Loading...
DSAC Minutes 02/06/2002 RFebruary 6, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, February 6, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:40 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room "E", 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dino J. Longo Tom Masters, P.E. Dalas D. Disney, A.I.A. Marco A. Espinar, P.E. Blair A. Foley, P.E. Thomas R. Peek, P.E. Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Brian E. Jones C. Perry Peeples ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Denny Baker Edward Perico William D. Lorenz, Jr. Robert J. Mulhere, AICP Page 1 February 6, 2002 Tom Wides Norm Feder Stan Litsinger Page 2 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: approval of the agenda. MR. PEEK: So move. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: minutes of January 2, 2002. MR. ESPINAR: So moved. MR. PEEK: Second. I'll call this meeting to order. I need an All in favor. Thank you. I need an approval of CHAIRMAN LONGO: I did have one correction on page 9 that I saw where it said B zone should read V Zone, as in "Victor," B and V Zones. We have a first and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHIARMAN LONGO: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Staff announcements. Transportation division update, Norm. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. MR. FEDER: I have a couple of things here for you. First of all, pass these out. I know most of the folks here, but for those that don't know me, I'm Norman Feder. I'm the transportation administrator here in Collier County. Ed Kant's one of my directors in operations, Dawn Wolfe in planning, John Boldt in stormwater, and Steve Miller in transportation engineering, construction management. What I'm passing out to you and anyone else in the room that wants it is a copy of our resulting -- I should say, five-year work program. It has been moved up to add a year. The first thing when I Page 3 February 6, 2002 came on board was a commitment that we would maintain and more importantly deliver on a five-year work program and that we would structure that based on what we could do on a production capability and then make sure we try to find a way to fund it. Most of you know some of the history -- some of it more sordid than others -- in that little bit over a year relative to that effort, but essentially we started 2001 through 2005 with a five-year work program basically identifying 27 projects, 19 through construction, that were needed to basically address what is a backlog that we had developed over time. We went through a process on that. We committed, though, that we would keep a five-year work program at all time. I'm pleased to tell you that we delivered on the 2001 program. We're in the 2002 program right now, and we intend on making the same statement. I've got four major lettings this year. COURT REPORTER: Weddings? MR. FEDER: Lettings, 1-e-t-t-i-n-g-s. Yeah, we may have some weddings too. I'm sorry. My accent is going to get her yet. Four lettings this year. Basically Phases 3 and 4 of Livingston Road, Phase 3 being, of course, Pine Ridge on up to Immokalee Road. Phase 4 from Immokalee on up to the Lee County line, if you will, up to Bonita Beach Road. That's basically to continue the six laning. It will be four lanes north of what's the east-west Livingston or south of -- or just north of Imperial Golf Estates. South of -- what do I remember now -- is it Carribean. East-west where Carribean Mobile Home Park is MR. KANT: north of that. MR. FEDER: Yeah, so basically six lanes to that point and four lanes to join up with what Lee County is going to be doing up to Bonita up to Westaria and then hopefully connecting with Three Oaks all the way up throughout Lee County as well. Page 4 February 6, 2002 We have under construction right now, I'm pleased to tell you, not as many projects. Two of them are complete over the last year, the first section of Livingston, Golden Gate to Radio, and just recently the first section of Immokalee from 1-75 over to 951. You have under construction and nearing completion -- and you've got the Pine Ridge section complete as well. So three of those. You've got Airport about three or four months to completion. You've got Golden Gate Boulevard completion this summer. And as I noted, you have the other section of Livingston from Golden Gate up to Pine Ridge under construction. That's slated to be completed this fall or later this calendar year. So we've got some significant projects that have been brought forward, others planned, beyond the four lanes this year. If you take a look at it and just try to make it a little bit easier. Believe it or not this is from my old days from working with DOT. This is easy nomenclature. It's still not that easy. We've tried to recognize the phases of a project that has to go through, both the studies or planning and corridor studies, which is something we hadn't done much in the past. We basically went into our design and tried to do all of what would be preconstruction planning as part of the design process. That's not the place to do it. Now we're doing corridor studies and have a planning division as I mentioned. So that "S" is basically for those corridor studies, that preconstruction activity. Then you'll see that you have "D" for design, "R" for right-of-way. "C" for construction, "I" is for construction engineering inspection. Okay. We see the "I." So, obviously, the ones that everybody's interested in is the one where the "Cs" are, and you'll see the phases leading up to that. And beyond the four that are set to be let this year, we have another six to be let in 2003. Another is to follow that. We, actually, added two projects to that 29. And to that 19 1 Page 5 February 6, 2002 said had to go to construction, we added 2 more to construction when we went to the new five-year program, both on a design-built basis. One of them being 951 from Vanderbilt to Immokalee; the other one Rattlesnake Hammock from Polly on over to 951. Actually, County Barn over to 951. So those were added into the program this last cycle, and they are set up on a design-build in '03. The rest is items that carried over, and the good news is they became one year closer. And that's what we're going to try to do is stick to the program, add to the new fifth year, generally speaking, and address issues as they come up when we can, but keep the program going, deliver on the commitments. You've got a five-year work program here. Folks take this very seriously, I'm delivering that. As far as the funding on it, I'll stay out of all the major controversy, because I'm so apt to do that, but what I will tell you is that generally speaking the board committed to bonding the gas tax and a portion of the sales tax to fund all but 95 million of this figure you see for the five-year work program. However, what they're looking at is increased property assessed values as a way to pay off that, because simply to bond the gas taxes in spite of all the big statements made recently is to mortgage your future. You still don't have the income stream for Years 6 through 20, if you will. So they've committed other resources to try to cover that, but then again, who knows what happens next year when roads maybe isn't job one, bring other people in. So we'll -- we're going to be budgeted year by year to find out how we keep the program going, but the important part for right now is we've got a program, we've got a strong commitment out of this board to deliver on it and to fund it and that's where we are at this point. So any questions on the program? I'd be happy to try to go through those. What you will see in this program -- if you looked at Page 6 February 6, 2002 the prior one, which we tried to provide out to folks -- and this one, a major change is unfortunately in Ed's category, so you'll find him not as happy these days, because we had to pull back to focus most of the dollars on capacity-related projects. So a lot of goods things that Ed was trying to do, things that we're going to have to catch up in the area of maintenance and other issues, are things that are not in this initial program when we're still playing heavy catchup, and we're now looking at four to six projects -- new projects being let each year. I'm in a situation where I had to pull back on some of that maintenance, but it accrues, folks. It's still out there. It doesn't go away. But you'll see that the monies in that area, if you will, below the first line of major projects is a lot of important items even below that line, but they have been reduced quite a bit in this five-year program. Is there any questions that you have on the program in general? Yes, sir. MR. SAVAGE: This is my usual remark. MR. FEDER: Okay. Go for it. MR. SAVAGE: I was very impressed today. Although this is not your program on U.S. 41, I saw three trees that were planted, and they weren't in a line. Pardon me. Everybody else knows what I'm saying. In the landscaping that you do, I mean, I get so sick and tired of a hedge of trees, h-e-d-g-e, bushes -- a hedge of trees what we have. Is there any way we can get some landscape involved to plant it a little bit more naturally? MR. FEDER: You've got -- you've got probably three things I'll identify on that. I agree with you, first, but then three things to that. First of all, we're not going to be doing much more landscaping unfortunately. That's the first item. That's probably that below the line that I mentioned. Page 7 February 6, 2002 Second of all, you do have some constraints on site distance and how much median you have available, so sometimes even if I'd like to stagger and make it look a little more natural and make it look like -- a little more like something other than plastic items up and down the line, you have some limitations because you have to have distance away from the curb and the like. And, unfortunately, the first one was I'm not going to be doing as much of it, and I find that very problematic, because that's one thing that I think has made Collier unique. It's one of the things I came for was to do it right. I was used to putting down asphalt which is nice to think I was going to do something more than that, although some people are now telling me I shouldn't even be adding curbs. My question was, can I still use asphalt. Hopefully they're going to allow that. MR. SAVAGE: Well, I appreciate your attitude about that because, you know, no matter how much I preach about it, we still have the hedges. MR. FEDER: I will tell you-- there are some folks in this room that know this very well -- I have some concerns relative to the community character study, some of the issues involved in it. But there's an awful lot of very good things in that study as well. One of them was the issue of landscaping and collector road system, and I had no disagreements at all with that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you, Norm. Any other questions? MR. FEDER: One other part that I would do -- and then I'll get out of your way here. You have probably heard that we're talking about some changes in the Land Development Code area, and