native habitat or -- or -- or vegetative land cover to a disturbed area, we have taken that out, also, of this database. So we have updated these databases to the degree that we have updated information. But I think-- I think, again, is although we've calculated the Page 8 January 23, 2002 numbers, what -- what I'm really trying to get -- get across here is some general patterns so that you can -- so that we'll make some certain conclusions in terms of when we're looking at the information and we're looking at the spatial relationships. MR. CARLSON: Bill, may I make a comment? MR. LORENZ: Sure. MR. CARLSON: This is a perfect opportunity to make a point I was going to make somewhere in this discussion. But while this slide is up, I think this is the perfect opportunity in that I think that Area A is -- is highly undervalued in this whole process. It -- if you look at the proportion of the priority wetlands for listed species that basically surround that area and then realize that that area has no canal system and no real drainage and is rural and is basically open space, the wildlife that are using the NRPA roam freely back and forth through that area. I mean, if you want to see bears and panthers and deer, going into Area A is one of the best places in the county to do that. Also, when wood storks fledge out of that NRPA area, they use that neighborhood extensively, and it's easy to see fifty to a hundred in a -- in a flock in that region. And, you know, while that area is not dominated by high-quality wetlands, it does have some high-quality wetlands, but it has this habitat value and this range value that is not addressed in this study, and I think it's highly undervalued and not an appropriate target for what's going to hap -- what is proposed to have it as a receiving area. MR. LORENZ: Yes. I think that -- that's a good comment. One of the points that we'll be making in the slide presentation as we go through it is that we've listed somewhat of hot-button issues, and that is going to be a hot-button issue that is definitely worthwhile for -- for further discussion. The -- the key of this -- this slide, again, is the natural resource protection areas, you know, capture almost 80 percent of the Page 9 January 23, 2002 important wetlands for listed species within the rural fringe. Again, sim -- similar patterns here, and I won't belabor it too much. Biodiversity hot spots are those areas that the game commission, state game commission, has determined are very important for listed species based upon the habitat concerns. You see, let's say, in Area D here a lack of those hot spots because of the land cover. Given-- given even-- given the conditions that Ed had mentioned earlier, this is where -- where, again, when you start plotting this kind of information, begin -- and using this information solely, it leads you to look at that Area A does not have this kind of-- of cover. And then -- but when you start looking at some of the other areas such as north of 75, you see a -- a lot of the area has this kind of cover. And even to some deg -- a large degree below 1-75 -- excuse me, Immokalee Road, within Area B you see that that cover comes up quite a bit there. Strategic habitat conservation areas is what the game commission has defined as being the areas that are important for acquisition based upon listed species and land-cover concerns. One thing you have to realize is by definition a strat -- a -- strategic habitat conservation areas do not include areas that have already been under purchase for conservation so that the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary up here is not listed as a strategic -- strategic habitat conservation area because by definition it's already been acquired. However, if you start looking at the -- the -- the areas, again, where it's capturing that kind of information, area north of-- north of 75 is quite extensive. Of course, our -- our natural resource protection areas also capture those areas fairly well. A little bit more of the same, just to put it in -- in a -- in, perhaps, a different perspective, we talked about land cover, listed species. Some other information that we -- that we pulled out and tabulated at one particular point in the process of slough wetlands and Page 10 January 23, 2002 isolated wetlands down here. Again, the point of this slide is the natural resource protection areas, the study area, all have fairly extensive composition, you know, up -- above 70 percent. Seventy to ninety percent of these types of parameters, again, effectively identifying where those areas are important for habitat and listed species types of concerns. Area C also ranks out and, if you will, fairly high as well. Similar infor-- similar display we talked to you before about strategic habitat, biodiversity hot spots. To these bars we also have gathered data, so we do have this data in our database of panther priority habitat, bear and panther habitat, and bear strategic habitat that's come out of game commission GAPs report. Same -- same pattern, same type of conclusion. NRPAs study area, very high, Area C up here, and as you've seen before, even Area D. But then when you get down to Area D, Area A, again, given -- given Ed's qualification, they rank -- have been ranking fairly low with that tabulated data. Now, we talked about the study area, part of our requirement of the final order is to -- in our remedial amendments is to determine whether the north Belle Meade study area should or should not be a natural resource protection area. When we look at the data and the in -- and the information that we have available to us, again, we have recommended that the study area be a natural resource protection area. So in the maps you will see in further-- in further analysis that we have done, we have -- we have assumed the -- the north Belle Meade study area as a NRPA, and the data would be -- is being proposed and being tabulated to that effect. Well, again, the summary slide. Much of the land -- wetland land cover listed species habitats are in our natural resource protection areas. Study area has similar characteristics as the other NRPAs, and Page 11 January 23, 2002 so when we begin thinking about how are we going to identify these protection mechanisms within the rural fringe area, it's -- it's very important that the NRPAs and the study area be -- be front and center with regard to our protection mechanisms. Well, when we talk about protection mechanisms or protection strategies, again, our -- our mantra, if you will, is direct incompatible uses away from wetlands, upland habitats, listed species, etc. So we needed to craft a -- an integrated strategy as to how to do that. And we kind of broken it up into strategies that make sense on what we call the landscape scale and then the project or site scale. The landscape scale is very large areas. We're talking about square miles of trying to identify boundaries, protection mechanisms, etc. Project site scale is -- is individual projects. As projects, of course, will come through the county planning process, they need to be properly planned. But they're -- they're happening at that -- at that site scale. The landscape scale is -- deals really with trying to prevent fragmentation of these large, interconnected systems and having appropriate tools that will work in that broad scale. The project site scale, again, is -- you're not talking about these broad areas, but we can -- we can identify and fashion a number of different standards that would apply as projects come through that help to minimize the effect of any human activity on that particular property on -- on wetland land cover, listed species, etc., etc. Now, on the -- at the landscape scale, again, we're looking for the -- for these large systems, large -- identifications of large ecosystems. The information that I provided you earlier to -- to a large degree is the identification of those large systems. So we have to identify the exact boundaries, and those would be our areas that we would tailor our landscape strategies on. Page 12 January 23, 2002 One -- one strategy, and it is not as specific strategy in our -- in our policies that we have developed for the fringe yet, but would be purchased in acquisition of these areas to some degree. The state does have a number of our areas targeted for acquisition, the CREW NRPA, areas are still targeted for acquisition, the Belle Meade NRPA. And I'm talking about the south -- south of the Alley is targeted for acquisition. And -- and those are within acquisition programs. A key element of our landscape scale strategy is, quite frankly, of the whole strategy for the rural fringe with the transfer of development rights program or TDR. At some future point, Bob Mulhere will be able to jump in as we have questions to answer specifically with the TDR program, but I'll just -- just cover it very briefly here now. TDR program is, basically, taking -- everybody who owns property has a certain amount of development rights. And when we talk about development rights, we're talking about a residential unit. So if your density of the property that you own is zoned at one unit per five acres, you have the right to build one residential unit for every five acres that you own. If you choose to not develop that and participate in the county's proposed TDR program, you're able to sell that development right in the open market to whoever wants to buy it. When you sell that development right, you then give up the right to develop your property for that residential unit. You may have some residual uses left on the property which we have -- have identified, but the whole point there is to put that property now into a status that -- that is much more conservation and preservation oriented. Whoever buys that development right from that -- that person now has the ability to use that development right to increase density within a particular area. So the areas that we're talking about are Page 13 January 23, 2002 sending areas. Those are the areas where we want to send the development rights from. Those are our conservation -- our protection areas. And we want to be able to utilize those development rights in what we will call receiving areas, and I'll -- I'll go over this in a little bit more detail later. But this is a key program, a key element with regard to our program. Another important tool at the landscape scale is overlay districts. A natural resource protection area is technically an overlay district. This is -- this is a district that you identify on the future land use map that will have limitations placed upon it. And in natural resource protection areas, one of the key limitations will be preservation standards, vegetation preservation standards. And the allowable land uses will be much less in -- in these special overlay districts than they will in areas where we want to funnel development, if you will. Another landscape scale tool is -- is buffer zones. What we're talking about here is not buffering an individual wetland in a project that -- that will come through for the planning process. But what we're trying to do is buffering the important environmental areas, the natural resource protection areas, and in areas that are designated as conservation in our future land use maps. So these types of mechanisms will operate, say, at the landscape scale. So let's talk about a little bit these areas that we -- we are speaking of. These -- we are proposing three basic natural resource protection areas in the -- the fringe. This is the CREW NRPA. This is the Belle -- south Belle Meade NRPA (indicating), and this is the north Belle Meade NRPA (indicating). We've made a few changes, and I'll -- I'll have a slide later on-- a few changes to the CREW NRPA in drawing this boundary line. The big change, of course, is converting the north Belle Meade study area into a -- a NRPA. Just, also, to give you some sense of-- of-- of area here, 951 is here (indicating), and this boundary is -- is base -- starts at one mile Page 14 January 23, 2002 east of 951. Sometimes 951 doesn't show up on the map as well. So these are our natural resource protection areas that we consider. If-- if you recall the data that we provided before, we feel that these match up fairly good with the -- the type of information that we -- we have been assessing. The other landscape feature here from the -- from a TDR, transfer of development rights, program perspective is, again, identification of sending and receiving lands. Sending lands are the environmentally sensitive areas. And what we have -- what we have -- I'll give you an example. Right down in here in this sending area (indicating). You can see it not only incorporates the natural resource protection area, but it also increase -- increases this -- it's -- the sending area also includes this -- this (indicating) area up here and also includes all of this area to the (indicating) west of the NRPA. Remember, when we started looking at our databases, and we would see that these areas mapped out as very high and significant from the land cover and listed species concerns. So although they-- we're saying that they don't raise to the level as a natural resource protection area, they are certainly areas that we want to direct development away from. So where do we direct the development to? Well, that's our receiving areas. And these areas are mapped out as black on this map here (indicating). Again, area -- if you will, Area A was mapped out as a receiving area. This area within D is mapped out as a (indicating) -- let me make a distinction. These are primary receiving areas that I'm mapping out. When we look at the data, however, we start seeing that -- that some of these areas kind of fall in between, and we created a secondary status, which is a secondary receiving area, and that's this area here (indicating), and that's this area here. MR. CARLSON: Let me -- while we're there, let me ask you Page 15 January 23, 2002 about that first secondary receiving area. Isn't that the Mirasol project? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. CARLSON: Well, hasn't that been approved, and isn't that a preserve area? MR. LORENZ: That has gone through the county's process. It was within -- it was within the time frame of when we were going through this effort. I may want to have Bob talk about the concerns whether -- as to how that status may affect its -- its future functioning as a receiving area. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure if all of that first secondary receiving area is identified as preserve in Mirasol. We can certainly check that. I think your point is if it is already spoken for as a preserve area in an approved PUD -- and this came up in discussion at the committee as well -- then there would -- there would be really no reason to identify it as a secondary receiving area. So we'll go ahead and take a look at that. I don't think all of it is. I know that one section was identified as a preserve area, but we can check on that and -- and address that -- that issue. MR. CARLSON: There are also some sending areas where I have the same -- same questions where, for instance, in the proposed-- in the -- in the map on the left-- go up to the top -- those are the sending areas. In the -- and go over to the left. Yeah, right in there. Okay. Now, that area is under conservation easement to the CREW trust for activities that happened on the Florida Rock Mule Pin Quarry area, so that is in perpetuity a conservation easement. So would that -- would something that's in a permanent conservation easement already qualify as a sending area? Would you want to send units out of there if the area is already protected in perpetuity? MR. MULHERE: If it's dedicated to a public entity, the answer is no. If it's private -- if it's private, the answer is largely yes. Page 16 January 23, 2002 MR. CARLSON: Just to the right of that, that little lobe that dips down into the south is -- is a-- is a cypress forest in the Bonita Bay Cypress golf club, which they have also established as a preserve area. That's -- that's my question. I mean, if it's already preserved, it's a done deal, is it, then, a sending area? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would be. In that example, regardless of whether that private property owner has dedicated a portion of their property as a conservation or preserve area, they retain the right to develop the gross density on their property elsewhere. And if we choose to not have that-- that density developed elsewhere on the property, which we do since we're identifying it as a sending area, then they would have the right to send those units on a gross basis and not -- not to determine, well, we won't send them from this area, but we will send them from this area. You know, you're permitted to develop your gross density in a project. MR. CARLSON: But they're happy with their project, and they're not lobbying for sending anything anywhere. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. CARLSON: They're done. MR. MULHERE: Well, the way we develop these policies, they apply to all private property owners and -- MR. CARLSON: This is like a bonus to anybody that's in a project here. If you have a wetland on your site that's preserved, we're going to come in now after it's all done and you've agreed to preserve it and we're going to grant you a bonus to transfer units out of there and get paid for them? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. It's an incentive bonus. MR. MR. MR. MR. CARLSON: MULHERE: CARLSON: MULHERE: Why -- why the incentive now? It's done. Well, I -- I -- They approved it. They agreed to it. Well -- and I would -- I would say that they Page 17 January 23, 2002 could still develop that property elsewhere outside of that conservation easement at their underlying density potentially, and now this would take away that opportunity from occurring under the sending designation. I don't know if the entire area that's designated sending on the Bonita Bay golf course is in a conservation easement or not. We did not look at the site specific scale. We really looked based on the natural resource data, and the determinations were made as a result of that. We do only allow TDRs for private lands and not for public lands and only within areas designated or proposed to be designated as the rural fringe mixed-use district, not on conservation lands, regardless of whether they're public or private. MR. CARLSON: Well, this is very important because you're -- you're -- you're scaling the size of your receiving areas based on the amount of your sending areas; correct? MR. MULHERE: No, that -- that -- it happens that the sizes fit within the recommended scales. We did not change the sizes of those in order to accomplish something based on those recommended scales. We did not -- we did not scale sending and receiving to meet some formula, no. It's based on the natural resource data, period. MR. CARLSON: There's no relationship and scale between your sending area. MR. MULHERE: There is a relationship to scale, but that wasn't the basis for prescribing those boundaries. We didn't look at that and say, "You know what? We need a little more receiving area. Let's take this area and make it receiving," or "You know, what? We need a little less sending, so let's take this and make it less sending." We didn't do that. Those boundaries are based on the natural resource data. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill. MR. LORENZ: That -- that -- that's correct. I think what -- what -- Dr. Nicholas, who is our economist who is looking at the TDR program, has a rule of thumb that the receiving area should be Page 18 January 23, 2002 twice as large as -- as the sending area. So that's a ratio of 2 to 1. After we went through the process and identified these proposals for sending and receiving areas, that ratio at the moment is about 1.3. MR. MULHERE: I'd like-- MR. LORENZ: That-- that-- that is -- that's, if you will, a ratio that we have to be, I think, sensitive to that as we were to -- if we were to make any modifications to the sending and receiving areas that, of course, the primary reason for doing it is for natural resource protection for the sending areas and then, also, to make sure that we have a valid -- valid TDR program such that -- that we are insuring compensation to owners who are going to have high preservation standards on their property that they will be able to recoup their value through a successful TDR program. So I wouldn't want to say that it's -- you have to do it all in a vacuum so there is -- there is -- there will be considerations, sending, receiving natural resources, but I think -- I know myself and my staff, as we begin to develop the proposals for sending and receiving, we were looking at -- at the natural resource data. MR. MULHERE: But having said that, I think it's -- your-- your point is a very good point. And-- and the question, then, becomes a policy question of whether or not -- and we've already said that we're only going to allow transfers from privately owned lands within the lands designated rural fringe mixed-use district sending. And so your question is, should we further restrict that, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, should we further restrict that to exclude lands on which there is already a conservation easement existing. And I think it's a very good point, and it would -- I think the second point that you make is, yes, it would enhance the relationship between sending and receiving if additional sending lands were removed under a policy such as the one that you just described, which would prohibit a transfer from lands on which a conservation Page 19 January 23, 2002 easement already exists. And although we don't have that in there today, I think it's an excellent point and excellent recommendation. MR. CARLSON: I'm just -- you know, these maps are important planning documents. People go to the maps, and they look at the maps, and then they get an idea of what the plan is. I think-- I'm just trying to make the map accurate. If there are sending areas that are really nonfunctional, like areas that are already under conservation by the CREW, there's -- you know, there's -- we -- if we can get into the detail of the map, I'll show you a lot of sending areas in that northern fringe area that are not really sending areas, because either Audubon owns it or the district owns it or it's already under conservation. And it just doesn't seem to represent the real-life situation that's out there. And I also just heard that the target is to have twice as many re -- twice as much receiving area as sending area, so there is that relationship. MR. MULHERE: Well, the -- the target may be that, but that was not the basis for mapping those areas, which is what I indicated. That was not the basis for mapping those areas. Now, I hear what you're saying. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'm not sure about the sending areas in the north, and that's something that, perhaps, Bill and Mac can get to look at. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm sure about them. I could correct the map today if you want to correct it. MR. MULHERE: Kady, could you put on the visualizer? Thank you. In any case, I don't think that I would recommend that we correct the map. As I indicated, I hear what you're saying, and my recommendation would be that we include a policy that we consider the inclusion of a policy that would preclude a transfer from lands on which there is already a conservation easement. That still achieves Page 20 January 23, 2002 your objective, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to have a map that you may not even be able to see that spot on this map because of the scale that we're talking about. MR. CARLSON: on the map. MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: I was talking about lands that are very visible Okay. I'm just trying to make the map accurate. MR. LORENZ: Right. And I -- and we can work -- work with you on that, Ed. One of the things -- and it doesn't show up in looking at my -- my screen here -- MR. MULHERE: I'm trying to just enlarge this because we're talking about the northern area; right? And if you look in this -- that is the northern area. If you look at those areas that are orange -- it doesn't show very well, but those little -- little areas that are orange just north of the green and the little box that's cut out of the green along Immokalee Road, those are the sending areas in the northern portion. And so those would be the areas that you're talking about. Some of those are inaccurate is what you're suggesting. MR. CARLSON: I can -- I can show you very quickly. Can you still hear me, Miss Court Reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. CARLSON: Starting at the top, this area was donated to the National Audubon Society through a bequest from the Paul Frank family, 90 acres at the end of this parcel. All of this end (indicating) of the parcel came to the South Florida Water Management District and the CREW project as mitigation. There's a tiny segment -- there's a tiny bit of land in the center here that's still in private ownership, which is improved pasture, which is really no different than the rest of the neighborhood. This (indicating) is the land that's under a conservation easement, almost 600 acres, transferred to the CREW trust in Page 21 January 23, 2002 perpetuity to stay as a wetland conservation area. This is the land (indicating) in the Bonita Bay Cypress course which is under preservation status. It's on here because on an aerial photo it's a cypress swamp, so you just include it on there. This is the Livingston Road mitigation area. I believe it's in Collier County or some kind of a trust mode so that environmental impacts of the construction of Livingston Road will be mitigated here, and there will be wetlands creation and uplands creation on this site. This is a privately owned cypress swamp, and this is -- this is really one section of land that the Barron Collier Company owns that they have elected never -- or not to sell to the Water Management District for the CREW area, even though there have been repeated offers. So this one I think you got. MR. MULHERE: And the -- and the other one that you just pointed to? MR. CARLSON: This one? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. CARLSON: Sure, it's private property, and it's a beach swamp. MR. MULHERE: My suggestion would be -- I think those are very good points. Mac is really the key person to try to verify the conservation easements. And it-- I think, for those-- again, the portion that's owned by the county would not be permit -- if it is, in fact, owned by the county, there could be no transfer in that area because we don't -- we don't allow a transfer from -- on publicly owned lands or from publicly owned lands. So the other ones that you pointed out -- I mean, Bill, do you want to suggest that Mac take a look at that and then we revise the map accordingly? I don't have any objection to that. MR. LORENZ: Absolutely. Page 22 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I don't understand why land that's either already in a conservation desig -- designation or is already in an approved PUD where they've already cleared everything through the county -- I don't understand why either of those need to be considered sending areas. Why do it? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think in the case of an approved PUD, the question -- you have to ask another question. You know, is that land protected within that PUD? If it's not protected within the PUD, then the option of being able to send the land will result in a protection of that. So to me that's fairly obvious. MS. LYNNE: But it's not obvious to me. We've seen all kinds of projects come through here where they have specifically set aside -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. MS. LYNNE: They have gotten their project because they have set aside this -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. LYNNE: -- land, okay? So I don't understand Why-- MR. MULHERE: Well, perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand that. What if there are lands that are designated as sending that meet those attributes based on their natural resource values and they're not designated as conservation with an approved project but could be as a result of a transfer of some of those units off? MS. LYNNE: Okay. So you're saying we have an approved PUD. It's -- it's up and running or is in the process of being built -- MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. By the way, there are only a few. There's only a couple out there. MS. LYNNE: Well, some of them were pretty big -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, true. MS. LYNNE: -- like Mirasol. Page 23 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: True. MS. LYNNE: And that was a -- they got a lot for -- in exchange for setting up a conservation area. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. MS. LYNNE: Now, they can't use that conservation area for sending; right? MR. MULHERE: Well, under the pol -- the way policies are written today they could. However, we -- we have already said, we understand what you're saying, we think it's a good recommendation, and we would go ahead and -- and carry that recommendation forward. So, you know, we're -- what I suggest-- MS. LYNNE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: What I suggested was a policy that would prohibit a transfer on lands that already have a conservation designation on it. We haven't included that in the policies yet. It's a great recommendation. That's why we're here, and we'll be happy to bring that one forward. MS. LYNNE: Got it. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: So continuing down to the south end of the rural fringe into the Belle Meade NRPA, that project is going along very -- very well, from what I understand. And there have been substantial purchases through the CARL program, the Florida Forever program in south Belle Meade, yet that area is basically all designated as sending. And based on what you just said, there's probably the -- the minority of the area is eligible for sending. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. No one would be able to send a unit -- the government can't send units because we have precluded sending from publicly owned parcel. So for every parcel that's in the Belle Meade that the government owns today, you would not be able to send a unit. For those that are -- currently remain in private ownership or for Page 24 January 23, 2002 which there are unwilling sellers, those folks would be able to transfer those units. And it is an incentive to transfer those, which would then reduce the cost -- MR. CARLSON: I'm not arguing with that. I'm just arguing that maybe we need another color or some other kind of designation on the map to show that that huge sending area in Belle Meade is not really a huge sending area. MR. MULHERE: Bill, do you want to -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me cover that. To some degree the discussion is we -- we couldn't map accurately. We didn't have the database to show exactly which parcels are in privately owned lands. And, quite frankly, that-- I mean, in publicly owned lands. And that changes, of course, as the state acquires properties. In our calculations we made a -- we -- we took some information from the state, and that's why you see the 80 percent conservation lands is that -- is that of that whole area that we've mapped out roughly, we're -- we're making an estimate of eight -- is 80 percent is in conservation land. So when we calculate our areas and we calculate the number of units that are in sending lands, we -- we have -- we have factored that, if you will, deduction into the-- into -- to the number crunching. Now, what you're really saying is that -- is that the map itself, we've -- we've mapped this whole area and called it sending area. But, as Bob says, as a matter of policy, it's not going to be sending from publicly owned conservation land. So we just have to try to -- try to work with, perhaps, a different series of maps or overlays to help -- help explain or-- or see -- visualize that a little bit better. But I can-- I guess what I can tell you is that our job, then; to take some of the information that you've given us and where we have not factored in publicly -- public ownership, we need to factor that in and -- and -- and then recrunch our numbers and then, also, try to Page 25 January 23, 2002 work on -- on a little bit better display of the map. But I think, as Bob indicated too, we can handle this through policy language that for whatever you don't get on the map you still have to go to the policies, and the policies are going to -- going to govern it for -- for that particular situation. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think when you look at the scale, it's very difficult -- at least traditionally it has been very difficult for the county to map within the Belle Meade what parcels still remain in private ownership, and -- and it wouldn't show up very well anyway. There are some alternatives. You could do a series of maps, as Bill indicated, and try to show that on an additional map and adopt that, specific to the Belle Meade, perhaps. Another option might be just to -- to provide a note on the future land use map that indicates that currently approximately 80 percent of the Belle Meade has been acquired and that the -- that although the entire area is designated as sending, sending may only occur on those lands that are -- remain in private ownership. So that might be one way to clarify that on the map. It's just been very hard. The county has never really been able to map where the state is in the acquisition process accurately at that scale. This is -- you know, there's a lot on this map. So I think the next step, then, if that's -- if you wanted to do that, I think the next step would be to create a series of maps that would focus on a smaller area so you would have some scale to it. MR. LORENZ: And, as I said, analytically we need to make sure that we're not going to be violating any key criteria when we start recrunching the numbers, because we can certainly change the numbers, and it's not going to -- going to -- going to -- going to make any difference in the findings themselves, but we'll try to work with as accurate of numbers -- a set of numbers as possible. Mr. Chairman, if I could make one -- one other point, I know Page 26 January 23, 2002 that as we go through the presentation there are going to be a number of issues that come about. I don't know whether it would be good for -- for the -- for the council to consider someone having a running list of what the issues that you want to get back to to frame some motions later on in the meeting. We still have obviously, are going to have opportunity for public -- for public comment. But ultimately from staff's perspective, we would like to be able to have the council take very specific motions so that we can carry your -- your actions to the county commission appropriately. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What I'm hearing is you would like to go ahead through the presentation, have us make notes as we go through the presentation, and come back after that, hear the public comment on individual areas and our comment on the individual areas after you complete the presentation? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I think that would be good. I think everybody -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Is that all right? Sounds good. Let's do it. MR. LORENZ: The -- these series of slides, again -- and, Ed, if you will, when we're talking about this whole area, this is the CREW NRPA, you can see here we've designated just these portions of sending. And what we've done is we've calculated the amount of-- amount of acreage within the sending lands so as we -- as we recrunch the numbers with -- with additional data, we'll have to revise these figures. But based upon the information that we currently have, these series of slides, again, to say that we're trying to, again, direct incompatible land uses away from the natural resource features within the rural fringe. And we're going to direct them to what we've identified as -- as the receiving areas. So when we look at wetland land cover, for instance, the Page 27 January 23, 2002 primary receiving areas -- primary and secondary receiving areas combine, total, only 12 percent of the land cover within the rural fringe area. So the boundaries that we've currently designated lead us to believe that as we develop direct land uses to these areas, we're directing land uses to areas that will minimize the impacts on wetland systems from a landscape perspective. The other -- the other panel here on this slide shows the wetland composition within each planning unit, and that is the amount that wetlands -- let's say that if we take the NRPA sending lands, for instance, on average the NRPA sending lands are 87 percent wetland land cover, whereas the primary receiving areas is 18 percent wetland land cover. So, again, we feel that this -- the way we've sliced and diced these -- these figures and -- and these boundaries, that we're -- we're, again, accomplishing the objective of the landscape scale to direct incompatible land uses away from the higher and more important wetland systems. Similar slides, again, I don't need to go through each -- each and every one, but the similar pattern. If we look at total vegetation, total vegetation includes upland and wetland. Again, the conservation and sending lands have the vast, vast majority of-- of this parameter. Primary receiving lands, one-third -- in some type of native habitat. The other two-thirds have basically been disturbed areas, farm fields, or what have you. Again, strategic habitats, similar-- similar information, similar conclusions. Conservation is low because it does not include the true NRPA by -- I mean, the Corkscrew area by definition. But if it did, it would -- it would be way up here. MR. HILL: Bill, would you -- excuse me -- back up just one side previous to this? Thank you. MR. LORENZ: Just to frame it in a -- in a different visual, Page 28 January 23, 2002 wetland -- conservation, NRPA, non-NRPA sending, these are the areas that we want to direct the land use away from. These are the areas that we want to direct the land -- the land uses to. These arrows basically show that wet -- with regard to wetlands, almost 90 percent of the wetland land cover is in the areas that we are designating either under a conservation status or some type of sending status or higher restrictions with regard to land uses and preservation standards. Uplands, not surprisingly, it's lower than the other ones, but still a majority of your veg -- upland vegetation is still within these, if you will, conservation-type designations. A similar pattern with total vegetation and strategic habitat. Again, these are large systems at the landscape scale that we're trying to -- trying to craft this -- this set of strategies. Shifting gears to the project site scale, when we're talking now about, okay, what will we allow -- once we -- once we allow a type of land use to go into a particular area, what kind of standards can we establish, again, that will help minimize the impact at that level on habitats and listed species? And these tools that we arrived at for the project site scale include clustering. That's the ability to direct your intensive land use into a very smaller-area portion of your site. That gives you opportunities to preserve higher degrees of habitat and to work around your -- your -- your natural resource-type features. Site preservation and retention standards, again, we begin to talk about what's the percentage of the area of the site that needs to be in some type of preserve status or how much vegetation you need to retain. And, also, wildlife management standards, again, if you have certain listed species on site, to deal with them appropriately or if we have just general wildlife protection, what are some appropriate types of-- of standards to -- to work better with the wildlife that's on site Page 29 January 23, 2002 and to minimize it-- that-- that interaction, negative interaction, with the human activity. Key item within the rural fringe standards is the -- or the rural fringe area are our vegetation site preservation standards. Now, remember, as we go from primary receiving lands to -- to the NRPA sending lands, this is, you know, more environmentally sensitive. So it makes sense that the NRPA sending lands have the highest degree of presser-- preservation. Primary receiving lands is where we want to direct land uses, especially, again, in the TDR program. With the transfer of development rights, we don't want to have the receiving areas to -- to preclude the ability of somebody developing in those areas, because then, if that's the case, we will not have a successful TDR program. But, again, we still recognize that we have to have some degree of preservation standards within the receiving areas as well. These numbers were based upon the characteristics and composition of vegetation, signatures within these areas that I previously showed, and, also, the relationship with strategic habitat. And we've developed a little bit of a procedure to help us estimate these -- these numbers. Again, you can see the -- the general trend in how these numbers are, given the sensitivity of the lands. I know there's a lot of numbers on this table, but we also wanted to take a look at when we made a -- our preservation standards, which is right here (indicating) -- these are the same numbers you had seen before -- we are assuming that conservation lands will be preserved a hundred percent preservation standard on this table. And we wanted to be able to see what the effect of how much vegetation could we expect to preserve within the rural fringe for a variety of different TDR utilization rates. The question is, is if we have a wildly successful TDR program, how much more vegetation can we expect to preserve in the rural Page 30 January 23, 2002 fringe? And so we made some -- some calculations based upon this information, and you can see -- if the TDR program is not successful, we're looking at 87 percent vegetation retention and the total of all the fringe, all those 93,300 acres of-- that we were looking at in the fringe planning area. We'll gain another 3,000 or close to 4,000 acres or -- or bring that level up to 90 -- 90 percent, above 90 percent, you know, with a -- with the TDR program. So that's the -- that's the increment that we can gain with the -- with the TDR program. Initially staff was trying to target a total preservation standard within the fringe of around 90 percent. It's tough to get at 90 percent without the TDR program unless we were -- be willing to increase these numbers much higher than what they are current -- currently set there. So we feel that this is a -- a fairly good balance is to try to propose these standards with the TDR program, and this gives us the -- the general range that we expect to preserve total vegetation in that close to hundred thousand acres in the rural fringe. Well, I covered the items in somewhat of a conceptual fashion. The tough part of it is, you know, you-- you have this huge book. I don't know how many pages it is. But those ideas have gotten embodied into proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan. And what I tried to do here with this slide, just for your convenience, is to try to cross-reference some of our -- the more important features in here so that as you go through it you should be able, with your handout, be able to -- to get to it. But in the natural resource protection areas, you know, we have information in the future land use element -- that's the FLUE -- and information in the conservation and coastal management element as well. TDR program is outlined in the -- in the FLUE on pages 42 Page 31 January 23, 2002 and 48. Sending and receiving areas, we've just been looking at that in the future land use map. To the degree that these may need to be modified, that's, of course, why we're having these -- these public hearings and getting information, and we'll make the appropriate changes as -- as we go through the total transmittal on the top of the process. Allowable land uses, what land uses are we going to allow within NRPAs? We certainly don't want to have as many -- a whole list of land uses that we're allowing in the receiving areas. So in the future land use element, in pages 43 to 48 and then also page 53 we've identified what -- what the allowable land uses will be within these various designations, land designations. Also, the buffering of NRPAs and conservation areas in the conservation coastal management element, that's Objective 6.5. The site scale elements, we have clustering provisionS in the FLUE. Our on-site preservation standards are in the conservation and coastal management element, and basically they're in Objective 6.1. We've broken 6.1 up into Policy 6.1.1 which identifies vegetation requirements within the urban areas and 6.1.2 which is the rural fringe area, so just to give you some structure to the -- to that document. And you can find all that on pages 21 to 25 in the CCME. Wetland standards in the CCME in the Objective 6.3, wetland standards basically apply not only to the fringe but also to the -- to the urban designated areas as well. And then we have a number of standards in the CCME for wildlife standards. So we've tried to take our landscape elements, our site scale elements that we've talked about and what the rationale for them is, and the details now is on these pages that I've tried to cross-reference Page 32 January 23, 2002 for you. Well, we've kind of covered a couple hot-button issues already. But what I wanted to be able to do is, for the purpose of the EAC, is to identify some other issues that I know that I've been involved with and also with some of-- of members of your council have been involved with. Remember, you have a growth management subcommittee. Allie Santoro chairs that subcommittee. Unfortunately, Allie couldn't be here today. But that subcommittee met last Thursday on the 17th, and I handed out to you a report of the minutes of that subcommittee, and also Allie had some comments individually as well. I know that subcommittee was -- Ed was -- Ed was present, and Bill Hill was present also. So there are a number of-- of issues that -- that came up in the -- in that subcommittee that I think are important issues to certainly initially touch on. One is agricultural regulation. And what I'm speaking about here is our policies do not -- our proposed policies do not regulate agricultural activities. We've been informed, through our legal counsel, Carlton Fields, our growth management counsel, that the county is precluded from state statute from regulating agricultural activities. You will hear from -- from the public that -- that, their opinion, that that's not the case. But from the staffs perspective, right now, unless our attorney tells us differently, we are not proposing any reg -- agricultural clearing regulations in our Growth Management Plan. But let me make one distinction. In the TDR program, when you have -- in the sending lands, when you send one of your or all of your residential units, you will have a series -- you will have a set of residual rights that -- certain land uses that you can still do. We are limiting your residual right with regard to agricultural to basically nonimpacting agriculture that does not require any additional clearing. So, for instance, you could have -- you could have range or Page 33 January 23, 2002 pasture. You could put cattle out on your existing area but you can't clear it. So in the TDR program, which is -- which is -- is a voluntary program, if you-- if you voluntarily send-- sell your development right, you will not be able to do any further clearing for agricultural purposes. So to that degree we've addressed agriculture, but not as a matter of a regulated activity. Another issue that has come up, come forward, is the locations for golf courses. And I know -- know that this council also had a speaker and talked about golf courses a couple of months ago in terms of their proximity and location to conservation areas. Staff is recommending that golf courses be allowed within receiving areas, but we are prohibiting them within the sending areas. So the natural resource protection areas and any non-NRPA sending area, golf courses are prohibited. We do have particular standards for golf courses. You'll find them -- I don't have the site right now. But it would be in the future land use element under the -- the allowable uses for the receiving lands. So there are specific standards we are proposing to regulate golf courses and receiving -- receiving areas, but they are being proposed to be prohibited in sending lands. MS. LYNNE: Just a quick question. Is this just -- this is just covered by the TDR people, though; right? This is only if you voluntarily choose to participate in TDR, or it applies to all the sending lands? MR. LORENZ: The golf course prohibition applies to all sending lands. It is allowed in all receiving lands subject to the standards. Buffering of the natural reservations, and that's in quoteS. And what we mean by natural reservations would be natural resource protection areas and land uses that are designated as conservation on Page 34 January 23, 2002 the future land use map. I think it's Objective 6.5 has a set of standards with regard to buffering of-- of the natural reservations. Again, that issue has come up. I know that there is some concern from certain council members as to the buffering standards that staff has proposed, but this is -- this is an issue that I think the EAC would -- or certainly would need to weigh in on and provide a very specific recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as you deliberate on your recommendations. Sending/receiving area boundaries, to some degree, we -- we've discussed that earlier, but I can -- but also there is a -- in that Area A in the Corkscrew community, staff has been working with representatives from that community to look at whether or not the whole area should be a receiving area or not, and there are some alternatives -- we're still working up some alternatives. I think that that is -- is an issue that still has -- if you will, has life certainly from a staff perspective in terms of we're interested in looking at possibly some alternatives, looking at some additional analysis that we perhaps could do. And I think Ed Carlson's comment earlier about the -- the relationship of that area with the Corkscrew Swamp and the CREW lands, even though it does not map out with the land cover, I think is an important information for us to consider as we're considering these other alternatives. And I think that another issue is wetland protection, and I know -- and I've got some information here I just want to cover with the -- with regard to wetland protection. Again, we have proposed standards. To a large degree they're wetland protection standards. We're dealing with that -- that site area -- excuse me -- at the landscaping scale. The proposed natural resource protection areas, as I said earlier, is an issue. And the issue is certainly going to be the Belle Meade Page 35 January 23, 2002 area that we're proposing. And I also have to -- last week's Rural Fringe Advisory Committee meeting, the rural fringe also voted to take this section-wide strip out of the Belle Meade CARIJ and NRPA. And so there -- that -- they have taken this as a vote, so they have voted to take this area out as a natural resource protection area. MR. CARLSON: Why did they do that? MR. LORENZ: They -- the present -- the consultant gave a presentation and in the information -- the presentation indicated that this area is -- is still retained in a large degree of private ownership. Okay. One of the consultants is here. It would probably be better for him to speak for -- and give his presentation. But this is the area that the fringe committee did elect to remove. MR. CARLSON: Have lands in there already been purchased for preservation? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't believe so. The information that I remember seeing is that to a large degree this -- these areas have not been purchased by the -- by the state. Again, the consultant is here. He can answer some more details for you if he chooses to speak. So I know that that is -- that is an issue. Let me -- let me talk about wetland protection, because this is a -- a key policy decision that's going to come before the county commission. And I've pulled out-- I've excerpted certain areas from certain statements from the 9-J-5 criteria. That's the state regulation that governs growth management plans. And these are -- these are the requirements that deal with wetland protection from -- from-- from the -- for the Growth Management Plan. And what I want to key on a couple of things is, first of all, we're looking at protection of the natural function of wetlands through a comprehensive planning process. Staff is viewing that comprehensive planning process as the landscape elements working along with the project site element. Page 36 January 23, 2002 It also requires that our future land uses that are incompatible shall be directed away from wetlands. Again, to a large -- look -- remember, the landscape elements that we looked at, the landscape areas, where our wetland features are in the rural fringe, and these are in our NRPA areas and our sending areas. Again, the land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. And it does recognize that mitigation is allowed to occur and is one -- and it's considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetland functions. So 9-J-5 requirements do not direct the -- if you will, do not direct county comprehensive plans to say there's zero mitigation, or it does allow for impacts, but the functions have -- can be mitigated for. So these are the requirements that we have in the 9- J-5 criteria that very specifically govern wetland protection. As we -- as we've sen -- seen already, when we look at wetlands within land-use categories in the whole county -- now this is the whole county, 96 percent of our wetlands are in conservation status. Within the urban area, there's 2.3 percent of our wetlands in the urban area. You can see the other statistics. South Golden Gate Estates, of course, is going to be purchased. The rural fringe area which is a portion of this 12.6 percent is what we have been talking about in terms of detailed data. So, again, this is the distribution of the land use -- of the wetlands within the county's current land-use categories. The other thing I -- we -- we need to take into account is what other regulatory mechanisms are in place for wetland protection. And this is the information from the South Florida Water Management District for all of the year 1999, all of year 2000, and I think this takes it through July of 2001. And the bottom line total is if we look at wetland acreage that have direct impacts, 16 percent of the wetlands that have gone through the South Florida Water Page 37 January 23, 2002 Management District have a direct impact, and this is what the district is reporting. So, again, their-- the Water Management District is looking at the site -- they're -- at the site scale, the permitting step. County is -- is looking at it from a comprehensive planning process from the higher the landscaped areas within the rural fringe, and also we do have some degree of-- of protection through the -- the project review and -- and Objective 6.2. But when we start look -- making -- trying to determine how much more can we improve upon with the Water Management District certainly as a percentage number you recall that -- we took -- staff has work -- worked with the EAC, and our initial proposal to the community at large -- and we took the EAC back in November of 2000 for wetlands protection was we had a system by which we were categorizing wetlands based upon size, amount of exotics present, location, and degree of hydrologic alteration, and we classified the wetlands. We received input from the EAC and from the community that - - that that was somewhat of a contrived system, that there is already a -- a system in place that the South Florida Water Management District had to try to identify functionality of wetlands, which was the WRAP scores, the WRAP analysis, the acronym for wetland rapid assessment district. And the EAC at one point determined that -- that you would have liked to see an allowable impact based upon what the WRAP scores would be. So if you had the highest functionality of wetland, we would still allow a 5 percent direct impact. Of course, all impact would still require mitigation, and that is if it had zero functionality, that would still require a 50 percent preservation on site for the wetlands. And what I'm trying to do here is try to -- try to -- although it's Page 38 January 23, 2002 not exactly comparable, but the question I had asked myself was, how much more, with our -- our proposal could we do better than having total Water Management District's average 16 percent direct impact. So the question -- the question's -- and I couldn't answer that question because we don't have the -- the information. But the Water Management District, as -- as their data shows, is allowing a 16 percent direct impact on wetlands. And, of course, they still require mitigation for that-- for that impact. So as we go through the details and the staff's wetland proposals, the one question I would always have to ask myself as we -- as we review it is to understand what is going to be -- whatever proposal we come up with, how much more -- how much better can we have for wetland protection than what the Water Management District is already doing in the permitting process? Now, it could be different -- different -- different things to look at. But, again, it comes back to the fact that the Water Management District is still -- is at a 16 percent direct impact. So the question -- the finding that we have to go to the county commission, if we want to have something greater than that, is how much more can we expect to get through a -- our-- our own set of standards. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to make a comment on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, sir. MR. CARLSON: Just real quickly -- they're huddled -- MR. LORENZ: Bob just wanted me to go back here. One thing, in this slide here, the district does talk about or does have data about upland comp -- compensation for -- for wetlands. We have structured the -- we have structured our standard such that the known -- there is a no net loss of wetland function, so we've created it such that there would not be an allowance for uplands to totally satisfy a wetland -- a loss of wetland functions. So, again, you have -- as we go through the details and our standards, our wetland Page 39 January 23, 2002 standards, recognize that that -- that's the case. But this is the data that has been provided by by the South Florida Water Management District. MR. CARLSON: Bill, I'm amazed by this, because our efforts were the result of having project after project come before us over the last few years where it was common to have wetland impacts over 50 percent of the project was, you know, degraded wetlands, exotics, poor hydrology. And we were looking at, some cases, 80 or 90 percent of the wetlands on the site were allowed to be developed in project after project. So we were trying to put an upper limit on -- on how many -- how -- what percentage the wetlands could be affected. I guess my answer to your question about how this can be is maybe, you know, statistics are dangerous, and I'm -- I'm just baffled by this data that I wouldn't have give -- I wouldn't-- I wouldn't have dreamed that the average impact was only 16 percent, based on the projects that's come before us. MR. LORENZ: Now, that's The-- now, that's -- this is the database that we got from -- from the district for those two years. MR. CARLSON: For -- for just the county? MR. LORENZ: For 2 1/2 years for just Collier County. MR. CARLSON: That's pretty amazing. There's something in there I don't understand. MR. LORENZ: The other -- the other thing I want to -- whoops. Well, I thought I had loaded another slide. I'm going to have to work from memory. Let's go back to -- let me look at this slide. I don't have a -- I thought I loaded the slide. I must have gotten off of my file. There's, basically, 70,000 acres of total vegetation. This is percentage, but let me -- let me just -- let me just make a point here. There's total -- total of 70,000 acres total vegetation in the fringe. This is -- this is -- this is what's there. When we go -- when we take a Page 40 January 23, 2002 look at some of those -- the slides -- and I've got to work back -- the one slide that shows the preservation standards for the TDR utilization rights, and you're looking at around sixty -- sixty to sixty- thousand of vege -- sixty to six -- sixty to sixty-thousand is going to be preserved through our preservation standards. So let's say sixty-- sixty-three-thousand is being preserved. That's what we would apply to our wetland preservation requirements -- I mean, for our native -- for our total vegetation requirements. So we're going to be -- we're going to be preserving this much vegetation in the fringe by applying the 40 percent, 60 percent, 80, 90 percent figures. There's 57,000 acres of wetlands land cover in the rural fringe. Now, the point -- the point here is, is that we're expected to preserve a greater amount of wet -- total vegetation that there is in -- in wetland land cover within the total fringe area another -- another reason why, I think, that our -- our -- our proposal for wetland protection is -- is on the mark with regard to the landscape scale and the preservation-- the total -- the vegetation preservation standards for the total rural fringe area. If-- if, on the other hand, we -- we set our vegetation retention standards and we lower those numbers to the point where now they're less than, if you will, the -- the wetland land cover, then I wouldn't have as much confidence that we're setting aside enough vegetation that's going to be significant enough for wetland -- wetland protection in the whole fringe area. So, again, when we start looking at -- at how these preservation standards at the site level work together at the landscape scale, we're expecting to preserve sixty to sixty-three-thousand acres of-- of total vegetation in the rural fringe area. And the inventory that we've been able to identify for wetland land cover is around 57,000 acres. Page 41 January 23, 2002 Coincidentally it's around -- it's pretty close to the same number, 50,000 acres, also, for strategic habitat for listed species concerned. So I think -- I think that we -- we've done a pretty good job of trying to match up our preservation standards looking at wetland land cover and looking at strategic habitat for listed species in the rural fringe. And the reason -- one of the reasons I indicate this as well is that if-- if there is movement to lower those preservation standards, and every time we lower those preservation standards, I'm not going to have as much confidence to be able to -- to -- to make that kind of general conclusion. So I think it's real important that as we -- as we work through the process in terms of review and make recommendations, we have to understand that our natural resource protection areas and the rest of the sending lands are very important as landscape features to the total protection of our-- of-- of the resources. So, with that, that's -- that ends, if you will, my presentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we do this if you concur with me, why don't we take a five-minute break. MR. COE: Can I make one comment before we -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One comment. Go ahead. one. Only MR. COE: Bill, if you'll go back to the slide that shows the wetland permitting summary-- MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. COE: --just for a second, because that might be able to answer Ed's question about the 16 percent. You said that 2001 figures were for only about a half a year. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. MR. COE: If you take out those figures, isn't it a little bit higher than that? See, I think the figures in '99 appear skewed. I could be wrong. But I show -- let me see, just taking 2000 alone, we impacted Page 42 January 23, 2002 right at 30 percent. Is -- is -- was there a big project in '99 that was -- didn't have any wetlands at all on it? MR. MULHERE: It's -- I mean, there's some -- I can't answer that empirically, but I can tell you that there -- there -- there may be some legitimacy to that comment, because obviously as there was more land available, larger tracts of land, you may be able to avoid impacting wetlands on those larger tracts. And certainly that was the case two years ago more so than it was a year ago or three years ago more so than it was two years ago. So in designing a project I think it is legitimate to state that as there's larger tracts of land, more land available, you can go to those where the -- where the need to impact wetlands is less and, therefore, the mitigation would be less and, therefore, the cost would be less. MR. COE: I guess what I'm saying is 2 1/2 years worth of statistics, particularly when you look for a couple of the most recent years are averaging close to 30 percent, 25 to 30 percent, maybe that one year of 1999 skews the statistics considerably. MR. MULHERE: That could be. I think it's just -- it's just another piece of information that came from the district. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I guess -- I guess, you know, we went back and through the data. I certainly would want to update -- try to get the updated version for 2001, whatever updated information we've had we'd present. But this -- this -- this is what they are. MR. MULHERE: I -- I certainly would concur with Mr. Carlson's statement that over at least the last couple of years the efforts of this committee have resulted in lower impacts to wetlands as a result of not necessarily what would happen to the district or Corps permitting process, but as a result of your desires and as a result of the applicants wanting to get a favorable recommendation or a recommendation that at least was more supportable going through this process. Page 43 January 23, 2002 So I think, you know, maybe your question is one of looking beyond 1999 earlier, and it could be much worse before that. I don't know, but, you know, perhaps '98, '97, '96, you know, those years the impacts were higher. I don't know. I did want to comment on one of the hot-button issues that Bill raised, because I would like to get some feedback from you on this. I know you probably have a lot of questions generally and a lot of comments, and we have the public to speak, and I'll be very brief. But it relates to the issue that Mr. Carlson brought up relative to the receiving designation in Area A close to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. In that area is generally -- or a good portion of that area -- you can bring up a map, Bill -- is generally referred to as Big Island -- Big Corkscrew Island community. We're looking for a map, if you could bring one up. I don't know now, perhaps two months ago or six weeks ago, first of all, there were concerns expressed by residents in this area throughout the process relating to the TDR process and relating to designating that area as a receiving. And then ultimately six weeks, two months ago, I'm not sure when -- somebody out here could tell you the exact date -- we did meet with residents in that area to -- to hear their concerns. We -- we met out at the middle school. And Bill and I were there. And I can report to you that of those folks that were there -- and I would say there was probably 30, maybe 40 people in attendance -- and, by the way, this area is -- is developed -- this -- this community is developed largely with 5-acre tracts, res -- with maybe a mobile home or a single-family home on. Some are probably a little bit bigger than that. Some are maybe a little bit smaller. They would be legal nonconforming, 3 -acre, 2-acre tracts. Pretty much that's the way it's developed -- I'm sure you're very familiar with the development pattern out there. Page 44 January 23, 2002 Anyway, these folks, I have to tell you, in unison -- I don't think I heard any one of those 30 or 40 people that were there stand up and support the designation of-- of a receiving area in that area. They expressed concerns related to that -- having the effect of potentially changing that community, because someone could come in and acquire some land and then increase the density, and it would be different than what it is today. And, I mean, we heard those comments, and we promised that we would work with our consultant, Dr. Jim Nicholas, related to the impacts of taking that area out of a receiving designation on, again, that ratio of receiving to sending. And -- and based on his comments we would then further evaluate it. And we did get comments back from Dr. Nicholas, which I'll paraphrase here, and hope I do a good job. Basically he expressed some concern -- because, remember, optimally he was talking about a relationship of 2 to 1 of receiving to sending as being optimal. We actually enjoy about a 1.33 ratio of receiving to sending, which is a little less than what he would optimally like. But he still felt that based on the market and the nature of this area, the TDR process would work very well,even with that ratio. And so he -- he concluded that although it was -- would not be a critical flaw in the TDR process, he would recommend leaving the receiving designation on these lands. But I had expressed a -- an observation that because of the nature of this area already being subdivided largely into five-acre parcels and developed with mobile homes and single-family homes, it would be unlikely that anyone who wanted to go out and develop a project in the receiving designated lands would go there for acquisition first. They would certainly look at larger pieces of land that would require, less effort on their part, perhaps one or two owners aggregate it and put your development out there. And he -- and Nicholas also concurred with Page 45 January 23, 2002 that-- that observation. However, we still want to raise this as an issue. We know you're going to hear that this is an issue. And so we do have some alternatives because, frankly, ultimately the Board of County Commissioners is going to be faced with making a policy decision related to this area as to whether or not it should remain a receiving area or perhaps be designated as neutral, developed exactly how it is, remain as one per five, and not be receiving or sending. A couple of options that we've begun to look at ultimately for presentation to the board related to this issue would -- would be -- one option would be leave it as a receiving area, preclude the creation of a rural village within that area, and also increase the minimum acreage which a interested entity would have to aggregate to be able to transfer units in currently. The minimum acreage in receiving areas is 40 acres. If we raise that to, say, 200, we would -- and took out the -- the ability for someone to create a rural village, we would certainly reduce the impacts on there or the potential impacts on there or the likelihood that that would be purchased for aggregation in some other development. That will not in -- I think, in any way satisfy or address the concerns of the residents out there. That's one option, though. The second option would be to take that area out of or no longer designate as receiving. Simply call it neutral, allow all of the uses that are there today and at the density that's permitted today. But if we were to do that, it seems that we would want to try to make up for the impact, the potential impact of taking that receiving designation out and the impacts on that ratio, that optimal ratio. And are there some things that we could do that would further enhance the TDR process once that area had been taken out of a receiving designation. And one option would be to consider allowing a transfer from the fringe sending lands into the urban area under very specific Page 46 January 23, 2002 criteria, and we are looking at that as being in association with qualified in-fill development. As you probably know, when you have in-fill development, which is relatively small and the land costs are relatively high, and you can't ammenitize a 20 -- 10- or 20-acre in-fill parcel, it becomes more difficult to develop that, especially at those lower densities. And as an incentive to allow by right the transfer from the rural fringe sending lands into the urban area of, say, one or two dwelling units per acre, that would increase the market for TDRs and would allow us to -- to remove that Big Corkscrew Island area -- community area from the receiving designation without really having an impact on that sending and receiving ratio. It's just an option. Second option would be to -- and -- and this came up, really, as a result of discussions generally relating to TDRs as to whether or not there is really a legitimate market in the rural fringe for folks who go and purchase a piece of land, do they really -- are they really going to have a market incentive for acquiring units, or will they simply build the golf course and develop it one per five and not acquire any units, for example, Twin Eagles, a couple of golf courses developed at the density of one per five. And is there really any incentive for somebody to go out into those receiving lands and instead of developing it at one per five, actually go out and acquire TDRs from sending lands. And, again, we asked Nicholas to look at that. He felt very strongly that there was an incentive, that, you know, developers or business people -- or if there's an opportunity for them to increase their profit through the -- following these regulations, that there was a very strong likelihood that they would go and acquire units from sending lands and bring them into those receiving lands. However, one way to further support or strengthen the TDR market and still reduce any impact from removing Big Corkscrew Page 47 January 23, 2002 community as a receiving area would be to require a minimum density for golf course -- residential golf course communities, and we haven't explored this to the point where we're ready to recommend as -- if that was one of the options, what that density might be. But, for example, if you -- since the base density is one per five, if you required. 