what I'd like to do is give you at least what amounts to some information that gives you essentially what we're trying to accomplish. And some of this stuff is still being fine tuned. Issues of just how you manage to Page 8 February 6, 2002 accomplish it is what we're trying to put on paper. It's easier to come up with the general idea than it is necessarily to write it into the ordinance. That being said, though, we've got a fairly tight time frame. Our work is to come back to your subcommittee of your group here by February 14th so that we can go to the Planning Commission by the 21st and to go to the board by the 13th. I don't like to surprise people with anything. I don't have the ordinance in hand to give to you, but as soon as we have something that even approximates that, it will be out to you and to whoever you set up as a subcommittee for us to work with. That's why I'm giving you right now -- which is basically what it is we look like we think we're trying to accomplish by that ordinance, so you at least got some of the concepts and issues as we try to get it into words and an ordinance. I'll just touch on a couple. I don't know the time you have here, and I don't want to overextend my welcome, although I think my welcome is to all meetings, and I will be happy to be here at all your meetings in the future. But my question is, should I go through some of this? Should I let you work with it, or what's the pleasure of the group here? I'm available and I can manage to continue talking forever sometimes. MR. SAVAGE: I personally think you ought to go through it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Actually, we have a rather lengthy agenda today, but a brief summary would be nice. MR. FEDER: Okay. I will try to be brief, and as soon as I look up and you show me I'm not being brief, I'll be briefer. Okay. Basically, what we're trying to do is the first part just talks about the fact that part of what we're trying to do is deliver the product, especially to resolve the backlog. So that's the first part of everything we're trying to do. We're also looking at making some modifications. Transportation impact fees, we are updating the cost Page 9 February 6, 2002 estimates. Not so much -- although there may be some tweaking to the methodology, we're going to generally maintain the methodology that we have today, but we're updating the cost and the impact sides of it to bring it up. We made a commitment to the board every two years -- about April of this year will be two years time frame from the last. We have a consultant; it's Post, Buckley, Shue, and Jernigan who's updating the cost. They do that for the Florida Department of Transportation, do unit costs. They're taking all the data, and now we have real actual projects we built, taking those, analyzing what our costs were. My impression is we probably were pretty low on the right-of-way. I don't know if we were that far off on other things, but that's what they're going to start telling us. We'll look at what that does and what that has as an implication for our impact fee and how that might change, as I said probably about April or after, and we'll be getting that stuff out to you as well. The next are items that deal more with the Land Development Code and items we're looking at in the Growth Management Plan. Access to management standards and procedures, one of the issues has already been addressed in the Land Development Code, and that is PUDs and the impression that you can decide access points and access decisions at the point of a PUD. It doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't know exactly what will be developed on the site, where on the site it will be developed, and when it will be developed and, therefore, what the background conditions are and coordination. That being said, obviously, we want to work closely on PUDs, try to define what's needed, and the community needs to respond, but the one thing we cannot do is get down to the level of committing to actual access points and those natures when you really don't have the information. As a matter of fact, the state on developments of regional impact where you have a lot more information on what will Page 10 February 6, 2002 be built, where on the site will be built, and theoretically interfacing when, you still don't commit to those access points until the time they come in for an access permit. I'm not necessarily encouraging all the way down to that point, but we are saying in a PUD we can't commit to access points, although that's something that's been presented back to me since I've been on the job, that while we did not have a PUD access point right here, in the bubble diagram we have one quarter of the way down I'm 800-feet frontage. That's 200 feet south of the intersection. We can't work with that, and that's something we came to the board already on, but we will try to work with folks, especially with prior parts we're looking and to make sure we coordinate something so we don't mess up with people on that where we can go forward. Replacement of the annual concurrency determination. Currently, AUIR serves two purposes. One is a state of the system where the board makes decisions on programming and how to respond to issues of deficiency and concern out there. The second one was that establishes an annual certification process of adequate public facilities. We're saying that we need to have it as an annual reporting state of the system, if you will, but we need to set up basically a checkbook approach to concurrency and certificates of adequate public facility. And we're working through some of the particulars, and we'll come back and share that with you in detail. Level of service, at least the service standards with the Growth Management Plan and some feel whether or not that was in one of the working documents actually in the plan or not, but the feeling is that we had to use what was out there. We're recommending to the board and we're going to change in the Growth Management Plan basically to refer to adopted level of standards adopted by the board as a separate ordinance or document, so as level of services change you've got that ability to make those adjustments as opposed to waiting Page 11 February 6, 2002 twice a year to modify the Growth Management Plan. We're modifying the 5-percent impact test. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. One thing that we're doing is we're saying that depending upon the size of development, if it's a large development, 5 percent is probably a good factor, but if it is a small development, a really small one, everything comes in under it and doesn't have any impact, but yet its cumulative impact is actually more imposing sometimes than the larger, more fully planned developments that we're dealing with. So we're going to modify and remove that assumption that in all development if you don't have more than 5 percent impact you have no impact on the system. Review of prior projects. I mentioned that already. Interconnection, interesting enough right now -- and I'm paraphrasing, and probably Stan or someone else or Bob could tell exact wording, but essentially it says we -- we encourage interconnection except where it will create through movements. Well, you know, I have a problem with that because it makes no sense at all. If I'm encouraging interconnection that's because I'm encouraging through movements. So we need to rephrase that so it makes some sense. Constrained and backlogged. We just went through a process, and rather than trying to declare a moratorium, which is actually declaring failure, because all that means is for a little bit of time I delay the inevitable, and that is that I have to make the improvement or do something. We're coming up with constrained and backlogged and a very aggressive construction program. Constrained and backlog we're probably -- we're going to parallel the states process on that which is basically about 10 percent in urbanized areas, about 5 percent in non-urbanized areas continual growth. In the case of backlog, it basically says for three years -- some folks are raising that -- I think you'll keep three, but it says that Page 12 February 6, 2002 essentially that if I don't have a project program for construction within the three years, then I haven't met my provisions if, in fact, I have a backlogged facility now anticipated during that period of time. A backlogged facility is one where we've committed dollars to, but it can't be built within three years. An example of that that came out of this last cycle is the state facility, Davis Boulevard, a section between Radio Road over to 951. That is a facility that even with us advancing with payback, the state's programming, we couldn't get a program within the first three years. So if I can't program a project within the first three years, then my only other option as we stood today was moratorium. Orientation was no. We can establish as a backlogged facility. That's what we're doing in this land development cycle and Growth Management. And then that backlog allows an incremental growth to that time of when we anticipate that capacity improvement. Not only that, but we've got the board to commit and you see in your work program there, if you take a look at it, a couple of projects where we've structured up to advance state money and then get paid back, therefore, allowing us to advance the state projects. So while we won't have it done within the three years, rather than just declare a moratorium and delay -- and we couldn't do that for four, five, six years in the future. Eventually you have to make the improvement. We're saying that rather than delay and then pay all the costs associated with that is establish a program that basically -- I guess the best way I can characterize is miters growth until such time as that improvement can be brought on line and pursue the effort to bring that project on line as quickly as we can. Lane rental fees, that's basically talking about when improvements are made along the roadway when you have a permit. We need to set a reasonable time for the permit work to be done. If the road is blocked off, if the motorist is kept from using those lanes, Page 13 February 6, 2002 then the fee goes up incrementally over time. Part of what we're saying is we need to get in and get out. We can't block the lanes. We don't have enough of them out there. Recapture capacity is talking about things -- I'm sure all you would be very excited to discuss further and that is looking at median openings, other areas where we've lost capacity, and if I'm six lane today, whether it be Pine Ridge Road between Airport and 41, whether it be Airport Road South of Golden Gate Parkway as an example where we come in and evaluate while we still want to address reasonable access to abutting properties. Also address what we can do to optimize the capacity and efficiency of that segment of roadway. In some cases that will be lengthening turn lanes. In some cases looking at median closures and the like. So that's things we're going to develop plans, work with the property owners, and see where we go from there. That's as quick as I can run through it. I'll leave it with you to look at. More important, obviously, is going to be the written words relative to an ordinance, and we'll try to get that to you soon. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. We're moving right along. We have a public utilties division update. MR. WIDES: Good afternoon. Tom Wides, for the record, from public utilities, interim administrator. This afternoon we wanted to give you a couple items. I've asked Roy Anderson to join us, our director of engineering. Roy's back in the back there. We want to talk to you about a couple items, give you the current state on what's going on with the impact fees, what's going on over the last six weeks since we went -- actually two months now since we've been to the board. And then separately from that we also wanted to give you an update about three of our major capital projects that we're working on, the North Wastewater Plant expansion, South Wastewater Plant expansion, and the South Water Plant. Page 14 February 6, 2002 But let me take you back for a moment to the impact fees. As we went to the board in December, approximately mid-December they, in fact, did adopt the impact fees as we had reported them to you here on our last occasion, and they also instructed us to meet with the -- in this case we ended up meeting with David Ellis and Tom Conrecode representing the CBIA. They at that -- in our meeting, which was in approximately early January, presented to us approximately seven pages of questions, clarifications, issues, et cetera. We took that back working with our consultants and have responded to those questions meeting again with Tom Conrecode and with David Ellis. What I will say to you is that particularly on the areas of population in particular, we did -- I guess the way I'd have to say it, we agreed to disagree on our approaches. Okay. We -- the way we put it together I think we've had some discussion on that. I do believe that Tom and David had other ways of looking at the information, and so we -- and again, in the end we did not agree on those. However, what we also found out as we went back to look through our data, we did find a water project for about $7.8 million that was counted twice in the -- in the calculations of the numbers. We've acknowledged that error, and we are reducing the water impact fees by $50 per ERC, and if you'll remember I believe there are approximately twenty-seven -- $2,740 per ERC. It'll be dropping to 2,690. The impact fees for the wastewater would be staying the same. We'll be taking that information back to the board on Tuesday to ask for a reduction in the water fees. And excuse me -- the water impact fees but not changing the wastewater impact fees. So that's where -- that's where we stand currently on the impact fee issue. Any questions you'd like to propose on that at this point? MR. SAVAGE: I'm going to ask you a question. MR. WIDES: Sure. Page 15 February 6, 2002 MR. SAVAGE: And we get tired of hearing me ask this question. Are we making any future development studies about wastewater -- I call it sewage, by the way -- instead of the millions and millions of millions of dollars on sewage plants, to take care of it some other way? When I talk about gray water and Mudd talked about it one day, oh, sometimes it'll punch the holes in septic tanks and all that. Seems to be a much more simple way of handling things like that now that they have all these septic tanks. We don't have to get into it today, but I'm always going to ask the question. MR. WIDES: I know you've asked the question in the past, and I understand there were some activities that were being considered on Marco -- Marco Island to drain off the liquids from the top of the septic tanks. At this point in time, that's not in our plans. That's not something that we're looking at. So I know you've asked the question before, and all I can respond at this point -- MR. SAVAGE: In another ten years, I'll still ask the same thing. MR. WIDES: Okay. How about in another 20 too. Okay. But hopefully, you know, things -- there may be other alternatives. At this point in time, we're looking at what I call using the line system to, in fact, capture that wastewater and run it through the plants. I think Roy may be able to comment a little bit on some of the things we're doing with the wastewater plants on the other side of that question. Other questions? MR. PEEPLES: I'm sure this has been answered and I just don't remember. How often will the water and wastewater impact fees be evaluated? MR. WIDES: Thank you. That's a good question. We will be updating the -- the master plan and the impact fee studies on an annual basis. That's what we've committed to the board. MR. PEEPLES: So annually you will go before the board and Page 16 February 6, 2002 either say either stay the same or lower? MR. WIDES: Up, down, stay the same -- that would be -- that is what we plan on doing. As you will note from our last discussions, I think the last one was done in approximately 1997. We got behind the curve. Okay. And that's where we really have to keep going now and keep these things in front of us. It's a planning tool. We said that a number of times. And we'll look at it this year, and we'll look at it again next year and see what our current projections are. And, you know, we've tried to stay tied out closely with the planning group as we got into the population estimates. As we go forward, we understand our role here with you folks. We will be back to, you know, keep you in the loop. We'll be back here on a monthly basis as -- as requested, and it makes sense. So that's the way we look to move forward. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any other questions? MR. WIDES: If I may turn it over to Roy Anderson to give you a little update on a few of our projects. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Tom. In answer to further response to Herb's question, one of our recommendations of the master planning -- and also it was raised by the -- by the CBIA was to look at the unsewered areas of the county to see what can be done in terms of alternatives to sewers in those areas so we do have that study programmed, and we'll be looking into the alternatives to sewer systems and perpetuating septic systems and improving management methods to assure their continuation into the future so we're not, you know, just building sewers. On the other side of the equation, I'd like to talk about three of our major projects in our program. And the first would be the South Wastewater Plant, the one that's down on -- it serves south county off of St. Andrews Road. We -- right at the present time we are -- we received draft permits from the DEP, and those are out for public Page 17 February 6, 2002 notice now for 45 days, and if that goes well we'll be able to authorize the full construction. We've selected the contractor, and we'll be moving forward on that, and the project will take about two and a half years to complete. That's a consent order project, and everything is lined up. We just need to get through the permits. The project itself, just as a refresher if you will, we're increasing the design capacity from 9.25 million gallons a day presently to 16 million gallons per day, and we're basically adding flow equalization for surge. You know, surge is during wet weather. We're adding additional biological treatment and more filtration, more sludge handling capacity, and it'll allow us to produce more reclaimed water. We're also putting in another deep injection well as required by state requirements. So that's basically that project. It's a $39 million construction project, and Montgomery Watson is the contractor, and Hole Montes is the design engineer. The South Water Treatment Plant is another project I'd like to talk about. That's the project that's located at 951 and Route 75 over near the landfill. The -- we're expanding the existing waste -- water treatment plant by 8 million gallons per day, and we're using as a source of water the lower Hawthorne brackish water supply which is consistent with South Florida's requirement to preserve the Tamiami Aquifer so -- because of the high salinity we need to have a higher level of treatment, so we are using reverse osmosis for that facility. The project cost is $25 million. Our deep injection wells are -- for disposal of the brine produced as part of the process is $6 million, and we're 20 percent complete. The project should be completed by January of 2003. The other major project I wanted to talk about is the North Wastewater Plant Project. That is in design stage right now, and it's going to start construction in November of this year. It's being broken into two phases. The first phase is an expansion to 24 million Page 18 February 6, 2002 gallons per day, and the second phase would be an expansion up to 30.6 million gallons per day. That will serve as -- serve the ultimate buildout. And basically the project involves expansion of the basic treatment we have out there now, the biological infiltration treatment at the facility, and that will allow us to produce that much more reclaimed water, so we'll be able to serve more of our reclaimed water customers. So that project is -- the total cost is $68 million, and it's broken into two parts, so that will be phased. The first phase will be completed in 2005, and the second phase will be completed in 2010. So hopefully that gives you a little feel for some of our projects. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Any questions? MR. PEEK: I have a question about the North Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project that was under construction a year ago that we had a lot of discussion about the completion of that, is that 100 percent complete now and certified and on line? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Yes. It's not 100 percent certified, but we have taken substantial occupancy of that facility, and we're just working out some minor punch-list items, but it's essentially complete -- essentially complete for all intents and purposes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Are we still under the consent order, or are we off of that? MR. ANDERSON: We're off that one, but we do have the others. We do have another one for the future expansion -- the project I mentioned and also for the expansion of the south plant, so the consent order still has those requirements, but we have satisfied that part of it. It was a very comprehensive consent order so -- but we're tracking on all those projects. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian. MR. JONES: Brian Jones. In March, I guess, when we have our peak flow and we had the problem last year, what excess do we Page 19 February 6, 2002 have of capacity? MR. ANDERSON: We've got 5 million gallons a day in excess capacity that was developed because of the north plant coming on line this past November. So that's substantially eased the pressure. We are still kind of close on the South Plant because we did have some delays in moving forward with that, but we do have -- we do have an equalization tank that's been put on line which will help. And we are also doing the emergency -- the emergency interconnect between the north system and south system, and that will allow us as a contingency to move flow from the south system to the north system if we have to. MR. JONES: You're comfortable that we're not going to have a problem here in the next few months? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. As long as all the systems work, yes. MR. MASTERS: When do you expect the interconnect to be completed? MR. ANDERSON: We're doing an emergency interconnect which should be done in a couple of weeks and then we're going to be doing the permanent interconnect. That'll take about another four months. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any other questions? Thank you. We are going to move into old business with presentation of the rural fringe, and who is making that presentation? MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger. I think everything we see we sent you folks a courtesy copy of this. I think you may have received it. I hope -- I see some on the table, and some didn't bring theirs with you. This is a dynamic living document. It changes as I'm holding it in my hand and will change even more, so tomorrow at the first public hearing -- which we want to give you a little overview of the foundation and the philosophies that are the building blocks of how we are proposing to resolve the issues raised in the final order for the Page 20 February 6, 2002 rural fringe portion of rural land assessment, about those 94,000 acres that I'm sure most of you are painfully familiar with at this point. I have a couple of handouts here just for your reference shows the level of public participation that has taken place over the last two years and, of course, in the final order a high level of public participation and the opportunity for the public to be heard both from the environmental impact and from private property rights was a major tenet of the final order. And this is a summation of the public participation activities through the past couple of years which are still ongoing up through the transmittal to BCC. And what I'm also going to give you here is a table of contents to demonstrate the dynamic nature of this process as it even goes forward to the first public hearing after having been heard at the EAC. Though that wasn't a required public hearing, we did take it to the EAC which also had recommendations. I just want to pass out an example to you here. We can answer some questions on these specific items. I'm only giving you the table of contents of the errata package that we have also prepared and will be handing out to the Planning Commission tomorrow. As a matter of fact, several of the documents on this table of contents are also dynamic and are changing as we speak. So -- which is the nature of the project, the project that we have before us. But, very briefly, what we're doing here -- and we have two of our major architects of the land use and of the environmental issues that we have to address. We have significant building blocks that are built on some concepts. Number one, that we have to direct in the 94,000 acres which is pretty well identified up here on the map for you in the areas on the -- as the rural fringe area of 94,000 acres. We have to redirect environmental pressures away from environmentally sensitive land into more appropriate what we call receiving areas or the sending and Page 21 February 6, 2002 receiving area concept. And in doing that -- and what we are trying to do is develop a set of development scenarios or building blocks which will incentivise the development of the more environmentally acceptable receiving areas and preserve the sending areas due to their identified environmental sensitivity. I can tell you that I will call the cornerstone of our entire proposal -- and in my opinion it will probably sink or swim at the government -- at the state government level -- is our proposed transfer of development rights program which was based on an analysis by Dr. Jim Nicholas at the University of Florida. Also you will hear from Bob Mulhere some details on clustering within the rural fringe, density blending relative to several projects that have property that have both land inside and outside the boundary, the 951 of the urban area and rural fringe. Rural villages are a concept which are endorsed by the final order as innovative techniques. We are also as part of this -- which we feel is necessary in order to make some of these incentive programs such as clustering and density blending and rural villages to be viable and also in combination with the TDR program incentives to achieve the necessary environmental standards. We're also proposing to extend the water and sewer district officially through a comprehensive plan amendment change and also -- and to be reflected in the water/sewer master plan to have water and sewer available under criteria in most of the black area demonstrated there on the right side which would also include OrangeTree which is not part, technically, of the rural fringe study area but would be part of an expanded water and sewer district under criteria. A lot of-- for a lot of folks initially, I can tell you that was a hot button item. You will hear about some more hot button issues that we'll be dealing with, but believe it or not we are supported not only, of course, by the development industry relative to viability of denser development than the present one unit to five acres Page 22 February 6, 2002 out there as incentives, but we're also supported by the environmental community relative to the possibility of centralized water and sewer as an alternative to septic and well. So if you don't have any specific questions on the process -- tomorrow, I'll tell you that we have the public hearing before the Planning Commission to be followed up with probably extensive revisions to the documents that we have transmitted to the Planning Commission with a transmittal public hearing by-- before the Board of County Commissioners at Max Hasse Park on the 27th. That will be followed by a 60-day review period at DCA followed by our opportunity to have 45 days to respond to their objections, recommendations, and comments report. And we're targeted or, I shall say, we are bound to an adoption schedule in the middle of June for these amendments for the rural fringe area. If there are not any questions, I'll turn it to the specific presentations on the environmental side and then the land-use side to Bill and Bob. Any questions on the generalities? Bill or Bob. MR. MULHERE: How much time you want to give me? Let's see, I can do three and a half years in 30 seconds. No problem. I think, unless you have specific questions, Bill's got a lot of data on the natural resource stuff, but let's just summarize by saying that the basis of this whole thing was natural resource protection. That's how we really got into it, and that was the basis for our evaluation, identifying the most valuable natural resource areas, particularly large connected systems based on primarily wetland, existence of wetland, existence of native vegetation and existence of listed species or listed species habitats. And the data sources that we used layered together with GIS systems told us these are the lands that have the most significant and environmental value. Those are the lands that you see up there identified as sending lands. If Bill -- maybe you can circle the primary sending lands. Page 23 February 6, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Transfer of development rights -- MR. MULHERE: The entire rural fringe area is approximately 96,300 acres. About 66,000 of those are now designated as sending lands. That's a little bit of a misnomer. I don't want to give you the wrong idea. Some of that 66,000 is already owned by a public entity and is in a conservation status. But all of-- a significant portion of that 66,000 is currently privately owned lands, so it's designated as sending. So what does that mean? Well, that means that you have the opportunity to have lands in the sending area -- first of all, you would be restricted. You have a very high natural resource native vegetation preservation standard, 80 percent sending land, 80 percent natural resource -- excuse me, native vegetation preservation requirement in sending lands, 90 percent in NRPA designated sending lands, N-R-P-A, Natural Resource Protection Area. There are three proposed natural resource protection areas that are already adopted on an interim basis. The recommendation is that they be adopted on a permanent basis. Those include Belle Meade, the CREW NRPA, and the North Belle Meade NRPA which is highlighted. In addition to having that high natural resource -- excuse me, I keep saying that -- native vegetation preservation standard, you also would only be able to develop one dwelling unit per lot or parcel in a sending area that existed at the date of adoption or prior to the date of adoption of the final order. You will, however, be able to transfer residential density off of those sending lands at the one dwelling unit per five-acre rate that you formally enjoyed in terms of density on sending plans. You will be able to transfer that density to the receiving lands, and the density in the receiving lands may be increased to one dwelling unit per acre, so a five-fold increase from the one-per-five to one-per-one to accommodate the transfer. Except Page 24 February 6, 2002 for an approved rural village, and in an approved rural village you have a minimum density of 2.5 -- what we're proposing is a minimum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre for the rural village and a maximum of 3.5. The size in rural villages is a minimum of 500 acres and a maximum of 2,000. And no rural village, as we propose it, can be located closer than one mile to another. So within those receiving lands, based on the market, you could go in and develop a rural village at a higher density, but in order -- the way that you achieve that density for rural villages, keep your base density at one per five. You then have to acquire .8 dwelling units per acre through the TDR process, and then you get a bonus for each TDR that you acquire of two dwelling units to achieve your minimum density, two per each TDR. I guess we can go into hot-button issues. I think, you know, we don't want -- MR. SCHMITT: Do you want to explain the TDR -- COURT REPORTER: Could you identify yourself, please. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. I'm the administrator for community development and environmental services. MR. MULHERE: you go to that slide? MR. SCHMITT: MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I can explain the TDR process. Can In simple terms. I think most of these guys are pretty familiar with it, although I'm not sure if everybody's familiar with it. That graphic up there pretty much explains it. Sending lands are environmentally sensitive. You may have formerly been able to develop 100 dwelling units at a time. Now you can only develop one because it's one parcel. But you can transfer the 100 that you formerly could develop into receiving lands. Page 25 February 6, 2002 Jim Nicholas looked at that and analyzed that and found a couple of things. Number one, he felt it was a very strong market for it here. I think that shouldn't come as a surprise to most of us within the rural fringe lands. We know that property values and demands has been pretty high. Second thing he provided us was -- with was a recommendation to how to make that process viable, and we've incorporated those recommendations into the growth management policies. That is that primarily the only way that you ought to be able to increase your density out there is primarily through TDRs. We do have some bonuses. As I said, rural villages is one example. I think-- I think maybe I would go to -- this spreadsheet here (indicating) shows you each of the -- yeah, there are -- currently there are both primary and secondary receiving lands. The difference between the two is that the natural resource values in those secondary receiving lands was significantly higher, so we allowed for a lesser transfer rate of those lands. However, as it tums out, the recommendation of the EAC and largely we concur with it, those four sections of secondary receiving lands, two in the Mirosal PUD, and they would not be able to utilize the transfer process anyway. The other two sections or the majority of the other two sections have been purchased by the school board, and the county and public entities are not permitted to use the process, so we may just do away with that secondary receiving designation. It would make it a lot simpler too. MR. JONES: I have a simplified question. If you can do the one unit on the five acres after you do your TDR or mitigation or whatever you call it, how many units are on that five acres? Still one? It's not an increase or density bonus? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure if I understand the question. MR. JONES: You started out with one unit per five acres. MR. MULHERE: Is it in a receiving or sending area? Page 26 February 6, 2002 MR. SAVAGE: Receiving. MR. JONES: Sending. We do the TDR -- MR. MULHERE: Transfer that unit to a receiving area. MR. JONES: What can you do with what's left? How many units on that? MR. MULHERE: Pick a hand. Zero. MR. JONES: It's gone from that? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. JONES: Okay. And you transferred it to the other? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. JONES: How many is that capable of producing? We've doubled the units on the receiving? MR. MULHERE: Well, you-- if you were transferring from one five-acre parcel to another five-acre parcel, one unit, yes, you've doubled the density. You've gone from one per five on a sending to one unit, moved over to receiving, and now you've got two per five on that. You doubled the densities. MR. JONES: You're just taking from one and giving to the other. We're not -- it's a net, no change. MR. MULHERE: It's no change when you look at the TDR process, yes. You're taking existing density and moving it from one location to another. MR. JONES: I was trying to see the net effect of all that, and basically it's a transfer, but you don't increase the net effect. MR. MULHERE: You don't unless you're talking about a rural village where there is a density increase. MR. JONES: Unless you're in a rural village. I got lost in the smoke and mirror stuff. I got it now. MR. MULHERE: No. It's a very, very complicated issue with a lot of facets, and it's hard to stuff it all into five minutes, but, you know, we're trying. I thought we'd go over the hot-button issues. Page 27 February 6, 2002 We've got a slide here that talks about some hot-button issues just so you'll be up to speed on them and issues that are likely to be under discussion by the Planning Commission tomorrow. Yes, sir. MR. SAVAGE: Bob, I see Receiving Area No. 1, is that correct, 28,000 acres, is that what I'm reading there, and 3,000 acres? Is that the acreage of that area in this county, or are we talking -- MR. MULHERE: Total acreage of receiving lands is about 32,000 acres. MR. SAVAGE: Twenty-eight and three -- MR. MULHERE: There are none that big, not any single one is that big. MR. LORENZ: The total primary receiving lands is close to 30,000, so when you add them all -- MR. MULHERE: What you probably saw was the primary and secondary size. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. MULHERE: It's been a long process. As we move through this process, I think it's important to repeat the fact that, as Stan indicated, at this point other than some issues, which I'm not surprised there are some issues, there is general concensus of EAC, they made a number of recommendations for changes but supported the concepts. Maybe we can go over some of their recommendations in this hot-button issue slide here. But also the intervenors, the Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audobon Society, have both supported staff recommendations with some concerns. Probably the primary concern that both of those to you that the intervenors and the EAC raised was the question of being able to regulate agriculture in sending lands. Remember we said sending lands were the most valuable natural resource and habitat areas. But under the advice of our outside counsel, Nancy Lenanne and Marty Chumbler from Carlton Fields, and under the provisions of the Right Page 28 February 6, 2002 to Farm Act, we are precluded from outright restricting agriculture that's consistent with the Right to Farm Act even in those environmentally sensitive lands. The EAC hasn't supported that, but they still want to find a way to regulate agriculture in those sending lands and, frankly, the staff and myself we feel the same way because you're trying to protect the land. You certainly don't want it to be cleared for agricultural purposes; however, according to the law, we are precluded from adopting restrictions that would regulate agriculture if it met that -- provisions of the Right to Farm Act, and largely that means there are best management practices adopted for a type of agriculture. CHAIRMAN LONGO: What requires it to be farmland basically? It already has to be in existence as farmland? MR. MULHERE: No. They can clear new land under the Right to Farm Act. Now, what we have done is we've enacted some -- MR. LORENZ: Defined as use. MR. MULHERE: Defined as a use. We have adopted some -- some voluntary restrictions associated with TDR process, and that we can do. So that if you own land in a sending area and you transfer units out, then you voluntarily give up the right to farm and clear as part of that transfer process, and that we have included as part of our proposal. So that's one issue. I know there was some question on that one. MR. ESPINAR: If I may interject here. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco, go ahead. MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. Bob is right, and the Right to Farm Act pretty much if you own agriculturally zoned land and you're going to convert it to agriculture, you can just go in there and clear it. Okay. You don't have no preservation requirements at all. However, the TDR program, as I see it, is not infringing on the Right to Farm Act. The way this document is written, I can go out there Page 29 February 6, 2002 right now, clear my land for agriculture, have it a bona fide agricultural use, and still qualify for TDRs. I think that the TDR program is an incentive for the preservation of the land so, in essense, we're not infringing on the Right to Farm Act. What we're saying is, you want to farm it, go right ahead. You want to clear it, by all means. That's your right to do it, but if you do that, then you lost your right for TDRs, and that in this document it's not mentioned. MR. MULHERE: Well, it does mention it in that document, but it's now incorporated into our recommendations. But it's a little different than what you just said, but since you raised the issue, as you may or may not know, but currently the Land Development Code prohibits land that has been cleared for agricultural purposes without a clearing permit from being converted to another use or rezoned for a period of ten years. MR. SAVAGE: From what date? MR. MULHERE: From the date it was cleared. MR. SAVAGE: I'm glad to hear that. MR. MULHERE: Now, there's a reason for that. The reason is that you want to prohibit people from going in and just clearing the whole thing ostensibly for agricultural purposes and then not having to meet your preservation standards, but really the reason was they wanted to develop it. MR. SAVAGE: My best point of that is you go to Dade County or down Kendall Drive, go out there in the west area, Crone Avenue, all of that agriculture is going for development of properties by -- MR. MULHERE: So what we would propose is to extend that - - and this may not go as far as you'd like for it to go, but what we are proposing at this point is to extend that ten-year prohibition also to a transfer in development rights. If you choose to clear your land in a sending area for agricultural purposes, you would be precluded from Page 30 February 6, 2002 transferring units for that same ten-year period that you're precluded from clearing. So it is a disincentive. MR. PEEPLES: I think very similar to Marco and that is, if you have the Right to Farm Act, I think that would supercede any precedence over the county ordinance establishing this TDR. You're talking about eliminating the ability to farm and transfer TDRs. I mean, that's what you -- that's what you want to do. MR. MULHERE: No, it's purely voluntary. So you can -- you can go in and clear and farm. We've already run it through our attorneys; it's purely voluntary to TDR process units off then you also -- in the after condition you also give up the right to farm. MR. PEEPLES: But do you have legal opinion that says you have the right to waive your rights under the Right to Farm Act? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: So you don't end up with somebody transferring the TDRs and then comes back two years later and says, "I want to clear it." MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Blair. MR. ESPINAR: Real quickly here, an individual, in essence, may not clear their land, still come in under the eyes of silviculture, forestry, harvest all the mature Cypress and pines from a parcel of land that's not technically cleared, and they still can qualify for TDRs, but yet the ecological damage has already been created, and it's the same thing by the incentive. By moving the ability to get TDRs from 10 years to 25 years, the damage -- the ecological damage that's been done. The reason for this is to encourage preservation of lands. I mean, so I clear the land, and I wait for 25 years. If I'm a speculator, I have to have sufficient amount of money, sobeit. I cleared. I've got it in bona fide agricultural use, and it's a win-win for me. Not only do I get my agricultural use for 25 years, I Page 31 February 6, 2002 still qualify for my TDRs. MR. MULHERE: I understand what you're saying. I think what Marco's point is, if I can reiterate it, is he thinks if basically you clear for agricultural purposes, you should be precluded from ever participating in TDRs. And, hey, you know, I don't know if we're taking motions here or if this is informational, but you can go ahead. MR. PEEPLES: It's informational. We have questions. MR. MULHERE: That's no problem. I'm just saying we can carry whatever you want to do, but I think that's the difference. We think that -- by the way, as far as silviculture and those other types of uses, we are proposing to prepare language that would prepare -- that would include that in that same prohibition for ten years, but the question is, is that sufficient enough disincentive, I think, is your point, and I understand that. MR. MASTERS: Aren't there other folks in the environmental community questioning this too in the other committees, or have they kind of gotten over that? MR. MULHERE: Ag clearing in sending lands is a concern for all as far as I can tell in the environmental groups. And, you know, the staff recommendation was to prohibit it. However, subsequent to that we got a legal opinion that said you cannot do that. So it's really going to be a policy decision for the board. MR. ESPINAR: Clarification though, but the legal -- the legal interpretation was surrounding the Right to Farm Act and prohibiting individuals from farming. This is a voluntary program. MR. MULHERE: We can do that. We can do that. MR. ESPINAR: It's either-or. We're not denying the ability of farming. We're saying, if you want to farm, by all means. Hey, I'm an old farmer-- farm boy. I was raised on chicken farms so, you know, I'm in favor of Florida agricultural, but to me it's like either-or, either you preserve the land or you put it into bona fide agricultural Page 32 February 6, 2002 use. MR. MULHERE: I guess I wasn't clear. That's exactly what I was saying. You can't prohibit them from farming, but we can put restrictions of voluntarily through the TDR process. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian. MR. JONES: Just a comment. I think since the advent of NAFTA the agricultural production business has seen a great exodus out of Immokalee due to labor costs. I think you're looking at something that the market forces are dictating that it's going out of this country or offshore, so you're looking at it's not economically viable to do something that you're not going to generate a profit. You're fixing something that's not broken, and I don't think it will be for the foreseeable future unless there's a major economic policy change with Mexico. MR. MULHERE: That's an extremely good point that I failed to mention, that when you look at the agricultural operations in Collier County -- by the way, the final order requires us in addition to protecting natural resources to identify measures to protect prime or unique agricultural opportunity and to identify opportunities for converting other lands. Now, that's a second component, protecting prime or unique agricultural operations and economic viability of agriculture. It's our opinion and the staff's opinion and my opinion looking at the data that there is a relatively small amount of agriculture when you look at the large-scale picture in the study area in the fringe. About 3 percent of intensive agriculture takes place in the fringe; the other 97 percent occurs in the eastern lands portion. And we've really deferred the agricultural protection issue to the eastern lands portion where it really belongs. So I think your point is really well taken. I mean, what you're saying there may not even be a problem here relative to clearing of these sensitive lands in the fringe. But the environmental Page 33 February 6, 2002 groups have raised the issue, and we're trying to address it. Let me go back to the hot-button issues. Allowable locations and TDRs for golf courses. Golf courses are permitted as a use in receiving lands. They're prohibited as a use in sending lands. One of the issues that's been raised by several groups and individuals and even was raised in some preliminary discussions with DCA was the viability of that TDR process. If someone can just go out and buy 300 acres of land and put a golf course on it and build million-dollar homes at one per five, there may not be any incentive for them to buy in the TDRs. And Twin Eagles is a pretty good example of the fact that there is a viable market out there. However, Nicholas specifically looked at this issue, and he said, "Look, developers are just as much rational economic purchasers as anybody else. Maybe that's all they could do then, but if they can do more through TDR process and there's a viable market, they are going to use these TDRs." And his opinion is that there is a viable market and that they will achieve more value, income, economic benefit from utilizing the TDR process. However, the degree to which we maximize utilization of that TDR process, that's a valid point and raised by EAC today, and they supported establishing a minimum density for golf courses and residential golf course communities. Example would be, say, .5 dwelling units per acre for a residential golf course community, so the difference between the one per five and that minimum density would have to be a policy consideration for the board. MR. PEEPLES: The idea, then, is to force developers to acquire TDRs if they have a low-density project to acquire TDRs for their own use. MR. MULHERE: No, they would use them, I'm sure, if they acquired them. MR. PEEPLES: I wouldn't bet on that. I mean, it would depend Page 34 February 6, 2002 on what type of project. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a good question, but yes, that would be -- I wouldn't say that you would have you to say they would or wouldn't use them. Whether they use them or not I guess would be part of the question, but maybe they would. MR. PEEPLES: The policy is to create a demand for TDRs? MR. MULHERE: To enhance the market demand for TDRs. Maybe ensure would be a better word. Again, Nicholas did not feel that that was necessary, and we have not currently recommended that but he's raised this issue, and it will be considered. MR. PEEPLES: Follow up, has there been any analysis of the development that's going on in the rural fringe now of how much of it is very low density with single-family houses zoned around the golf course and how much of it is at a higher density because of the mix of single family and multi-family around the golf course? Is there any kind of analysis? MR. MULHERE: No, there's none. There's none because that wasn't permitted as a land use within the underlying rural ag district out there. It's only there for the mixed-use rural village. All you could build out there was low-density single family. MR. PEEPLES: One five-acre. MR. MULHERE: You could cluster, but there's only one example of that that's not even clustered because, remember, it's these big five-acre tracts -- MR. PEEPLES: I remember. MR. MULHERE: Golf courses. MR. PEEPLES: He's talking about multi-family. MR. SAVAGE: When we said 30,000 acres of receiving lands, how many acres have we got in the sending? MR. MULHERE: Well, the total is about -- MR. LORENZ: 20,000. Page 35 February 6, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Of privately owned. MR. SAVAGE: 20,000? 20,000. So it's interesting about TDRs, when you talk TDRs the sending area into the receiving area and you divide, what, five acres per house, whatever it is, in the receiving area. How many houses would that be, 6,000 in the receiving area, five acres per house. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, five acres per dwelling unit divided by-- MR. SAVAGE: 6,000 residences. If you've got TDRs, it's double that. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. SAVAGE: I wonder if we ever talked about how many acres -- how much we're talking about here in terms of the future development of Marco -- Marco Island -- of Collier County. MR. MULHERE: We did talk. We talked about it a lot over three years. You know, Herb, the thing is we're trying to achieve some balance. Okay. We're taking away a huge amount of rights for private property owners, and we're trying to provide some balance. Nothing in the final order said that we couldn't identify. In fact, the final order called for us to identify land more appropriate for conversion to another use. We've done that. We've done that primarily on the basis of natural resource protection strategies, which is really the reason we got this. So, yes, in certain areas out there we're proposing a higher density for a lot of reasons. I mean-- CHAIRMAN LONGO: We got to move along. MR. MULHERE: Anyway, that's an issue. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of Bob? MR. MULHERE: Sure. MR. FEDER: Bob, on this one right here, is there any consideration -- obviously, you've got some habitat or more Page 36 February 6, 2002 environmentally sensitive in that sending land. You also have a desire to create, shall I say, somewhat of a buffer from your established village rather than sprawl. Has there been any consideration of identifying some of those that may be allowing almost a doubling of that TDR capabilities such that you make those the first ones that might be sent the receiving I get double the value? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We did do that. I don't know if you-- you might not -- if you establish a rural village for every unit that you purchase, you get a bonus of two units. MR. FEDER: But I'm saying something different. If I got portions of the sending area that I particularly want to put in preservation, either because of their natural resource issue or because they serve as a buffer so that I get the village concept rather than sprawl concept. MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. We did look at that. In fact, we posed that originally, but when we went and worked with Jim Nicholas he said, "Look, this is a relatively small -- on the large scale it's relatively small," and the ecological values are pretty constant in the sending lands. They are all really highly valuable. One is not greater or lesser than the other on the large scale. MR. FEDER: I'm being arbitrary then. MR. MULHERE: And his recommendation was that we not create a multiplier, that it be a one-to-one basis. MR. FEDER: I'm being arbitrary, but what about for that one mile where you had an urban boundary now. For that one mile on that side of that urban boundary, you effectively try to discourage sprawl, if you will, having almost a doubling for that first mile of transfer development from the sending. Just a thought. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, it's a good thought, except that by prohibiting the development except for one -- we are -- we are -- we are discouraging the sprawl in that area. I mean, we are. There is Page 37 February 6, 2002 a recommendation that's going to come up about a one-mile strip, not from us, but from Tim Hancock on behalf of a property owner who wishes to take a portion of the South Belle Meade NRPA out and create a transition zone. MR. LORENZ: In that sending area there, you have an 80 percent preservation standard, and you also have a whole list of uses that are no longer going to be allowed. MR. MULHERE: Right. So we think we're addressing the sprawl that way. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: You're welcome. MR. MULHERE: The other issues real briefly, I talked about the rural villages. I think an issue will be the density and the size of location restrictions, and I think we do require a comprehensive full- blown rezone in the comprehensive public facility and public services impact analysis, transportation analysis, water, sewer, the whole works, sheriff, the whole deal. Wetland protection is up there, but it's really less of a hot-button issue at this point in time. I think. We haven't -- you know, we haven't seen a great deal -- DAC at one point was a very controversial issue, and they have now recommended approval. I know you've got some specific stuff, but-- you know, so that's pretty much it. I know, Marco, you have specific stuff. MR. ESPINAR: Yeah. Just to bring you up to speed on a few things. One of them is Policy 6.1.1; it states vegetation communities having 75 percent or less -- sorry, I apologize to Bill. He sat with me and has gone through all this, so he has to listen to it twice, but it states vegetation communities having 75 percent or less canopy coverage of malaleuca or exotics considered native habitat. But when you start getting into the wetland segment of this, it says, wetlands having a wetland functionality assessment score of at least a Page 38 February 6, 2002 .5, and this .5 is utilizing a WRAP score, and the WRAP score is a qualitative way of trying to assess the type of wetland. And they stated they're going to utilize a .5. A .5 is higher than a 75 percent of exotic coverage. So in itself right there is a conflict. One says native habitat of 75 percent exotics or less, but yet when you get to the wetland portion, it says we have to preserve wetlands of a .5 or greater. Bill and I sat through some of this, and I'll be real brief. The WRAP scores, like I said, is a qualitative analysis, and it's supposed to be from zero to one, but it really is not. It's really .25 to a .9, a .9 being like the Everglades and .25 is a worst-case scenario. So if you just go by the mathematics alone just by taking the mean mathematics, that will fall out to a .58. Okay. But when you're looking at this stuff ecologically, you know, a .60 or .65 is a wetland that can be restored and replanted and have some functionality restored to it. At a .5 it's gone. It's gone. Not only that, Water Management District and the Corps will tell us probably at that point to mitigate the entire wetland off site because the wetland at that level is so degraded it's not worth saving. So what we're going to have to do is double jeopardy here. We'll have to mitigate for the entire wetland off site, but then we have to preserve it on site and restore it. MR. PEEPLES: That's -- it's different between what the county's going to require and what the District and Corps will require. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Bill. MR. LORENZ: We've talked about it. I'm very interested in reviewing the .5, and we've had some other consultants talk about settling around the .6 number. So that's something that -- that still could change. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco, for the sake of time, are these items points of contention that should be brought up tomorrow or really needs to go before this committee? Page 39 February 6, 2002 MR. ESPINAR: This is -- I apologize. I typed this up really fast. These are my concerns that I forwarded to Bill, and Bill and I sat through and looked at it. You guys have a copy. At your leisure you want to look through them. There are some conflicts and things that for instance -- you know, one of the statements is Port of the Isles, you know, homesites and stuff like that where there used to be language that vested them in there, and I don't see it in here and stuff but -- yeah, at your leisure you can go through here and read this. Really the hot topic issue is -- I want to bring another issue up in here, and that is we're going to be required to come in about -- when you go in for a rezone, okay, you're going to have to have about two thirds of your ERP, Environmental Resource Permit, in line before even coming in for a rezone. Okay. So, in other words, if I've got a parcel of land, I'm going to have to go to the Water Management District and to the Corps first, go through the permitting process, and when I'm almost at the end, then I come in and see if I can get it rezoned. I think that's kind of backwards, because nobody's going to spend thousands of dollars of engineering design and the hope -- and go through the whole process only to go to a public hearing for it to be rejected. Just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Good point. Okay. MR. ESPINAR: The other issue, real quickly, back to the wetland, it states in this .5 or greater shall be preserved. Okay. I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in this, and that's if I've got a site and I've gopher tortoises on the site and a wetland and I've got, for instance, six or seven turtles, my density is five turtles per acre -- per acre, so in that case I'm going to have to set aside two acres to meet my gopher tortoise habitat preservation requirement on top of my wetland preservation requirement. Okay. And so if I have a wetland that's, you know, of poor quality, not only do I have to restore it, then I have to save for my turtles. I think priorities should be given to, Page 40 February 6, 2002 you know, like the listed species in this situation and forget the wetland. MR. PEEK: Can you buy a TDR and transfer development rights for those turtles? MR. PEEPLES: Actually, the state allows that. I don't know if the county does. CHAIRMAN LONGO. Dalas. MR. DISNEY: Gopher tortoises live on upland fill near the wetlands? MR. ESPINAR: No, they don't. So I have to set my upland aside and my wetland also. MR. DISNEY: I did have a question, though, for Bob, if I may. I haven't followed the process closely at all, so I'm not really attuned to this. The TDRs, that's going to develop into a commodity that becomes saleable at, I presume, some market rate, whatever that current property owner can get to sell those development rights in order to not use that property. MR. MULHERE: Potentially what the current property owner can get, based on the recommendation of Nicholas, to keep the county and the government out of it at as much as possible, at least in terms of setting what the market rate is. It doesn't mean that you couldn't create a bank and, in fact, that is our recommendation to the board for handling those types of things. MR. DISNEY: My second question, how do you get and keep track of who sold what rights and how that process -- MR. MULHERE: That needs to be handled. But I just wanted to add in addition to that recommendation to create a bank, step two is going to be the implementation of the LDR, so that's part of the process that has to be developed. One of the things that's been an element where these things have been very successful has been the TDR bank and also an acquisition up front funded by generally the Page 41 February 6, 2002 government to acquire some number of those to set a basis -- an economic basis for what that value might be. And so those are contained within as options and recommendations of the policies that we've set forward. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. I'm sorry. We could keep on going on, but we need to move on the agenda. Bob, is there anymore contentious points that we need to really be aware of?. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm sure we'll hear more tomorrow. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. We're going to move on to subcommittee reports. Land development regulation. Bob Duane's not here. Nothing. Okay. I'll skip construction code for a moment, go to utility code. Tom. MR. MASTERS: We did have a meeting. I didn't attend. Minutes were handed out, I believe. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Are there any questions or discussion on the subcommittee meeting minutes? MR. MASTERS: None, other than Justin Martin is on the committee. He'll be our new spokesman. He's not here to defend himself. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'm going to combine the construction code and ad hoc. Couple things real quick on ad hoc. We do have our next meeting set for February 13th at three o'clock. We're on the verge of establishing our service for the planning side of the Community Development Services. On the construction code side, we are -- didn't have a meeting except for ad hoc. I'm going to ask Patrick White to comment on our FEMA submittals and just presently where we are with a response from FEMA if there is one. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. To quote a well-worn phrase, the check is in the mail, that is the money for the FEMA to process a Freedom of Information Act request that Page 42 February 6, 2002 involves data from -- I think it's a half dozen or so sites around the southeastern coastal areas that we believe will substantiate another point that we've made on appeal. The appeal was timely filed. The board ratified that filing, as did the City of Naples. We're at this point anticipating that our appellate package is being reviewed and that the appellate folks reviewing it are also the ones who are essentially responsible for picking up the data pertinent to our FOI, Freedom of Information Act request. So we're not anticipating hearing anything from them for probably weeks, if not months. We're hoping to have the Freedom of Information back relatively soon, and once we have it we're going to analyze to determine whether it does, indeed, support our contentions raised on appeal. And if there is more in the future, if it comes up I'll provide you an update by way of a memo certainly any future updates of these meetings. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Dalas, is there anything else that you recall from the ad hoc? MR. DISNEY: Well, just from the ad hoc, I did a followup with Denny on level of service and some time frames suggested as a result of the conversations we have had, so that is in the process, and hopefully on the 13th we're going to see something. Denny. MR. BAKER: I sent out an e-mail to all the ad hoc members on Thursday or Friday of last week covering both the permitting and the planning side. You should have received that e-mail. MR. DISNEY: I did not receive that e-mail. MR. BAKER: I will resend that. A lot of funky things were going on. I will resend it. If you don't get it within a couple days, please call me. I will get you a hard copy. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Any new business? Norm. MR. FEDER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I had noted to you some dates that were provided to me, and on there was the 14th Page 43 February 6, 2002 DSAC subcommittee relative to the transportation modification and Land Development Code. I don't know exactly how I got that, but I figure I'll raise it to this group. Is there the subcommittee one to be performed on the 14th, the date that was changed to the 13th or to a different date? MR. PEEPLES: This is LDC amendment; correct? MR. FEDER: Yes. Land Development Code amendments, yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I had March 27th. I had a phone call for March 27th on the LDC amendments. MR. ESPINAR: At 9:30. MR. FEDER: I just got an e-mail. Joe, we both got it. That e-mail was telling me that March 13th I was going to the board, so I'm talking March 22nd coming to you. I sure haven't done it quite the way I think we both want the process to go. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. We might want to reconfirm that, Joe. Go over the schedule for LDC. MR. FEDER: Just tell me and we'll be there. What I give you is the concepts. I want to give you the materials as soon as we have it. MR. MASTERS: The good news is that committee's in place. MR. FEDER: Good. Good. CHAIRMAN LONGO: New business. MR. SCHMITT: I've got one question, Dino. I don't know if you received the letter yet, but had the board yet considered who they'll nominate on the panel for the hearing examiner position. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I was going to respond to that. We did actually vote last month. Bruce Anderson is the representative. MR. SCHMITT: We talked about that, and we were going to confirm that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: It was confirmed through the meeting Page 44 February 6, 2002 minutes. There was a motion made and passed. Bruce accepted that -- that position. I just clarified with you that he did not have to be a member of DSAC, but he is a certified representative. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The letter didn't specify the person, or if I'm incorrect legally the board did not specify it had to be a sitting member of the DSAC and just a nominee from the DSAC. MR. WHITE: I believe that's correct. MR. SCHMITT: So we'll go about with that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Very good. MR. MASTERS: Just to reiterate, the reason for doing that is that Bruce has had such an extensive history with that whole process that we felt he was the most qualified to do that. MR. SCHMITT: If that's your collective approval, then that's who I forward to the county manager. CHAIRMAN LONGO: You will accept that as my official -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I do. I will take care of it from there. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Moving on. Committee member comments starting with Tom. MR. MASTERS: They've already left, but just on the record I'd like to go ahead and commend everybody that worked on the rural fringe committee over the last three and a half years. I think there is a lot that's gone into it. It may not be perfect, and I'm sure by the time it gets finalized it still won't be perfect, but good job. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian. MR. JONES: Concerning transportation at the STP review level there, we have several STPs on top of the other contractors who -- and land planners doing particularly the commercial and industrial -- there are -- there are a lot of, I guess, new rules or that the way it was done before is being modified. Because we have new people and so forth coming on board, the timing could not have been worse for that because of the deadline. We're trying to get the STPs done. We have Page 45 February 6, 2002 a deadline less than a month away for this new building code, and we're doing two and three revisions with engineering staff, and they said, "We don't know the engineers and the planners didn't know about the requirements." And in some cases they feel they're arbitrary or where does it say this in the book, but -- MR. FEDER: We're not following any that aren't in current land development. Please do this, I will give you my card. Give me a call. Any project you have out there that you think is held up and we need to talk about schedule, I'll be happy to talk to you. But what I will tell you, for instance, traffic impact statements, they've always been a requirement. They weren't necessarily required, but they've always been a requirement. So there are some things that we're requiring now be done that are not different than what was in the record. MR. JONES: Do they serve -- if you have a mom-and pop 2000-foot store, commercial, is it necessary to have a traffic impact study for that? MR. FEDER: Let me see what the nature of what you're talking about, and obviously it's modified as to what's required, yes. MR. WHITE: Typically, just to brief this committee, traffic impact statement is something that's more so done in a rezoning approval state in the development cycle. I think what you're hearing feedback on is more likely the requirement that's been in the code and is being applied at this point in time for an assessment, traffic assessment, TA, and it looks more at site-access-related issues and the need for perhaps any offsite mitigation. MR. FEDER: And if it's TA, that's good-- MR. SAVAGE: Why isn't the language simple enough to understand that? MR. FEDER: That's what we're trying to do in changing the code so we'll get to that, but I can show you where it's in there and Page 46 February 6, 2002 requires a TA, and that's basically to try and look at access points and even the ma and pa has an access point that we need to look at. Now, obviously, there's a difference in that and a major PUD. MR. JONES: There's basically a major log jam because of this transportation -- you know, the new guy on the block and he does things, which is understandable. If the design community can be made aware of the new standards that's -- MR. FEDER: By all means. MR. JONES: -- and they're not new, they were always there, but now these are the ones that you go by. MR. FEDER: By all means, and any time you want to come in, and we'll sit down with you and make sure what you're working up is what you need to get through. I will tell you once we dispense with the "why do I have to do this," I assure you folks are trying to help you go through the process to get done what you need to get done. MR. WHITE: Just so that the record's clear, the county itself has gone through and done precisely those things because those are the requirements with its own bill. MR. JONES: One last comment. Marco, I appreciate what you did in identifying this, for example, the expense, and you do all this, and then you go and get this approval and this approval, and then they say no when you get there after you already incurred all this. There needs to be some better sequencing done there to make it logical. Last year in the industrial parks you had a zero side-yard setback. That was eliminated, and we said, "Now it's going to be ten feet. We're going to take away your ten feet, but we're going to give you -- instead of the 50-foot front-yard setback, we're going to make it 25. So we're going to take from you here. We're going to give to you there." All sounds good. Now, transportation says you need a 50-foot throat depth. That's exactly the thing that you point out, so Page 47 February 6, 2002 what they gave us -- who got hurt? his net buildable area. screwed. MR. SAVAGE: The landowner got hurt. He lost So all the landowners in that, they got Who in the world said ten feet setback? MR. JONES: We did. We did. We approved it, and what we didn't know was the other part of the equation, and that's what we have to be careful of when we pass stuff, that there's not flies in the ointment somewhere else. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. JONES: Because we did a disservice to all the landholders out there that we're beholden to protect and to look after in the balance of development and construction. MR. WHITE: This might be a good point. You asked me on the last meeting to provide a copy of what the relevant county code provisions are with respect to the creation and other aspects of the operation of this committee, and I'm going to do the same at this time. I think the point of any discussion is probably mooted by the fact that you had the presentation that was the subject of the request, so I'm going to shut up. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Perry. MR. PEEPLES: I have no comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Herb. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to take an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank utilities and transportation. What a tremendous presentation. I think it was just absolutely well worthwhile, both of them. Not only that but even Bob Mulhere -- but it was excellent. I know I wanted to say thank you. I'd do that for you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Dalas. MR. DISNEY: Just one comment, that I've been invited to Page 48 February 6, 2002 participate in a early review of Revision 2.8 of the LDC which is the architectural review standards, and if anybody has any comments related to those, I will speed your work or lessen your design requirements. I'd be happy to take those comments for you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Tom. MR. PEEK: One question. Has the county commission taken an action to approve members to this committee yet? CHAIRMAN LONGO: I need to answer that. MR. SAVAGE: My name was not on the roster, Tom, so evidently it hasn't, nor were the other ones so ... CHAIRMAN LONGO: That would have been a good question for Joe Schmitt or someone else I guess. MR. WHITE: In lieu of, I do not know if it's on this upcoming agenda, but more likely than not it should be by the end of the month. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Who's responsible for that to make sure that happens? MR. BAKER: Joe Schmitt's office. MR. WHITE: There's two levels. There's the immediate staff person who is the liaison to your particular committee, and then there's Sue. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco. MR. ESPINAR: On the same note that Tom was saying, a lot of people have worked really hard on trying to work on this rural fringe and Growth Management Plan, but I stress -- and the rush to get this product out that the fine details will kill us. You know, and the rush to put this thing out we really need to look at this very carefully, and you have to have a product that works. I mean -- I mean just that physically works. I mean, that the system can work. The way I see it right now, I don't see how some of this stuff can be implemented. CHAIRMAN LONGO: For myself, I will echo those sentiments as well. On the sewer and water impact fees, we found almost $8 Page 49 February 6, 2002 million which was double counted somehow in the rush of things. I encourage everybody to keep on keeping on, but at least look at what we're doing in a little more detail. Any other committee comments? Motion to adjourn. MR. DISNEY: So moved. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All right. So There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:10 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DINO LONGO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 50