5 dwelling units per acre for residential golf courses built in receiving lands, that would force a property owner to go out and acquire some TDRs from sending lands if he wanted to build a residential golf course. And, again, that would enhance that market for TDRs and reduce any impact from taking Big Corkscrew Island community out of the receiving designation. So those are the three -- basically, the three options that we are looking at. And I would be interested at some point, whenever you- all would feel comfortable, perhaps, with what your feelings are, because ultimately we will have to bring this issue to the board, and I think you're going to hear from some of the folks out there today too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Do we have any comments from the -- why don't we take a -- MR. CARLSON: You-- you called for a break, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Mulhere just opened, you know, a whole world of opportunity for me, but maybe we should take the break first. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let me just run something past everyone. We've gone through the presentation. We have a good group of people from the public that would like to talk. The thought being is hear the comments from the public so we can make notes on those comments and then go into the discussion of the various items with the council comments. What is the -- what's the pleasure? MR. COE: I recommend five minutes per speaker just like they do at the county commission. Page 48 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Five minutes per speaker? Okay. MR. COE: No more than five minutes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is that a good -- is that a good way to do it? MR. COE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's take a five-minute break, and then we're going to hear from the public. (A break was held from 10:44 a.m. to 10:57 a.m.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We need to come back to order, but also if anyone is from the public who is going to address the council, please fill out one of the slips over here, if you haven't done that already and bring it over to the county attorney, please. Marjorie, we don't need to swear people today, do we? MS. STUDENT: No. This would be legislative anyway; it's not -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. Okay. Let's come back to order. If we could -- do we need to swear people testifying today? MS. STUDENT: No, you do not. This is a legislative matter and not quasi-judicial, so that's not necessary. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We're going to hear now, if the pleasure of the council, from-- from the public. We do have the slips, and we would like to -- we've got to move forward. We know this is very important, but we would like to limit discussion to 5 minutes for each speaker. And I will give you a sign when there's about 30 seconds left, and we would appreciate it if we could get as much across during that period of time as possible. So with that, Miss Student, do you want to tell us who's first? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Marco Espinar, and he will be followed by Mike Bauer. MR. ESPINAR: Good morning, everybody. For the record, Page 49 January 23, 2002 Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. I'm here before you as both a private individual and also as a consultant. I've got five minutes, and I've got a lot to cover, and I want to run through this so -- real -- pretty fast. A few bullet points I want to, you know, point out to you, everybody here. On page 39 under the agricultural rural assessment area, it says except the following uses are prohibited and shall not be allowed. This is an agricultural rural assessment area. And they give you a whole bunch of stuff that are not allowed in the agricultural rural assessment area, including asphalt concrete plants. You go to the next page, interim NRPAs. And what does it say? It says the following uses are permitted. And you go through there and, like, asphalt plants are permitted in NRPAs. I don't know if that's, you know, technically correct or -- running through here I want to show that. Page 54, areas of critical state concern overlay, okay, site alteration. Number D, no mangrove trees or saltwater, grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include all wetland plants listed by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter 17-301 Florida Administrative Code. First of all, that has been amended numerous times. That's a very old, old statute and actually should be Department of Environmental Protection. And, like I said, that has been amended numerous times. One of my concerns is the statement, "All wetland plants listed by the -- by that chapter are to be protected." Now, I point to you -- back to the Section A. It lists some of the areas of critical state concern. And in those areas are Port of the Isles, Plantation, and Copeland. The way I read this is, if I have something like blue maidencane -- and these areas I pointed out, Port of the Isles, Plantation, and Copeland, are single-family areas. So is that -- the Page 50 January 23, 2002 way I take that is if I have blue maidencane -- that's a plant that's listed on this list-- I can't remove it. And these are single-family areas. I -- I -- I find that quite, quite restrictive, especially when they say all wetland plants. I mean, that list is quite extensive. There's several hundreds of plants on that list. Moving right along, page 21, I find a little -- something here to be slightly con -- conflicting here. And page 21 on the bottom of the page, vegetation communities having 75 percent or less canopy coverage of melaleucas and other invasive plant species shall be defined as naturally functioning native vegetation. So anything -- 75 percent of exotic infestation or less, okay. Now, if we go further back a little bit here and go into the -- page 27, Policy 6.2.5, Section l-A, wetlands having a functional assessment of scores of at least.5 shall be preserved on site. Wait a minute. It just said on the one area 75 percent ofmelaleuca infestation is, like, the cutoff point. A.5 WRAP score is quite a low WRAP score. That's almost a monoculture. Okay. When looking at the WRAP scores, theoretically it's from 0 to 1, but when you're applying this, the cutoff is around a point 41, 42, 45, even a 5 -- a.5, 51, those are melaleuca monocultures. Once you start dropping below those, you even start questioning the definition of whether or not you have a wetland because, remember, you have several parameters you have to meet: Vegetation canopy, ground cover, hydrology, and you score those items, and you come up with a score. That.5 is, like, almost a pure monoculture of melaleuca. And my recommendation is that that would be upped, you know, something of -- you know, that everybody can discuss. The other item is wetlands having a functional assessment -- back to this one again -- of. 5 shall be preserved on site. Now, when we go to the Water Management District and we have something of a.5 and it's a monoculture of melaleuca or something like that, the Page 51 January 23, 2002 tendency of the agencies is, it's not worth restoring, all right. So mitigate the whole entire thing off site. So in this case we have sort of a double jeopardy. Not only do we have to mitigate the whole entire wetland off site, but then I have to restore this melaleuca monoculture which is going to be costly and astronomical. And I asked everybody what is the ecological benefit of-- we're looking at the big picture of trying to restore a melaleuca monoculture, and I can understand, like, Panther Island where it's contig -- contiguous and -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Twenty seconds, twenty seconds. MR. ESPINAR: Can I beg the panel to please give me a few more minutes to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're going to -- we're going to get across the time. We've got a lot of people that are going to talk. MR. ESPINAR: Please? No. The other thing is time frame, page -- page 29, just not practical. 6.2.9, wetland function assessment as described in Policy 6.2.4, shall be part of the county EIS requirement. So what it's saying -- what they want is for us to do the WRAP analysis, go to the Water Management District, once we do the water -- the WRAP analysis, we submit it in, it's reviewed, it's kicked back to us, and -- and this process is not settled until, like, three-quarters into the way of the permitting process. What they're asking us is, is that information needs to be resubmitted at the time of the rezone. I don't know too many people that are going to risk thousands of-- of dollars of going through the ERP permitting process of putting a shopper center, doing all of this stuff prior to having the rezone in place, okay? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. COE: I'd like to make a recommendation, Marco. You've Page 52 January 23, 2002 got a ton of stuff. This -- this -- I mean, you have so much. Write it up and submit it to them. MR. ESPINAR: Could I -- could I beg for one, two minutes, please? One minute. One minute for one more item? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Marco -- Marco, we're done. MR. ESPINAR: As a consultant representing -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MR. MULHERE: Mr. -- Mr. chairman, I -- I know you don't want comments back and forth on every issue -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- but I think I can clarify, really, just the first issue that Marco raised relative -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Good. MR. MULHERE: I think he suggested to page 20 -- page 39 where your interim development provisions for the agricultural rural assessment area, wherein asphalt and concrete batch-making plants are prohibited. And then you turn the page, and it says interim natural resource protection areas, and it talks about the permitted uses, now, and when you flip the page there they're permitted. You have to keep in mind this language was inserted in the Comprehensive Plan directly pursuant to the final order and is 100 percent fully consistent with the final order. This language has to remain in here because we're still conducting assessment on the eastern lands portion. This language will not apply to the rural fringe that we're talking about because we are proposing amendments to address the rural fringe area. But it will -- these interim provisions will still apply to the eastern lands until November when they come back in with a set of amendments for that area. So these -- these are already in the plan. We're not amending them. We cannot amend them. They must stay in there, because they implement the final order on an interim basis until the Page 53 January 23, 2002 assessment is completed, though, they will not apply to the rural fringe when the board adopts comprehensive plan amendments for the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: While you're up there and on this subject, are asphalt plants and waste handling facilities permitted on the receiving lands? MR. MR. MR. MR. industrial MULHERE: CARLSON: MULHERE: CARLSON: In receiving lands? Yes. I believe they are. I believe they are, yes. So they're not just residential; they have an aspect to them? MR. MULHERE: They're currently permitted uses in the agricultural rural district. We have prohibited them on sending lands and in NRPAs, but we have not prohibited them on receiving lands. MR. CARLSON: That's a bad thing. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, one second. I'd like to just voice my concern and protest that this is a public forum. I've got important information, and I'm being denied this in a public forum. All I was asking was for two more minutes, and I would have an oppor -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Your point -- your point is heard. I think -- I think Mr. Coe's suggestion that you itemize these things out, present them to staff-- you can present them to us also -- MR. ESPINAR: That's fine. public forum unless I-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: one? MS. STUDENT: But it's not being presented in the Thank you, sir. Miss Student, who is the next Mike Bauer is the next speaker, and he will be Page 54 January 23, 2002 followed by Nancy Payton. MR. BAUER: Thank you. I thank whoever signed me up. I didn't know I was even going to speak. There were a couple of things I want to point out in this. First among these is the rural village concept. And I think as laid out before you the -- the boundaries and the measurements set out for a rural village do not encapsulate the concept of what I think many of us had in mind when it comes to terms of a rural village. We're thinking of something that perhaps you would see in New England with a central -- a small central business area surrounded by some residences that is immediately followed by open space in terms of farmland and maybe protected land. And the terms here, when we're looking at something that could be as large as 3,000 acres with many, many houses that allows clustering and other things, I think what this tends to turn out to be is just another planned unit development. So I think we need to look very carefully at this concept of a rural village and realize that what is occurring here may, in fact, be another planned unit development. Another issue is that golf courses should not be considered as open space. Golf courses fit into some kind of other separate character. They're -- they're private upscale recreational facilities that are largely devoid of natural vegetation and native vegetation, and they're -- structurally they're different. They don't have the shrubs and trees that are common to Southwest Florida. They're completely different from those other -- other designated examples of open space and -- talking about parks, playgrounds, waterways, lakes, and nature trails. A golf course is fundamentally different from all these other concepts concerning open space. They're not available to the public. And, you know, they're -- they're really quite elitist. Under no circumstances should golf courses be considered as provision of open Page 55 January 23, 2002 space by developers. There's not to say there can't be golf courses, but they shouldn't be considered open space. And the third thing I'd like to bring out is that the county has eliminated a proposal for a wetlands permitting process in favor of reliance on the South Water -- South Florida Water Management District's rating of functionality of wetlands. The South Florida Water Management District is currently undergoing a change in how they're going to be -- or there's the potential that it's going to change on how it rates water -- watershed and wetland functions, rather, wetland functions. There's a new law being proposed in the state, the uniform wetlands mitigation assessment method, that will subject ratings to much, much higher discretion, very, very much more suggestive on how wetlands are rated. And at the same time the Corps of Engineers, through a recent Supreme Court decision, has also -- is also in the process of lessening its requirements for permitting. So we have the federal and state permitting process declining. At the same time, Collier County could have stepped up to the plate and increased protection but has decided to drop this process that they were working on. And I think we need to talk more about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Nancy Payton who will be followed by Robert Duane. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton, and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I wanted to talk briefly about Mirasol, who has two sections of land that are in the secondary receiving area, and we feel that those should be neutral areas. And I wanted to bring to your attention an ad that appeared in the newspaper in the last couple of days that shows that Mirasol, which is -- you approved a PUD that went way Page 56 January 23, 2002 up in here (indicating), but that part is not being included in their application to be a community development district. So it makes me wonder what is going to happen to that land. And, again, it's our position that that land should not be a secondary receiving area or a primary receiving area, that that should be neutralized. The other secondary receiving area is the parcel of land, the Kaufman (phonetic) property, which the county and the school board recently purchased for two schools and a regional park. That also ought to be a neutral area. It shouldn't be a secondary receiving area where earth mining and other activities can take place. I wanted to comment briefly about ag. It's our position that the county can regulate ag. They're doing it in Hillsborough County. I don't have all the documentation, because we're developing our position statement now. But I do find it curious that they can regulate ag in the sending area after density is transferred, but they can't do it before, and I wonder if that strikes anybody else as curious. The wetland impact chart, we have to remember that a high percentage of our county is under a moratorium, so there's certain areas of the county that aren't going in for wetland permits, so those percentages are a bit skewed. And if we didn't have the final order moratorium, it might be a hot -- quite a higher percentage of wetlands. And I also bring to your attention is, what are we calling wetlands? And what South Florida Water Management District has identified by wetlands may be a far more restrictive definition than we would like to have in this county. And, lastly -- and this is a very important point, and I hope I'm not running too close to my time -- and that deals with the allowable loose -- uses that remain on conservation lands or sending lands or NRPAs. And those include public facilities. They include essent -- essential services, jails, cemeteries. And I don't think that we should be looking at those lands as surplus lands for potential government Page 57 January 23, 2002 facilities, such as police stations, such as satellite government centers, for any other facilities, pumping stations, water and sewer facilities; that those are lands that we've identified for conservation purposes for their natural values and, therefore, the allowable uses should be extremely restrictive. So I ask you to -- please, to go back and look closely before the day is over at those allowable uses on sending areas and conservation lands and NRPAs. And it's kind of a little confusing to me when something is a sending area or NRPA or conservation land, and that needs to be clarified. And I think I made my 5 minutes with a little time to spare. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds to spare. MS. PAYTON: I think that Mirasol and the Kaufman property ought to be put into a neutral zone. You're also going to hear comments about putting a one-mile section of Belle Meade into a receiving area. We're opposed to that. That should remain a sending area, and a buffering for the CARL conservation lands. That one-mile buffer is a landowner-request zone, and it doesn't have the same status as a willing-seller program, so it's a way that we can protect that. MR. CARLSON: But as long as it remains sending, are you proposing that it's okay to actually move the Belle Meade boundary east? MS. PAYTON: No. The entire Belle Meade boundary is a sending area. And we think it should stay that sending area, and there should be no movement to those boundaries. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Robert Duane, and he will be followed by Maureen Bonness. MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Robert Duane. I'm a planner, planning director with Hole, Montes & Page 58 January 23, 2002 Associates. My comments will only take a minute or two, and I would be willing to relinquish the balance of my time to Marco, if you're so inclined.. I had the -- a couple privileges in my career. One was being chairman of EBTAB ten years ago when the concept of NRPAs first came about. I supported those then, and I support them now. I've had a -- experience, also, with the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. I was fortunate to have been appointed twice by Governor Lawton Chiles and, also, once to his commission for sustainable Florida. And by way of background, I would just like to note for the record that I have reviewed all of the documents that are here before you today. I've attended a majority of the meetings before the rural fringe committee. And I'm also very familiar with the final order, the growth, the assessment process. And my opinion on balance, that this is a good plan for our community. We'll all find the little things to try to pick and choose from, but it's my opinion that it meets the intent of the final order. And I would hope that you would adopt this document largely as it's before you this morning. But, also, I'd like to thank Bill Lorenz but Mac Hatcher who's been grinding this plan out for the past couple of years, and I'd like to thank them for their contribution. You have some very good work in front of you, and I wish to commend them and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Kathy Prosser. MS. BONNESS: Next speaker is Maureen Bonness followed by My name is Maureen Bonness. And I am, first, going to speak to you as a resident and property owner of the Page 59 January 23, 2002 Big Corkscrew Island community. I am the one that organized the petition that was sent out to all of the property owners. And there are about 375 envelopes that I sent out to various property owners and received back 188 signed petitions. And I've got a copy of the petition for you so you can see exactly what it said. And this petition addressed mostly quality of life. For the people that live out there, we have chosen to live in an area that has a rural character. We're willing to drive down deadly Immokalee Road anytime we have to go anywhere, whether it's to Immokalee or to Naples. We're willing to live out there beyond cable service. This telecast is not being presented out in Big Corkscrew Island because it doesn't exist there. And we're willing to live out there because we want to live in an area that has a rural character. And so I did receive back 188 signed petitions from residents and property owners in the area, and I will present those and any additional I can garner to Commissioner Coletta before the -- the transmittal of the fringe to the commissioners later next month. I would also like to emphasize that the TDR process will not -- will probably not have any benefit for the people who live -- currently live in Big Corkscrew Island. The only way that we would get any kind of value from it is through the increased property value -- supposedly the property values will go up if you are in a receiving area. The only way that we can get any value from that is if we sell our land. And for most of us that live there, that's not why we live there, because we want to sell our land to get more value. We live there because we like the area a lot. I also have a copy of the -- what is Big Corkscrew Island community because sometimes that has -- it's about three -- 3,300 acres, which is five sections of land, and it's not the entire part of District A. It's only part of District A. And so I've got a map for you to show you exactly what that is. District A includes, also, a number Page 60 January 23, 2002 of parcels that are below it that are whole sections owned by a single owner. Okay. Now, I'd also like to speak to you as -- outside of my being a resident of Corkscrew. I'd like to speak to you as Dr. Bonness. I'm a faculty -- an adjunct faculty at FGCU. I teach environmental biology there. I'm also a private environmental consultant, and I'm a very active volunteer at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. And in that context I would like to say that the environmental value that is given to the property that's now in the receiving area near Big Cork -- near Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is undervalued in the assessment that the county has done. I know they've done their statistics according to the information they're given. I don't think it's been-- I think it's underrepresented in the statistics. That area is wet in a lot of-- when it gets to the wet season, there's sitting water in almost everybody's front yard there for weeks on end. And it doesn't show up in the wetlands soil map as being that. If you take that area and start to make it into an area where you now have one dwelling per acre, you will have to fill a lot of the area. When you fill that area, where does the water go? You still have just as much water in the area. The area is going to then get flooded more with deeper water in the areas that are not filled. The only way you are going to be able to develop that area at the current ratio of one dwelling per acre, which is suggested for the receiving areas, is if you dig canals. You will have to drain that area. And that area right now is in the watershed of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. If you develop that area at the ratio of 1 to 1, you will have environmental impact on the sanctuary. There's no doubt about that. Now, speaking through Mike Duever who cannot be here today -- he wanted to relay this information -- that he is the -- the -- I don't know if you know Dr. Mike Duever he's one of the chief Page 61 January 23, 2002 scientists for the South Florida Water Management District. His data supports a 1-mile buffer around a preserve area in order to preserve the hydrology. And if you know anything about the environment to the area, the basic line is hydrology, hydrology, hydrology. If you have -- impact the hydrology of Corkscrew, you're going to impact its environmental quality. And we have a gem out there that you can't replace anywhere with a virgin cypress swamp, and I'd like to see that area protected. Now, I'm going to step out of those roles. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds. MS. BONNESS: Okay. And I'm going to now speak-- actually, it's connected to that. I would like to propose an alternative receiving area that has not been proposed so that we can take Big Corkscrew Island community off the map as a receiving area and present another one. And I'm going to propose an area that's now in the rural lands. If you look at the map, there's one little section of land that kind of sticks out from all the rest. It's within 2 miles of Orangetree, so it's near utilities, and it is -- right now it's an active fill pit. It can be easily developed more likely than will these little 5-acre parcels up in Big Corkscrew Island. And I've got several other reasons listed there as to why I think that would be a more appropriate receiving area than would Big Corkscrew Island. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And the next speaker is Kathy Prosser, and she will be followed by Tom Williams. MS. PROSSER: Good morning, members of the committee. I'm Kathy Prosser, president of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also a member of the Rural Fringe Committee, the Rural Lands Committee, and the Community Character Smart Growth Page 62 January 23, 2002 Committee. I would like to -- first, to be brief and succinct, echo the comments that have been made by my environmental colleagues here today and highlight a couple of issues that I think are of critical importance. The first is that the TDR program overall, we believe, is necessary for us to be able to protect the lands that we feel are important. There is, as of last Wednesday's night meeting, significant controversy over whether or not a TDR program will be recommended to you by the committee. And so I would like you to know that on behalf of The Conservancy we do support this program. We do not support the 1-mile strip that is recommended as a transition zone on the western border of what is the rural fringe. We believe that the transition zone is the rural fringe, that that was the idea behind the rural fringe area. So we would not support moving the -- essentially what I would consider an urban boundary one mile further to the east. MR. CARLSON: southern Belle Meade? You're talking about the Belle Meade, MS. PROSSER: Yes. In terms of wetlands, I agree with what Dr. Bower (sic) has said to you. At the federal and state level, we see a lessening of-- of protection of wetlands, and that is exactly the wrong way to be headed, particularly here in Collier County. I believe that we need our own wetlands staff who are committed to assessment, permitting, and mitigation. And while I realize that that would be a cost to the county to bring those new staff on board, I believe the cost to the county of not protecting our wetlands is significantly more. Golf courses, I believe, should not be considered open space. They have even been suggested as being proper to be put in sending areas. We are strongly opposed to that. Page 63 January 23, 2002 Finally, I would like to thank the county staff because they've done great work and I think at times have been near pulling out what hair is left on their heads in dealing with the committee overall and the many contentious issues with which we have dealt. So I would say thanks to them, and that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And the next speaker is Tom Williams followed by Tim Hancock. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, committee members. My name is Tom Williams. I'm currently a watermelon breeder for Syngenta Seeds and used to be the branch manager of the Syngenta Seeds -- what is currently the Syngenta Seeds Research Center, vegetable seed research. And we own property just east of what I understand is the boundary line of the rural fringe, the western boundary line. And, quite honestly, I came sort of unprepared today because I really have more questions than I have comments, but as I understand the map -- and the only one I have privy to, because they are out of the colored ones, is the map that appeared in the paper, which I assume these bold lines mean that that's what the proposed extension for the receiving areas will be. Is this -- is this a correct understanding? From Greenway Road to the -- and I'm talking about this lower southern portion of the Belle Meade area. MR. MULHERE: MR. WILLIAMS: MR. MULHERE: MR. WILLIAMS: MR. MULHERE: MR. WILLIAMS: You're talking about the Area D? Area -- sorry. I don't -- yes, Area D. Area D is proposed to be a receiving area. Which means development eventually. Correct. Well, potentially, yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. So, I guess, I'm just going to make my comments really brief because I've heard a lot of discussion relative to preserving bears and melaleucas. I think Page 64 January 23, 2002 they were preserving melaleucas. Maybe they weren't. But in any event I haven't heard a lot of discussion about preserving what I feel is a very valuable resource, and that is agricultural land. And over the years -- and I've had a 32-year career in this business. I've seen a lot of valuable agricultural land disappear. And I think we're all going to have lunch and dinner today, so please appreciate where that food is coming from. Now, this particular area, as I understand it, is -- is -- occupies a great amount of farmland; correct? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that probably all depends on your perspective. There is -- there is and has been farming operations in that area. But Bill had alluded to, during his presentation, the fact that the final order does require us to look at developing methodologies for preserving and protecting unique agricultural lands. And largely those measures have been deferred to the eastern lands portion of the study, which is about 200,000 acres, of which there is a significant percentage in active agricultural operation. The active agricultural operations within the fringe -- we're talking about intensive, intensive agricultural. We're not talking about unimproved pasture -- are actually -- the percentage is actually quite low when you look at it as part of the whole study area. It's about -- I think it's less than 6 percent. I'm not suggesting that -- it all depends on what your perspective is. That could be an awful lot if you're looking at your property. There are some measures within these standards to protect and con -- and allow for continued agricultural uses. As we said, we -- we're precluded, at least according to the advice from our legal counsel, from prohibiting agricultural operations on sending lands. On receiving lands things like clustering, rural villages which require a green belt around them within which agriculture could continue to use -- to be utilized. There's nothing that would preclude Page 65 January 23, 2002 agricultural operations from continuing within those receiving lands. It's purely voluntary. It will be a question of whether or not a property owner chooses to develop that land or sell that land for development. And in -- in -- frankly, in Area D immediately adjacent to the urban area, cleared-- much of it formerly active agricultural; some of it is still active agriculture -- it is still clearly, in our opinion, an area that is appropriate to identify as a receiving land so... MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we have a difference of opinion, because that is a unique agricultural area. And it's unique from one standpoint, and that's temperature. Do you realize that the second- most frost-free growing area in the continental United States is in that particular area? The first is Homestead. The second -- and that's actually why we located a research center there, to take advantage of Thank That's as much as I have to say. that temperature situation. you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question of Bob Mulhere? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: When -- the attorneys up in Tallahassee, do they say that it is absolutely unquestionably against the law to do agriculture? Have they said something like, "Well, there's this case law, and there's that case law, and we don't know how it will be interpreted. And to protect ourselves, you just better not do it "? MR. MULHERE: No. What they said to us was under the Right to Farm Act, the county cannot preclude a landowner from farming under the Right to Farm Act. And, as I understand it, that includes -- that Right to Farm Act includes or specifies best management practices for farming. So -- and that's exactly the language that we have used in here is that we -- is that agriculture is -- continues to be permitted in sending lands under the provisions of Page 66 January 23, 2002 the Right to Farm Act. MS. LYNNE: And there -- is earth mining and stuff still included in-- MR. MULHERE: No. Earth mining is not permitted in sending lands under our proposal. MS. LYNNE: But fish ponds are? MR. MULHERE: Aquaculture would be, yes. MR. HILL: Bob, doesn't the Right to Farm Act also allow the local authorities to limit, place limits, on the agriculture allowed in those areas? MR. MULHERE: I am -- I am -- I really can't answer that question specifically. What I think I can tell you is that to the degree that the Right to Farm Act allows agriculture under those best management practices, I believe we could not prohibit a property owner who is consistent with the provisions of that act from farming. If-- we certainly could -- and, you know, I'm not an attorney. So, I mean, I'd be happy to try to get a written opinion, if that would help, from either Martha Chumler (phonetic) or Nancy Lenanne, who are the two primary attorneys who have worked with the county. Perhaps, Marjorie, you could -- you could ask for such, and we could get that to you. I mean, just so you understand, originally the way this draft was written agriculture was recommended to be prohibited by the staff. And we were told, "You will be in violation of state law if you do that." So -- I mean, maybe it is a pretty black and white answer and we can get that in writing, and maybe that would -- that would help. MS. STUDENT: And I have to talk to Miss Lenanne about a number of issues, and I will also advise her. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: And I might add that I have had some familiarity quite a number of years ago on the Right to Farm Act, Page 67 January 23, 2002 probably going back 10, 11 years, and I would not want to speculate, since it has been that long ago since I had perused it. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. Can we make that -- can your question be framed such as if the county wanted to put some limits on agricultural land, is there any way to effect that rather than just can we do it or not? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the EAC, my name is Tim Hancock, vice president with Vanasse, Daylor here today representing Mr. Mike Taylor, a private property owner in the south Belle Meade area. I will quickly try and provide the basis for you on which I believe the committee used for a 6-! recommendation to remove a section-- five sections -- excuse me, six sections of land-- the bottom six, well, it would not apply to. So it would be five sections of land between zero and one-mile range immediately east of the urban residential fringe. Why the recommendation stood 6-1 -- Miss Prosser dissenting to remove it from the sending natural resource protection area designation. The data we presented to the committee to date included the difference in private versus public ownership within the south Belle Meade NRPA. All the land you see lying east of the 0-to-l-mile corridor, approximately 22,000 acres, of that 19,960 are in public ownership, roughly 91 percent of that total area, leaving only 9 percent mostly small tracts and private ownership. In the 0- to 1-mile corridor alone, you have only 17 percent of those lands in public ownership, 73 percent in private ownership; roughly the same acreage in private ownership in the 0- to 1-mile corridor as there is in the balance of the entire south Belle Meade area. There have to be reasons for that. One reason simply is that most of these property owners have Page 68 January 23, 2002 already responded to the State of Florida indicating that they have no desire or interest in selling their land to the state. There is a map -- and I'm sorry we gave our copy to staff, and I don't have it with me today -- that indicates which parcels have responded in the negative, that they have no interest in selling to the state. And that does cover the majority of parcels in the 0- to 1-mile corridor. In looking at that, why would they say, "We don't want to sell to the state" when the state has been so successful in the balance of the south Belle Meade? Primary reason, property valuation. We went in and did a property valuation analysis of a roughly similar area of land in the middle of the south Belle Meade which I'm calling the 3- to 4- mile corridor. The average valuation of those lands, arm's-length sales, some to the state, a few in private hands, was approximately $2,000 an acre, roughly the going rate for what the state is offering. Those folks are -- are being paid market value for their land. In the area, 0- to 1-mile corridor here, the average valuation per acre is over $8500 an acre; not what the state's willing to pay to date. Because of those property valuation differences, the proposed transfer of development rights program which offers you $17,000 for your one unit on 5 acres doesn't even come close to making property owners whole in any way, shape, or form in the 0- to 1-mile corridor. In addition to that, we were able to obtain from at least two separate biologists opinions that we have a higher degree of exotic infestation, therefore, a habitation reduction in the 0- to 1-mile corridor basically because of the 951 or Henderson Canal. It has had the effect of reducing the hydroperiod in the area. While the property valuation data we provided has been fairly exhaustive, the environmental data is still forthcoming. I have a sample of that on the wall behind me. Most of the information that established the NRPAs on a landscape scale was based on the 1994- '95 flux data that the South Florida Water Management District Page 69 January 23, 2002 provided. An example of that would be -- you see Section 24 on the upper print there. According to the 1994-'95 designation, that's uplands hardwood forest, all of Section 24, bar none. That thing's homogeneous. The 2001 aerial is right beneath it showing at least 30 percent of the lands disturbed, showing also -- and we haven't mapped these out specifically -- yet a higher degree of exotic infestation. Using the same basis that the South Florida Water Management District used in establishing the '94-'95 flux data, we will be and are in the process of flux mapping that entire corridor. That data will be provided to staff as soon as it is ready. We're hoping maybe Monday or Tuesday of next week -- and that summary, we hope -- and if it doesn't, so be it, but it's our belief that it will support that this area should be viewed differently than the balance of the south Belle Meade NRPA. That is the basis by which we provided to the committee that I believe was a major reason for their -- their 6-1 vote to support removing this. Now, in removing it, it is not a receiving area. What is being proposed is called a neutral designation where it has a minimum preservation requirement of 50 percent, a maximum of 60 percent. This does not obviate the need for state and federal permitting for anything, whether it be species, whether it be wetlands. It also does not keep the state from continuing its purchase or attempted purchase of these lands. What it does do is it restores some, but not all, of the ability for these property owners -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You have 30 seconds. MR. HANCOCK: -- to receive the value of their property. We feel that that is not only important as a part of this study but, in fact, required by the final order. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: So, first of all, did you say this is one mile Page 70 January 23, 2002 from the 951 canal and has been negatively influenced by the drainage of the 951 canal, thereby totally supporting the recommendation to have at least a 1-mile-wide buffer? MR. HANCOCK: may be consistent. MR. CARLSON: No, sir. I said that was one of the factors that Did you say that hydrology has been affected by the 951 canal which is a mile away? MR. HANCOCK: That's the information we have from the biologist, yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: The problem with-- what's the problem with having it as a sending area? It's -- they're just -- MR. HANCOCK: As a sending area? MR. CARLSON: Explain that to me, yes. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Assuming I have 20 acres of land in that corridor, based on the recommendations that are contained in what you have before you today, my legal rights of use on that property are either agriculture or one house on 20 acres. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Hmm. So it's not subdivided. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. You don't need to subdivide land in order to put homes on it. MR. CARLSON: But, I mean, to get a competitive value out of sending, it's not subdivided enough. Am I not -- am I missing something? MR. HANCOCK: I believe so, yes. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MS. LYNNE: I don't understand it either. MR. HANCOCK: If I had a 20-acre parcel prior to the governor's final order-- MR. CARLSON: You've got one unit. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One unit. MR. HANCOCK: Based on these recommendations, you can Page 71 January 23, 2002 build one unit. Prior to the governor's final order, you could build four units, one unit per five acres. So you have the ability to transfer off three units. Well, assuming you build one, you can transfer three. So if I maintain my minimum use that this allows me and build my one home, I can transfer three units off at roughly $17,000 per unit. That gives me a net of 3 times 17, $51,000. However, the valuation of those 15 acres adjusted to June of 1999 at $8,000 an acre doesn't wash. And the final order does require that you consider the regulations and how they affect private property rights and values. I do not believe in the 0- to 1-mile corridor that consideration has been duly given. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: I'm hum -- hung up on the hydrology because, you know, we're only halfway to buildout in this county, I think, basically. And -- and the water resources are already stretched to the max. I mean, we have all kinds of crises and water restrictions. If this boundary is moved back and this land is developed, it can't be developed without further hydrologic deterioration which will then move the effect of that further into the Belle Meade and -- and the water supply -- MR. HANCOCK: Is it your contention then that there is no development pattern that would actually increase storage in the area? MR. CARLSON: Is there? You got an example? MR. HANCOCK: I'm going to basically defer environmental response to an environmentalist. And I'm not going to pretend to play that role today. I have the data that I have that we've presented to the committee. We have the committee recommendation. What we do know is that this area has a higher level of infestation of exotics than do lands to the east. As you move to the east, the exotic infestation tapers off to less than 25 percent. These lands have pockets and areas of melaleuca Page 72 January 23, 2002 monoculture. I've stood in some portions of this land after recent fires where you're standing waste deep in a melaleuca monoculture. It is the contention, based on the letters that we have from the biologists, that a reduced hydroperiod contributes to a higher infestation level of exotics. That higher level of infestation reduces the habitat value and the vegetative value of the area. I think we all understand and appreciate that. So the area -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We got-- we got it, thanks. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. LYNNE: Can we have a copy of those letters from the biologists? MR. HANCOCK: Certainly. As a matter if fact, I have a couple of full packets I'll provide to the court reporter for the record. I'll give one to you and one to the court reporter. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: The next speaker is Brad Cornell, and he will be followed by your last speaker, Tom S-i-e-m-i-a-n-o-w-s-k-i. MR. CARLSON: MS. STUDENT: MR. CORNELL: Siemianowski. Siemianowski. Hi. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I appreciate the opportunity to say a few things about this huge plan that is in front of you, and it's hard to grab -- put your hands all the way around it. But I do want to make the one broad comment that it is basically a good effort. The landscape scale protections for our resources in the rural fringe, I believe, are going to work with the TDR program, with the preservation proposals, the regulations. I think this is a good -- a good effort. I do applaud what staff has proposed, and I believe that they have taken into consideration a lot of what the people in the community have expressed. Page 73 January 23, 2002 However, with that said, I want to make one very large caveat, and that is to do with agricultural land use. And I do want to specifically counter what the legal advice that the county has gotten, and that is that we have gotten our own legal advice -- advice from our own counsel on the ability of local government to regulate agricultural use. Under the Right to Farm Act, our understanding is and our opinion is that while you cannot eliminate the use of ag -- allowance of agriculture, you can regulate it. And that would mean in areas of environmental sensitivity you could say -- for instance, sending and NRPA lands, you could say only unimproved pasture and native range would be allowable agricultural uses. However, that still complies with the Right to Farm Act. So this would be our recommendation, that the county regulate the intensity of agricultural use in the environmentally sensitive lands we're trying to protect. Otherwise we've-- we've lost that game. I would also like to point out that on buffering conservation lands and sense -- environmentally protected areas, like the sending areas, that a one-mile buffer is a generally good idea county -wide if we're going to talk about county-wide policies and in the rural -- rural fringe. We have received information from -- and you have too from Mike Duever of the South Florida Water Management District. He has substantiated, through his studies and other studies, that one mile is a generally good range. Now, there are certainly adjustments that can be made to that based on the local site-specific conditions. But as a general policy one mile of buffering around your wetland -- particularly your wetlands, just for wetland purposes, not to mention wildlife issues, is a very good policy. And I would also like to mention that on wetland policies I also concur with the other environmental colleagues of mine that have spoken on this, that we do need stronger local authority over Page 74 January 23, 2002 particularly the receiving area wetlands. We need to have some sort of local program that monitors, assesses, assigns mitigation values, and basically protects those isolated wetlands that the agencies are not going to be able to and have even told us that they are not going to be able to. This is something that I believe is in the best intrance -- interest of the county. Even though we've protected the majority of wetlands, the percentages in the receiving area are still a very large functional set of wetlands, and they're very important for species such as wood storks, wading birds, and other wildlife that utilizes these kinds of wetlands, so we should not ignore those. But I do want to underscore the agricultural exemption. If there's not any other issue you attend to, please address the issue of agricultural exemption from these protections. We must -- if we're going to protect those environmentally sensitive lands, we must regulate ag. It's not to say that we're going to eliminate it. We're going to protect it, but we must include it in our regulations. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. STUDENT: And the last speaker is Tom Siemianowski. MR. SIEMIANOWSKI: All right. Since I'm the last speaker, I'll be brief and be gone. My name is Tom Siemianowski, and my family and I have lived in Big Corkscrew Island area, which is now called the NRPA CREW receiving as I've been to the meeting today, for the past 26 years. After driving to this meeting today along Immokalee Road and 951 and seeing the density and development of -- of the area that I've lived in for the last 26 years, it -- it made this trip even more important to myself and to my community. I have seen the growth of Orangetree, Waterways, Jones' Mining Company, Simpson Fill Pit, the Palmetto Berry Plant and the tower Page 75 January 23, 2002 next to it, and it's starting to get scary. I know Mr. Lorenz mentioned listed species. I have seen owl and hawk, otter, deer, turkey, eagle, fox, wood stork, panther, and bear. And that's just on my property. I agree with Mr. Carlson that the animals can't see an imaginary line that -- that they won't cross. They roam freely throughout Big Corkscrew Island in -- in the whole area there. I have friends from Dade and Broward that come over just to photograph the animals, and that's just on the property. They go to the -- to the sanctuary for the -- for the cypress, but the -- the animals are all around us. I notice that the taxpayers have spent money on the presentation, the hearings, the meetings, the consultants, the advertising, the staff, the data, the maps. And after hearing this information presented today and my observations where I live, I feel that some of this data is flawed. And I think that -- that this panel, since you'll be making the decision based upon this data, that you need the correct information. Mr. Carlson and Miss Lynne did ask -- they brought up good questions on maps, wetlands, wildlife, and ratios, and I feel that their questions weren't answered. This so -- so-called receiving area that I live is beautiful. It's full of wildlife. It's -- has lots of water in the rainy season and then months after. It has spectacular vegetation, and we have plenty of space. And this is why my neighbors I have talked to -- and this is why we moved there, and we hope that it remains this way. Thank yOU. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the council? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Marco, have you got a copy of what your Page 76 January 23, 2002 presentation was? MR. ESPINAR: No, sir. MR. COE: Even if it's handwritten can you put it together? MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar. No, I have not written anything else, going through a verbal presentation today, but I'll -- I'll put something in writing. MR. COE: You know, even if it's in a rough form. Who should he get that to? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill. Bill Lorenz. MR. COE: Get -- get it to Bill, because we're obviously going to have another meeting, and we want to make sure that we've got a hard copy of it because you're so detailed on the thing. Okay? MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. MR. COE: I just want to make sure that you understand we're going to try to incorporate it because we had five minutes allotted, because we've got a lot of stuff we got to do. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Lorenz, go ahead. Finish your conversation. MR. LORENZ: No. Just, Mr. Chairman, the comprehensive planning manager has indicated that you really need to make your recommendations today. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, here's what we have. We're going to lose Mr. Stone at about 12:30, leaving six of us, I guess, to proceed with this. Why don't we -- why don't we pound on here until about 12:30, go as far as we can get, take a break for lunch, and then come back and go with it. What would your be -- what would be your recommendation, Mr. Lorenz, on how to proceed at this point? MR. LORENZ: I think you have some major issues that have been brought up. It would be good to bring those issues back to the board and have somebody make a motion and -- and vote on each one Page 77 January 23, 2002 of those issues. If you want to get into individual language, that's going to take a lot of time. But to the degree that if you have specific re -- recommendations with regard to boundaries or -- or what other approaches we should be pursuing, those would be important. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't -- why don't we do this: Seeings with the number of folks here and so forth and the issue that I hear -- probably the biggest we're hearing is the Big Corkscrew area, what do you say we bring that up -- Mr. Carlson as -- is very, very knowledgeable of this particular area, and I'm hearing things from folks that live there and even from Mr. Mulhere. What -- what will you do about the big problem with the folks that live at -- on Big Corkscrew? Mr. Carlson, what do you think? MR. CARLSON: I'd like to project the map up there and make a general comment that puts the receiving areas in a -- in a general context, if I could do that. Can somebody -- can somebody put the map projected up there and adjust the lights. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ed, we want you to go up there and kind of make -- you know. There you go. MR. CARLSON: Okay. I'd like to comment on the A, receiving area and the overall picture. If I could have the big map... CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The big map. MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about this map? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: This one? MR. CARLSON: I'm talking about that map. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The only way that that is available is on the visualizer and on that screen. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Let's go to the screen. MR. MULHERE: There it is. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Here's our situation, and we're stuck with this geology and topography. We've got two major wetland Page 78 January 23, 2002 flow-ways that are critical to the future of this county. They're major water resource areas. And to protect those water resources you're protecting wildlife and habitat which is what we're here primarily to do, in my opinion. So here you have this fantastic flow-way of Corkscrew Swamp, and it seeps over the boundaries of the sanctuary into these neighborhoods. And what you need to do there is concentrate on protection, because we're only halfway to buildout, and we're stressing out our water resources. So you need maximum protection of these flow-ways. That water is recharing the groundwater. It's feeding the Cocohatchee River and important rivers in -- in Lee County. Down here you have the same thing with the Belle Meade. You have a very important hydrologic system, very important to our future and our water resources, wildlife habitat and wildlife species, and that's flowing down supporting the Ten Thousand Island system. The flow-way, you need maximum protections, as much protection as you can get here and here (indicating). Now, right here (indicating) you have the flow of people. And this county sacrificed for Golden Gate Estates. We devastated that property. There was no consideration of environmental protection when the estates went in. The -- the design goal was drain it, destroy the wetlands, move the people in. The only thing more extensive than the drainage system is the road system. Every single parcel has access. It's drained, and it's paved, and it's ready for people. You got a rural village going in right in the center of it. And how in the world we could look at this rural fringe and not consider the estates and have the receiving areas which are, in my opinion, urban sprawl -- this is an urban sprawl plan, in my opinion -- and not consider the possibility of increase in density in the estates and putting extra density in Orangetree and Page 79 January 23, 2002 around Orangetree and going into these rural lands that have these hydrologic values and resource values, I think, is a horrible mistake, and this is a plan for urban sprawl, not to prevent it, but to produce it, bottom line. The A area -- it's not littered with panther telemetry points because they can't catch them. You turn the hounds loose down here (indicating), the catch dogs, the houndsmen and his hounds, runs all over the place, no boundaries, no fences, no private property. They catch the panther. They put a collar on it, and you get marks all over it. You go up here, you turn the hounds loose, in just a few minutes you're at a private property boundary. You're at a barbed wire fence that says no trespassing. That have been down-- they have been up there. They've tried to catch those panthers. They can't do it. There's just not enough space to run the dogs; otherwise this would be a priority-one panther habitat with telemetry points all over it. So I just think -- I just think we've made a tremendous basic flaw in this whole plan, and I'd like you to address -- you know, we talked about transferring development rights from here -- from here to the urban area. Nobody said anything about the estates or Orangetree cannot be considered in this plan; if not, why not, and if it can, that's where we should be going. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The final order defines the assessment area, and it specifically expressly excludes Golden Gate Estates, specifically and expressly, number one. MR. CARLSON: To deny its existence. MR. MULHERE: No. It denies it as part of the assessment area, number one. Number two, Golden Gate Estates is a platted and vested subdivision. Yes, you are absolutely right, though I doubt that anyone standing here today had anything to do with it, there are Page 80 January 23, 2002 certainly -- if things could be done today, they would be done much differently than they were at the time that that was platted in terms of drainage and the roads and those other things. There is a study going on in Golden Gate Estates that will probably take at least another year, and there is a committee put together called the Golden Gate Estates Restudy-- a Master Plan Restudy Committee. We made a presentation to them. Anyway, that study is going on, and that will look at mobility issues and other issues within Golden Gate Estates. I would disagree with your characterization of these receiving areas as furthering sprawl. I would take the exact opposite position. I would indicate to you that these receiving areas will minimize the existing extremely deleterious impacts of sprawl associated with Golden Gate Estates by providing for services in and around the Golden Gate Estates area that don't exist today, reducing the requirement for folks to get on those roads that are already heavily impacted because there aren't any services out there. Third component would be balancing private property rights and natural resource protection -- MR. CARLSON: Why can't services go into the rural settlement area in Orangetree? MR. MULHERE: They may. And that has been a recommendation of the Rural Fringe Committee that there is 1200 acres of agricultural land out there. And that would also, perhaps, be an appropriate place for rural village mixed-use development. However, that can only be a recommendation, because that land is outside expressly -- again, outside of the assessment area. MR. CARLSON: Well, how many times have we heard the term "comprehensive plan"? We're planning with blinders on. We're not comprehensive planning. MR. MULHERE: I appreciate your comments. And I think if Page 81 January 23, 2002 those are the comments of the committee, then you can make some recommendations to us, and we will carry those forward. Now, I also think you heard from several representatives of environmental groups that strongly support this plan that have indicated that overall they think it's a very good plan. So obviously you have your opinions as an individual. And we're happy to hear those, and we're happy to hear the opinions of this committee, and we'll carry those forward. But we believe this is the best plan, and that's why we developed it. MR. CARLSON: Well, in my opinion, this transfer of the density rights really isn't worth it except for the northern Belle Meade. It's not worth -- I mean, we've got projects that are funded like CREW, the CREW NRPA, and the Belle Meade. There's a funding source there for them, and we're going to continue to work on those. And we don't have to transfer development rights to make those work. MR. MULHERE: And I understand that. MR. CARLSON: In Belle Meade there's no funding. So I -- so I think that's where the action is here, and that's where transferring development rights can have a better benefit. But in these rural lands you could keep the density at one unit per five acres, let developers cluster, and in the long run be better off than putting rural villages out there where you have density bonuses, industrial uses, commercial uses, and changing the whole rural character of that part of the county. You've leapt over the estates. If that's not sprawl -- here's the urban; here's the estates. And then you've leapt over into the northern part of the county with density higher than you have in the estates. MR. MULHERE: Actually, that's-- MR. CARLSON: That is sprawl. MR. MULHERE: Actually, that's not true. Actually, there are Page 82 January 23, 2002 only -- there is only one example of where we've leapt over the estates, because the other three areas -- two examples, because two of the areas immediately abut the urban area, do they not? Two of these -- MR. CARLSON: Two do and two do not. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So that -- that's not exactly true. In some cases we have it, and in some cases we haven't. But, unfortunately, we've got to deal with an existing situation in Golden Gate Estates. Our direction for the county from the governing cabinets part of the assessment was twofold, was to develop natural resource protection strategies both for the assessment area but also to apply them county-wide -- and you've heard what those strategies are -- and then also to develop strategies for protecting -- balancing those natural resource protection strategies with private property rights. And that's where these rural villages and receiving areas come into play, because we are required -- not only is it referenced in the final order, but also the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Act says that when we enact as a local government restrictions on a piece of property that impact the vested land rights and reasonable ex -- investment-backed expectations, then we have got to do something to compensate those property owners for that lost value. And one of the primary tools that are referenced in the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Act is the transfer of development rights process. And I think if you were -- let me -- let me reword that. I think for many property owners who are in sending lands the TDR process will allow them an opportunity to recoup some of that lost value. Again, I understand your opinion. You've expressed it very clearly. We have a more difficult task, I think, of trying to balance the natural resource protection strategies with the private property rights. We have made some proposals here. Again, we're here to Page 83 January 23, 2002 hear what your concerns are and to take your recommendations forward to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CARLSON: If it was the desire of this county and its commissioners to preserve rural lands because of their wildlife habitat and hydrologic values, would there be no way to make parts of the estates receiving areas? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I -- I -- no. I can't say that. There may be a way, and that may be something -- MR. CARLSON: Well, then that's where we should -- MR. MULHERE: Maybe that should be a recommendation-- MR. CARLSON: It's drained, and it's paved, and it's ready for people. And you're going to go into a rural area and impose five -- ten times the density, if you -- even more if you do the rural villages. And we're not going to change anything about the estates, which is the most appropriate place in this county to put people? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, we are requiring clustering. We are doing exactly what the statutes call for and allow innovative planning techniques, including rural villages, compact development, moving out. We are requiring with those rural villages the green space, a green belt around it. In exchange for allowing that development, we are preserving in excess of 66,000 acres of land within the rural fringe. Again, you know, I mean, I guess it's just a question of balance. MR. CARLSON: Let -- let me ask you this: With a rural village, the -- the bonus and the extra density you get from the rural village -- and I was reading in here -- and there's all kinds of ways to get bonus density way beyond the one-dwelling-per-acre change base density, there's affordable housing. MR. MULHERE: Within the rural village structure, correct. MR. CARLSON: Do all of those units come from the sending Page 84 January 23, 2002 area? MR. MULHERE: No. The way the rural village is structured, you get your base density. So if-- in other words, and -- and maybe if we use an example that we've used other times of 1500 acres of a thousand-acre rural village and a 500-acre green belt around it, you have a one-per-five base density. You're in a receiving area. You have a one-per-five base density. So at 1500 acres, that's 300 units. MR. CARLSON: So if-- if you want to go -- and you can put at least two rural villages up here in A and a whole bunch of them down here in D __ MR. MULHERE: Well, they've got-- MR. CARLSON: But listen to me. If those extra bonus units don't come from a sending area, that's more population. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, you didn't let me finish. Some do and some don't. First of all, there is a requirement currently written into the plan that no rural village may be within a mile of another rural village. So there is some limitation on the number. Now, originally it was written to limit that number to three. However, it was recommended that these are -- that these are a -- a good plan to enhance preservation because they will direct the development to more compact areas, even within the receiving areas. So we've -- by designating sending, receiving, we've already directed the development to certain areas that have the lesser environmental quality. And then by further directing that development into a compact mixed-use development, we will minimize any sprawl- related components. I'm getting to your -- your point. And so the process to attain the density that you may have within a rural village does require some level of TDR purchase but not all TDR purchase. And what it requires -- again, you get your base density. And the example I used was 1500 acres. You would Page 85 January 23, 2002 get 300 units, 1500 divided by 5. You have a minimum density in a rural village of 2.5 dwelling units per acre; that's the minimum. The maximum is 3.5. So if you get to the minimum, you've got your base that's 3, you must then go and acquire.8 dwelling units per acre for each acre in the rural village. And the example I used it was a thousand acres, so you would have to go and acquire 800 TDRs. You would now be up to 1100 units. If you take 2.5 times a thousand, your rural village area, your minimum density is 2500 units. And you have attained, through the TDR purchase and through the base density, 1100. So you're short the difference between 2500 and 1100, 1400 units, you get a bonus. If you do those things, you do get a bonus, and the bonus you get, as we prescribe it, is two dwellings units per acre to bring you up to your minimum -- MR. CARLSON: So we're not halfway to buildout anymore. We just set the bar up higher and increased the population of the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure about halfway to buildout or not. I'm not sure that that analysis has been done. MR. CARLSON: Well, let's say we were. We're not there anymore because this allows additional units not -- not -- how many people do you figure per unit? Three? MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: No. Two point five. Two point five. This is the number that we use. So we're talking some significant population increase here, and that's not urban sprawl? MR. MULHERE: No, it's not. And we would be talking about -- yes, there is a population increase associated with these. In fact, it's -- it is -- it is a prescribed methodology to minimize the impacts of urban sprawl, both by statutes -- it was also discussed heavily and recommended strongly by the governor's growth management study Page 86 January 23, 2002 commission. There have been a number of studies done -- done over the years. If you look at this book which is called Rural by Design by Ralph -- by Randall Arrant (phonetic), this book was the basis of many of the recommendations that we've made. We also looked at rural villages in other areas, including Horizons West in Orange County. We reduced the sizes somewhat because a lot of people raise the issue about proposed size, which in your-- in your draft is a thousand to three thousand, a minimum of a thousand, a maximum of three thousand. But a lot of folks that we've spoken to and a lot of advisory boards that we've spoken to and committees have expressed concern over that three thousand as being too large and that thousand being also too large for the minimum. So we have -- we are currently revising that to propose 500 to 2,000 as the size limit, the 500 minimum, 2,000 maximum. But, I mean, I understand we have difference of opinion. And I -- and I am certainly happy to hear that and carry forward the opinions of this committee, and individually everyone is free to express their opinions as we move forward as well. MR. CARLSON: Well, my opinion, then, is that except for the northern Belle Meade area where I see some real advantage to transfer develop rights, I think this is an urban sprawl plan. I think we can go ahead with our land acquisitions for NRPAs in the fringe that are in existing acquisition programs and that Area D becoming a place to put rural villages is a red herring, and it should remain a rural -- a rural density and cluster communities. And as a community we're better off in the long run. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Carlson. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: I don't understand why Golden Gate was Page 87 January 23, 2002 exempted. Who made that decision? MR. MULHERE: I guess you'd have to say the governor and cabinet. MS. LYNNE: Why are the government and the cabinet telling us how to divide up sections of our county? MS. STUDENT: I can give you some background. This was pursuant to EAR valuation and appraisal report amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that we adopted back in 1997, and DCA found those amendments to be in noncompliance. And wetlands and environment were a big issue there, as were other issues about the estates as well. But, in any event, we had an administrative hearing, and there was a recommended order proposed by the administrative law judge that came down in March of 1999. And by the time we got through that process -- the county had been trying to work all these things out -- it was a very short time frame to work them out with the Department of Community Affairs. We had some intervenors, and it was sent to the governor and cabinet, because that was a recommended order, and in a noncompliance case the recommended order goes to the governor and cabinet for the final order. And based on the record of the proceedings and the decision of the administrative law judge in the matter, this is what the governor and cabinet recommended. MS. LYNNE: So, in other words -- MR. MULHERE: Also, I just want to add one other thing. I think that it may -- in addition, the fact that it is a platted subdivision which is rapidly developing, has been rapidly developed. And there are some vested property rights issues there at -- and the same thing with Orangetree with which a settlement agreement exists. That may have been also a part of the reason why they excluded those from the assessment area. Page 88 January 23, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Thank you, Bob. I think that probably weighed in making their decision. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's -- let's move forward with some specifics here. We've got a lot -- some folks here from Big Corkscrew. I've heard what they have to say. I'm looking at a drawing that takes part of that sending -- that primary sending area, which would be essentially the east half of Section 22 and 27 and Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. What happens if we recommend making that a secondary sending area rather than a primary sending area? MR. MULHERE: The effect of that would be that -- that there would be a lower density receiving. I think you -- I'm not sure. Maybe I misunderstood. But if it was a secondary receiving area? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: now. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a primary receiving area right If it was made secondary receiving? Yes. MR. MULHERE: The effect is that within secondary receiving areas the maximum allowable density that can be transferred into that area is -- is lower. Bill, is -- I think.6. Instead of 1 to 1, it's .6 acres --6 units per acre. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So -- so a little more than half. MR. CARLSON: Well, what about all the bonuses? MR. MULHERE: Well, if you're asking if a rural village bonus can be applied in that area if it was a secondary receiving area, I believe that they are precluded. They're only allowed in primary receiving areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think it's primary. MR. CARLSON: But there's no -- there's no kind of bonus? MR. MULHERE: Yes, there are some kinds of bonuses, I think, and -- and they relate to enhanced or more preservation or on-site Page 89 January 23, 2002 mitigation. So if you increase your on-site preservation through clustering, then you may be able to get some additional bonuses. That affordable housing bonus, that two-units break for a rural village would not apply. MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: I would not support that motion. May I also just add that I -- I listed a couple of potential options earlier that if you were inclined to recommend removing that from a receiving designation, I would like the committee's feedback, if I can get it, relative to those options because we will be bringing those options to the board. MR. COE: Have you evaluated the option the young lady brought up earlier about another area? MR. MULHERE: No. We haven't evaluated that because that area is part of the eastern lands, and the board already bifurcated this process. It's not that that couldn't happen down the road as part of the eastern lands assessment, that it could be designated as -- as a receiving area. But it's a separate study going on. It's not part of these rural fringe amendments. Now, it could be a recommendation. We would carry forward that recommendation. MR. COE: I'd like to make that motion that we take this out completely as a receiving area and that, you know, whenever they do the other plan, go ahead and figure in the other parcel as a receiving area. MR. MULHERE: Now, of course, that's further east than the areas that we're defining right now. And so, again, depending on what happens in the eastern lands, that would require -- you know, that-- that begins to identify a receiving land that is much further removed from the estates. MR. COE: Well, correct. But the goal is you were to preserve this land and to protect the environment. Page 90 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I understand. MR. CARLSON: The objective is to just leave these people alone who went to the county commission years ago and said, "We want our density frozen at one unit per five acres across the board, whether it's a house or a trailer or whatever. That's what we want because we want a rural area." And we want to respect that and just leave them alone. We don't want to change anything. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I recommended. IfI recommended removing the -- if you recall, if I recommended removing the receiving designation, we would leave them as they are today. That was my recommendation pen -- but there were some alternatives in order to minimize the negative impacts on the TDR process that I laid out for you. If I don't get a recommendation from you relative to those, that's okay. We're still going to -- MR. COE: What about the recommendation to consider the young lady's -- MR. MULHERE: I got -- I got that. I got that. And that was a motion. MR. COE: That's four; that's not three recommenda -- MR. MULHERE: That's four. MR. COE: You want us to vote on one of these four? MR. MULHERE: Well, at least if you gave me some feedback relative to any one of those alternatives. Remember -- MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion for the fourth recommendation, that you-all consider the land that the young lady brought up, the one farther east. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And remove this from-- MR. COE: And remove this completely. Do you want to vote? Anybody want to second it? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. Page 91 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. Do we have any discussion? MS. LYNNE: Can -- can someone just review which areas we're talking about? MR. MULHERE: Sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, the motion would be to remove the receiving designation on the Big Corkscrew Island area, not in its entirety but as shown on that map, which is the area that's developed, which is about approximately five sections of land, and to designate a fairly equivalent portion of land, which is largely impacted as a rock quarry and some other things, out here in this notch that's in the eastern lands portion of the assessment. MR. HILL: I would prefer to have those -- I suggest we have those as separate motions so that they don't hinge together on a pass- fail basis when it goes to the commission. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The maker of the motion, then, would you break those into two motions? One, to remove those sections; two, to recommend that a like area be identified in the eastern lands? Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yeah. That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconder? Okay. So the first motion would be that eastern half of those -- let me -- can I have my little map back here? The eastern half of Sections 22 and 27 and all of Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26 be removed from the sending area. MR. CARLSON: Receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Receiving area. Excuse me. Sorry about that. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, all in favor? Page 92 January 23, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. The second motion is that we recommend that a like receiving area be established where? In-- in a general area within the eastern lands? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think we can describe it as the notch that extends into Golden Gate Estates. I understand where it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Notch within the eastern lands. Is that okay, Mr. Coe? MR. COE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconder? MR. CARLSON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes unanimously. Okay. We got one thing out of the way. Yes, sir. MR. GAL: I'd like to make a motion that the staff explore the possibility of sending -- transferring development rights into the urban area. MR. CARLSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, we have a motion then, and -- and I think Mr. Mulhere brought up earlier that in-fill parcels -- we're talking about in-fill parcels, Mr. Gal, within the urban area? Page 93 January 23, 2002 MR. GAL: No. The entire urban area, whatever that may be. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The undeveloped parcels which are in-fill parcels with in-fill. Okay. We have a motion that staff recommend that we -- that we allow TDRs to be sent to undeveloped parcels within our in-fill parcels within the urban area. Mr. Carlson seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to make a motion that the county staff and our county commissioners explore with the state and the DCA the possibility of having some lands in the Golden Gate Estates area explored as possible receiving areas, because of their much greater suitability for residential development and the need to protect water resource and wildlife in the rural area. MR. COE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second motion. Do we have discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. Okay. How about we take -- what do we need for lunch? Is a half hour enough for lunch? MR. COE: Give them 45 minutes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Forty-five minutes, okay. Thank Page 94 January 23, 2002 you very much. Yes, sir. (A lunch break was held from 12:22 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.) (The following proceedings commenced, Mr. Stone not present:) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we come to order? MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, before we get on specifics, would it be proper to request that our final -- final actions be delayed until our next reg -- regular meeting, February the 2nd? The statement was made that we have to do that today. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. Due to the tight schedule, I do not believe that if you delay your recommendations past today we'll be able to incorporate them into the documents that we send to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. As a matter of fact, the Planning Commission agenda notebooks are going out on Friday, and then the board will have its transmittal hearing, based on the Planning Commission's hearing, on February the 7th on February -- February the 27th. And based on that action is -- those are the documents that we will send to the Department of Community Affairs. So my answer to your question is I don't believe we have enough time to assimilate any recommendations you might make at a later date. MR. HILL: So there's not enough time between the 2nd and the 7th to get it to the Planning Commission? Is that -- MR. LITSINGER: As far as -- I would leave that to your discretion. We would have to include them as last-minute handouts which tends not to make commissioners happy, if they have not received them in their agenda packages, whether their planning -- probably yourselves included. They do not like to receive last- second materials that they have not had time to review, so they tend not to receive serious consideration. Page 95 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, there will be time to get it to the BOCC. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No question about that. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: My feelings are, if it gets tight with the Planning Commission but -- you know, let's get what we can do today, and then there will be many things we'll be able to look at. Let's agenda it for the 2nd. If it gets tight with the Planning Commission it gets tight with the Planning Commission, but we'll have time to get it to the BCC. I -- what's the pleasure? MR. HILL: That's what I would-- because the Planning Commission doesn't meet until the 7th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh. MR. HILL: So if our 2nd-- February 2nd meeting, if we introduce additional recommendations there, that could parallel in with the Planning Commission five days later-- MS. LYNNE: I-- MR. HILL: -- in order to get to the BCC. MR. COE: The way I understand-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. One at a time, one at the time. Mickey. MR. COE: The way I understand what he's saying is this Friday is a mailout of our recommendations. We want to get as much done as we can today-- MR. HILL: To the Planning Commission only. MR. COE: -- to the Planning Commission. That will go out on Friday. And from the 4th or the 2nd, whenever is our next meeting, if during that meeting we have anything to go, it's probably going to go in a handout form; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Page 96 January 23, 2002 MR. COE: So we need to do as much as we can today. MR. HILL: It will go formally to the BCC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In one form, one document. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: According to my calendar, our next meeting is on Wednesday, February the 6th with the planning meeting the next day. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's true. I hadn't thought about that. MS. LYNNE: So I would say we should get as much done today as possible. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Get as much done. If we have to do something on the 6th, we do something on the 6th. The Planning Commission won't get it, but the Board of County Commissions will. Now, how are we going to go about this? My thought is to poll each of the members of the council if they have a particular item they want to bring up, discuss that item and vote on it. What's your thought, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I'm for it. That sounds certainly good to me as a staff member. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: -- I think what we'll need is a final vote on all the rest of it that wasn't, you know, brought up, because there may be selected items that each member may have issues with that you'll vote on, but there may be pieces left out that haven't been voted on, so we'll need something to take care of the remainder. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So the final motion that would be approved -- MS. STUDENT: Everything else. Page 97 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- recommending the rest of the document, except as noted by the other motions. MS. STUDENT: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we start- how -- let me see, how can -- age. We'll let age do it first. MR. HILL: Oldest or youngest? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oldest. MR. HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Dr. Prosser -- and I see Mr. Hancock is not here. I'd like to address the question of that one-mile area east of 951 'in the Belle Meade NRPA or Belle Meade sending area. If I'm correct most of the northern half of that stretch is pretty well developable with the First Unite -- or First Church, the golf course, the new apartments that are up there. MS. PROSSER: That's right. MR. HILL: The bottom -- the south end of the bottom half is a PUD that we've already approved here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. That's in the first mile. This is the second mile. MS. PROSSER: This is the -- yeah, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I -- I want to clarify that. I'm going to step over to this map. The -- the first mile east of 951, in this area here (indicating) is designated as residential urban fringe. And within that area that's where the developments you are talking are primarily lo -- primarily located. MR. HILL: I stand correct. I apologize. MR. MULHERE: One mile east of that within this orange portion which is, you know, proposed to be designated as the Belle Meade NRPA and, in fact, is currently on interim basis designated as the Belle Meade MRPA -- NRPA, that's the area that Mr. Hancock Page 98 January 23, 2002 was referring to. MR. HILL: That was part of our original request or request for NRPA designation. I'd like to go on record to -- it -- it's in here as being removed; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. LORENZ: The -- staff is recommending that the boundaries for the Belle Meade NRPA remain the same as that we adopted as interim boundaries. MR. HILL: Then I would like to move that we accept -- accept that, if that is necessary. MS. LYNNE: I second it. MR. HILL: And, Dr. Prosser, do you have anything to add to that? MS. PROSSER: I do. I want to thank you for the promotion. I am not a doctor, but I appreciate it. That's all. MR. HILL: It will come in the mail. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Hill that essentially says that we should -- we agree with the staffs recommendation that the eastern -- western one mile of the Belle Meade NRPA should remain in the NRPA, and it's a second by Mrs. -- Miss Lynne; is that correct? MR. COE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. Anything else, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Yes. If I can, Bill, there was a table. You have to pardon the senior moment here. There's a table that shows the -- on -- the third one down on the sheet that starts with the landscape scale. Page 99 January 23, 2002 It's entitled, "Wetland protection." MR. CARLSON: What was that page again? MS. LYNNE: Six. MR. HILL: There's no page number -- oh, page six. I'm sorry. Can you focus that a bit? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I'll bring it up better. MR. HILL: I -- I question in the secondary receiving graph that it's up to 52 percent? MR. LORENZ: Yes. MR. HILL: That seems awfully high. MR. LORENZ: Yes. That-- the secondary receiving is high in wetlands. You can see where a large port -- portion of those wetlands are in the -- these sections (indicating) and also in these -- this section here (indicating). MR. HILL: But we're identifying as a receiving area property that's 52 percent wetland? (Mr. Stone entered the room.) MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. Now, the other thing, look at the secondary receiving areas. Oops. Secondary receiving lands contribute to only 2 percent of the total wetland land cover of the rural fringe. So, indeed, it does have a higher percentage composition, but it's a very small area that exists. And our preservation standards for this area are also at a 60 percent vegetation retention standard. MR. HILL: We're talking 2 percent of the 93,.000; right? MR. LORENZ: Well, 2 percent of the wetland land cover, which would be -- I think it's around fifty-seven or fifty -eight thousand. MR. HILL: You are talking about 500 acres of wetland approximately. How does anybody else feel about this? Page 100 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, is it-- is it -- that 500 acres, then, would fall under the rules of WRAP analysis and everything of that sort; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. It would be subject to these -- this area would be subject to a vegetation retention standard of 60 percent and be subject to the wetland policies that are -- exist under 6.2. MR. COE: Would we have any net loss in wetlands? MR. LORENZ: Our wetland policies say that we want to have a no net loss, no net functional loss. And that would be based upon the functional analysis, whether that be the WRAP or that be the potentially future unified assessment procedure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: One other item -- and I got lost on the pages, but Marco's discussion of that asphalt plant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 39 and 41, Item 14 on 39, Item K on41. MR. MULHERE: And I'm -- probably didn't do a good job of clarifying that point, but, again, see if I can take another stab at it. That language, you can see, is not underlined or struck through. It's existing language in the Comprehensive Plan. It's language that we put in the plan to implement the requirements of the final order, both prohibitions and allowances. Those -- that language will no longer apply to the rural fringe once these or whatever ultimately is adopted of these amendments by the board -- once they're adopted, that language will no longer apply, but that language will still apply to the eastern lands portion until November when Comprehensive Plan amendments are adopted by the board relative to that. It needs to remain in the plan. It is directly from the final order. Whether there's a conflict or not in terms of asphalt being allowed in NRPAs and not allowed in other areas is not germane to this Page 101 January 23, 2002 discussion, because that's the requirements of the final order, and they will still apply to the eastern lands portion. In the fringe we are not allowing asphalt plants in sending lands. MR. CARLSON: But you are in receiving lands. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we are in receiving lands, yeah. MS. STUDENT: Bob, I have a further clarification, because I've looked at this also, and it would appear to me that these are old things from the old ag rural part of the plan where the asphalt plant is permitted -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. STUDENT: -- from way back when before we even got to the final order. And then you have the prohibition for the interim development provisions, which would mean for the assessment area you can't have the asphalt plant. And then on the NRPA area it doesn't really reference it, because the way I read this in the plan it's referring to the agricultural rural land-use designation. So that would be, if anything was left out of the assessment area, you could still do an asphalt plant in there, but the NRPAs are part of the assessment area so -- that's the way I read it. I -- I realize that it's a bit confusing, but that part is old language of the plan that was amended when we had to do the final order to prohibit certain uses. So I think that may put it in perspective for you. I hope it does. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm confused. If we made a recommendation that asphalt plants and other industrial activities not be considered in receiving areas, would that -- are you saying that that's irrelevant to the-- MR. MULHERE: No. No, no. No. That's -- I mean, that's a fine -- that's a perfectly acceptable recommendation. Currently -- to answer your question, currently as proposed under the list of permitted uses -- Page 102 January 23, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's at a different part of the plan under the receiving areas. MR. MULHERE: Under the rural fringe -- under the rural fringe district, permitted uses include asphalt and concrete batch- making plant. And if your recommendation was to ec -- MR. CARLSON: landfill? MR. MULHERE: Was it also refuge handling? Like, is that a Facilities for collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste. MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: include a landfill. MR. CARLSON: Is that a landfill? Yes, I believe that could -- that would Well, then I'd like to make a motion that the EAC recommend to the Rural Fringe Advisory Council, the staff, and the commissioners and everybody on the planet that -- that those industrial uses of asphalt plants, concrete, and refuge handling and transfer not be allowed in receiving areas. MR. COE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Moved by Mr. Carlson, second by Mr. Coe. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion clear? In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. HILL: One brief question, Mr. Chairman, on page 40, I guess that's Section L, interim natural resource protection areas. In the first paragraph, why are those words overstriked? MR. MULHERE: Natural resource protection area? Page 103 January 23, 2002 MR. HILL: Yes. MR. MULHERE: You'll see that the -- the designation NRPA, the acronym NRPA, is not struck through. Earlier we -- where we used the term in the first instance, natural resource protection areas, we insert the acronym in parens. So there's no reason to waste space. MR. HILL: And why is CREW scratched out? MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, I'll take a stab at that. I believe Bob is -- the intent of this language is to -- to note that the interim natural resource protection areas are now only those in the eastern lands. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. LORENZ: Because when this language goes through the north Belle Meade, the CREW, and the south Belle Meade CARL as proposed will be the final NRPA boundaries of the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: Permitted. And they are referenced in the rural fringe section. So they are no longer interim, and that's why they're struck through. We've done some of what the final order requires, and we're reflecting that with this language. MR. HILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: I have a couple more, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Miss Lynne, what do you have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Are you going to be next? Oh, she left. I'm sorry. How about Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: I'd like to go last. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You'd like to go last. MR. CARLSON: Except for one comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You and Mr. Coe are going to have Page 104 January 23, 2002 to flip a coin. MR. CARLSON: I have a tremendous number of comments that I have to actually flip through the documents to see everything. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Let me ask you this about the rural village concept and the bonus density. Is there any reason why all of the density associated with transfer of development rights, not just the base density -- MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. MR. CARLSON: -- but all of the density come from the sending areas? MR. MULHERE: The reason that we didn't structure it that way is because we believe that the result of that will be -- and this may be something that you'll -- you'll actually appreciate -- is that we believe the result of that will be that you will not see the creation of any rural villages because the cost of acquiring all of those units will exceed any market desire to go in there and create these. And we are proposing that we want those rural villages to be created. We are proposing that that compact type of development that's called for in 9-J-5 and in many other places by many other experts will be beneficial to the area in terms of creating a mixed-use compact development that will provide for some services. So we are offering that as a -- exactly as it is indicated, as a bonus. We are proposing it as a bonus. It may be -- I mean, certainly that can be a recommendation that if-- if-- if the base density-- minimum density stays at 2.5 and you get your base density, then any other increase in density to achieve that comes from TDRs. That can be a recommendation. The concern would be that it would be unlikely that you would see any rural villages developed. That's the rationale. MR. CARLSON: But it sure does solve that 2-to-1 kind of ratio Page 105 January 23, 2002 of sending to receiving. MR. MULHERE: then we have created-- MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: Not if-- not if no one exercises the right; Well, how do you set the value on those? The value will be set by the marketplace. Right now the current estimated value by our expert, Dr. Nicholas, at a base value is 18,000 per unit. Now, he feels that that will go up significantly once a bank is created and some of those units are purchased to move that bank into -- you know, into operation. And that's what has happened in other examples of successful TDRs, is once that a certain portion has been acquired and the market starts to move, the value of those has increased. But he's indicated the base density at this point by his valuation to be about $18,000 per dwelling unit. So, again, if you go back to the example of a thousand-acre rural village and you say you have to acquire all of them through a TDR other than a base density, you can create a formula right now based on his base value as to what someone might have to spend in order to acquire those to meet that minimum density. Another thing that could be done is to reduce that minimum density so that it's not quite as much that someone would have to purchase. You can reduce the bonus from two to one. I mean, there's a lot of options out there. What you have before you is our recommendation. But there are a lot of options. I mean, if you went with a bonus of one, then they'd be buying one and getting one. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm not ready at this point to do that kind of analysis in my head and figure all that out. MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. CARLSON: But I -- but I disagree vehemently with creating more residential units in this county than we already have. Page 106 January 23, 2002 And, to my mind, it's still conducive to urban sprawl to create these communities out in the rural areas. So at the very least I would recommend that we make a motion that all of-- unless I'm missing something here and making some kind of tactical mistake, but I don't see it -- MR. MULHERE: That's okay. MR. CARLSON: -- that all transfer of development right, units, in this program come from our sending areas. MR. MULHERE: So for rural villages -- just make sure, for rural villages beyond the base density in order to achieve the minimum density, that all of that should come from TDRs? MR. CARLSON: Say that again. MR. MULHERE: That beyond the base density, the one per five that they enjoy, the one per five is their base density, they've got to get up to a minimum density, that in order to achieve that minimum density the entire amount come from TDRs and none from bonuses. MR. CARLSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now, is everyone clear what someone has to do to obtain the rule -- the rural density -- MR. MULHERE: Rural village? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- rural village ? MR. MULHERE: I can go over it again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't you go over it very quickly, because there's some things -- myself, I think we should encourage that, because it eliminates the 1 s and 5s and 1 s and 20s with septic tanks and wells and things of that sort and brings them in and creates more open space. I think it's the opposite of urban -- essentially development sprawl, not urban -- urban sprawl. What does someone have to do to qualify for the rural village and to get the density bonus? Page 107 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all, as I said, no rural village may be located closer than one mile to another. They have to come in through a zoning, a PUD zoning process. In some cases, depending on the level of development that's proposed, they may rise to a DRI, probably in quite a few cases. What they need to do to get their density is they may -- they may take the base density of the village and the green space area -- of course, they can't build in the green space area, so it goes into the village. They must then also acquire.8 dwelling units per acre from TDRs from sending lands for each acre in the rural village. Again, the example I used was a thousand acres, they'd have to go out and acquire eight hundred units. Once they do that, and given that during their zoning process all other components of the rural village have been addressed; access, community service provisions, green space, parks, that all of-- schools, all of those-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- are community services. And those are all identified. That require utilities? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Water, sewer-- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- everything. MR. MULHERE: Then they would get a density bonus, the way we've got it written, of 2 dwelling units per acre. That's how you would accomplish -- MR. CARLSON: Well, see, this is my problem. I can see this being an advantage if we take the allowable density that we have in this county, take what we have now and move it into a rural village and not create additional units. I mean, you're -- you're bringing in additional population which is going to need additional roads, so it's Page 108 January 23, 2002 not going to have septic tanks. You're bringing thousands and thousands of additional people into the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, certainly the number would be in the thousands. Quantifying it -- I mean, with no maximum number of rural villages established here, except that there's a separation between them, but there's no maximum number established -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And they can only be in the sending area? MR. MULHERE: They can only be send-- in the receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The receiving area which consists of how many total acres? MR. MULHERE: About 33,000. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 33,000. MR. MULHERE: And, also, frankly, the market is going to dictate how many of these you get. This is not an inexpensive proposition, so the market is going to dictate how many of these can be supported. In my opinion, I don't think you'll see more than four, including Orangetree, as a prime location. However-- MR. MR. MR. CARLSON: MULHERE: CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: That's just in the rural fringe. No. Three in the rural fringe and Orangetree. We've still got the rural lands to go. But the rural lands -- I really can't comment in terms of what might ultimately come out of there. But at this point in time they haven't proposed a transfer of development rights process similar to what we have. They have a whole different process that they're looking at. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm sorry. MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I understand. That's why I'm -- MR. CARLSON: I'm going to disagree even -- even with some Page 109 January 23, 2002 of my own environmental colleagues, because I think this only works if it -- if it brings existing units together and keeps existing units out MR. MULHERE: And I understand that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. MR. CARLSON: And it's very tempting, because you look at the north Belle Meade, and it seems like that's a thing we can do, and we do it with this, but look what you loose in the D area. Look what you loose down there. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: 3,000 acres, huge. MR. MULHERE: acres. These are going to be huge D -- they can be Actually, we've reduced that down to 2,000 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Maximum size. What can be the maximum density within that 2,000 -- maximum number of residential units within that 2,000 acres? MR. MULHERE: Seven ,- seventy-five hundred. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So there can be a maximum of 7500 within 2,000 acres. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. There is a motion on the floor, and the motion is to eliminate the density bonus for the creation of the rural villages. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: Can I make a comment? No. MR. CARLSON: What was the motion? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: That all transferred development rights that are used in the transfer development rights scheme -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 110 January 23, 2002 MR. CARLSON: -- including, perhaps, rural villages come out of the designated sending areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And rural villages not receive a bonus. MR. CARLSON: Yes. No, they can, but it has to come out of-- MR. MULHERE: Yes, but -- but the semantics -- may I just -- because the semantics that you are discussing right now are very important because actually what you just said -- what you just said as far as your motion is, in fact, the case. All TDRs are coming out of sending areas. I believe what your intent is not only that all TDRs come out of sending areas but that be the only way that someone can achieve additional density. And I think that's the key component, unless I'm wrong. Isn't that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that's what -- I think that's what the motion is. MR. MULHERE: They don't get a bonus. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The rural village does not create additional bonus units -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- that are not available in sending areas. Okay. All right. Motion on the floor. Is there a second? MR. HILL: Yes. I have a comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Hill. Yes, Mr. Hill, go ahead. MR. HILL: If we took all of the allowable density that exists in the county at this point in time available for development, what you're proposing will go beyond the current level for the entire county; is that correct? Page 111 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. HILL: To me I think we might want to consider limiting any future increases through TDR, bonuses, whatever-- MR. MULHERE: That's -- MR. HILL: -- to the density which is allowed at the present time on a gross county landscape -- MR. MULHERE: And that would be achieved through only TDR -- MR. HILL: I think that's what Mr. Carlson is referring to now in the total scheme. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: I'm wondering if a better way to communicate that information, rather than saying limit the trans -- or limit the villages to transfer of TDRs to just say that there should be no -- have the resolution say there should be no increase in total density in this county for any reason. MR. HILL: That was going to be my next motion after we approved the language in Mr. Carlson -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's vote on Mr. Carlson's motion. Those in favor of Mr. Carlson's motion say aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. It passes 6 to 1, Sansbury dissented. It sounds like Mr. Hill had the next motion. Mr. Hill, do you have something else, sir? Page 112 January 23, 2002 MR. HILL: I move that we recommend that the future allowed density in Collier County not to exceed the current allowed density on a gross county-wide scale. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That density exists January 23, 2002. MR. HILL: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A second by Miss Lynne. Do I hear any discussion? MR. COE: We've got-- there may be a problem with this, particularly when we've already asked Mr. Mulhere to take a look at the estates to see if we can't increase the density there. We're talking out of each side of our mouth here. MR. MULHERE: May I also -- MS. LYNNE: That's just TDRs. MR. CARLSON: No. That was the feasibility of the estates becoming a receiving area that would receive units from the sending areas, same system. MS. STUDENT: May I -- MR. COE: Two, two and a half units, whatever it is, per five acres out there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me ask a question about something now. As you said there's a lot of potential purchases coming up on lands that we've got a lot of different agencies purchasing lands right now, okay. That land gets purchased, what happens to that density? MR. MULHERE: If it gets purchased by a governmental agency? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: It's gone. Page 113 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's gone? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: I need to make a comment. I'm concerned that that motion dealing with the county-wide issue is beyond the scope of what we're about today, because we are dealing with the rural fringe assessment area. And, also, the density concept -- I'm going to defer to Mr. Mulhere. But we have a density rating system, and we have a base density. And you can get increases if you do work-force housing. You can get decreases if you're in a traffic congestion areas. So while we have a base density, there's a certain degree of fluidity to it, because there's conditions upon which you. get more or less. So it's kind of hard to say as to future development, you know, that hasn't been developed yet in the county what it might be because of the density rating system in the plan. And I just wanted to throw that out as well as of paramount importance to me is that we're getting beyond the scope of the rural fringe area. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add a couple of things. Currently the only mechanism to achieve an affordable housing project that is realistic, given the land costs in this county, is through an affordable housing density bonus. So you go in and you ask the Board of County Commissioners for a number of dwelling units that's permissible under the Comprehensive Plan for affordable housing. The same holds true on any number of developments in the urban area where the land may be currently designated agricultural or at some lower density, but the Comprehensive Plan allows for a density higher than that. So in every one of those examples, you would be increasing density from what is currently allowed or authorized under-- under the underlying zoning. Another example would be -- well, there are some other bonuses Page 114 January 23, 2002 in the plan that are authorized. And if you come in and qualify, you can ask for some other bonuses. There's nothing -- I mean, I -- and I understand your motion. And I'm happy to carry it forward, whatever you-all end up approving. But there's nothing -- there's really no -- there was no intent or no concept here that would preclude as a policy elements that would allow for increased density in certain areas that are identified as being maybe more appropriate for that type of development and density. And I'm not trying to convince you because, you know, really-- I mean, I've already done my presentation. But I think that motion goes very, very far in terms of restricting existing rights that are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan for land throughout the county where increased density may be very appropriate. MS. STUDENT: It could almost be construed as a moratorium on any rezones county-wide where you could achieve a greater density that you have under the plan, but you don't yet have it because you're in its holding zone which has a lesser density with it. And, again, I have to reiterate. I'm concerned about going beyond the scope of what we're doing. MR. CARLSON: Okay. We won't do that. But -- but this whole transfer of development rights program, the concept, was sold as a way to transfer development and units out of sensitive areas and into somewhere else. MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: doesn't create more units. more units. Correct. And it's much more than that. Why? Because it creates more units. No. The transfer-- the transfer process The transfer process doesn't create any Page 115 January 23, 2002 MR. CARLSON: The rural -- the rural village concept --. MR. MULHERE: The bonuses do. You've made a motion with respect to that, and I wrote it down. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill, would you consider amending your motion to direct it toward the lands included in the rural fringe study? MR. HILL: Certainly. MR. MULHERE: That's -- that's so that the base density that exists out there now, 93,000 -- on private lands, whatever the private lands are, whatever that number is, divided by 5, basically is the base density. Don't forget there are some nonconforming lots where someone may enjoy a unit that that number not be exceeded. And obviously the way to get to that, I believe you already covered in your motion, is that there can be no increase in density in the rural fringe under that motion except through a TDR, and I think that achieves the same result. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And -- okay. The seconder agree with the revision of the motion? MS. LYNNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I just would comment that I think it ties the hands of being able to utilize density to achieve things that are in the public good, affordable housing, types of developments in some areas. So I -- I'm going to have to oppose the motion. But let's vote on it. Those in favor-- MS. LYNNE: Well, can I make another comment? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: It's also not in the best interests of all the residents of Collier County to have increased density in this area because we're exhausting our -- our water and other resources CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Favor? Page 116 January 23, 2002 MR. DUANE: Any public comment? Because a lot of these items you've discussed after we had public comment this morning, you're kind of-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the board? I really think the public comment period -- MR. DUANE: I can't respond to your comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Well, we're discussing amongst ourselves now. Thank you very much. All the comment period had ended. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. What is the pleasure of the board? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion fails. Who's next? Miss Lynne, do you want to be next? MS. LYNNE: I'd like to discuss the issue of allowing conservation areas and conservation easement acreage to send their density elsewhere. I think that's inappropriate. MR. MULHERE: Just as a clarification, we're not proposing to allow it from conservation areas, but we did not preclude conservation easements on private lands. So if you're designated conservation, you can't transfer under our proposal. But you're correct. If you have private land and you have conservation, we haven't precluded that. MS. LYNNE: Right. The Corkscrew Sanctuary, for example -- Page 117 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: -- is precluded. Corkscrew -- MS. LYNNE: That's precluded. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: So we're talking about private lands which have conservation easements. And I don't think that it's appropriate for them to be allowed to send development rights somewhere else because their development rights have already been terminated essentially. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, let me ask a question on that then. What would motivate one to take a piece of private property and turn it into conservation, which is what the goal, I think, of all of us is if they cannot transfer the development rights off of that property? MR. MULHERE: You can do it before you -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Conservation easement, yeah. MS. LYNNE: These -- these are -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If someone had a con -- if someone decides to grant a conservation easement on their property, which is what we're looking to do is to conserve the property with the very limited uses that are under conservation easements, and they wish to be able to take that -- their TDRs and transfer them someplace else, to me that is a carrot to get more lands with conservation easements. I think what you're talking about defeats the purpose. MS. LYNNE: But someplace that already has a conservation easement has already gotten some benefit because the PUDs or whatever they are, they have already gotten their payoff for preserving that land, and they shouldn't be entitled to additional payoff. MR. MULHERE: That's only -- I feel I need to make a clarification again. It probably wasn't clear before. That's partially true and then again not true in all circumstances. I think it's Page 118 January 23, 2002 important you at least hear this. In Collier County you are allowed to develop at your -- at your gross density. So if you have, for example, let's use a PUD, and within that PUD you identified some conservation lands and you've put a conservation easement over those lands, you can still develop the density from that conservation land within your project. So by not precluding someone from transferring the dwelling units from that conservation easement, you still have an opportunity -- there is still an opportunity for someone to take some of the units that they are authorized to develop on their land and -- and, yoU know, send them to another area. Under your scenario they would not be able to do that. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I just wanted you to understand that -- that it doesn't mean that they can't develop the units. It just means that they can't develop the units among that portion that has a conservation designation on it. I think I understood your -- all of you collectively to support a concept that would not allow conservation -- a transfer from a designated conservation easement anyway so, I mean -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's the pleasure? Do we have a motion? MR. HILL: Would you repeat that? MR. CARLSON: Well, what my problem was that lands are included on the map of sending areas on projects that were done. That was my problem. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne, do you want to -- do we have a motion? MS. LYNNE: I've just gotten more confused again. Explain what you -- explain your point again, please. MR. CARLSON: That there were receiving lands designated on Page 119 January 23, 2002 the future land-use map -- excuse me. MR. MULHERE: Sending. MR. CARLSON: There were sending areas designated on the future land-use map that were already in preserves in projects that had already been approved and were done and built and over, and I didn't think it was fair to go back and offer that kind of bonus for people who created preserves and were happy with their project. MS. LYNNE: Isn't that what I -- isn't that what I said? That's what I meant to say. So I would move that any property that's already been -- already has a conservation easement is not allowed to be a sending area. MR. GAL: I'd just like to amend the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Proposal to amend the motion, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: Lands that are privately held that currently have a conservation easement or other restrictive development that exists in perpetuity be excluded from the TDR program. MS. LYNNE: Cool. That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Currently, okay. MS. LYNNE: Currently. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not the future. MR. GAL: Currently. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second? Is the amendment okay with the maker of the motion? MS. LYNNE: Yes, yes. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANS,BURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. Discussion? Favor? Opposed? Page 120 January 23, 2002 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passes unanimously. Miss Lynne, do you have anything else? MS. LYNNE: I have a whole list. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's do it. MS. LYNNE: Let's do it? Okay. The golf course issue, we don't want -- let's see, we don't want golf courses in the sending areas. Is that currently the case? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: You can't have a golf course in a sending area. Can you have a golf course in buffer lands? MR. MULHERE: You can have a golf course in buffer lands if it's designated receiving. You can't have golf courses in sending. You can have golf courses in receiving. MR. LORENZ: And -- and the more specific language with the buffer area is the golf course rough or the more passive areas can be adjacent directly to the natural reservation. That's how the language currently states. MR. MULHERF,: So if-- if you have a receiving area that's adjacent to a natural reservation, you may have a golf course there. But only that portion that can be immediately adjacent to the natural reservation is that portion that is what? What did you just call it? MR. LORENZ: Golf course rough. MR. MULHERE: Golf course rough. MS. LYNNE: The buffering, then, the buffering for the NRPAs, I think that has to be a mile. I think we've heard enough testimony from experts that that needs to be a mile? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't agree with that. No, we haven't. We've talked about it, but we have not heard testimony from experts that have convinced me that it should be a mile. MR. MULHERE: I think that's Bill's area of expertise. Page 121 January 23, 2002 MR. CARLSON: We heard testimony today from someone who hired consultants who said there was an influence of the 951 drainage canal within a mile of their proposed project. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's true. MR. LORENZ: As a staff member, let me explain the staff's position with regard to the buffer language that would deal with adverse impacts from draw-downs. What I recall from Dr. Deuver's presentation and the analysis that he did was based upon the canals that were put in place, the Fakahatchee, and -- and various canals in the six -- late '60s and early '70s, those systems, their water control elevations were set such that they drew the local groundwater table down 6 to 7 to 8 feet. The -- the impact to a wetland system is going to be directlY proportional to the amount of draw-down that's allowed. So past historical data in Collier County where you do see those long, large effects is because we had a terrific draw-down with those old canal systems. South Florida Water Management District currently has a set of regulations that they use to identify what would be an adverse impact to a wetland as a result of a drainage control structure, the elevation that it's set. That -- that procedure is referenced in these policies. And what staff has recommended is that that procedure be followed to determine what would be an add -- adverse impact. So rather than using a presumptive number such as a mile buffer or a thousand foot with regard to water table impacts, we're proposing that that procedure be used. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think what I'm saying is that I don't believe that anybody should be able to adversely affect the water table in Corkscrew but determine whether that is -- I think the procedure should be followed rather than arbitrarily saying a mile or 2 miles or a half a mile or what have you. MR. CARLSON: But there is data to designate that Page 122 January 23, 2002 influences -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It might be. MR. CARLSON: Or a mile and go beyond a mile. And in this report, if I read -- if I remember correctly, the requirement is that the -- any development that goes adjacent to a NRPA have some sort of hydrologic monitoring program to ensure that they're not having a deleterious impact on water tables in the NRPA; is that-- MR. LORENZ: Yes. On page 32 in the conservation coastal management element, parentheses 4, is the language that we're proposing that would adopt the South Florida Water Management District's procedure to determine what the adverse impacts would be. MR. CARLSON: Well, seeing as developments can be as small as 40 acres -- is that also correct? MR. MULHERE: In receiving lands, yes. That's only to transfer in. MR. CARLSON: As somebody who is in that business and does hydrologic monitoring and knows how expensive it is and how labor intensive it is and how difficult it is to analyze that data and retrieve it and manage it, you know, I think it's unrealistic to think that that will happen. The better approach is geographic and just have a buffer and not rely on developers to come up with hydrologic monitoring and analysis plans and programs. Who's going to monitor it? MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: I do want to add -- I mean, who's going to check? MR. LORENZ: Well, this -- this is -- this is a procedure that's set up up front to be incorporated in the setting of the water control elevations. Now, there can be -- there can be some monitoring. We're not proposing any monitoring. We're simply proposing that that procedure be set up front to set the appropriate level of the water control elevation, such that if you don't have an adverse impact at the Page 123 January 23, 2002 boundary at the natural reservoir-- MR. CARLSON: Then the monitoring burden falls back on the people who are trying to preserve the natural areas. So nothing changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. The monitoring is on the permittee to call the system, okay. MR. CARLSON: There is no monitoring. MS. LYNNE: Yeah. I mean -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In the case of the South Florida Water Management District permits and the case that we're talking about in my development, the development I'm involved in, I've got a monitoring requirement. I have to do monthly and quarterly checks on lake levels, on levels in the wells, on levels in the Airport Canal. And I have to file them. If I don't file them on, I get a letter from Mr. T's office, says, "You'd better get them filed or you're going to get fined." So there's an aggressive program to make sure it happens, but it's not like it doesn't happen. MR. CARLSON: But they're not proposing that program. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The county -- in our proposed amendments, we're not proposing monitoring. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the district will require it if there's a surface water management or whatever the term is for that permit today, and they enforce it pretty good. MR. CARLSON: Is that the case, that the district will automatically require that kind of monitoring for every project? MR. MULHERE: I can't answer that. MR. LORENZ: I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't know the answer. MR. MULHERE: I did want to add that I recognize that primarily your responsibility here is to look at the natural resource protection measures. Page 124 January 23, 2002 I think it's important to put on the record, though, from the staffs perspective, we're also talking about some balance in terms of the impacts that we're ultimately going to have on private property rights and on those properties that have been identified as receiving lands. And, you know, we're trying to basically protect the natural resources and minimize the impacts on those lands that have been identified as appropriate for development. And there will be a significant impact associated with a mile buffer around all of the natural resource protection areas that will extend, in some cases, into receiving lands. In other cases, the boundary adjacent to the natural resource protection area is a sending area, and you may have some level of protection as a result of that sending area designation. MR. COE: I'm curious. I keep hearing from my good friend, Bruce Anderson, and now from you about this Burt Harris Act. Is that it? MR. MULHERE: Burt J. Harris. MR. COE: How many lawsuits have been filed under that act and won? MR. MULHERE: MS. STUDENT: I don't know. I may be -- there have been several filed. The current number I don't have, but it requires an extensive alternate dispute resolution process, and they find their way through that where the local government does some -- you want to call it horse trading with the developer to come up with a reasonable alternative, and then they settle out. But they must go through that process before they find their way to circuit court. My understanding is that's what happens to most of them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Never gone to trial. MR. COE: Now I'm hearing that it's never gone to trial. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's always been settled. MS. STUDENT: That's not necessarily -- that is the last that I Page 125 January 23, 2002 knew. Currently I could do some checking to see if any have gone to trial, but that was the last that I knew. And I'll be happy to check on that up in -- the attorney general's office keeps track of this. MR. COE: The reason I'm curious is, I'm one of those people that have had to do -- deal with threats before. And I have to assess the level of importance of that threat. And if it ain't going to court, what's the level of the threat? MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- if I inferred in any way or suggested to you that your actions should be based on a potential threat of a Burt J. Harris Act, I don't believe I said that, and if did I would retract that statement. MR. COE: Thank you very much. MR. MULHERE: Because what I think what I said was under the Burt J. Harris Act, here are provisions that can be used to minimize the likelihood of a claim or to address the lost impact on private property owners. I certainly have never suggested that we will either be sued or might, you know, lose or -- or prevail on a lawsuit, not being an attorney. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Let's -- why don't we do this -- MR. GAL: I just want to say that we've -- before petitions have come up and I can think of two attorneys that have been before us that have threatened us with Burt J. Harris lawsuits, and I -- and I think after the last time I went and looked at the -- the statute itself, and it's not necessarily a slam dunk for the landowner. There are some hoops that the landowner must go through -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. GAL: -- to bring a suit. thrown at us -- Exactly. And property rights is always MR. MULHERE: My only reason for bringing it up is that the final order and under the Burt J. Harris Act the county does have an Page 126 January 23, 2002 obligation to look at and attempt to balance the impacts on private property rights. I assume that that is not an objectionable goal under those statutes. And I'm not suggesting to you that -- that there would be any likelihood of any one entity prevailing or not prevailing. I'm simply identifying for you what we have done as policies to try to balance the natural resource protections with the private property rights; that's all. MR. GAL: I have one other question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: Does the final order of the state require that this county put in its objectives and policies that while we want to protect environmentally sensitive land, that we're also going to protect property rights? I know -- understand that we need to be cautious of people's property rights and include that in our planning and thinking which I think we've done. But do we need to state that as an objective? MR. MULHERE: I don't think we need to state it as an objective. I mean, I don't think there's any statute -- I think you're asking if there's any statutory obligation. I don't think that there is. As long as it was a component, in my mind, in the development of those policies, then I don't see why it would have to be expressly stated. I'd defer to Marjorie though because it's really more of a legal question I think. MR. GAL: I'd like to make a motion that references to protecting private property rights, because -- not because it's not important but because this is a growth management plan, that they be removed from the objectives and policies. And I can -- two pages in particular, page 18 and page 23. And I don't know if there are any other areas. 23 of the CCME section. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're talking about of-- Page 127 January 23, 2002 MR. GAL: Why-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page 18 of 23 of the future land- use element. MR. GAL: Right. Private property rights are being protected by the state. Why does the county need to add another layer of protection? MS. STUDENT: I guess I need to explain something about that. All this stems from the United States Constitution. And in our Constitution there's a provision that you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And that's been made applicable to the -- I'm not going into a big treatise on that, but it's made applicable to the state and also local governments. Also, there's a provision that a government can't take property without paying for it, and that's what's known as condemnation, a physical taking. And then that body of jurisprudence has been extended to recognize that when you put certain restrictions or controls on how somebody can use their land that may impact their property rights, that's called inverse condemnation. When that happens and it's proven up, it can be what's called a regulatory taking, and the local government has to compensate the property owner. And because of the common-law recognition of protection of private property rights, zoning regulations are usually construed against a local government in favor -- or a state government or the federal government in favor of the property owner because we have this common-law history that comes to us from our English jurisprudence when the king used to go in and just expropriate people's property for his own use, and our founding fathers said we don't want to do that here in this country. So that's kind of like a history of it. And the Burt Harris came about to go a little further than taking jurisprudence and give some additional protection because of the situation in the State of Florida Page 128 January 23, 2002 where a lobby of private property interests got together and had this passed because they felt that private property rights were not adequately protected by the takings jurisprudence because there as long as you had a minimal beneficial use of your property it wasn't necessarily taking. It applies to all levels of government, not just if the state does it, the county doesn't. It's a constitutional principle that's applicable to the county and something we have to be mindful of in our regulations, and the Burt Harris Act is made applicable to local governments as well. MR. GAL: I understand that. But we don't change that by removing that language from the growth management plan. MR. MULHERE: That's true. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But one of the purposes is to blend the good planning, good environmental protection and the protection of property, private property rights. I think it's a key thing to a land- use element or a comprehensive plan or anything. It's one of the items that you have to take into consideration. That's why we're talking about PDRs. To throw it out of the -- of the formula is -- you can't do that. I mean, it's part of the formula in what we're doing is good comprehensive land planning. MR. GAL: We're not throwing it out of the formula. We're just removing the language from the objectives and policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't agree with that. I mean, the objective is exactly what we say here, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitats for listed species while protecting private property rights. That's what we're doing. We're coming up with something that the environmentalists -- the property -- the private property owners can all live with so we don't get into a bunch of litigation. And we achieve the goal of-- of having a nice place to live and preserving the environment. MR. GAL: I don't want to get into a bunch of litigation. That's Page 129 January 23, 2002 one of the points. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. We have a motion on the table. MR. CARLSON: Repeat the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Repeat the motion, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: That we remove from the objectives and policies language references to protecting private property rights. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The motion dies for lack of a second. Okay. Where were we? Miss Lynne, you had some other items, I believe. MS. LYNNE: I don't think we finished the buffering. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What are we doing on the buffering? Let's move forward. MS. LYNNE: I would have to say that I agree with Mr. Carlson, that the monitoring would be -- is so intricate that it's not likely to be carried out. I know from my own experience in my own neighborhood that when developers are required to do things to protect the neighborhood, that oftentimes the development gets built and the follow-up never happens. I think it's -- in theory it's a good idea. In practice I don't think it's going to protect our wetlands from draw-down. Wetlands vary in how much they've got from year to year and from decade to decade, and that wouldn't be monitoring -- wouldn't take that into account. You could have a really wet year and, say, somebody can build up to within, you know, 50 feet. And another you'll have a dry year and it would be really defected. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Let's get on with the motion. What's the motion? MS. LYNNE: I move that a minimum buffer of a mile be around the NRPAs. Page 130 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Motion on the table that we establish -- MS. LYNNE: You can amend it if you want. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A minimum buffer of one mile around all the NRPAs. Do I hear a second? MR. CARLSON: Well -- well, just in the spirit that the buffer can be rural lands, one of the things that bothers me about this plan is, if it's implemented and you've got conservation areas and NRPAs and receiving areas, there's no rural land in the future; right? There's no low density rural land. MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: Well, there is. Where is it? Well, there -- there may not be -- there's a different designation now, rural fringe mixed use in this area. There's still some-- MR. CARLSON: No. I mean within the fringe study area that we're looking at today. MR. MULHERE: I think that depends on your definition of rural lands because within the sending lands private property owners could certainly retain a dwelling unit and build on it, and those would be rural lands. That would be at least equal to the amounts of lands in the receiving area. MR. CARLSON: The spirit of the buffer proposal is that when you have receiving areas up against conservation lands and NRPAs where hydrology is ultimately important, there needs to be more than a 300-foot buffer that includes golf course roughs that-- it's a formula that if you think ahead -- think about Collier County a hundred years from now with all of the people that are going to live here. And think about what's happened in central Florida, the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, where the water use, in spite of their best planning, they suck whole lakes dry. This happened. That if we're Page 131 January 23, 2002 really serious about protecting these conservation areas and NRPAs, that we have to have a significant buffer. It can be rural land. It doesn't have to be, you know, totally natural area with no people. It can be a low density, one-per-five-acre rural area without drainage systems and canals that -- that we have in the county today. MR. MULHERE: Let me just see if I can clarify that statement because it can be important toward the motion. Within that one-mile buffer area what you're suggesting is the allowance that currently allowed density of one dwelling unit per five acres would be permitted, so they would be more or less neutral lands as well, rural neutral lands. One caveat, an additional caveat, is that you do have natural resource protect areas that currently directly abut a pretty significant portion right here, that currently directly abut the urban fringe and the urban area, so you would basically be taking this entire strip of-- MR. CARLSON: No. I mentioned specifically the interface with receiving areas. MR. MULHERE: Well, I know you did, but the motion didn't; that's why I'm raising it. MS. LYNNE: He can amend. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Go ahead. Amend. MR. CARLSON: That the buffer apply to the interface of receiving areas and conservation areas and NRPAs. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And the buffer be one mile. MR. CARLSON: And the buffer be one mile. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No matter what? MR. CARLSON: No matter what. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No matter what. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second to that motion? MS. LYNNE: Am I allowed to second the amended motion? Page 132 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You made the motion. I don't believe you're allowed to second-- MR. CARLSON: What this does -- can I continue to discuss it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Where the greatest impact of this motion is is in the north Belle Meade where you really don't have enough space between the sending area and the receiving area for that kind of buffer. I mean, it's just not there. So that's unfortunate. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Even if there's a water management plan in place, hydrilodic -- hydrologic data that says it's not going to have an effect, we're still going to have a mild buffer? MS. LYNNE: Hydrology changes from year to year. What you're monitoring this year isn't going to apply in ten years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's move on the motion. Come on. We've got a motion. Do I have a second? MR. HILL: To get it on the table, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second, it's on the table. Further discussion on the motion. And the motion is that we establish in sending areas a one-mile buffer around NRPAs, and that buffer, what can happen in that buffer? MR. MULHERE: The way I understood it, that 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres would be permitted, that rural density -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So those -- so, basically, the one mile of the sending area that surrounds the NRPA -- MR. COE: No, receiving area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Receiving area -- I get them mixed up; I'm sorry -- is no longer a receiving area. MR. CARLSON: That's correct. It's a neutral area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a neutral area. That's the motion, seconded by Mr. Hill. MR. CARLSON: That the conservation and NRPA areas be Page 133 January 23, 2002 buffered by neutral lands. MR. HILL: I am -- I am all for giving the protection that this motion represents. However, to fix it at one mile I don't think allows the difference in impact in various places of the county. I would rather see a very strict enforceable implementation of a monitoring system in order to establish and maintain it rather than a somewhat arbitrary one mile, although that may be valid in certain places. I'd rather see us go the other way. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Well, the thing is, is if we're monitoring this thing -- let's say we've let something in there whatever it is and we're monitoring it. What happens if all of a sudden the monitoring say, hey, this shouldn't be here? MR. MULHERE: That's established up front. It's the -- the -- as part of the submittal of the project, they go through this process. And they have to establish, based on modeling, what the impacts are going to be. And, therefore, you determine what the appropriate buffer is. That goes in. That's in place based on that. Subsequently you certainly want to continue to monitor that to see if there are other things that could be done if there are negative impacts that were unanticipated. But it's based on -- it's an up-front determination. MR. COE: I understand that. So all of a sudden up front they're wrong. Then what do we do? MR. MULHERE: Then we look for other ways to resolve the matter. I mean, you know, this is -- this is going to happen in any circumstance. Suppose it's more than a mile. Suppose the impacts go two miles, in some circumstance, based on the conditions that are in effect. We've got the same situation there. They only require a mile But-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's -- let's move on the motion. Page 134 January 23, 2002 Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. SOLING: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. HILL: With respect to the motion, I would like the counsel to revisit the question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What we ought to do is we ought to get Mr. Tears to send every one of you guys a letter like he sends me every time my guys forget to do the monitoring. It's a real friendly letter. MR. STONE: I get one every now and then. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, I know. It happens quite often, about five days after your report is supposed to be done. It doesn't get there. Okay. What would you like to do, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Well, I need to give that some that thought. But I think we need to give them alternatives. to put that in a formal motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Lynne, do you have anything else? MS. LYNNE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. LYNNE: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. I'm not prepared at this time Moving along, what-- Miss Yes, you do? No? Okay. Page 135 January23,2002 MR. CARLSON: Based on a lot of the comments I heard here today, do we vote on whether golf courses are appropriate as green-- green belt space? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, we did not. MR. CARLSON: Well, I would like to support the comments I heard here today and move that the EAC recommend that golf course development, at it applies for buffering for villages, communities not be considered green space. MR. COE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Made and seconded. In discussion, what about the portions of the golf course that are left in natural condition? MR. COE: Define natural. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Palmettos, pines. MR. COE: Nobody driving through it, nobody clipping grass. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Nobody driving through it. MS. LYNNE: No irrigation. MR. COE: No irrigation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No irrigation. MR. CARLSON: It would count as green space. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It would count as green space. MR. MULHERE: A couple of questions: I understand what you said. You said golf courses shouldn't constitute green space. What we actually refer to -- the only place where we really refer to a green belt -- and you're correct that proposed golf courses would be allowed in that -- is around a rural village. And the reason why golf courses are allowed in that is because that's only allowed in receiving lands, and golf courses are allowed in receiving lands. But I understand what you said. But there are some other components of this. For example, golf courses, what was raised -- I think that one of the speakers raised that golf courses shouldn't be Page 136 January 23, 2002 permitted as open space, which is different than preservation or green space. Open space by definition in the county does include golf courses, and it also includes other passive recreation-type facilities, trails, those kinds of things. Open space is a different concept than preservation or green space. Open space has a higher standard generally in the county. It's 60 percent in the urban area, and it's proposed to be 70 percent in the rural fringe, and that means yards. It could be tennis courts; it could be a swimming pool. It could be a golf course. And -- and it also includes conservation and green space and preservation areas. So I just want to be clear that I don't think what you're saying is you object to a golf course where it's permitted being counted towards open space, but you object toward -- towards it being considered green space or a natural pres -- or a preservation area? Is that correct, or am I -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. It depends on what the vision is of the -- these buffers between rural villages. If-- if that buffer is nothing more than a golf course, I'm opposed to that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. CARLSON: That-- there should be some real environmental value to anything considered green space and a buffer between that kind of intensive land use, and a golf course just doesn't cut it. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. I got that point. And the intent would be that the green space area would allow an opportunity for the property owner to meet, to largely meet, their native preservation or wetland protection requirements, all of those things that -- within the rural village area that may not -- MR. CARLSON: Because without that, the -- the habitat -- the wildlife and the habitat values that we're supposed to be protecting are kind of slipping away. Page 137 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: What if you have -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me ask a question. Say if you take 150 acres and you do a study of 150 acres regarding what's there, okay, birds, fish, squirrels, everything that's there, and you take that and you build a golf course that's done right into the standards and the permitting standards that the district has and you do that study again when it's finished. Which one do you think is going to have more birds, fish, and wildlife? There's going to be more afterwards. There's going to be more afterwards. I guarantee it. MR. CARLSON: There's so much variability there. There's no way to comment on it. I would doubt that the post golf course development would have a higher diversity in funds and of wildlife in this area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I would argue that point so... MR. MULHERE: Just to be clear, what you are proposing is that golf courses not be allowed to meet the green belt requirements in rural villages if they move forward and also that they not be allowed, except for the natural areas, which you've defined, as green space or buffer areas adjacent to natural reservations. MR. CARLSON: Correct. Was that my motion? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think it was your motion. MR. COE: As amended by Bob Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I don't think I amended it. Hopefully, I just made it clear. he? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: I'm sure I did. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: on that particular motion? (No response.) I think Mr. Coe seconded it, didn't Do we have any further discussion Page 138 · January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: motion signify by saying aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Next, Mr. Carlson? Hearing none, in favor of the Opposed? Aye. MR. CARLSON: Did we vote on the agriculture issue? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, we did not. MR. COE: I got that one. MR. CARLSON: Go ahead, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: See what we've got on the ag here. I've got one recommendation that we change on the nonfunctional conservation easements, areas, from sending areas. Let's see, we already did that one, good. That's off. Okay. You mentioned earlier about the residual rights. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. COE: What happens if someone strips the -- gets -- gets a permit for ag, strips the land to plant berries or whatever, and then sells the rights? MR. MULHERE: That's a great question. There is a requirement in the comprehensive plan currently that you are not permitted to rezone your land if you've cleared it for agricultural purposes. I think it's for ten years. Now, it's not currently in this proposal, but that stipulation could be extended in sending areas for folks that would clear their land for agricultural purposes would not then be allowed to transfer their development rights for some period of time. Ten years is what is -- is in the code now. I mean, I think that's a very legitimate question and a very -- a very good question. Page 139 January 23, 2002 And we need to look at that a little bit. I guess I just want to establish the position that we were coming from as staff and a consultant. Remember, initially we recommended that no ag be permitted in sending areas because just look at the basic principles here. We're saying these are the highest value natural resource areas. We're also not saying -- then to be clear for agricultural purposes. But subsequently we received information from the counsel to the county that you could not preclude that if it was consistent with the Right-to-Farm Act, so we took the next best step. And we said if you transfer after that in remaining use, you cannot clear any additional land for ag. Your question is a very good one, and I don't think we've adequately addressed it. MR. COE: Another question I have, not being one that takes no for an answer very easily, I find it hard to believe that an attorney can say that we can't regulate agricultural land in this county. I don't believe it. MR. MULHERE: I mean-- MR. COE: I'd like to get a second or third or fourth opinion because I'm sure there's an attorney we can find someplace that will be able to tell us that we can regulate the ag uses on this land, period -- MR. MULHERE: I think you-- MR. COE: -- particularly when you're talking about buttoning it up at, say, Corkscrew and somebody wants to put in -- which has already happened evidently -- an orange grove and pump water away from Corkscrew into a canal, and we're going to permit that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I really can't answer the question as I'm not an attorney. And, again, I told you where our position was and the only reason we changed that position. We -- we will get a written finding from these counsels to the county so that you can look at it, and we'll get it as quickly as we can, as to what their position is. Page 140 January 23, 2002 We'll be very clear that if we cannot prohibit someone from farming under the Right-to-Farm Act, what are our opportunities, legitimate legal opportunities, to regulate that agricultural -- those agricultural activities in relationship to their potential impacts on natural areas. MR. COE: Why don't we go to the state also? MR. MULHERE: Well, we had some initial discussions with the state. We were up there. We met with them. And they were in concurrence with the Right-to-Farm Act precluding the county from -- now, that was verbal; it wasn't in writing. MR. COE: So -- now, let me get this in my mind, because I'm incredulous. You mean to tell me somebody can back their ag use up to Corkscrew, have an orange grove, pump water way into their canal to get the water away because they've got to have dry feet for the plants, for the trees, and they can do that? MR. MULHERE: You know-- MR. COE: And we can't control it. MR. MULHERE: Water issues, I understand, it's of concern, but it's dealt by the regulatory agency, the Water Management District. Presumably as part of the process of what they authorize they would be looking at whether or not there were negative impacts to adjacent lands, issuing that withdrawal permit or whatever that particular permit is called; I think consumptive-use permit. The -- again, I -- I think that the state does have very strong protection -- protections for agricultural uses in place. I don't know -- I can't stand here and tell you that I've got something in writing from the county's attorneys on this matter that clearly tell us, yeah, we can or, no, we can't. I can tell you that they were pretty firm in their -- in their findings to us that we could not -- that we -- that we put the language in that we did, which was subject to the Right-to-Farm Act and there are some best management -- there are some best management practices defined in the Right-to-Farm Act so in order -- Page 141 January 23, 2002 if you were going to be consistent with the Right-to-Farm Act, you've got to incorporate those best management practices. Maybe some of those best management practices deal with, you know, how you handle water and pesticides and things like that. I would assume that it would. MR. COE: So this letter that you're going to get is going to tell us that we can't regulate ag lands. MR. MULHERE: I don't know it's going to tell you. I'm not going to prejudge that. I'm going to ask them for exactly what you asked for. It's clearing. It's clearing that I would assume is the destructive -- MR. COE: The clearing? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. COE: The draining of water and those sort of things. And specifically I'm looking at and just the easy one, the lay-up is -- and I maybe -- seeing him biting at the bit over there. Let me talk. Ed's got some pretty valuable property that's probably some of the most valuable property in this county. And to allow unbridled agricultural uses next to such an important property, I think, is ludicrous. MR. MULHERE: Well, I share that opinion with you. I share that opinion with you. I think so does the staff. MR. COE: Well, perhaps, we cannot take no for an answer from the attorney and get them to find a way to do this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we put that in a motion form and-- MR. COE: So I'd like to make a motion that we have the county attorneys put together a way that we can control agricultural uses close to our protected lands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Put together -- MR. MULHERE: Review the legal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Determine from the state what we Page 142 January 23, 2002 can do. MR. COE: Yeah, okay. State -- I don't care who it comes from. MR. MULHERE: So you-- you would like a-- a review of the legal constraints, if any, on regulating agriculture in sending lands. MR. COE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That sounds good. A motion by Mr. Coe. Second? Mr. Carlson seconded it, didn't you? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, the motion passes. MR. HILL: Mr. Carlson, try this on for size for a moment. Plans for a property to develop adjacent to a NRPA must establish at the time of application the impact on the hydrology, parentheses, water table, at the interface boundary. The impact must be limited to a maximum of-- and I put in temporarily a half a foot -- during the dry season. The water table impact must be monitored and reported at a frequency determined by the South Florida Water Management District. MR. CARLSON: Well, if you read in the plan about water management strategies, you can actually put in walls and things to buffer your drainage impacts from wetlands. And so, I mean, I -- there could be concrete walls and -- and seepage barriers that go up between these developments and important water resources areas, so I just -- I think that's a whole can of worms that we might regret recommending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, going back to that last motion Page 143 January 23, 2002 in which I paraphrased it and you moved, and as I wrote it down, it was to request legal -- a review of the legal constraints, if any, on regulating ag in sending lands. Barbara just indicated that-- and I think she's right -- that there may be also the same analysis needs to occur related to receiving lands that may be adjacent to a natural reservation. So I would think you would want to amend your motion to simply indicate, you know, whether it's -- whether it's sending or receiving, if there's -- if there's going to be a potential impact to the natural areas, the natural reservation, or the sending designation, what can be done to regulate it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That okay with you, Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Amended, motion, change. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask just one more thing? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: Can we add to the motion or to whatever you're going to ask these people, that the point is to preserve the hydrology of the area which has county-wide impact that -- that there's a point to restricting, it's not that we don't just want agricultural? MR. MULHERE: That's only one point. The other point is to protect the habitat and other things; correct? MS. LYNNE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Mr. Coe has a couple more little things. MR. CARLSON: Before Mr. Coe made that brilliant motion, I was going to do something like move that the EAC recommend that agricultural lands associated with NRPAs, conservation areas, be held to the same native vegetation preservation standards as other types of development. MR. MULHERE: So apply the preservation standards to ag as well. Page 144 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think you -- that's where you have to start considering-- MR. COE: Start considering what? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The form. What's it called? MR. COE: Yeah. See, I think that would infringe. I would recommend that we consider waiting until we get the readout from the attorneys and -- and I -- I hope I made it real clear about the attorneys trying to find a way around the law, I mean, still within the law obviously. MR. MULHERE: You made it very clear. And we'll make it clear to them. I'll -- I'll have to say also, though, that we'll ask for this immediately, probably tomorrow, try to get something up to them and, no, we won't try. We'll succeed. We'll get it to them tomorrow. I mean, we're moving forward with this process, you know. I think you're going to have to try to do it as expeditiously as possible. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think if we miss -- if we do some things that we do miss the Planning Commission, we do have enough time to get further comments to the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Yeah. Page 28 they talk about wetlands, if I remember correctly. MR. HILL: In the FLUE? MR. MULHERE: Of the coastal conservation -- MR. COE: Anyway, the one that's on the wetlands, and we mentioned this earlier that we wanted to make sure that there was no net loss in our wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: I guess that's it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. COE: loss of wetlands. Just clarify, 6.2.7, 6.2.8. All right. And you said that the current plan was for no net Now, if-- who -- who is the agency that's going to Page 145 January 23, 2002 be looking at this? Is this us, or is this South Florida Water Management District? MR. MULHERE: Well -- well, actually, the way that we've written in recommending these policies, we don't have the statutory obligation to permit wetland impacts. And it would be the South Florida Water Management District, or it could be the Corps. Is that basically it? Is the DEP involved in that? MR. LORENZ: It's delegated from the DEP to the Water Management District. MR. MULHERE: Corps. The Water Management District or the MR. COE: That's getting to my point. My point is is we're evidently going by the minimum standards here. But what do we do in the case of mitigation? MR. MULHERE: Well, we had-- MR. COE: Because in the case of mitigation, we've already heard South Florida Water Management District testify in front of us that sometimes their mitigation for loss of wetlands they do uplands. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's a great question. MR. COE: And we want to make sure that there is no net loss to wetlands. So basically an agency that's above us, we're requiring to do above and beyond what their -- what they normally do. And how do we police that? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. COE: And how do we place that monkey on their back? MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I think we've addressed that. It's a great question. In fact, I would have to compliment the environmental staff, the county for raising this issue to my attention and to our attention as we develop these policies. What we proposed to do was have a policy indicate that there would be no net loss of wetlands, in fact, that uplands couldn't be used as mitigation for Page 146 January 23, 2002 impacts to wetlands and that in order for us to ensure that, we need to have that WRAP score up front, which was something that, I think, Marco Espinar was concerned about because of the timing. But we are asking for that up front. So they at least have to go sufficiently into the process to have gotten an approved WRAP score from the agency, and that has to be submitted to the county. Then, beyond that, they would be put on notice as part of their stipulations or conditions of approval, even if they haven't gone all the way through the process to get a permit, that if they are intending to mitigate for any impacts to wetlands, that there has to be no net loss and, further, that, you know, mitigation in the form of uplands would not be acceptable. MR. COE: Do you have a memorandum of understanding or a letter of understanding with the South Florida Water Management District that they're going to do this? MR. MULHERE: No. And we don't really care. If they allow that, that's fine. They're just going to have to -- they're just going to have to address our requirements. In other words, they're going to know it up front so when they go through the process, knowing that up front that we're not going to accept mitigation that doesn't meet these requirements, they're going to have to negotiate mitigation that does meet these requirements. MR. COE: With who? MR. MULHERE: With the agency. MR. COE: And they say that's okay with them, South Florida Water Management? MR. MULHERE: We -- we -- I don't know that we've discussed it with them. MR. COE: Well, then how do we know it's going to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One at a time, guys. MR. COE:' Basically what you're saying to me is, we're telling Page 147 January 23, 2002 them up front-- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. COE: -- that they need to have the WRAP score first. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. COE: And that any mitigation is going to have to be, you know, one for one basically, no net loss. MR. MULHERE: That's right. Correct. MR. COE: We haven't even contacted South Florida Water Management District who does that mitigation as part of their process. MR. MULHERE: But if they have to go above and beyond what's called for by the district to meet our standards, then they will have to do that. And knowing that up front they're not going to get an approval from us unless they meet those standards, knowing it up front when they go in to negotiate mitigation, if the mitigation they negotiate doesn't meet our standards, then they may have to do further mitigation to meet our standards. MR. COE: So, in other words, they're going to come back to you after they've gone to -- MR. MULHERE: MR. COE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: MR. That's correct. Prior to final approval. COE: I understand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What else? MR. COE: Go to somebody else and let me look at my stuff here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I've got a point. I'm on-- what is it-- the CCME here, CCME, page 25. There's a policy 6.2.3, Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved. Page 148 January 23, 2002 Then if you go over to the next page on 26 and the first paragraph after Subsection 4 where it says, "Collier County shall allow for more intensive development to occur in rural fringe receiving lands, north Golden Gate Estates," is that getting to the point I raised earlier that that's the policy? MR. MULHERE: No. I -- I think the intent -- the intent there -- and, Bill, I would defer to you, but I believe the intent there was to indicate that within those areas, there -- there can be more intensive development, and there may be -- there may be, you know, mitigation and impacts that were not going -- that are not going to occur in the large connective wetland systems. But, anyway, I'm going to defer to Bill on that. MR. LORENZ: I think we talk about directing incompatible land uses away from everything ahead of that in that Policy 623 parentheses 1, 2, 3, 4, beginning on page 25, come down to 26. That's where we're directing away from. These are the large landscape features that we've said are significant to direct away from. We have to direct development to someplace as well, so I wanted to put, if you will, the equal sign on the equation. Make it clear that we are directing development to these other areas and -- and we don't have the other types of protection mechanisms that we have in the cons -- for instance, in the conservation lands, the NRPA lands. MR. CARLSON: So the county's policy is to allow for more intensive development in north Golden Gate Estates and the rural settlement area district which is Orangetree? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that -- those densities are going to be much -- are going to be higher in terms of wetlands -- in terms of directing development away from those other areas. These areas are going to be what's left in the county that's going to be higher intensity development. Page 149 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I think what's not intended there by the term intensity development is higher than what's already permitted or proposed. What is intended is to indicate that within those areas the development is more intensive than it is in these other areas, conservation, natural resource protection, sending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: That's too bad. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anybody on the right have anything? Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Yeah, I have more. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe's got one. Go ahead. MR. GAL: Let's look at the permitted uses and sending areas on page 47. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Forty-seven of the FLUE. MR. GAL: Here it has agricultural uses. I'd like to delete forestry from those agricultural uses. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where are you? MR. GAL: 5-A, page 47, 5-A. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 5-A, gotcha, okay. MR. GAL: I'd like to delete forestry. I had a question. What are essential services, as defined in the Land Development Code? MR. MULHERE: You know, I apologize. I don't have a copy of the Land Development Code with me here but -- MR. GAL: Are you talking, like, sewer plants? MR. MULHERE: Sewer lines. Sewer plants, I think, require a condition-- they require a conditional use so there's a public hearing but, yes, they are an essential service. Transmission lines, police protection, you know. MR. GAL: What are sporting and recreational camps? MR. MULHERE: Sporting and recreational camps are hunting camps -- I'm trying to think of what else. Page 150 January 23, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. COE: Gun ranges? MULHERE: Hiking camps. They could be -- GAL: I mean, are those subject to -- COE: Hand grenade pits. GAL: -- development standards? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they're subject to development standards. The development standards are not within the comprehensive plan. Those are found in the LDR. Again, they're all subject to those -- those preservation natural resource protection standards, again, 80 percent, 90 percent if you're in a NRPA. So, yeah, there are some uses remaining that are permitted. MR. GAL: And -- and I'd like to delete oil, mineral extraction and related processing excluding earth mining. MR. MULHERE: I feel like I should tell you something about that one. I don't object to your recommendation to delete it, but I believe most, if not all, of the lands within Collier County attached to your deed is a right for the under-- for the -- the land, former landowner, the Collier family, to extract minerals and oil. And I don't think that there's really a market for too many minerals, but we do know that there's some oil out there because they're extracting it right now in the Big Cypress. I think you'll have -- just want to throw it on the record. That's a right that they enjoy, and it follows with everybody's deed. So I'm not sure how we can regulate that. Maybe we can; maybe we can't. We chose not to fight that fight in our recommendation. I just want to throw that out there for your consideration. MR. GAL: If it's not in the permitted use category, then is it a prohibited use? MR. MULHERE: Yes. If it's not expressly permitted, it would be prohibited. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 151 January 23, 2002 MR. GAL: CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. GAL: I-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, it's about property rights so -- All right. Mr. Coe. Oh. MR. GAL: At the present moment I'm moving to -- I'm -- to remove forestry from the permitted uses in sending areas. MS. LYNNE: Is that because somebody can cut down all the trees and then sell their development rights? MR. GAL: Yes. MR. COE: Okay. I see the point. MS. LYNNE: So what we want is a most -- some mechanism for prohibiting that activity? MR. GAL: Yeah. I want to remove forestry from the permitted use. MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. MR. GAL: From the sending area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. And the reason being? MR. COE: So there's no logging permitted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: There's no logging permitted? MR. COE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I know that. But if we farm, we have to clear it, take the logs off the property. If we ranch, we have to clear it, take the logs off the property. MR. MULHERE: It is a farming. It is an agricultural use, forestry. And it's all tied into what you directed us to do in terms of finding out whether or not we can regulate that. MR. GAL: If you -- I'll table the motion since we are going to find out what we can do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I think it's probably going to be under the ag rule. MR. COE: I've got a couple more. Page 152 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I'd like to recommend that we remove all currently approved PUDs or any other projects that have already been permitted from the program. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Largely that's -- that's already in place. I just want to clarify. MR. COE: I want to make sure it's clear because we've approved a lot of projects, hundreds, matter of fact, thousands. And they've already been permitted. They haven't even moved the dirt yet. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. COE: And I don't want them to be permitted to get credits in sending, receiving, and all that bunk. MR. MULHERE: That's what I thought, and that's why I say clarify it because what we're talking about is actually much more limited than what you're suggesting because within the rural fringe area, which is the only area where we're identified sending and receiving and currently the only area where you would be able to transfer development rights from sending to receiving, we're not including any PUDs that were approved in the urban area into that mix. There's only a few PUDs that were approved. But I did understand your motion to say if you have an approved project. MR. COE: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: PUD or otherwise, conditional use for a golf course. You are precluded from enjoying the ability to transfer joints. MR. COE: Absolutely. And I'm making a motion for that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Motion. Second? MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Carlson. Discussion? Page 153 January 23, 2002 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor of the motion? Opposed, same sign? It passed unanimously. MR. COE: Okay. I got another one. We've talked numerous times about the old beach. I'm surprised Matt wasn't here today. But I want to propose -- I want to make a motion that we -- there will be no beach raking during the turtle season extep -- except for storm emergency. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where in the code are you related to? What's the reference -- MR. COE: Thirty-eight. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- what's the reference point? MR. MULHERE: CCME. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Page 48? MR. COE: I think it's 38. Basically it gets added in that there will be no beach raking during the turtle season except during storm emergency. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Didn't we just -- didn't we just pass a very extensive ordinance that spells that out, I thought, a few months ago? MR. COE: But that isn't spelled out in this; that's why I want to make sure that it's spelled out here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think -- I don't think that's what the ordinance says. MR. CARLSON: Yes. There was -- there was beach raking above the tide line or below the tide line. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very complex. MR. COE: Is anybody from the environmental office here? Page 154 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barb. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The most recent, I think, two sets of amendments allows beach raking during sea turtle nesting season after the monitoring is in effect. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: So I'm recommending that there is no beach raking whatsoever during the turtle nesting season unless there's an emergency like a hurricane. MR. CARLSON: Like dead fish, things like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Even though we just went through an extensive process and set an ordinance up and we're now saying that we don't want to live by what we agreed to two months ago? MR. GAL: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing those in favor. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. MR. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill, Mr. Sansbury, Mr. Carlson, motion fails. MR. COE: I got one last comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I just don't know the answer to this. I've had several people send electronic mail to me recently regarding the fees for Page 155 January 23, 2002 permitting in the county. And there's only certain uses for the fees that are paid by developers or people that are permitting, you know, a house or whatever it may be. And our fees are way low compared to the City of Naples, not that that's necessarily the standards, but just to do a broad-brush comparison. I've heard several times by various people that are part of, like, the environmental office and some of the other offices that there aren't enough people to inspect, to check, to do the water monitoring, whatever it may be. If so, why don't we just raise the fees and hire the people? MR. MULHERE: I think that-- MR. COE: I realize that it's not on what we're doing right now, but maybe somebody can take that back to their office and we could find out. MR. MULHERE: MR. COE: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: I think you're talking about permitting fees? I mean, the developers are paying the fees. Or so -- actually -- MR. COE: Are we -- are we providing the service to the developers to do timely permitting? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I want to comment, developers are paying the fees. MR. COE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Homeowners of everybody that's building a lot in Golden Gate -- MR. COE: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- are paying those fees. So remember there's a lot of people other than developers paying those fees. MR. COE: That's correct. That's what I'm saying is why not just increase the fees and hire enough people to do the job to support the developers? Page 156 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I think that, generally, those-- statutorily those permit fees are tied to -- to the need for the activities which they -- they cover, and you have to establish some sort of a need there. And the Development Services Advisory Committee is a committee that the board set up that is the committee that would review initially anyway proposed fee increases. And it would be my recommend -- I mean, I would take that recommendation, if you wish, or staff could to -- to the administrator for community development who I think would deal with them through that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger again. I'd like to make a comment on this issue about what fees collected relative to permitting and petitions for development, what those fees may be used for and what the appropriate level of those fees might be which the Board of County Commissioners has some discretion in. At this current time the county manager has directed the budget director, along with staff, Mr. Joe Schmitt, our new division administrator to do a Nexus analysis as to what exactly is the legal latitude in the application of the fees we collect in what we know as Fund 113, which is the community development fund. So that issue is being examined as to what latitude we can use. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Mr. Carlson, you look like you got a whole list there. What else you got there? MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm also in the CCME on page 28 on Policy 6.2.7, talking about mitigation requirements for a loss of wetlands. And Sentence B says loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or adjacent to the impacted wetland. Page 157 January 23, 2002 This can be done in a very artificial way and not have anywhere near the same natural resource values as a natural wetland that was there conveying water and storing water. So I think there's a lot of potential here to degrade wetlands with the way this is worded. Even though it requires appropriate South Florida Water Management District permit approval, they will permit a swale as opposed to a flow-way. We've seen that in the northern part of the county. So if I had my druthers, B would read, loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall not be allowed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion of a recommendation, 6.2.7 1-B be revised with that language? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: the motion? MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: motion signify by saying aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Does everybody understand Is there a second to the motion? Motion, second. Do we hear Hearing none, all in favor of the Opposed, same sign. Aye. How Page 158 January 23, 2002 many -- I was the only dissenter on this one? MR. COE: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay, sir. MR. CARLSON: I don't have anything else right now. I'm still looking. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Back and forth. Anybody else have anything? Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Mr. Beller (phonetic), when he presented this morning, referred to Mirasol. And if my notes are correct, there are two sections on the west side of that which has been purchased by the school corporation; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. There's -- let me reiterate there. There are four sections that are designated as -- as secondary receiving lands. Two of those sections fall within Mirasol, and two, I think, Miss Payton indicated, had been purchased by the county and the school board. And you've already made a motion to exclude or preclude the two sections that are in the Mirasol PUD because you've made a motion previously to not allow the TDR for approved projects, so that would be already taken care of out of the picture, based on your earlier motion. The two sections that, if they have been purchased by the county and the school board, they cannot transfer units, that had to be receiving. Well, they could sell it, and then somebody could transfer units in, so that would still be a valid issue because those are designated as secondary receiving. So they would currently allow -- I mean, I don't think the county is going to go out there or the school board is going to get out there and develop it, but they could sell off a portion of it, and it could be developed with receiving units into it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill? All right. MR. HILL: I -- the recommendation wasn't -- Nancy, was this by you to make that a neutral -- was that your recommendation? Page 159 January 23, 2002 MS. PAYTON: Yes. MR. HILL: I move that those two sections in the mere -- adjacent to the Mirasol PUD be denoted as a neutral. MR. MULHERE: Well, they're actually not adjacent to the Mirasol. There's two within Mirasol, and then there's two -- right here (indicating) in the what we'll call, I guess, the eastern comer of south of Immokalee Road of sending -- of receiving area within B. You can see it up there on the map, yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The title to those two sections is with... MR. MULHERE: I can't verify that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But the school board or county government or somebody? MR. MULHERE: That's the indications. I haven't done the research to verify that. I know at one point they were interested in purchasing it. They have may already, in fact, done that. I just don't know the answer to that. MR. COE: Yeah, I don't remember if they actually did it. I know they were discussing it, right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill, if you want to restate the motion... MR. MULHERE: But if they were neutral -- I just want to throw out there, if they were neutral, just to give you some sense of comfort with respect to that motion, not to influence you, if the school board wanted to put a school there and they were neutral, they still could. MR. HILL: I don't know how to define that piece of ground. MR. MULHERE: The secondary receiving area other than the one -- other than the one included in the Mirasol -- MR. HILL: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 160 January 23, 2002 MR. HILL: CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) -- be redesignated as a neutral. As neutral. Second? Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify Opposed? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. COE: You might want to take a break. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we take about five. (A break was held from 3:04 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: I was asked to clarify, and ifI misspoke -- I don't think I did, but if there's some confusion, relative to discussion that Mr. Coe and I were having related to the -- the language precluding mitigation for impacts to wetlands in the form of upland mitigation and how would we make sure that that happened, if I gave you the impression that we would -- that that would happen as a result of sending the applicant back to the district to modify their permit, that's not necessarily the case. We don't really -- it doesn't matter whether they go back to the district and modify their permit. What matters is that they show us a permit that meets our requirements. And if it doesn't, then they -- they don't have to modify the permit. They may just have to mitigate more on site to meet our requirements, and that could satisfy us. But either way, what we're saying to you is that they would not get an approval unless they meet Page 161 January 23, 2002 the requirements in here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. We're at 3:15. We need to start moving on this thing because some of us have to get out of here at four o'clock. Where do we stand? Mr. Carlson, what else do you have? MR. CARLSON: Confusion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mass confusion? MR. CARLSON: Mass confusion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh. MR. COE: I'd like to discuss the buffer that we talked about earlier and we just can't seem to get around it. That's the kind of buffer I like. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: All right. We've talked about a mile buffer, but there's a lot of areas out here where you can't get a mile buffer. So how do we get around this and create a buffer, because I think it's the intent, based on what I've heard today in testimony by various citizens and from the discussion here on the EAC, over years of discussion with the EAC, that we'd like to tackle that and establish buffers ? MR. MULHERE: It's a tough issue. I suggest to you -- and I think what Bill has proposed here, coupled with a minimum buffer, which we have in there, don't we? MR. LORENZ: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: 300 feet. MR. COE: 300 feet. MR. MULHERE: So you have a minimum buffer which can be exceeded and will be exceeded based on the up-front evaluation of the potential hydrological impacts as a result of the development. So you've got-- I mean, I -- I don't know if there's a case that, you know, the study reveals that you know what? It's going to have an impact Page 162 January 23, 2002 that extends 2 miles. But there's no outside limitation. There's a minimum 300 feet. However, it can exceed that based on the analysis that's done up front, and then you establish a buffer. MR. COE: How long -- how long did that study go on, the one that the guy presented to us -- I guess it was last month? There was several years that thing went on, didn't it? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seventies. Five, six years. MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. COE: I mean, are developers going to be required to do that study over that length of time so that they can get a good idea of what impact they're going to have? MR. MULHERE: No. It's a modeling. MR. LORENZ: Right. It's -- it's a modeling exercise that a groundwater hydrologist will do to try to estimate what their general impacts are. As you noted earlier, you know, once you set your water control elevations, then you're going to set -- then you're going to set your elevations of your roads and your -- and your buildings. And you're pretty much fixed in. Even -- even when you start talking about monitoring, I didn't propose monitoring for the hydrologic impacts because that -- you're going to be fairly much set as to what's going to happen in -- in that. But the Water Management District has determined that you can realistically go through a modeling exercise and come up with an assessment. Is it a hundred -- is it going to be a hundred percent certain? No. There's not a hundred percent certainty with it. But if you -- if you don't go through an exercise like that, then you set up front some presumptive number of which it's very difficult to try to defend when someone can come in and say, well, look, I can go through this exercise and -- and show you with reasonable certainty that we're not going to have an adverse impact. The -- this issue was tackled in a -- in a study that was done for Page 163 January 23, 2002 the St. Johns Water Management District for buffers, and it's -- typically Mark Brown. It was done in the early '90s. They went through an exercise for the-- for the general system that you would find in those areas. They specified a -- a -- they worked their numbers backwards from a -- a draw-down of less than, I want to say, a tenth of a foot, ifI recall properly. They did some groundwater modeling, and they determined for certain systems up in those areas that you'd have a three- or four- or five-hundred-foot buffer that would be appropriate from a groundwater perspective. We -- as staff we -- we toyed with the idea of trying to come up with a particular number to model against, such as some diminimus number of a -- of a tenth of a foot. And rather than -- rather than specify some other procedure, we then recommended that you utilize the South Florida Water Management District's procedure because that's what they have adopted for the district. So we -- we -- we struggled with the -- the same idea as well, and-- and proposed the -- the procedure that's currently as -- as your proposal because of those issues. MR. COE: Well, you say to us not to be arbitrary and just establish a one-mile buffer without basing it on any scientific data. How'd you come up with 300 feet? MR. LORENZ: 300 feet was -- if you look at some of the wildlife information, now, 300 feet is not set up to be a hydrologic number. That's set up to look at some of the wildlife issues. If you look in your data analysis that was tabulated, there was also a number that this Rural Fringe Advisory Committee felt comfortable with. Recognize, also, within -- within the buffer information, that if you have a particular set of species, for instance, if you have a bald eagle's nest that's within a natural reservation, you're going to have to have a setback of 1,500 feet, 1500 feet. That may take you past the 300-foot buffer. So you have to read the buffer language in your Page 164 January 23, 2002 proposal that it's just not 300 feet. We have some additional requirements that have to be met as well. The hydrologic information may -- may establish that you have to set -- set back much further distance for water -- for water el -- water control elevations. It could be greater than the 300 feet. We don't know. That's why you have to go through the modeling exercise. So there's a number of reasons to set the buffers, wildlife issues, storm water or groundwater withdrawal impacts, and those are -- those are built into that buffering language that we proposed. MR. COE: Okay. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: Here's -- here's the givens. Here's what I can tell you having lived with this for so long is that, you know, we -- we have an important upland areas to protect in this county. But when you look at the conservation area map and the NRPA maps, you know, the vast majority of the areas that we're trying to protect are -- are wetland water dependent water -- I mean, water is the key element and should be the primary factor that we're considering when we're talking about buffering our conservation areas, natural areas, NRPAs, from negative impacts. I can tell you that -- and we've been doing that for years and years and years at -- where I work, but when your adjacent land is rural without an official drainage system, without a canal system, without a planned system, there is no deleterious impact on your hydrology. The relationship of rainfall to water level doesn't change. When your -- when your neighboring land use is 1 dwelling per 5 acres without improved drainage, no problem. When your adjacent land use is agriculture, the water level fluctuates wildly. I can tell that when they turn their pumps on; I can tell that when they turn their pumps off. Now, what happens when you start improving drainage? We Page 165 January 23, 2002 heard today one mile east of the 951 canal there's degraded hydrologic conditions in the eastern end of the Bell Meade NRPA. So, you know, we sort of know something here. MR. LORENZ: But let me -- let me respond to that in terms of 951. The water elevations that are set in the 951 canal are at least 4 to 5, 6 feet below normal groundwater tables. That canal system was set prior to any formal review or any review of the -- of the drainage system standards that you would currently have now. And I guess what I'm saying is that the -- the degree of impact is proportional to the -- to the water elevation -- water control elevation that you set. And the canals that we currently have have been put into place that you would never see those water-- those elevations except to that dis -- those levels now through the South Florida Water Management permitting. So I don't think that it's -- it's fair to equate those past alterations with what we propose to see in the future. MR. CARLSON: Well, you know, when -- when I argue about other things, people tell me, well, it's the best available data, and it is the best available data. The other thing I worry about is there's -- there's two issues: There's surface water management when you're talking about canals and drainage systems, drainage ditches, but then there's groundwater use. And as those receiving areas increase in population, you may put in well fields for potable water, but all those people are going to put in irrigation systems to water their lawns. And that's going to come right straight out of the groundwater table. That's the way it's done at Orangetree. They don't-- I think all those dwelling units in Orangetree are required to have an irrigation well. That's above and beyond whatever their water use is for potable water that comes out of their plant. And over time, can you imagine, you know -- think in long term. A hundred years from now when it's Page 166 January 23, 2002 built out, the incredible amount of water use. And, you know, I would like things like Corkscrew and the Bell Meade to survive over the long term. And I -- I have my doubts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: This modeling system that South Florida Water Management is using, what is its accuracy? There should be a percent accuracy? MR. LORENZ: I don't know. I couldn't tell you that. MS. LYNNE: Were their models based on actual field studies? MR. LORENZ: Yes. The -- well, what I recall in the -- the basis of review, that there is a set of protocols they have to go through that -- that would be fairly representative and typical of-- of general groundwater modeling. They'll have to establish some natural background elevation. They do specify that -- I mean, if you can -- if you can infer that information for a particular area, you have to submit the data and the supporting documentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Much -- much of the data that was submitted to us several weeks by Jim Duever was utilized as some of the basis for the modeling. So it's from data such as the stuff that he put together in the '70s and '80s that they've plugged into the computer and brought up to date and so forth to set up those models. MR. LORENZ: And they also specify actually there's a condition in there that would indicate that if-- if there has been a severe alteration to the -- to the groundwater table as a result of past -- past efforts, that you don't automatically get to use that as your base levels, that you're going to have to have a higher water table elevation. That's some specific information and in that basis of-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's move forward. Ed, what do you got? MR. CARLSON: I got one more thing. I don't know if we brought up -- going back to the rural village concept, the actual size Page 167 January 23, 2002 of those, I'm not an expert on rural villages. But, quite frankly, I was just blown away by the size, the potential size, of them, thousands of acres. You know, that's just a concern for me. I don't know how to put that in the form of a motion to limit the size to some other smaller area. But I -- I think that's -- that's a DRI scale thing. And when we're talking about a rural village thing, I get kind of a warm, cozy feeling of a small little hamlet, you know, and a lot of green space around it in a small concentrated, you know, living area. And, you know, it's -- it's -- that's not what it is. It's a -- it's a huge subdivision. MR. MULHERE: Well, not necessarily, it is -- as I indicated before, the -- we agreed with the -- the concerns that were raised and actually reduce the size from what you have before you from 500 acres to 2,000. At the upper end 2,000 is pretty big. However, the intent there was that these are things that, you know, will grow over time. That may be a 20- or 30-year development pattern in a rural village that starts out very small and then grows and, you know, 2,000 acres may be reasonable with 7,000 or 8,000 residents and still take on the components of a village. Maybe it matures into a rural town at that point in time. It's still within a receiving area. It's still where we want to direct land uses to. It's still going to be mixed use in development. It's still going to be compact in nature. And from our perspective, there was no negative or no down side to that. MR. GAL: Okay. What's -- what's 2,000 acres in miles, just so I could picture it? MR. CARLSON: A mile is -- square mile is -- 640 acres in a square mile. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Four square miles. MR. GAL: Four square miles about? MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm tired -- I'm not going to beat that horse again but -- Page 168 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Do we have anyone else that wants to make a motion for recommendation for revisions, additions, deletions, what have you? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, then-- MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: We've got the e-mail from Allie Santoro and her suggestions. And I'm just suggesting, since she wrote them up we -- as a courtesy, we should go over them. MR. CARLSON: I think you took On the task. MS. LYNNE: Okay, okay. Page 40, 3-A. MR. MULHERE: Forty of the CCME? MS. LYNNE: Well, I've looked at both page 40s, and I don't see this section. MR. LORENZ: What's it referring to specific -- does it have a MS. LYNNE: It says, page 43 A, not allow new unacceptable farming practices or golf courses unless they have mechanisms to maintain water tables. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's got to be in the FLUE. MR. LORENZ: That's in the FLUE. MR. MULHERE: I think she's referring to primary receiving lands, which would be on the bottom of page 42. MS. LYNNE: Forty-two? MR. MULHERE: It starts there. MS. LYNNE: Then 3-B. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: that line by line on Allie's memo? MS. LYNNE: That was just my suggestion. she's referring to here. What are we doing? Are we doing I'm not sure what Page 169 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, there is -- there is a 3-A and B on 40. But, again, I think maybe there's some confusion there because those are interim natural resource protection area restrictions that were called for and adopted as -- pursuant to the final order. Again, that would apply in the eastern lands and wouldn't apply in the fringe once these other things were adopted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I believe on 43-A what we're referring to is the line that we were talking about, agricultural uses. It says not allowing unacceptable farming or golf courses unless they have mechanisms to maintain water tables and forth. I think we addressed that. MR. MULHERE: I think so too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Page 24, 6.1.4 -- I think we may have already done this -- not promote new clearing of ag lands if in sending areas. Did we do a motion pertinent to that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MS. LYNNE: Okay. 6.1.5, why should the county have reduced preservation requirements? MR. COE: Fifty. MR. CARLSON: Fifty percent. MR. LORENZ: This is in this conservation and coastal management element. MR. MULHERE: Page 24. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yup. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I have it up on the screen. MR. MULHERE: The -- the county purchased that land. So, therefore, all of the taxpayers of the county purchased that land. The -- the intent with respect to that, some portion of that land which is immediately adjacent to the existing landfill is to create a resource recovery facility and a county barn facility. Page 170 January 23, 2002 Our discussions with the utilities or public works division was that -- that they would need to utilize a higher percentage of that land, probably about 80 acres maximum or-- I'm sorry -- a hundred-- was it 150 acres maximum? 160? Anyway, 50 percent preservation standard was sufficient for them to be able to utilize the land for the intended uses. And what we proposed was that they preserve at least 50 percent and, of course, they still have to go through the permitting process with the agencies. The county is not absolved from going through that process. I guess you would have to find as to whether or not you believe there is a public purpose for the county to be able to utilize existing land for public purpose or not utilizing that land and going out and purchasing new land. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Hearing none, how about 6.2.7, apply to ag practices as well? Again, I think that comes under whether -- what is permitted under the -- what's the name of that act, Fair Farming Act? MR. MULHERE: Right-to-Farm Act. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right-to-Farm Act, yeah. Page 31, paragraph l-E, little 1 says used as fenced walls or tunnels, uses, to encourage wildlife to use natural corridors to -- never mind. I'm sorry. Forget it. Everybody can read it. MS. LYNNE: I think what Miss Santoro is asking here is that we include the word "tunnels," use of fencing walls, tunnels or other obstructions to encourage wildlife to use natural corridors to separate wildlife corridors from areas of human activity. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anybody want to move to change 6 -- Page 171 January 23, 2002 MR. COE: I'll make -- make that motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- to add the word "tunnels" in that particular paragraph, which is page 31 ? That is on Item l-E, little e, 1, add the word "tunnels." MR. COE: Do we have a second? MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. Tunnels is not an obstruction. Lower down there's a roadway crossing. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. You're right. You're absolutely right. MR. CARLSON: So, you know, I don't know if that helps. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MS. LYNNE: So should we add to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. MS. LYNNE: Should we add it to No. E 3, use of appropriate roadway crossings, signage and tunnels? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, I think appropriate roadway crossing are tunnels are overpasses. MR. MULHERE: That was the intent. MR. CARLSON: What's the official name? Are we calling them underpasses, or what are we calling them? Wildlife crossings. MR. COE: I call them tunnels. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, okay. MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: they're above the roads. Maybe an appropriate -- They have them both ways. Some places CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that covers it in that particular paragraph. Let's look at 34 EIS, waive for single-family homes, but what about species, i.e., eagle's nests we have lost? MR. CARLSON: Oh, yes. I understand that. MR. CARLSON: Single -family residents are exempted from any wildlife surveys. Page 172 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: From an EIS. MR. CARLSON: Oh, okay. It doesn't exempt them from any statutory state or federal requirement. It just means that we're not going to require in an existing platted subdivision -- because don't forget, any new project is going to have to do this. It's the existing platted subdivisions that have single-family homes that haven't gone through this process, primarily Golden Gate Estates. We're not going to require a single-family property owner to conduct an environmental impact statement. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Understandable. Thirty-eight Policy 3 -- 7.3.2. MS. LYNNE: I think what Allie wants here is not only does the lighting have to be protecting -- the absence of lighting protecting sea turtles but, also, they're going to inspect for the removal of beach equipment when they do their nighttime surveys. I would certainly -- I would make a-- go ahead. MR. CARLSON: Barbara, is that already an requirement in there somewhere? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's in the ordinance, beach ordinance, I believe, removal of furniture. Remember we went through that whole thing? MS. LYNNE: Right. But this is saying that there are nightly inspections. MR. CARLSON: Oh, county staff shall conduct nightly inspections. They don't have to remove. MS. LYNNE: No. They're not going to remove it. They're going to inspect for removal. I think Allie wants to make it clear when they're going out to inspect the proper lighting conditions. She also thinks there should be reports on the proper removal of beach equipment. MS. BURGESON: Right. I think-- for the record, Barbara Page 173 January 23, 2002 Burgeson -- what's currently required for the night monitoring is the lighting issues. We don't require that staff, which is the natural resources department, staff-- do the monitoring for the beach equipment. At -- that typically falls on the code enforcement department. But I would -- I would agree that with the language that's in the Land Development Code that requires the beach furniture to be removed, that if that department, while they're doing those inspections, determines that there's a noncompliant issue, that they should address it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure? MS. LYNNE: So I move that we add "and removal of beach equipment" per Allie's directions here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second? MR. STONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. MR. MULHERE: One potential correction to that language, staff just raised an issue with the -- the wording, "nightly." I don't think there's any way that we're going to guarantee that there's going to be nightly inspections. Periodic, intermittent. Nightly is probably not likely to occur, and I certainly would hate to have something in here that says we're going to have to do something when I really don't see it happening, and I'm hearing that from the natural resource staff -- MR. COE: Why don't we say regular. Page 174 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Regular. MS. LYNNE: It's already in there, the language. MR. MULHERE: I know it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But we're saying we don't think we can do that. MR. LORENZ: Put it this way. We don't want to infer that we're going to be doing each and every night inspections. MR. COE: I'll make a motion to change it to regular instead of nightly. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second it, somebody. MR. STONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Unanimous. MR. COE: Way to blow through the agenda. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Now, we have to move on the entire document; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: It would be -- now that you've dealt with individual things-- MS. STUDENT: Individual items too. MR. MULHERE: And that motion would be subject to your other motions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now, do we make two motions, one on the land use and the other one? MR. MULHERE: I think that would be a good idea because we may send separate ordinances out for that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we have a Page 175 January 23, 2002 motion that we move the recommendation of the land-use element with the conditions that we have requested by previous motions. How does that sound? MR. MULHERE: Good. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, did you do that? MR. COE: I did that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Second. MR. HILL: This wouldn't preclude us on the next meeting making additional recommendations, would it? MR. MULHERE: Nope. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. How about the conservation and coastal management element? MR. COE: I make the same recommendation I did the last one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. HILL: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. HILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MR. CARLSON: Aye. Mr. GAL: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. MR. STONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. LYNNE: Aye. Good. I'm glad to hear that. Mr. Hill, you second? Favor? Aye. Opposed, same sign. Page 176 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You're opposed? MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: For the record, it passed 6 to 1. MS. STUDENT: There's one other element. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is that? MR. MULHERE: It's the central water and sewer policies sub -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Actually, two, aren't there? MR. MULHERE: MS. STUDENT: MR. MULHERE: Well, they're subelements. They're subelements. Potable water and potable sewer. And I can tell you very briefly what those entail. That is that we will be extending -- the county will allow or permit the extension of central water and sewer into receiving areas. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe? MR. COE: I'll make a motion to so move. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The sanitary sewer and potable water? MR. COE: Both of them. That's right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second? MR. HILL: Yup. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Hill. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, unanimous. Anything else? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Carlson, it will all depend on whether or not the receiving areas go forward. It will be a moot point if they don't. If they do, then by extending central water and sewer you at least minimize -- you allow for the benefits of clustering through that process. Page 177 January 23, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I got one more question. Has anyone sat down and looked at how many units have already been approved yet not yet built? MR. MULHERE: There was an exercise done a few years ago by the county. I don't know whether that's been updated. I mean, I can -- MR. COE: Versus the water and the sewage -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's been done. That's been done very recently. MR. COE: So that has been done? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that has been done within the last few months. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody have anything else? MR. CARLSON: In this day and age with the computers and the information, it's like you go to the store and they scan on the point of sale system and they automatically know what their inventory is, what's gone out. MR. MULHERE: That's a very good point. MR. CARLSON: Man, that should be up to date like every day. Work on that, will you? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Did you put bar codes on those wood storks, same thing. MS. LYNNE: I've got one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: About the part of the order that says we're supposed to look at unique agricultural areas, and I believe the comment was made that we were just doing that in the eastern Page 178 January 23, 2002 section. MR. MULHERE: Well, primarily was. MS. LYNNE: But if there is a unique area in our section, shouldn't that be addressed? MR. MULHERE: It doesn't read exactly like that. The final order says that we should develop measures to protect prime agricultural uses, uses, maybe areas. MS. LYNNE: Areas. MR. MULHERE: Areas. So what does that mean? Well, prime, by definition, refers to the soils, the quality of the soils. And they're mostly only found in delta areas, from what I understand. So ours is not prime; it's unique, and it's unique based on weather, more so than anything else, rainfall. Based on our valuation, there are relatively -- I say relatively -- few examples of-- of active agriculture in the fringe area. There is some, especially in D. But it's a very small percentage when compared to the eastern lands portion where the majority exists. We believe we have proposed some measures. I mean, we're not precluding someone from farming. We're not even precluding them from farming after they transfer their development rights within a receiving area. That is an incentive to continue to farm if you retain your land and, you know, with sending lands and transfer your development rights. So we do have some incentives. Clustering is a huge incentive for agriculture. MS. LYNNE: I'm just -- if it's really true that the gentleman who was here earlier that we have an area, one of only two in the continental United States that is frost free year-round -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: -- that does seem to me to be something that should be looked at. Page 179 January 23, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I think we have looked at it, and there's no requirement that those property owners, if they want to continue to farm there, there's nothing that's going to cause them to not farm in what we've proposed. In fact, there are provisions that -- that might allow them to realize the benefits of clustered development on a portion of the property and continue to farm on the other portion. If anything, it's enhanced their ability to have flexibility. I mean, we haven't taken away that right. We've just added some additional rights since it's a receiving area for clustering primarily. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:44 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 180