Loading...
EAC Minutes 02/06/2002 RFebruary 6, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 6, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government comPlex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson Alfred F. Gal, Jr. William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro Larry Stone NOT PRESENT: Thomas W. Sansbury ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Burgeson, Env. Specialist, Dev. Serv. Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 II. III. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA February 6, 2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of January 2, 2002 Meeting Minutes A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-1842 "East Gateway PUD" Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East B. Preliminary Subdivision Plat No. PSP-2001-AR-1566 "Hemingway Place PSP" Section 22, township 49 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Growth Management Update VIII. Subcommittee Report IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: please. MS. BURGESON: Hill? MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARIJSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: call, CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone? MR. STONE: Here. MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: The meeting will come to order. The roll Sansbury has an excused absence. Here. Santoro? Coe? And Soling has resigned from the EAC. Any changes to the agenda at all? I'd like to add an item to be heard prior to the growth management plan issues. And that is, we need this EAC to recommend appointment of an EAC member to the hearing examiner advisory committee. BCC created a resolution. Joseph Schmitt, who is our administrator of Community Development, Environmental Services, who I'm not sure has actually been officially introduced to this EAC yet--Were you not here for the January meeting. MR. SCHMITT: I was not here during the last meeting. MS. BURGESON: This is Joseph K. Schmitt, Collier County Community Development, Environmental Services' new administrator. And the executive summary was to appoint a Page 2 February 6, 2002 team -- I believe it was a five- or seven-member team to work on the hearing examiner, creating that job-title description and going through the applicants as they come in. MR. HILL: Didn't we appoint Tom Sansbury last year? MS. BURGESON: No. That was -- that was for a different committee. That was for the -- for the -- might even have been for the administrator position. CHAIRMAN COE: Where do you want to put that on the -- right now? MS. BURGESON: We could do that now, if you want, if there's anybody interested in-- in -- CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. I'd like to volunteer for it. Do we have anybody else? MR. STONE: No. MR. CARLSON: I make a motion that Mickey Coe be our representative on that committee. MS. LYNNE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN COE: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COE: Yes. MR. WHITE: While you're still on approval of agenda, I believe that there's a request from one of the applicants. MR. NADEAU: Yes. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RWA. We are first on the agenda. Unfortunately, my environmental consultants have not arrived yet from coming down from Page 3 February 6, 2002 Fort Myers. I'd simply request that you take the PSP first, if possible, or I could start my presentation from a planning perspective as well as water management, and then we would hope that they would show up. CHAIRMAN COE: I don't have any problems with that. Is PSP prepared? You are prepared at this time to go ahead of-- MR. LENBERGER: Who, us? Yeah. MS. BURGESON: Mickey-- CHAIRMAN COE: You are prepared? All right. I have no problems with that. MS. BURGESON: They're scheduled second. CHAIRMAN COE: I realize that, but he's asking to change the agenda at this particular point, and we need to change it-- approve it before we continue on. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry, Dwight. As I was talking, I wasn't sure what you were requesting. MR. NADEAU: Passarella isn't here yet. MS. BURGESON: Okay. So you were asking to be placed at the very end of the agenda? MR. NADEAU: No. Just after the PSP. I'm hoping that they're going to get here. MR. WHITE: They'd like to switch 4-A and 4-B. CHAIRMAN COE: He's proposing that the PSP goes first and the PUD goes second. MS. BURGESON: Okay. It'll probably take us a full half an hour to get through the continued growth-management issues. And then-- CHAIRMAN COE: We'll just see where we are at that point. MR. NADEAU: So you are doing GMP first? Page 4 February 6, 2002 MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. NADEAU: Oh, okay. MR. WHITE: Okay. My understanding from looking at the agenda was that that was Item No. 6. MS. BURGESON: The latest petitions, yes. MR. WHITE: My apologies. Seven. Growth-management update. MS. BURGESON: We -- I'm sorry. There was a new agenda that was e-mailed out, Patrick. I -- MR. WHITE: I apologize. MR. HILL: Did we not receive January 2nd minutes? December 5th, we're in-- CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. The only minutes we've received have been December's. MS. BURGESON: We'll make sure that the minutes -- you're saying you didn't get the January EAC minutes? Okay. We'll make sure that they get placed in the -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, we're going to have to change Number 3 from January 2nd to December minutes. MS. BURGESON: Okay. Were -- were the December minutes -- they were probably already approved, so you would just want -- want to delete that item, and we'll -- we'll make sure that they get mailed with the next package. I have extra copies of the items to be discussed under the Growth Management Plan Amendment. Review of the EAC motions. I'd like to take first. Is there any -- any EAC members that need a copy of that? Has everyone had an opportunity to take a look at those motions to review them and if there are any questions? I think that's probably the easiest -- easiest Page 5 February 6, 2002 way to handle that. These are the 17 motions that the EAC made at their special January 23rd meeting. Oh, I'm sorry. There's 18 motions. There's a duplicate number, Motion 11. Those are actually two different -- two separate motions. CHAIRMAN COE: Do any -- do any of the members of the board have any comments about any of the motions that we set forth? MR. CARLSON: I think I remember -- somehow I don't have that with me. But -- CHAIRMAN COE: Here you go. MR. CARLSON: Motion 10 was something we discussed, but I don't think we ever voted on Motion 10. We waited until we got -- we wanted to wait until we got this legal opinion that we have. MS. BURGESON: Okay. We had three staff members that had that written down as a motion -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. Yeah. MS. BURGESON: -- so I'm not -- CHAIRMAN COE: We -- we had made that a motion -- MS. BURGESON: There was-- MR. CARLSON: Fine. CHAIRMAN COE: -- and directed that there be a legal opinion brought forth. And a legal opinion was brought forth and says -- I thought it was pretty ambiguous. Basically it said you can't do it, but in an emergency situation, you might be able to do it, and then they said that the new act has not yet been tested. I'm -- quite frankly, I'm surprised we haven't made it a motion to go ahead and test it since we know we're going to probably get sued anyhow. Get our attorneys Page 6 February 6, 2002 ready. Any other discussion? MS. SANTORO: Audubon had a note in here, and I didn't know if they -- it said something about that they felt that there was a right to limit ag uses and they were going to share the research with us shortly, but I don't know if there's any additional information they wish to share at this point. CHAIRMAN COE: Can we have Fred make a comment at this point? If you're prepared. I don't know if you're -- MR. CORNELL: Well, yeah. I can say a word. Brad Comell with the Collier County Audubon Society, for the record. We have requested a formal opinion from our legal counsel. We have an informal opinion that dates -- actually, this was also the subject of an administrative hearing over the interim boundaries of natural resource protection areas, and so there already is some information that's on record in front of Judge Stevenson that was argued a year ago. And we have filed -- I don't know what the legal term is, but it's a statement in anticipation of hearing on the -- on the appeal that documents more of this evidence. So what I'm asking for from our attorney is that we have a formal letter that -- that will address these issues more directly outside of the context of this appeal of the natural resource protection area boundaries. So it still stands that we -- we contend that it is legal. We have some strong legal arguments to -- to base that contention on, and I will share those with you as soon as we get this -- this letter from our attorney, Page 7 February 6, 2002 because that's what would be more effective rather than me telling you what he says. So -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, Brad, have you seen the opinion -- MR. CORNELL: Sorry. CHAIRMAN COE: Have you seen the opinion that we received from-- MR. CORNELL: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Martha-- MR. CORNELL: From-- yes. I've -- I've read that, and I could -- I'm not a lawyer, so, I mean, I could make an argument against a whole bunch of that based on what I have already read in our previous legal proceedings that we have made statements and assertions on, including agricultural land uses and protecting natural resource policies. So if you want me to, I mean, I could talk about that, but I'm not a lawyer. What you really want is a legal opinion to counter what Ms. Chumbler says. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions for Brad? Yes? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. CHAIRMAN COE: Do you have any questions of Brad? MS. STUDENT: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Thank you, Brad. MS. STUDENT: And I just want to state for the record, our outside counsel principally has been involved in this issue, Martha Chumbler and Nancy Lannon of the firm of Carlton Fields in Tallahassee and also here in Florida, and I've looked generally over the opinion, and they talk about a newer provision that deals with this Page 8 February 6, 2002 issue and the fact that the prohibition is still very broad. And the new provision is rather new. I think you all read that in the opinion, and that there may be -- there's no, you know, appellate decisions to assist in construing the act. Ms. Lannon is going to be here tomorrow at the planning commission meeting when it takes up these items and I'm sure will be prepared to discuss this more fully, as she will be at the Board of County Commissioners. So I would suggest that the board make its recommendation to, you know, be carried forward based on, you know, the information that you have from our outside counsel, Ms. Chumbler. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Just-- for the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. A couple of comments. I did speak to Marty Chumbler personally just before she sent this out. She indicated that she had spoken with Tom Reese, who I'm not sure if that is the attorney that Brad was referring to -- yes. He's noting that it is -- that she had spoken to him and that, based on her conversation with him, she did not agree with his interpretation of the case that's being cited that will allow regulation of ag under the provisions of the Right To Farm Act. She indicated her opinion of that was that -- what the judge said was that not all agricultural is bonafide agriculture. And really, no one's arguing that point. But if it is bonafide agricultural under the Right to Farm Act on page 5, second paragraph on that page, she Page 9 February 6, 2002 indicates, "For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the exceptions identified above have little or no applicability to Collier County." The reason for that is because there have been best-management practices adopted for most of the types of agriculture that we find in Collier County, citrus and row crops. If there are best-management practices adopted, then the Right to Farm Act would preclude the county from adopting more stringent regulations. In fact, the sentence -- the next sentence says, "Thus, for example, while Collier County might enact general provisions limiting the amount of natural vegetation that must be preserved on a site, those provisions could not be applied to bonafide agricultural operations unless those operations were a type not covered by an approved BMP," best-management practice. The next paragraph, however, says, "It may be possible to exercise some control over agricultural operations through the use of voluntary incentive programs." She's referring to attaching those to the TDR process. And we had indicated to you that one of the growth-management policies that we had included was to prohibit agricultural clearing after transfer development rights have been enacted. If you transfer all or a portion of your-- of your development rights, then you no longer have the right for -- to -- for intensive agriculture on the property. Subsequent to the meeting -- I'm not sure that we discussed it at your meeting, but subsequent to the meeting, to the EAC meeting in the last few -- last week, Page 10 February 6, 2002 the staff and myself have been discussing -- there is a provision in the Land Development Code that prohibits the rezoning of a piece of property for ten years after an agricultural clearing permit has been issued on that property. And that should be pretty obvious that it's in order -- it's -- it's a disincentive for somebody to go out and clear ostensibly for agriculture purposes, but then really the purpose is to clear for development. So that ten-year restriction exists in the Land Development Code right now. And what we would also propose to do is extend that 1 O-year restriction to disallow any use of TDRs should there be any clearing. So I recognize that may not go as far as you want, but I did want to share with you that that is something that we are proposing, which would be to amend that language to also disallow any transfer of development rights if an individual cleared property for agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Right to Farm Act in a sending land. So it's another-- I guess a disincentive, really. Barbara, did you want to add anything to that? MS. BURGESON: Well, the -- the only item, item C, the outside counsel's recommended changes -- we had a three-hour conference call last Friday with Nancy Lannon and her staff, and I was going to discuss this after, but it really fits in well together. The only major issue that they found in this book that they felt was inconsistent or needed change was an item dealing with transferring the TDRs in the -- in the primary or secondary sending lands, and she felt that where we were currently right now, allowing agricultural Page 11 February 6, 2002 operations in existence at the time of the TDRs to continue,, she felt that we should not be doing that; that if there's any agricultural uses in existence at the time that they opt to use the transfer of development rights, then those agricultural operations need to cease as a result of that agreement. She also said that there were three items listed that would be allowed. The third item or second item would be cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required, and the third is other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing vegetation. She said you could also take out two and three, but that's something that would be -- she would leave up to us. But she felt very strongly that the first one needed to be removed. MR. MULHERE: Which would allow an opportunity for restoration in those fields. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody have any questions on -- on that? We probably ought to make a motion to that effect if that's what our desires are. Yes? MS. LYNNE: I was appointed to the EAC, I assume, based on the fact that I've got a doctorate in biology. I'm not a lawyer. I do know enough that I know that attorneys can argue legal points from either side and it depends on which one you want to throw your weight behind. As a biologist, I have to say that allowing unrestricted use of agriculture is not going to be good for the rural fringe lands because it's going to drain -- potentially drain adjacent areas. I mean, I -- I would hope that this board would consider a motion something to the effect of that -- that we need to look at that more closely and we need to try to Page 12 February 6, 2002 get the best possible protection for this area -- for wetlands in Collier County instead of just the very basic minimum. I've spent a -- some time working with the county, and I keep coming up to, Oh, we'll get sued; Oh, we'll get sued; Oh, we'll get sued. And I don't think that's a good enough reason not to protect our resources. CHAIRMAN COE: Barb, will you make it -- will you clarify what you just said so the board members -- looking to get a motion to cover what you're talking about. Basically what you're saying is if they're going to use the TDR program, then they give up their right to ranch, farm or whatever to that land; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: Well, there's -- there's two -- two ways that we could do it. The recommendation was to clearly take the first one out, which allowed them to continue with their current agricultural use because she was concerned about the intensity of agricultural uses. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MS. BURGESON: That was -- that was number one under that -- under that section of the GMP. The second and third dealt with postural or passive use, and the third dealt with any agricultural use that didn't-- didn't include additional clearing or didn't -- didn't require clearing. She felt that all three could be taken out, but she felt very strongly that the first one should be taken out. And -- and all three of those would be voluntary for anyone -- excuse me -- anyone choosing to become a part of the TDR program. Again, that does not prohibit agricultural uses on land if someone chooses not to participate. Page 13 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: questions about it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: form a motion? Does everyone understand that? Is there anybody that has any Is there anyone that would like to MS. SANTORO: I can't form a motion. I'm still confused about what -- what Barbara's saying. MS. BURGESON: Let me -- MS. SANTORO: My -- my understanding is that there is some agricultural activities that are more compatible with natural areas, such as unimproved pasture land, some grazing. The one that's least compatible is citrus groves. And it seems to me that there's some way that we should be able to modify the type of agricultural uses with reference to our natural resources. I don't know how to get to that, but that's -- that should be our intent. CHAIRMAN COE: If we made a motion such as this, that anyone that's currently farming, ranching, any ag uses, who desires to enter a TDR program and exercises that right, then any current ag being conducted on that land would cease except for agricultural activities such as ranching or other farming that does not clear the land -- does not further clear the land. Does that pretty well cover it? MS. BURGESON: What -- what that would support would be removing the first agricultural use in the -- CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. BURGESON: -- code and keeping the second and Page 14 February 6, 2002 third in. If you want, I can read that language out so that it becomes a part of the record. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. And -- and then we can make that a motion. MS. BURGESON: Okay. "Where residential density is transferred from primary or secondary sending lands, permitted uses shall be limited to the following" -- the following agricultural uses are listed one, two and three, and you're recommending one be deleted. And that language is, "Agricultural operations in existence at the time of transfer of the residential density including water-management facilities." That language could be deleted. And then second and third are, "Cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required; and three, other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing vegetation." And you're recommending that two and three stay in? CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Does anyone have a question about that? MS. BURGESON: Actually, I should bring something up. Staff was discussing this yesterday. I was talking with Bill Lorenz about this. Right now there are -- there are sites out there that have been cleared for one reason or another. That could fall under the third item where agricultural uses don't require clearing of existing vegetation because it's already cleared, but they might be able to put in any -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. MS. BURGESON: -- agricultural use on already cleared lands. So maybe-- Page 15 February 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: I think there's a huge loophole in those last two points. You may not clear the land but you -- you may put in an ornamental-plant nursery that -- MS. BURGESON: That's already clear. MR. CARLSON: -- requires no clearing but is some sort of exotic plant that neutralizes the habitat value of that land that wasn't cleared. I mean, I can foresee this being a real can of worms, and I think we should go the more restrictive route, and if that was recommended by the attorney to remove all three -- MS. BURGESON: That -- that was something that she said that we could do. MR. CARLSON: Then I would make that motion, that -- I'm not quite sure how to word it, but that -- what's the section there? MS. BURGESON: That would be -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, basically what we would -- the motion would be -- MR. CARLSON: You transfer your development rights. CHAIRMAN COE: Then you give up all -- all rights for ranching, farming, any type of ag on that land. MS. BURGESON: Within the sending lands. MR. CARLSON: Well, I can -- I can tell you, I'm not so excited -- I'm not so -- as concerned about low stocking rates and native-range grazing, because there's a long history of that in Collier County. It's very compatible. Kind of the old-fashioned unimproved pasture native-range grazing. I'm not so worried about that. But just blanket any agricultural practices that doesn't require clearing, I mean, you could move in any kind of-- I mean, you could-- you could have these -- these Page 16 February 6, 2002 fighting chickens and just fence off an area and not clear it, but turn a thousand of those loose and you pretty well neutralize that land. MS. BURGESON: We -- we could recommend, then, Number 1 and 3 be deleted and that 2, which is cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required, remain in. CHAIRMAN COE: Would someone like to make a motion to that effect, please. MS. LYNNE: I have just one more question. Mr. Carlson, you said low-level grazing. Does that need to be addressed in this Number 2 here? It just says any kind of grazing that doesn't require clearing. MS. BURGESON: Cattle grazing. MR. CARLSON: I -- I just don!t know. I mean, it's -- I can tell you that, you know, in the old days, there were very low stocking rates on these ranges. They had very little nutritional value, and -- and the stocking rate was as low as a cow per 20 acres or a cow per 50 acres, or something like that. Now, if somebody has a feeding program, like has a feed lot, they don't clear the land, but they bring in feed, then -- then again, you'd have something that's incompatible with good resource management. So there's -- you know, there's just a lot of loopholes in this. Maybe we ought to just go for all three. Would you like to make a motion to go for all three? MS. LYNNE: Sure. I'll move that we strike all three of those -- do you want to give me some numbers, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Yes. It would be under the sending lands section on page 48 of the FLUE, F-L-U-E, and it Page 17 February 6, 2002 would be Number 6-A-l, 2 and 3. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Let the record show that we want -- that I move that we strike those items from the plan. Is that right? MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Does everyone understand the motion? Okay. Do I have a second? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? Carries. What's next? MR. GAL: I -- I have a question for Barbara. CHAIRMAN COE: Yes. MR. GAL: Does the county regulate pesticide use in any manner? MS. BURGESON: I -- I know that that's handled through a separate division. MR. GAL: Okay. MS. BURGESON: And I'm not -- and I also know that they have to go through state regulations and -- and Department of Environmental Protection regulations in terms of the -- the amount, but I'm not sure who's in control of regulating the areas that are sprayed. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz. I know of no regulations in the county for pesticide restrictions with regard to agricultural activities. The groundwater protection ordinance does regulate concentrated materials of-- hazardous materials within certain protection zones, Page 18 February 6, 2002 but that's not specific to agricultural. MR. GAL: My -- my thought was to ban use of pesticides in sending -- or -- or in receiving areas, I guess. MS. SANTORO: Sending areas. MR. GAL: Or in sending areas. But you might not want to do that. MS. LYNNE: Sorry. I can't hear you, Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: My thought was that you ban the use of pesticides in sending and receiving areas. We have less farming. CHAIRMAN COE: I believe we're getting into an area where I -- I have no expertise at all. MR. CARLSON: I can guarantee that when the new towns begin to appear in the receiving areas, that mosquito planes will fly. CHAIRMAN COE: Anyone have -- anyone else have any comments? MS. LYNNE: Can we restrict the amount of pesticide use in the sending areas? CHAIRMAN COE: I don't have the expertise to say one way or another. I really don't. If we want to get some experts in here to talk about it, that's one thing -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Let's not talk -- CHAIRMAN COE: I sure don't -- I don't think that it's a subject of discussion today in that we don't have the expertise. Yes? MR. LORENZ: Bill Lorenz, for the record. Remember that just about everything that's going on out there has some type of pesticide usage. I mean, the county -- when -- when we do exotics control, we're using Page 19 February 6, 2002 pesticides. When we're doing -- MS. LYNNE: Herbicides. MR. LORENZ: -- aquatic weed control, we're using pesticides. When there's mosquito control, there's a use of pesticides. I mean, this is -- it's a pervasive -- it's a pervasive activity that has -- has a lot of benefits. Obviously it has some -- some negatives too, but the county staff is in the position in the -- in the past of making recommendations, given the fact that USDA and EPA requires the application of pesticides through the labeling conditions that has been determined to be the safe level of pesticide use. So if you-- you're getting into an area that's -- that is very, very pervasive, you know, of what -- what is being done out there. CHAIRMAN COE: That's also highly regulated, so, you know, it's not an area where we really need to go. MR. CARLSON: I -- I think we could probably make the assumption, though, that if there's nobody living in a sending area, nobody's going to spend the money to spray for mosquitos in an area that doesn't have the population. I would assume that. CHAIRMAN COE: All right. What do we got next, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Item C is the outside counsel's recommended changes, and the one that we just discussed was really the only one here that was substantive in terms of making major changes. In the errata sheet, you'll notice under 6-1-1 and 6-1-2 under the Conservation Coastal Management Element, that there are a lot of changes, strike-throughs and Page 20 February 6, 2002 underlines. The main purpose to those changes was to make consistent the standards in the rural and the urban lands. We have nine standards in both of those areas that are identical and just one or two in each that are specific to the rural or the urban lands. The way the language had been written in the Growth Management Plan, they didn't match exactly. Those nine that we've made consistent and identical were in both but written slightly differently in both. So we want to make sure that they were -- CHAIRMAN COE: Should we go through this item by item? MS. BURGESON: I would suggest only if you have questions. Staff is comfortable with the changes that we've made. If you want me to address any of them, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN COE: Because I know that several of us have gone through this. Let's just go down the list here. Start with rural fringe, mixed-use district. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Primary receiving land-- lands? MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. Yeah. The -- the first sentence. MS. BURGESON: On which page? MR. CARLSON: First page. "Primary receiving lands." The very-- Number 1. If you're -- if you own land in a primary receiving area and you have more -- let's say you have 5, 10 acres and you're there now, what does this do if it says the maximum lot size allowable for sing -- single-family attached dwelling unit is 1 acre? Page 21 February 6, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Unfortunately what you don't see there is that applies to those new projects that are 40 acres or greater in size. It's -- it didn't reference the whole document, but that one applies to new projects 40 acres or greater. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. All right. Number 2? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 3? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Next page. Number 4? MR. CARLSON: Just that -- my only -- my only note on 3 is rural commercial and rural industrial. Those terms don't seem to go together to me. It's kind of like an oxymoron. This is the rural industrial area. MS. LYNNE: I worked with the Dover Cove Community Character Plan, and the idea of rural villages was merely to have residential and small amount of commercial to serve those residences and the outlying area so that they did not have to clog up the streets and drive into Naples for everything. It was not ever intended to mean that there should be any industrial or major commercial development in the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: And these revisions don't intend or suggest that necessarily either. When you're looking at the terminology, rural commercial subdistrict and rural industrial district, those do have restrictions to minimize the size. Further restrictions can be written as part of the LDC amendments, but the -- the intent is clearly for those to be mixed use and to provide for some employment. I do have your motion, however, which you made at Page 22 February 6, 2002 your last meeting, to prohibit any commercial or industrial, and that already exists and is standing. So notwithstanding your motion, this language just is intended to provide further clarification. CHAIRMAN COE' So where is our language put? MR. MULHERE: It'll be brought to the board in a -- the whole list of your motions. Eighteen motions. CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you. Okay. See, we've done 3. Four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Six? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Seven? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We're now on page 3, Number 1. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Down to 8. Any comments on 8? I'd like to make a comment here. It says that, "The density calculation for a rural village may include the base residential density permitted for the greenbelt area if such density is shifted to the rural village area." That's going to be a higher density in the rural village area. Correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. But no higher than the maximums that are already established in there. You have a base density of 1 per 5 that exist today. And you're required to put this greenbelt around the rural village. But you can take that 1-per-5 density from the greenbelt and bring it into the rural village, but you can't exceed the Page 23 February 6, 2002 maximum densities. And we're recommending 3.5 as a maximum density. I don't know what it'll end up being through the process. CHAIRMAN COE: But not more than -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COE: -- 3.5? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. I understand. Nine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Ten? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Eleven? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: And the next one is Conservation Coastal Management Element. One? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Two? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Now, on page 6, I got one question on page 6, Number 9. "Parcels that were legally cleared of na -- native vegetation prior to January of '89 shall be exempt from this requirement." How do we know what was cleared in 1989, and how do we police that? MS. BURGESON: When we ask that somebody prove that they were legally cleared, that means that they have to show us that they received an agricultural clearing permit or a vegetation-removal clearing permit. CHAIRMAN COE: I understand. Next page, which is Number 7. Page 8? On Number 4, page 8, it says specifically that, "Ag shall be exempt from the above Page 24 February 6, 2002 preservation requirements contained in the policies," da, da, da, da, da. We don't want any wetland impact by agriculture, and we've stated that I don't know how many times. I guess our motions will be brought forth and someone above us will decide, but I'm pretty sure I speak for the EAC that we don't want any wetland impact by ag. MS. BURGESON: I don't believe that that was a part of any of the motions from the previous meeting. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, I'd like to make a motion at this time that there would be no impact to our wetlands by agricultural activities. Comments? MR. CARLSON: That's part of this language? I mean, you're proposing to -- CHAIRMAN COE: I'm proposing to change this -- to make a motion that ag makes no impact to our wetlands. And what I'm trying to do there is to preclude backing up an orange grove to Corkscrew or any of our other sensitive lands and them pumping water out of that area, which, in effect, they're pumping it out of where you're located. MR. CARLSON: I'm all for it. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second for that motion? MS. LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN COE: I have a second. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: that, please. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? Carries. Can you repeat the exact language on Any agriculture activities that affect Page 25 February 6, 2002 wetlands are prohibited. MS. BURGESON: You might need to define what the worked "affect" means, whether that means direct clearing or secondary impacts. CHAIRMAN COE: wetlands. MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: Well, we're talking about the Right. If it's going to drain the wetlands, if it's going to affect it with pollution to the wetlands from pesticides, what have you, anything. MS. BURGESON: Okay. So saying "new or existing" because you may -- you're talking about maybe -- I'm not sure on the existing agricultural uses that already have state permits how much we can do -- CHAIRMAN COE: just -- MS. BURGESON: wetland -- CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: No. We can't affect those that are -- on any expansions to existing Any expansion-- -- agricultural or new-- -- any new agricultural activities. Okay. Does that clar-- That negatively affect wetlands -- That's correct. MS. BURGESON: -- be prohibited. Thank you. MR. CARLSON: I don't-- I don't understand 8. Can somebody explain to me -- I don't understand how the 10 percent -- CHAIRMAN COE: What page are you talking about? MR. CARLSON: I'm on page 8, and I'm at the top of Page 26 February 6, 2002 the page at Item No. 8 about the density bonus incentive. MR. LORENZ: Just for the record, Bill Lorenz. That deals with the bonus for encouraging greater preservation amounts, that you would get additional density bonus if you preserve vegetation greater than the minimum requirements. The ten-- MR. CARLSON: With-- within the -- MR. LORENZ: Within the receiving -- MR. CARLSON: A given project. MR. LORENZ: Correct. Correct. Correct. MR. CARLSON: So it really doesn't have anything to do with the sending areas. MR. LORENZ: No. No. MS. LYNNE: But it does mean an overall increase in the density numbers of units that can be built in the county. MR. LORENZ: That -- that would be an additional -- that would -- that's correct. And I believe you took a motion -- one of your motions from last week recommended that there be no -- no bonuses be given -- density bonuses be given other than TDRs. MR. CARLSON: Now, would-- would this density bonus incentive -- I've heard that -- that the highest density now is 3.5 in receiving area units per acre. Could this -- could this conceivably take that density higher than that? MR. MULHERE: Every time I touch that I get shocked. Is there somebody trying to tell me something? No. You cannot exceed the maximum, the 3.5, but that's only for rural villages. And the rest -- the balance of the receiving areas, the base density is 1.0, Page 27 February 6, 2002 and you could exceed that by a maximum of 10 percent or 1.1 through these incentives. But in a rural village, the maximum density is 3.5, and you can't exceed that. CHAIRMAN COE: Does that answer your question? MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Can I ask just a general question while you're up there about this whole concept, is that'these bonuses are granted based on -- on some past history that this doesn't -- this transferred development rights doesn't work unless you grant bonuses; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. The -- the intent here is to really limit any amount of mech -- or any mechanisms that could provide for increased density beyond the TDR process. In other words, the primary method to be able to increase your density is intended to be through TDRs, because otherwise you really do take away from the TDR program. I think, as I spoke at your last meeting, if you can simply come in and ask for a rezone and go from 1 per 5 to 1 per 1, you're certainly not going to then go out and buy the TDRs to achieve that. that money. MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: Why would you spend Right. So what we want to do is structure a plan that primarily only allows an increase in density from 1.5 to some higher amount -- in the case of receiving, it's one per acre, or in rural villages it's higher than that -- that -- that primarily limits that to the TDR process. That makes the TDR process viable. But there are some exceptions, and this is one exception that we thought was appropriate. Where a developer coming into a receiving area has a requirement Page 28 February 6, 2002 to preserve 40 percent of the native vegetation an on site, if they choose to develop a plan that protects 70 percent of the native vegetation on site, they would get a -- a fairly small density bonus, not to exceed 10 percent. So it's just another incentive. We don't think it's sufficient enough to compete or negate the TDR process, but it would allow for increased amounts of native vegetation preservation in receiving areas. MR. CARLSON: If these rural lands have a history of projects working on them --- projects working on them at the density of 1 unit per 5 acres, I mean, I think -- would think we're here going through this process and dealing with the governor's order because two conservation organizations sued the county because they didn't think a golf course community should go in beyond the urban boundary and get water and sewer, but it -- but it worked at 1 unit per 5 acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's an -- that's an excellent question. MR. CARLSON: So then you -- then you go to the TDR incentive which takes -- which multiplies the density, 5 times that to 1 unit per acre. Why isn't that enough? MR. MULHERE: Well, it -- it may be enough. And -- and as I indicated, the only reason that that proposal is in there is to provide an incentive for some greater preservation amount beyond -- beyond what the data shows us that we would need to preserve -- to achieve our target of 90 percent preservation. MR. CARLSON: But if you keep the density low, you're achieving more preservation. Page 29 February 6, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. Not through a clustered development. I-- I would disagree with that. MS. LYNNE: But what we don't know and what there aren't any studies, if I remember correctly, is whether or not the benefit of extra native veg -- vegetation in a PUD is worth the extra density. In other words -- MR. MULHERE: I guess -- I mean, I guess that's just a philosophical question. And-- MS. LYNNE: Oh, no. That's not philosophical. That's quantifiable. MR. MULHERE: It's quantifiable? In -- in what way will it be quantifiable? MS. LYNNE: The way you do any kind of environmental study. I'm-- MR. MULHERE: I -- I'm not following you. MS. LYNNE: And basically -- well, there's going to be a certain amount of damage due to the -- done to the environment based on the increased density. There's going to be increased cars, increased sewer, increased water use, et cetera. So that's going to be a negative. MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Does the extra land being preserved provide enough -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. I see what you're saying. MS. LYNNE: -- benefit to offset that? MR. MULHERE: Well-- MS. LYNNE: And -- and the thing that -- that bothers me even -- even more is that when we have discussions with planning staff and we're told we can't do this because we have no scientific evidence to preserve, for example, a greater buffer, and yet you're perfectly comfortable Page 3 0 February 6, 2002 coming up with an increase in density program without any proof that it's going to either work or be -- be safe for the environment or have a benefit. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it -- it -- I mean, maybe I should defer to Bill as the natural resource director for the county, but I think the premise was that if we preserve native vegetation beyond the minimum requirements, there's a benefit to that. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe there is no benefit to that. MS. LYNNE: There's a benefit to -- MR. MULHERE: There is. MS. LYNNE: -- provide -- to preserve -- MR. MULHERE: But it may not be offset by the increased density. MS. LYNNE: It could be -- it could be offset -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. LYNNE: -- by increasing the density. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. MS. LYNNE: And we don't know that. MR. MULHERE: You -- you made a motion at your last meeting to prohibit any additional increases other than through TDRs. That -- I mean, I think that was very clear. This recommendation already existed and continues to exist in the plan. Now we'll go forward to the planning commission tomorrow. They'll review it. They'll review your motion, and ultimately it'll go to the board of county commissioners. They'll review it. They'll review your motions, and go -- ultimately a policy will be developed based on that. MR. CARLSON: I think it's worth asking, though, with the maximum allowable density with the rural village Page 31 February 6, 2002 concept, the density goes up 17 1/2 times over what it is now. They go into 3 1/2 -- I've done the math. I think I got it right -- 3 1/2 units per acre versus 1 unit per 5 acres. That's a-- 17 1/2-- MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: you're taking accurate. MR. CARLSON: are bonus. MR. MULHERE: Well -- -- times the density. -- that's not exactly accurate, because achieving a -- a portion of that through TDRs, density that already exists. So it's not exactly Okay. But the majority of those units Well, you-- you have to acquire .8 dwelling units per acre -- MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: So, I mean -- MR. CARLSON' MR. MR. MR. MR. MULHERE: CARLSON: MULHERE: CARLSON: MR. MULHERE' right. Yeah. MR. CARLSON: Yes. -- and for that, you get two bonuses. You buy one, you get-- -- I think we can quantify it -- -- two and three. That's about right. You buy one, you get two and three. That's about right. That's about Okay. Have we done an analysis of how we're going to provide water and other essential services for this increased population? Do we know where the well fields are going to be and how those well fields are going to affect the groundwater? And -- and do you really think that having a rural village out in the rural fringe, that it's not going to increase traffic because those people Page 32 February 6, 2002 are not going to want to go to the beach or to the movie theater in the urban area or to restaurants in the urban area? I just -- I just don't think this has been thought through well enough to really appreciate the impact it's going to have on the county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I know. That was made abundantly clear at the last meeting. I professionally would disagree with you. I think it will have a very beneficial impact on the already deleterious and very poor traffic conditions in The Estates as a result of a very large existing platted subdivision that's one of the fastest growing in the county and over which we have little control unless we provide some additional services in this area. When you couple that with the requirement that we have to protect the natural resources and balance that with private property rights, I think the rural villages provide a very viable solution to all of those three issues. In addition, they're highly recommended in a number of national and statewide professional planning studies that have been done, and they have been implemented in some locations. And they have worked quite successfully to balance private property rights and natural resource protection and to reduce the number of trips. When people are traveling 10 and 15 miles from Golden Gate Estates into the -- no. Will that completely eliminate it? Absolutely not. It will not completely eliminate the number of trips. But it will offset some of those trips by providing services for those residents and Page 3 3 February 6, 2002 for those residents in the surrounding lands. MR. CARLSON: Is-- is-- MR. MULHERE: Your -- your question about the water and sewer, the utilities department has looked at and been involved in this entire process and recently made a presentation to the board during a workshop that included the extension of central water and sewer and the cost of extending central water and sewer to those receiving lands. I cannot answer to you whether or not they quantified the impacts upon the quantity of water that will be available other than to say that, based on their calculations, they will be able to meet those demands. MR. CARLSON: Well, you can always add wells and pump more water, but I'm -- I'm extremely worried about the future of the aquifers and the wetlands in the -- in those regions where that water's coming from. MR. MULHERE: Well-- and-- MR. CARLSON: I just don't -- I just don't see how it's going to work. We're already stressed. MS. LYNNE: I'd have to say, too, the difference between South Florida with its extensive wetlands and other areas of the country -- I mean, I can see the rural village concept working very well in Illinois and Ohio and so forth, but Mr. Carlson is correct; there's going to be much greater impacts in South Florida because of the large amount of our wetlands. CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) Any other questions? Page 9. Number 5? Page 34 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Number 6? MR. HILL: Let me back up. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Back on page 8, Item No. 4, in the middle of the second sentence in that paragraph, "Or any such conversions in less than 10 years," that restriction for conversion prior to 10 years has been ruled out, hasn't it? MS. BURGESON: No. This -- this is language that already exists in both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, and this applies to any time anyone obtains an agricultural clearing permit, there is an obligation through that permit to commit to not rezoning or not changing the use of that land for ten years unless you restore what would have been required if you had gone through that process in the first place. MR. HILL: So the two sections referred to are the requirements that they would have to restore? MS. BURGESON: Right. And -- and this does not apply to the ten years for the TDR program. This is all just what's already existing in the code. We will, as Bob said, be adding that language for the TDR program. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) All right. Page 9? Five? Six? Page 107 Seven? Page 35 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Eight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Nine? I've got a comment on 9-l-A; A, B -- all of them. How is South Florida Water Management District going to police mitigation and those sorts of things when a lot of times their standards appear to be less than ours? For example, sometimes they'll look at wetlands that have been affected, like with Melaleuca or something drained it or what have you, and yet really there's nothing wrong with it; it just needs to be restored to its wetland originality. So how are we going to police that? MS. BURGESON: What staff will need to do is look at all of the environmental resource permits and wetland permits prior to -- for instance, we'll have to do that prior to coming to this board or coming to the hearing examiner with the environmental-impact statement. We'll need to review their permits and their proposed mitigation to make sure that there is no mitigation that is less than the -- the functional value of the wetlands impacted on site. So, for instance, if they're -- if they're proposing mitigation with uplands, then we will have to require additional mitigation, which is the new language that we put in on page 11, the very top of page 11, Number -- or letter D, which says, "Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with A through C of this policy. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the Page 36 February 6, 2002 jurisdictional agencies." CHAIRMAN COE: But when you're saying, Collier County will require greater restrictions, are we requiring South Florida Water Management District to do that for us? MS. BURGESON: No. We can't require them to do that, and I've sat down with their staff on a couple different occasions to talk about this. Their expec -- expectations are that more and more permits over time will become compliant with this, but at times they will still require, for instance, the rare upland mitigation on the site or on-site mitigation that'll be less than what we require. And when they do that, they expect -- what they've told me is that they can tell the petitioner that they understand that they will go -- have to go back to Collier County and do additional mitigation, but they will not -- they will not be using our policies specifically for review to make sure that it happens at that time. The developer can try to do that through the process to make it simpler for them. CHAIRMAN COE: Does your office have the staff to sufficiently police this, or are you going to need additional staff?. MS. BURGESON: For us to be able to use the proposed language, we'll need to take courses and go to the training for the South Florida -- the New Wetland Assessment Program. And I think that Bob had talked about understanding that we would need probably two more staff in order to facilitate the use of the new language for wetland protection. MR. MULHERE: I don't know how many staff. You're going to have to evaluate it. I don't have any clue. Page 3 7 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Any other comments? MR. HILL: Another question on 9-I-A, we've had discussions in the past concerning the WRAP procedure and an improved WRAP procedure that's coming down from the state. Is there a set functional rating procedure in place now or being recommended? MS. BURGESON: There is the old WRAP analysis that people are still using right now, and they are in the process of accepting and training people for the new program, which is statewide. I'm not sure if there's anyone in the audience that might speak to that and have more current information on it, but as -- I understand that there -- there have been seminars and workshops throughout the state. We participated in one about a year and a half ago when this process started, and we expect that they will probably start up again hopefully in this area within the next month or two. MR. HILL: I remember during some of our subcommittee deliberations -- Bill, you may correct me on this -- we took a look at part of that new proposal. Is that being firmed up at all? And if-- if so or if not, does language in the county documents automatically embrace the new statewide WRAP? MR. LORENZ: Yes. That's -- that's correct. On Policy 6-2-4, as we have already proposed it, indicates that we would be using existing South Florida Water Management District WRAP until the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method is adopted by the state and we will be using that. So we've got the language in there to cover-- cover both of those conditions. Page 3 8 February 6, 2002 Let me -- let me make a -- one point, however. We have had some discussion with some biological consultants concerning the WRAP score itself of 0.5, which was listed in that document, and there is some concern that that number is perhaps too low. Certainly from a staff perspective, myself, Mac Hatcher-- and we'll be talking with Barbara -- may want to take a look at that number as the appropriate -- the appropriate value at the moment, but we would still be recommending that that procedure being -- be in effect. We may make an evaluation of the actual number itself. CHAIRMAN COE: Page 117 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: On Page 127 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Twelve? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Thirteen? CHAIRMAN COE: Fourteen? Page 13 -- 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Sixteen? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 147 Anything on page 147 I have one motion I'd like to make for page 14, which is paragraph 16-2-C that no beach raking will be permitted during the turtle season. MS. LYNNE: Was that a discussion or a motion? CHAIRMAN COE: I'm making a motion. MS. LYNNE: I second it. CHAIRMAN COE: I have a second. All for? Any other comments? Anything else on Page 3 9 February 6, 2002 MR. STONE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? It carries. MR. CARLSON: I got one. CHAIRMAN COE: We got one opposed. MR. CARLSON: I just don't see that if the inspection works -- if we already approved the system where the beach is inspected in the morning prior to raking. And nest sites -- I mean, we've already been through this ad nauseam. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: Right. And the -- the code enforcement says they don't have the staff to carry out the inspections necessary to prevent the damage. CHAIRMAN COE: Motion's carried 6 to 1. MS. BURGESON: IfI could add something, Kim spoke with Carol -- I'm not sure on the pronunciation -- Lyste, who was a senior environmental planner for Bonita Springs, and she said that she would be able to come down to the EAC during the March meeting and give a presentation on the language that they adopted last year. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, that's something for the Land Development Code. I just want to throw this in. MS. BURGESON: Right. Just -- just so that you know, we're -- we're expecting to have someone make a presentation. And I guess the City of Fort Myers or Fort Myers Beach was also recently involved in the language. Page 40 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Do they allow beach raking during sea turtle nesting season? MS. BURGESON: The only time they do is in the event of a storm or an emergency. CHAIRMAN COE: Page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Number 18? MS. SANTORO: I'm-- CHAIRMAN COE: Yes? MS. SANTORO: I'm -- I had a comment or a question on page 15, policy 7.3.2. I don't know why you changed it from nightly to regular inspections. One of the problems would be furniture and things that are still left out interfering with turtles that are coming out to nest? MS. BURGESON: That's only as a matter of staffing. CHAIRMAN COE: Why not get more staff?. MS. SANTORO: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: The one concern we had before was that when we used the term "nightly," it implied each and every night. And we don't intend on making compliance lighting inspections each and every night. We can't do it. You can only do it when you don't have the moon conditions so that you can see the lights on the beach. EAC did recommend, however, to look at regular inspections with regard to prohibitions of the storage of furniture. Again, it can't be every night. I mean, we would not have the staff to be able to do that. I would suggest -- and this would be for the code Page 41 February 6, 2002 enforcement department to evaluate, but you could evaluate some kind of random-type of inspections to -- to get different places on the beach at different -- different times. That would provide you the appropriate kind of inspection program that would work well. MS. SANTORO: I don't like the word "regular." I think it's too ambiguous. I think it should be a time frame. MR. CARLSON: Have you ever tried to recruit volunteers with the public to help with this? MR. LORENZ: We do have volunteers when our staff, our natural resources staff goes out for some inspections. It's so -- so we do recruit volunteers. We can't always get volunteers. You have to realize also that when we're talking about an enforcement program, that you're going to have to have a certain degree of certification. They can be our eyes for us, but we have to still provide the appropriate staff to do the actual -- write up the notice of violation and the, if you will -- I want to use the term "duly certified" as a code enforcement inspector. CHAIRMAN COE: Any questions or comments? MS. LYNNE: Just another comment. What about a neighborhood watch-type organization? Those people go through certification and get approved and all that kind of stuff, and they make regular -- very regular tours around the neighborhood. MR. LORENZ: Certainly. I mean, we've -- we will -- we will always try to use volunteers and extend -- to a volunteer program extend our -- our efforts. I can't -- I can't make a commitment that we will actually have a Page 42 February 6, 2002 volunteer program. If you don't get volunteers, then you don't have a volunteer program. But certainly from an operational standpoint, we'll -- we're always trying to look for that. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments on page 157 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 167 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Page 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We're done. MS. LYNNE: That's -- excuse me. I've got just a -- a couple of more questions. I'm -- on Motion No. 5, where we say, "Recommendation to remove asphalt and concrete batch-making plans and facilities for collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid wastes from the list of permitted uses in receiving lands," did that cover all the light industrial, rural industrial categories that Mr. Carlson wanted eliminated? MR. MULHERE: No, it doesn't. It doesn't-- those are specific uses. Those are not comprehensive-plan designations. The other language you referred to earlier that you talked about the rural commercial and rural industrial, those are comprehensive plan designations that would allow uses underneath them in the L -- for the LDC. So, no, it doesn't. I think I -- I don't have a copy of your motions. I thought you had made a motion to prohibit any commercial or industrial, but maybe it was more specific than that. Page 43 February 6, 2002 If that was your intent, you probably need to take -- take a motion that would prohibit any commercial or industrial, or if you want to say, "other than small scale," I mean, I don't know. MS. LYNNE: My understanding of the rural villages is that there does need to be some small-scale commercial. That's kind of the point of it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. LYNNE: But I don't see any reason to have any industrial purposes move out into the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Okay. I move that on page 45 -- what is, 6.J? -- that there be no industrial uses allowed in a rural village and that commercial be limited to small businesses designed to serve the area residents. MR. GAL: Before we go on, I have a question to ask. Are -- dry cleaners, storage areas, are those commercial or industrial? MR. MULHERE: Commercial. Commercial. I-- I want to be completely clear. What -- your motion would prohibit industrial and rural villages, but it still wouldn't prohibit industrial outside of a rural village in a receiving area. I think that's your intent, isn't it? MS. LYNNE: My specific intent here was to keep it out of the rural villages, because that's not the point of a rural village. MR. MULHERE: Okay. No problem. MS. LYNNE: But other people may have some other opinions to express. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got a comment on that. You know, I can see taking out asphalt plants, garbage transfer Page 44 February 6, 2002 stations and things like that, but if you just broad brush and take out all industry, where are the people going to work? I mean, we could get them to drive on Immokalee Road, we could get them to drive on 951 to come into work, but if they got a rural village between here and Immokalee, then, you know, why -- why have them drive 15 or 20 miles to work when they could have -- you know, by not being very specific on the industry, you know, what's -- what's a good industrial industry? Are we arbitrarily just wiping out all industry? MR. CARLSON: Well, I -- I think that that sort of brings up another broader question that I've always had, is while we have a target population for a rural village of 7- to 10,000 people or 5- to 7,000 people or something like that, I mean, do we actually know how many jobs are going to be available in -- MR. MULHERE: MR. CARLSON: MR. MULHERE: No. -- a rural village to these people? No. No, we don't know. We're not going to know until they come in with their plan and it goes through a full-blown rezone process and they provide all the elements that are required for rezone, including an analysis that -- the implications or impacts on public facilities and on infrastructure and on economic, which is called for in this plan. So they have to provide all that information for consideration before one is even approved. And it's -- it's a little premature. I can't -- I don't have a crystal ball. I certainly can't tell you how many jobs there are going to be. Page 45 February 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: That's why I think this is a incredibly dangerous plan for this county. If you wind up with a -- with a big DRI urban/residential kind of area with a gas station and a grocery store and that qualifies, then I just -- I think it's just a horribly dangerous plan for this county. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we're -- we're -- obviously we're in disagreement on that because it's our intent to direct those kinds of developments to those receiving lands through this process. It's exactly what we want to see from our perspective in those receiving lands. So we're -- we're completely in disagreement. MR. CARLSON: And we have no idea how many commuters will be coming out of a rural village to the urban area or to anywhere else? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, at this point you don't have any idea. How could you possibly have any idea? The only way you could do it would be to know what the density that's being requested would be in -- in one and, coincidently, what the expected amount of-- of commercial or industrial employment would be. But without even knowing that, we know one thing: If they're a mixed use and they provide for the -- some employment opportunities, some recreational opportunities and some institutional opportunities, there is less of a need for people to travel from where they are into the urban area to use those types of facilities. If there's a school, for example, which is required, the school board asks it. I mean, there are a lot -- you know, I don't have the empirical data to ask every question that you're asking. I think it would be not Page 46 February 6, 2002 possible to give you that empirical data. We -- we must know what we're talking about before we can achieve the empirical data. That burden is being placed through this on the applicant. They have to go through the same process. They'll be coming to see you; they'll be coming to see, you know, the -- the hearing examiner, the Board of County Commissioners. And they'll be showing us what components are included in their rural village concept. There are parameters to defining a rural village in this plan, and those will be further defined through LDRSs. For example -- I think it's a great question. What type of industry is appropriate in a rural village, if any? Well, certainly we don't want to see, you know, some of the more intensive types of industry out there, but a research and technology park, from my perspective, makes all the sense in the world. Now, how big will that be? It certainly depends on what the market and the population of that rural village could support in terms of employment. We don't know that until someone comes in and asks for it. It's the same as any other rezoning. CHAIRMAN COE: Is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Comments? MR. CARLSON: Except this is spilling out onto 29,000 acres of rural land. MR. MULHERE: That's true. And in exchange for putting protections on 60,000 acres of rural land. I mean, there's no -- no one ever said that there weren't going to be -- there wasn't going to be a trade-off here. Page 47 February 6, 2002 You want to protect the most valuable natural resources. We're also required legally to balance those protection measures with private property rights, and no one ever said that there wouldn't be some impacts as a result of that. MR. CARLSON: Those wetlands already have some protective status, don't they? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. They-- they have some protective status, yeah. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? MR. HILL: Two relatively minor ones, Mr. Chairman. In Motion No. 1 and 2 that we made last week -- in Motion No. 2, I don't remember that it was that extensive. I would not like to see Motion 1 passed on about taking the Big Corkscrew Island Community, making it neutral and then have the Motion No. 2 seemingly imply that it is related to Number 1. I think it's a totally separate decision. We're not compensating for the loss of Big Corkscrew Island Community by making Motion No. 2. That's, as I remember, the ideas we had. If anybody on the council -- CHAIRMAN COE: I think the reason that Motion No. 2 was made was to make it clear to the PAB and the Board of County Commissioners and others that see our motions, they will understand that we're taking one -- Corkscrew community, for example -- off the table, but we're giving something else to replace it, so they don't think we're just not giving a recommendation as to where other lands could be available for this. If we don't do that, just personally, I don't see any way that the PAB would be able to even know about that Page 48 February 6, 2002 recommendation. MR. HILL: No. I'm -- I agree that we should take the Corkscrew Island Community out and make it neutral, but I don't think Motion No. 2 should be a compensation. It's a separate decision. We should add that land. CHAIRMAN COE: I don't understand what you're saying. MR. MULHERE: My-- my recollection of the motion was that it came immediately after and was tied to the discussion of removing the Big Corkscrew Island. CHAIRMAN COE: Right. MR. MULHERE: I have no objection if you want to clarify that and you want to strike through that last part of-- right after "lands." Where it says, "to compensate the removal of receiving designation of Corkscrew" -- that's up to the -- MR. HILL: But my point is that the people in Big Corkscrew Island Community really requested that they remain a neutral area, and I'd hate to see the Board of County Commissioners negate that by -- on the basis that they can't compensate for it. That ought to be a separate issue -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. HILL: -- and not be a decision made on the fact that you're going to compensate for that loss. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I -- I tend to agree. In fact -- MR. HILL: And-- and 1 and 2 do that. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, do I have a motion to -- on Motion No. 2 to take out that -- all after-- MR. HILL: Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Golden Gate Estates? Page 49 February 6, 2002 MR. HILL: I move that we eliminate the word in Motion No. 2, starting with "as receiving lands compensated." CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second for that motion? MR. MULHERE: Wait. You want that "as receiving lands" in there. You want it somewhere in there. CHAIRMAN COE: Right. MR. MULHERE: It starts -- MR. HILL: Strike out "to compensate the removal." MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second to the motion? MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? MR. STONE: Aye. MR. GAL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MS. SANTORO: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: One opposed. Carries 6 to 1. MR. HILL: One other one, Mr. Chairman, and -- on Motion No. 13, is it totally clear what the area being referred to south of Immokalee Road-- MR. MULHERE: It's the only secondary receiving area south of Immokalee Road. MR. HILL: There's only one? MR. MULHERE: Correct. There can't be any confusion. This is the only secondary receiving area south of Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? Page 50 February 6, 2002 MR. HILL: Should that be further defined somehow? MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't really -- I mean, it's -- everyone's pretty much in agreement with the recommendation. I would suspect that it's going to happen. There's only one south of Immokalee Road. I think it's clear. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? MS. LYNNE: I wanted to go over some of the recommendations from Brad Cornell. If your conversation -- MR. CARLSON: Yes. Yes. MS. LYNNE: -- conversation, Mr. Carlson, pertains to here, go ahead. MR. CARLSON: I was going to -- I was going to take another crack at a -- at a recommendation even though it may be too late to make this list. I -- I'd like to take a -- make another attempt to address the -- the idea of having some sort of buffering between preserved land and NRPAs and the receiving areas at this point. The receiving areas interface with NRPAs and conservation lands, and I think that's just poor planning. I think the 300-foot buffer that's proposed, which could be golf course, is not going to be adequate to protect the hydrology of these wetland -- wetland areas adjacent to these receiving areas. And also, yesterday I did a prescribed burn, and it was a very lively prescribed burn. And I can't imagine being a natural area manager and doing a burn with a golf course immediately next door and a residential subdivision within 300 feet. There's terrible conflict there. You cannot always Page 51 February 6, 2002 predict exactly what the wind's going to do. I think there needs to be a buffer of rural lands between a receiving area and conservation NRPA land. I'm going to try again. Last time I proposed a mile. I'm not going to do that. I'd like to make a motion that at the interface of the receiving lands and the NRPAs and conservation lands in areas A and D only -- A and D only -- that there be a 1/2-mile buffer in the land that is now designated receiving adjacent to those conservation and NRPA lands, 1/2 mile. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, what do we do -- I mean, how are those landowners compensated for creating a buffer? MR. CARLSON: Their-- their land stays neutral. It's rural land. It's 1 unit per 5 acres rural land neutral or ag or whatever it is now. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MS. BURGESON: Ed, can I just ask why you chose A and D only? MR. CARLSON: Because those areas are the most intact hydrologically. The -- the NRPA and conservation lands around A and D are the most intact, and those will be managed by private state entities which will do a lot of prescribed burning. And I think B and C, it's not -- there's just not as much conflict there. I think B already, because of its relation to The Estates -- you know, there's already hydrologic impacts, and -- and those units are just smaller. MS. LYNNE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN COE: All for? MR. STONE: Aye. MS. SANTORO: Aye Page 52 February 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: Aye MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MR. GAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN COE: One opposed. Carries 6 to 1. MR. HILL: Would -- would you care to share your objection? MR. GAL: I -- I just think that there was -- there was a -- and I really don't recall why this wasn't -- why we didn't make this motion last time at the last meeting, but there was some, I guess, good reasons why we decided to not make it a mile buffer, and I'm not sure if there was a difference with a 1/2-mile buffer. And I think it related to hydrologic conditions that -- that differ for different areas in the receiving areas. MR. HILL: The NRPA and conservation lands need protection. And at one time -- in fact, I put a motion on the table last week that we quantify it by stating the minimum draw down at the boundary of the conservation area that would preclude specifying a particular distance. That died, I think, for lack of a second, or was defeated. I'm not sure. So there are two ways to look at it: You can fix the separation or you can try to quantify the impact you want to restrict on the conservation. You know, this motion does it one way. There are other ways to do it. But in the absence of data, specific data that will allow us to determine what the impact would be, in changing the hydrological character of the NRPA area, we -- Ed -- Ed's experience is better than mine, and Page 53 February 6, 2002 he wants a half a mile and feels that that might be satisfactory. We need to make one attempt at least to increase the buffering to these areas over and above the 300 feet. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MS. BURGESON: Can I just read that motion back to make sure that I've got that correct? At the interface of receiving lands and the NRPAs or sending lands in Areas A and D only, there be a 1/2-mile buffer in the land now designated receiving, and that buffer remain neutral. MR. CARLSON: Yes. It's NRPA and conservation lands. MS. BURGESON: That's right. CHAIRMAN COE: We're going to take a five-minute break at this point. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Erica, we left off-- you had some comments about the -- the Audubon Society sheet that got submitted as a recommendation. MS. LYNNE: Yes. I just wanted to go over them briefly. "A, adjust the sending and receiving numbers based on conservation easements, extinguishing density that may be in sending areas but won't send." I think we already did that; is that correct? CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. MS. LYNNE: Okay. "Rural villages need modification. Limit to three, make them smaller, increase the density for efficiency, increase the distance to -- distance between villages to more than 3 miles and explicitly follow smart-growth principles." Any comments or interest in that one? Page 54 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: No. MS. LYNNE: "Golf courses need to be considered development.with some equation to density. It's an intensive use which strongly impacts the natural habitats and rural character and qualities of the areas. We should require TDRs to be used to build these no rural projects as part of receiving area residential development." I will make a comment on that. Brad Cornell brought up that a development like Twin Eagles can be done without any TDRs at all because of the large golf courses. And he foresees that if g°lf courses aren't counted somehow in density, that we're not going to have rural villages or rural lands; we're just going to have duplicates of Twin Eagles throughout the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN COE: We have already made that recommendation-- Motion 8. We recommended to prohibit golf courses except on approved natural and nonirrigated rough areas from being located in greenbelts around rural villages or any other preservation areas. Motion carried 6 to 1, with Mr. Sansbury descending. MS. LYNNE: Right. And -- and the difference here is that Mr. Cornell's saying that golf courses in the re -- in the -- yeah -- in the receiving areas should have to -- that there should be some kind of-- he suggests using TDRs, that you need one unit per acre in TDRs to build a golf course. MR. MULHERE: If I could add, this is a -- an issue that's been discussed quite a bit through the last, I'd say, six or eight months. This issue was also raised when the staff went up and had a preliminary discussion with the DCA. Page 55 February 6, 2002 The concern is a very valid one. We've -- I've stated and we've stated that the importance of the TDR program or the viability is directly related to a market to utilize those TDRs. The question here is whether or not there would be an insufficient market if you can go in and purchase 3- or 400 acres of land in a receiving area, put in a golf course and develop, say, upscale housing at the current base density of 1 per 5 and have no need to purchase TDRs under that market. So it's a very valid question. We will be raising this issue to the board as to whether or not, as a policy consideration, they would like to establish a minimum density for golf courses. And that minimum density in the example that we have utilized has been .5 dwelling units per acre. So with a base density of 1 per 5, in order to achieve the golf course, they would have to acquire through TDRs enough density to get to at least .5 in a receiving area in a residential golf course community. That would create a necessity to utilize TDRs in conjunction with golf courses. It's an issue that we think is very valid. I have a policy discussion, and we will be bringing it up as part of the course of deliberation and the planning too. MR. CARLSON: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN COE: Let's make a motion. Let's get it up there on a piece of paper. Do you have a motion? MR. CARLSON: Huh? CHAIRMAN COE: You've raised your finger. You're volunteering. MR. CARLSON: I -- I make a motion that we support the concept of using -- establishing a minimum density for Page 56 February 6, 2002 a golf course community and having them participate in the TDR program. Does that do it? CHAIRMAN COE: Is that clear enough for you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COE: -- Tom? Do I have a second to that motion? MS. LYNNE: Can I just ask -- it's not TDRs for the golf course community; it's TDRs for the golf course itself. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's -- there's two ways you could do it. This is -- this achieves the same result. There's two ways you can do it: You could try to establish some sort of a formula, whether it's on a per-acre basis -- you say for, you know, every acre of golf course, you have to purchase. 1 TDRs or something. I think that's a lot more complicated than what I'm recommending. What I'm recommending is establishing a minimum density associated with golf courses, residential golf course communities. And, of course, the only way you can achieve that from the base is through the TDR program. CHAIRMAN COE: Can I have a second for the motion? MR. MULHERE: I mean, it -- it just -- MS. LYNNE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Let the record show that Mr. Stone was not in attendance for the vote. Pass 6-0. Any other comments? MR. CARLSON: Well, just -- I think this whole Page 57 February 6, 2002 discussion about creating a market for TDRs is very interesting. And do -- do you have other potential incentives? MR. MULHERE: Well, one of the things that I should have mentioned that I didn't is that we asked this very question to our consultant, Dr. Jim Nicholas, who's the economist with the University of Florida who evaluated the proposed TDR proposal and evaluated it based on a number of conditions. One was, tell us how we can best structure this so that it will work. And number two was, tell us, you know, what is the economic viability of this. And he prepared a report. And then subsequent to that report, we asked some additional questions, one of which was, what about this example of someone being able to -- of there being a strong market for the base density, say, in conjunction with the golf course community where there -- there wouldn't be a market incentive to acquire additional units. His finding was that, you know, developers are rational economic purchasers and that if there is an economic benefit to them purchasing some additional units and constructing them in conjunction with this golf course that they're going to build anyway, that they will go in and purchase more than the base -- based on really the economic viability of it. But that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate policy discussion to enhance that market viability by requiring in some cases -- in the case of golf courses, for example, some minimum density. It-- it still, I think, is worthy of discussion as a policy. I mean, that's going to guarantee it versus -- Dr. Nicholas's point was from all the data that he Page 58 February 6, 2002 reviewed, he feel strongly that it will happen anyway, but it may not happen to that degree. So we do have an expert evaluation that would tell us that there is an economic viability to the whole TDR program. I don't think that came really as any surprise to us when we look at the market values of land out there and dwelling units. Another way that you enhance that is by allowing, as we discussed at the previous meeting, perhaps under some conditions, a transfer into the urban area for, say, infill -- qualified infill development. Those have a value too, and then you increase the viability. There are only about 5,000 units to send. So when you look at rural villages, you look at market -- other market incentives to increase your base density, and then you look at these options of, one, a minimum density for golf course; and two, an urban transfer. In Dr. Nicholas's opinion, our challenge would be to find additional sending lands once these were exhausted, and -- and they felt that that would probably be the -- you know, the outcome. MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm -- I'm going to say something that's going to get me in a lot of trouble, but, you know, I'm so worried about the future of this county. And I've been thinking about this a lot, and I -- I have a really half-baked idea. So anybody gets mad at me, I'm just thinking out loud, but I think this is the time to do it. This is the discussion to do it. I live in The Estates, and in The Estates, you're allowed to build a guest home. And, you know, it's -- I mean, it's -- everybody rents these guest -- you're not supposed to rent them. They're not rental units. They're Page 59 February 6, 2002 for your family, for your mother-in-law, whatever, but people build them and people rent them, and there's a big wink and a nod going on. And even the county commissioners -- you know, code enforcement has better things to do; the county commissioners have better things to do, so this is going on. You know, my fear is that over time there's going to be so many guest homes that are rental units in Collier County, it's going to be like the docks at Coconut Creek. You know, there you have a lot of nice people who built illegal docks and nobody wanted them to be criminals, so they changed the rules for the docks and made them legal. That's -- So I -- I could see this happening in The Estates in the future, that there are just so many people renting their guest homes, that the commissioners will say, okay, it's all right; go ahead and do it. But instead of giving that away -- I mean, if somebody with a lot of 2 1/2 acres or 5 acres wanted to build a second dwelling and be able to legally rent it, could they be required to buy it development? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a great question, and-- and you -- you have a great mind. We've -- we've also considered that-- MR. CARLSON: Great minds think alike. MR. MULHERE: -- so we must have great minds as well. We had a lot of discussion over this. And in fact, we talked to Dr. Nicholas about this as well, and he brought up some examples where -- and a specific example was the Hamptons in -- in New York where they have a TDR Page 60 February 6, 2002 program, and it's for two reasons: One, to protect natural resources; and two, to protect agricultural in that area. And the -- they had the same situation. Guest houses were allowed, but they were illegally being rented out. And in that case they did make a provision that in order to legitimize the guest house for rental purposes, you could acquire a TDR. The values of the TDRs are very, very high in that area, as you can imagine, because of real estate values, but it worked very well. A significant amount of people did exercise their right to purchase a TDR at a pretty high price to legitimize their guest house. We did not propose that here. There are some growth management-- I'd defer you to Marjorie. There are some growth-management issues relative to, you know, calculating density and doing other things. Right now a guest house, since it's legally only for-- it can't be rented out. It's only for a mother-in-law or, you know, perhaps a -- you know, a child or a sick relative or something along those lines, or visitors or guests. It does go towards the overall density in the county. Again, if you were requiring a unit through a transfer process, this would not increase the overall density in the county either. So -- and -- and it may not necessarily have to be a whole unit; it could be a half a unit that you would have to acquire, you know. And still you would fall under the -- some of the regulations because guest houses, for example, can only be 40 percent of the size of the principal structure. So you have some restrictions on you. Perhaps that would be justification Page 61 February 6, 2002 for not a full unit but a half unit. We didn't include that in this recommendation because we felt that there was sufficient market out there to be able to exhaust supply of sending units without including that, but we agreed -- we thought it was a good idea to -- MR. CARLSON: Well, I -- I think if you're trying to create a market, especially if you could-- if people who weren't even ready to build a guest house yet but they wanted to in the future, they could buy a development unit, and it would be a -- an attachment to their deed, and they could -- they could build ten years from now, or they could sell it with their property and say, this property is -- you're entitled to build another unit here, or they could pass it on to their children. I just think it would create a tremendous market. MR. MULHERE: I -- I can't argue with you. MS. STUDENT: You said you'd defer to me, and right now, the way the program's set up, that wouldn't be permissible. But we're looking at a new program and -- here for the rural fringe. And that -- so I'm not -- I think it's an excellent idea, and it's something that's worthy of looking at. It would have to be accomplished through comp plan amendment and then subsequent LDR amendments. MR. MULHERE: If you'd like to make a motion to that effect, we would carry that forward as well. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody want to make a motion on that? MS. LYNNE: I'll move to that effect. MR. MULHERE: Barbara just mentioned, you know, what about the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee, and I Page 62 February 6, 2002 guess I'd be careful not to step on toes. Most likely what we would do is make that a recommendation for their consideration because I think the board would probably want to defer this because it would impact that area potentially to them for consideration, just the same as we've indicated our choice relative to Orange Tree, which we also concur makes a pretty good receiving location because it already has a lot of impacts. And -- and so, because that's not part -- technically part of the assessment area but it is a countywide policy, we could certainly make a recommendation, and we'll carry any motion that you make forward, but that that be deferred for consideration or moved-- directed for consideration to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Restudy Committee. I think the timing on that is somewhere in the neighborhood of probably a year for them to finish their-- their evaluation assessment and still would be sufficient enough to -- to achieve some good, some benefit. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MR. CARLSON: So your recommendation is to make a motion to carry this to the Golden Gate Estates? MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't think you have to do that. I think the board -- you could just make a recommendation to the board to consider this as a policy, you know. But I just wanted you to be aware that that -- again, that committee is out there, and the board may wish to redirect it to that committee for consideration. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Then I'll move that we recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to explore with the Page 63 February 6, 2002 Golden Gate Estates -- what do you call it? MR. MULHERE: Master Plan Restudy. MR. CARLSON: -- Master Plan Restudy Committee the desirability of requiring transfer of development right into The Estates zoning for lots 2 1/2 acres or larger for secondary structures. Whoops. MS. BURGESON: Should maybe that be 2 1/4 acres? MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Two and a quarter acres or larger. I'm going to complicate it. There are legal nonconforming lots in Golden Gate Estates that are generally -- generally in the -- the average size of about an acre and a quarter. There are quite a few. There are several thousand. The guest house regulations as they're currently written are not -- don't only apply in Golden Gate Estates. They apply anywhere in Collier County where you have over 1 acre of land and have over a hundred foot of frontage. You may then come in and -- and build a guest house not to exceed 40 percent of your-- that doesn't mean that this couldn't be limited. I just wanted to let you know that. And then when you put that size restriction, you would be precluding those that have an acre and a quarter but also have a guest house in The Estates from enjoying this -- this process. If you want to just limit it to Golden Gate Estates, I'd just say for all legal -- legal lots that meet the provisions of guest houses. MS. STUDENT: I -- I have a comment about that, that I'm concerned that if we treat similarly situated properties, that being where you meet criteria to have a Page 64 February 6, 2002 guest house differently and maybe allow it in The Estates but not elsewhere, I just have some equal-protection issues with that, and we may want to look at -- MR. MULHERE: Generally. MS. STUDENT: -- for any -- you know, generally in any area where the ability to build a guest house is permitted. MR. MULHERE: You can leave it general. MR. CARLSON: Now you're getting me in a lot of trouble. CHAIRMAN COE: you rather-- MR. CARLSON: How about if I just go to the next Golden Gate Estates Planning Committee and talk to them? CHAIRMAN COE: That sounds like a better thing. I'd like to remind the EAC that we still have two projects that we have to go through. And I note that Brad brought this to us during the meeting, which is pretty extensive, so I don't know how you all want to handle -- handle it. Does anybody have any comments? Because Brad's given us some extensive things here that we haven't had a chance really to go over. MS. BURGESON: We also have a presentation by Jim Beever after the land-use petitions. CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. So I would suggest that we table the Audubon sheet until the next meeting. That will give us a chance to look over it and make further comments. MR. CARLSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN COE: Is there anybody that disagrees with that? Do I have a rewording motion, or would Page 65 February 6, 2002 Very well. Let's -- Barb, if you-- and I don't know if you did this or not. It looks like Brad's gone. But in the future if Brad or anyone else has these extensive written comments, I'd appreciate if you'd just tell them to put it in the package, you know, and-- MS. BURGESON: e-mail. CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: believe staff has yet. CHAIRMAN COE: We just received those this morning by I -- I figured that. And the second package, I don't even Yeah. I figured that. But maybe we can just remind some of these so we can take a look at it. What is this that we just received? MS. BURGESON: That's the e-mail that I got this morning from Brad Cornell with his concerns. And if there's additional information that was handed out to you from Brad today, I -- I'm not aware of it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. I'm going to also table that until our next meeting. MS. BURGESON: The next portion of the agenda is the two land-use petitions. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, I'm Ray Bellows, chief planner with the current planning section. Today I'll be presenting petition PUDZ-2001-AR1842, East Gateway PUD. I'll be presenting a general overview of planning issues, and Steve Lenberger will do the environmental review for this project. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard, south side Page 66 February 6, 2002 of 1-75, and about a quarter of a mile west of Collier Boulevard. The subject site is currently zoned C-4, RMF-12, RMF-6 and Residential Single-Family-4, along with an agricultural strip. It's located adjacent to the existing PUD, a residential one, Saddlebrook Village and the 1-75/Alligator Alley commercial PUD to the east. Petitioner proposes to rezone the subject site to a planned unit development, allowing approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial retail uses and about 250,000 square feet of industrial park uses. The master plan indicates the -- it'll have a development tract for industrial uses that have -- are near and adjacent to 1-75. Then north of Davis Boulevard is Tract C, which is the commercial development tract. There's also a preserve area along the western and northern property boundary. The subject site is within an -- an activity center, and it's designated on the future land-use map. The site is located within the red square area. That's designated as Activity Center No. 9 on the future land-use map. This activity center encourages commercial development and industrial uses where those impacts can be addressed for traffic-circulation improvements and access-management plans. There's an existing commercial development on the east side and then on the south side. There's also industrial zoning to the south on the -- designated on the future land-use map. The proposed uses in the PUD are consistent with the growth-management plan and the comprehensive plan. There Page 67 February 6, 2002 is no problems with consistency from a planning standpoint with the future land-use element. Steve Lenberger's here to present the environmental, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Planning Services. Please excuse me. I'm getting over a head cold. Still a little congested. The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Davis Boulevard and 951. It's located between 1-75 and Davis boulevard, this being the subject property, this right here. The property is about 37.4 acres. Quite a bit of it's jurisdictional wetland, about 23.7 acres. The uplands on the parcel are located mainly in this portion of the property and up in this area. The balance of the property is mostly wetlands. The petitioner is proposing to retain uplands and wetlands in a preserve area approximately 5.7 acres in size. This will be located on the western side of the property and along the southern part of 1-75. To give you an idea of how this lies with adjacent parcels, the petitioner has put together this exhibit showing the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD to the east and the adjoining PUD to the west. And the preserve area, there's a recreated marsh area on this section of the 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD, and the -- the preserve area does connect onto that preserve area. The preserve -- the PUD to the west also has preserve located on the northern portion, western side of the site and roughly in the center portion, which connect to the preserve area, which is proposed for east Gateway. Page 68 February 6, 2002 The subject property is all wooded. It's primarily pine flatwoods and pine, cypress mix. There's quite a bit of exotics on portions of the site, particularly this area. And in -- the north end has quite a bit of Melaleuca in it. The petitioner is proposing to impact -- it's about 20 acres of wetlands, be about 86 percent of the wetlands on site. They are not proposing any off-site mitigation yet, have not approached the district yet as far as off-site mitigation, so that has to be evaluated later. They are proposing to preserve the 5.7 acres on site. They are required to retain 25 percent of the existing native vegetation on site, so there is a -- a shortfall of 3.64 acres which will have to be retained elsewhere in the PUD or plan it on site. And that's what the petitioner's proposing at this time. The area in general is known to have red-cockaded woodpeckers and has had numerous activity in the past with RCWs. And the petitioner did do a survey. It's in the environmental impact statement. No birds were observed on site. And when they go in for agency permits, they'll have to answer to comments from Florida Fish and Wildlife, the Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding RCWs. I'm here to answer any questions. The petitioner is here also with their environmental consultant to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got one question: Is there any net loss of wetlands? MR. LENBERGER: As proposed right now, yes. There'll be about 20 acres of wetlands lost because there's no Page 69 February 6, 2002 off-site mitigation proposed at this time. MR. CARLSON: And I have a question while you're up there. Now, the water-management system takes the runoff and sends it west, into the development to the west, and then into the Golden Gate canal system? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with the Development Services. If you'll remember, Saddlebrook was the project that came in and Bill Mckinley stood up and said that John Boldt wants him to run it south and the Water Management District wanted him to run it north. And he said, I don't care, whichever. And the Water Management District won. It runs north to the canal. It dumps into Saddlebrook. Saddlebrook dumps into the ditch. The ditch heads north to the canal. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Well, petitioner? MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, members of the council, it's a pleasure to be before you this morning. I'm going to start on this side in the room here so I can show you where the property's actually located. There we go. The subject property lies within a -- Activity Center No. 9. Over the past three years, there has been an extensive study in Activity Center 9. It was called the Interchange Master Plan. Some of you may have remembered the -- the process for identifying intensive commercial uses, industrial uses that came out of the plan, and then the promulgation of the land development regulations that were imported into the Land Development Code were just recently adopted on January 9 pursuant to Ordinance 2002.3. Page 70 February 6, 2002 The -- as was stated by Mr. Lenberger and Mr. Bellows, there is industrial uses that adjoin the property. Access to the property will be in alignment with those industrial land uses in Westport Commerce Center. There will be interconnection for vehicular purposes with the 951 commerce center to the east, and as was also stated, that the water management will be directed from the east Gateway property through the wetland preserve in the Saddlebrook Village project, and that has been constructed. Phase II is under review right now. And then it would discharge into a drainage swale. It runs along the easterly boundary of Palm Springs subdivision, which lies just to the west of the Saddlebrook Village project. The property is 39.37 acres, and we are proposing to have 200,000 square feet of commercial on approximately 20 acres, which is consistent with the policies of Collier County as well as industrial business park uses to the extent of 250,000 square feet, which is also consistent with the business park and the industrial land-use designations of the Growth Management Plan. It was found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. As one can imagine with the impoundment of major roadways, that being 1-75 to the north, the Davis Boulevard/Radio Road right-of-ways to the south, and the Collier Boulevard right-of-ways to the east, as well as the drawdown effect of hydrology for the Golden Gate canal, that these may have been wetlands at one time; however, the environmental consultants that will speak after me will identify that the hydrology has been Page 71 February 6, 2002 diminished significantly. The site is flat, generally ranging from 9.8 feet to 11.6 feet to NGVD, and as we had stated, the drainage through Saddlebrook will occur. And then, finally, in recognition of Mr. Lenberger's comments, yes, we are required to retain 25 percent or replant vegetation, naturally occurring, viably existing native vegetation on site to the extent of 9.34 acres. The 5.7-acre conservation easement proposed along the west as well as the northerly portion of the property were designed specifically so that there can be the interconnection with the Saddlebrook wetland as well as the upland conservation easement that lies on the north and the west side of Saddlebrook Village. Those -- the Saddlebrook Village has an existing Corps South Florida permit, and it was those areas that were considered to be most viable for RCW habitat. The current site -- I'm not going to step on the toes of our fine environmental consultants, but the habitat on this site, I've been told, is not conducive to the foraging habits of the RCW because the canopy's so dense and the extent of the Melaleuca on site. So, yes, we're showing a 9 -- a 5.7-acre preserve. We haven't ventured into the South Florida or Corps permitting process as yet, but I fully anticipate that our conservation area is going to expand and that there will be mitigation required off site to offset the proposed impacts to the degradated wetlands. And I can hold myself up for questions or you can hear from our environmental consultants. CHAIRMAN COE: Questions? MR. NADEAU: Thank you. Page 72 February 6, 2002 MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. I'm Andy Woodruff with Passarella & Associates. I also have Julie Erickson here from Passarella as well. We're the environmental consultants for the project site. As Dwight has explained, the location situation for the project site is found by 1-75 and Davis, and commercial and industrial on the east and residential and commercial on the west. The habitats on the project site, mostly pine, pine-cypress areas. And we have had the Water Management District out to do a wetland jurisdictional; however, that jurisdictional has not been finalized with the district yet this morning, and there might be some changes to that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction on the west side of the project site, on the Saddlebrook side, what the Water Management District did there was significantly less than what they had claimed or proposed to have claimed on this particular site, so there's some contention there as to why that happened. Habitats on the site have been hydrologically disturbed. I'm speaking about the wetland habitats on the site. There is a great deal of Melaleuca on the site. The majority of the wetlands are greater than 75 percent Melaleuca. We have not entered into the permit process with the district and Corps. We address the no-net loss district and Corps for that permit process. We will have to address the no-net loss functional wetlands on the project site. We have done wildlife surveys on the project site, Page 73 February 6, 2002 listed species surveys, including surveys for RCW cavity trees, and we've -- nonnesting season -- I'm sorry -- nesting season for these cavities for the red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project site, and there's been no red-cockaded woodpeckers seen or observed on the project site. There are not red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees located on the project site. If there's any other CHAIRMAN COE: project is 37.39 acres, MR. WOODRUFF: CHAIRMAN COE: going to affect 20.3. MR. WOODRUFF: questions -- Any questions? I got a couple. This correct? 37.4. Of that, 23.7 are wetlands, and you're The majority of the wetlands on the project site will be impacted by the project. CHAIRMAN COE: wetlands? MR. WOODRUFF: So is there any net loss to the When we go through the permit process with the district and Corps, as part of that process, they have to ensure that we have no net functional loss of wetland habitat on our project site. But we will do a functional assessment of those wetlands on this project. Whatever that functional assessment comes out to be, we will have to replace that elsewhere, either preservation or restoration off site. I fully anticipate off-site mitigation for the project, not only off-site mitigation for the primary impacts that we're talking about, but they're also going to require us to mitigate for the preservation of habitat that we're proposing to do for the county. So we're going to fully mitigate for all of the Page 74 February 6, 2002 wetlands on this project site, and that will be in the form of off-site mitigation. CHAIRMAN COE: And that would be -- that mitigation would be -- 100 percent includes only wetlands or would uplands also be included in the mitigation? MR. WOODRUFF: It can be a combination of-- CHAIRMAN COE: I realize that -- what their regulations are, but we generally like to keep it with wetlands. Wetlands for wetlands. MR. WOODRUFF: Well, generally, if we go to, say, a mitigation bank, we will purchase mitigation credit that is to be used strictly for wetland mitigation, credit -- functional credit for functional credit. We can compensate for that -- that wetland loss. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? Yes, sir? MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I wish Bill Lorenz was here. But you haven't -- you haven't gone through the Water Management -- you haven't even done a preliminary plan with the Water Management. MR. WOODRUFF: We haven't made application to the Water Management District or Corps. We haven't had our -- MR. CARLSON: Because I would ask Bill, you know, this is the typical kind of 80 per -- 80-plus wetland impact that we see in projects; whereas, his presentation on his analysis said it was about 16 percent overall. So I wish Bill was here to explain this. It -- it almost seems to me like you're not ready to be here. I mean, this is the Environmental Advisory Council, and we're trying to look at your Environmental Protection Plan. I see a little preservation around the Page 75 February 6, 2002 edge, which basically serves as a buffer. I -- I don't understand how you've gone through the sequencing of avoiding impacts to wetlands in this project or minimizing impacts of wetlands. I think you're just retaining the minimum preserve land that you have to retain by county standards and just eliminating the rest of it. So this to me is unacceptable wetlands loss, and I just don't see any other way to look at it. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? Any other members of the EAC? MR. WHITE: Before we proceed any further, Mr. Chairman, my apologies. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe I was having a discussion with our other attorney when we started with this case, and we might have neglected to swear in the witnesses and have ex parte disclosures. If I'm wrong about that, please forgive me. But at this time, I'd like to suggest that we take care of those two. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN COE: Thanks for reminding us, Patrick. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Mr. Nadeau. Any ex parte disclosures? (No response.) MR. WHITE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN COE: There are none? MR. NADEAU: IfI may, Mr. Chairman, respond to Mr. Carlson's comment about he doesn't believe that -- it's premature for us to be here. This is a zoning process, and with the amount of cost involved with doing a commercial project and trying to forward a -- what would Page 76 February 6, 2002 have to be a ^ Flodge plan to the district to identify the wetland impacts prior to having the zoning entitlement in place, it -- it's just not done for commercial properties. There are currently no tenants for the property, but the trust whom I present -- whom I represent is actively pursuing tenants for that property, and we will be -- we were mandated to pursue permitting with both the Corps, the Water Management District, and the Game and Fish Commission will be involved also based on the RCW issues. So I fully understand that there is going to be a no-net loss of the wetlands on the property. What we'd like this council to understand is that this is the process that we're required to follow. The Land Development Code does not require us to have a district permit before we apply for zoning. In fact, the Water Management District will not actually really review the -- any proposed individual permit or general permit for dredging and filling in the waters in the United States or in the waters of the state without having proper zoning. So just for clarity purposes, I want to put that on the record. MS. BURGESON: Also, it might be helpful to understand that with the proposed changes to the Growth Management Plan, that in the future if they do get through and approved, that they will be required to at this point have gotten probably two-thirds or three-quarters of the way through their South Florida permit prior to even coming to your board, because they'll have to be able to provide that agreed-upon score for the wetland function prior to staff reviewing them. Page 77 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MS. LYNNE: I have a comment. I don't see how I can possibly make recommendation based on the information that's here. There's -- there's nothing here to show me how you're going to address it. You're just telling me that you have to by law, but that doesn't tell me how. I've got nothing to base this decision on. If I'd have to vote today, I'd have to vote against it. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a motion? MR. HILL: A question. It seems to me in the past the same scenario has occurred, and I think we were told that we cannot have it come back to us after South Water-- Water Management acts; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: You can continue any item before the EAC for any reason that you can substantiate, whether it be for information that's not available at this time or to recommend changes to what's presented. If you do'make a motion, even if it's to deny the petition, then it's simply moved forward. And if you wanted it to come back, you could make a motion that it come back at that time. However, if it's already gone through the process to the board and-- and become a PUD, it -- it would just be for information at the time when it came back as opposed to being able to make a decision. MR. HILL: My question is, if we would move to require this to come back to us following Water Management's input, that may or may not get back to us before it goes to the board. MS. BURGESON: No, no. If you put the petition on Page 78 February 6, 2002 hold and continue it for that information, then it does not go forward. The only time it goes forward to the planning commission is when there's a formal motion, whether it be to approve or to deny. And you -- MR. HILL: I move that we continue this until a South Water -- South Florida Water Management District permit has been requested and their action be -- MR. CARLSON: I have to agree with that because the -- the problem is, if we vote on this for approval, we're voting on an incomplete plan, and you can't help but think that's a seal of approval from the Environmental Advisory Council and it's an incomplete plan, so how can we -- how can we do that? MS. BURGESON: All right. Are you looking for at least the first response for South Florida Water Management District on a submitted permit or are you looking for a final outcome? MR. CARLSON: No. We'd -- we'd like to know the final outcome of the amount of wetlands preserved and what the jurisdictional wetlands are, how much is preserved, what the arrangement of that preserved is and how off-site mitigation is -- MS. BURGESON: Does that typically occur -- I mean, for instance, when you're submitting to the South Florida Water Management District your permit application, their first response back to you typically includes those questions that you would need to address to respond to that; is that correct? MR. WOODRUFF: When we first submit, I mean, we've got to go through the avoidance alternatives analysis. We don't get to the mitigation until nine months down the Page 79 February 6, 2002 road. That's -- that's the final process, is doing mitigation -- MS. BURGESON: Right. Which is about the time that you would agree upon the WRAP scores or the functional scores? MR. WOODRUFF: CHAIRMAN COE: (Nodding of head.) Does that mean it's too late in the process for them or what? MS. BURGESON: the future. CHAIRMAN COE: That is how we will be requiring it in It's required now, right? And I'll -- I'll just make my own comment here. My real concern is the high percentage of wetlands and the fact we -- you know, we haven't done a WRAP score on it yet. You know, if it was like 20 percent, I might be able to be a little bit more understanding, but you're talking about 37.4 acres of which 23.7 is wetlands -- I mean, that's like the whole project's wetlands. Just bulldoze it down and put in commercial property. So I'd like to see what -- you know if we can do a little bit better. So do I have a motion? MR. CARLSON: Well, I also think-- MR. HILL: There is a motion on the floor, Mr. Chair. MR. CARLSON: I also think this particular kind of development, which is not residential or not golf course, you're taking an area that's wetland and stores water and attenuates flooding and things like that, and this commercial kind of development will have a very high percentage, I assume, of impervious surface, either pavement or roofs, and so you're going to get a heck of a lot of runoff from this development, which is going to Page 80 February 6, 2002 affect the groundwater recharge. So I -- I think this is, you know, unsustainable for the county to keep doing this. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: May we have a motion? MR. CARLSON: I would think you would have some sort of on-site retention. MR. NADEAU: Oh, we will. There is going to be on-site retention. It is going to be pretreating and any runoff from the impervious areas prior to discharge into the Saddlebrook Village wetland, so the water quality will -- will be addressed, and we won't get our Corps permit without qual -- water-quality certification from the district. And to be continued and not be allowed to go on to the board without EAC seeing some sort of a definitive mitigation plan, it would result, after the expenditure of many, many thousands of dollars, and right now the permit process with the district for an individual permit, it's 18 months. Now, I -- the petitioner, as well as our consultants, have followed the rules up to this point, and I believe that -- that the petition should not be continued, that if you choose to -- to move for approval or move for denial, but the -- a 9- to ! 8-month delay to get in front of the Board of County Commissioners, I think that would be unreasonable and unwarranted, particularly with the fact that there is the potential that the hearing officer is going to obviate the need for EAC to review zoning applications, and that installation could be as soon as June. Page 81 February 6, 2002 So I'm not really sure -- I would have to defer to Mr. White, Attorney White, to give this council direction. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, see, our problem is this, is that we haven't been presented with a plan that shows what's going to happen with runoff. We haven't been presented anything, other than we're going -- just going to knock it out and we're just going to put around the edges here a little preserve. You know this as well as I do. You don't need to be an environmentalist to figure it out. When you put that little strip of preserve there, the wetland preserve, as we call it, is going to be dead. When those cedars dry out or when those cypress dry out, that's it. It's done. There is no more wetland preserve. You know it and your environmentalist knows it. So, you know, we know how this thing works. MR. WOODRUFF: I mean, these preserves, they will be incorporated into the surface water management design system. There will be established control elevations that we would have to put in. CHAIRMAN COE: Well, why can't we be presented with that plan of retention holding area for water and all that sort of thing? Is there a particular reason? MR. NADEAU: The reason is because we don't have a-- a land-use plan. Now, we could throw on a target and we can throw on some sort of a land use that isn't an actual tenant and create something for you to look at. But to be honest with you, that would not be fair to you. Zoning is a entitlement process that allows for development to move forward subject to the rules of the Page 82 February 6, 2002 permitting agencies as well as the rules of Collier County. So our conceptual water management plan shows that the -- the property will drain into two weir control structures in the preserve area, which will provide for an attenuation of water quality prior to discharge in the 6-acre wetland preserve here, and then as the water makes its way through, it will discharge under the road and up through to the main Golden Gate Canal. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other comments? MR. HILL: This is where the system is totally flawed. If this in fact is a zoning request, it shouldn't have to have any environmental -- MR. NADEAU: Well, it's not, though. MR. HILL: -- action taken, if it's a zoning request. And as far as my being a member of the Environmental Advisory Council, I can see no reason for objecting to this to be industrial commercial area. But then you go ahead and you come back to us and say, now, this is what we're going to do. Then we make a judgment from the environmental standpoint. There's absolutely no reason for this council to try to make a decision environmentally when there's nothing there. Now, my motion, which is still on the floor-- I don't know whether it died for lack of a second or not -- is to continue this because I can't make a decision environmentally until you tell me what's going to happen on that property. And saying it's commercial/industrial is not sufficient for this group to make a meaningful statement. Okay? MR. NADEAU: And excuse me -- Page 83 February 6, 2002 MR. HILL: And I think that has to be recognized. MR. NADEAU: And excuse me, Mr. Hill. Would you be saying that I can't go to the board or the planning commission until this council reviews a plan and in a mitigation regime that has been looked at and -- I don't know if you're asking us to get the staff report or -- MR. HILL: Will you go to the Board of County Commissioners without those things? MR. NADEAU: Yes, I will. MR. HILL: Then, again, the system is flawed totally, as far as -- CHAIRMAN COE: See, what we're saying is we want to see the plan where we can look at it and say, yeah, environmental that's pretty sound. We're not being presented with a plan; we're being presented with a zoning request. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, was there a second to my motion? MS. LYNNE: I so second. MR. GAL: I'd just like to ask -- Barbara, I just want to be clear that if we continue this hearing -- this project to a later date, then they cannot go before any other planning -- the planning board or the Board of County Commissioners? MS. BURGESON: It-- it's been a couple years since this board has opted to continue an item, but previous to that, whenever any item has been continued, it has not been allowed to move through the system forward to the planning commission until this board has taken a formal action either to support or to deny it. CHAIRMAN COE: They can go to South Florida Water Page 84 February 6, 2002 Management District and get this ironed out and do that. MS. BURGESON: Ray Bellows has just stated that he believes that that's still the way the same process works. MR. HILL: With the consent -- if that's the case, with the consent of the seconder, I'll withdraw the motion and place a new one on the table if we deny this -- deny approval with this project based on the lack of any environmental evidence. CHAIRMAN COE: I'll second that. MR. HILL: Erica? MS. LYNNE: I -- I'd like to have a vote on the -- CHAIRMAN COE: Fine. MS. LYNNE: -- continuance. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Vote is still on the table for a continuance. All for? MS. LYNNE: Aye. There's another one. MR. STONE: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? MR. GAL: Nay. MS. SANTORO: Nay. MR. CARLSON: Nay. MR. HILL: Nay. MR. WHITE: Is that 5 to -- 2 to 5, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COE: 2 to 5, that's correct. MR. HILL: Then I move that we recommend denial of PUDZ-2001-AR-1842 based on the fact that there's insufficient evidence to make an environmental decision. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second? MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: Second? All -- all for? Page 85 February 6, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? Carries 7 to 0. MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COE: Next. MR. HILL: This has -- that has been a problem in the past, and I think we need to somehow streamline the procedure to get this question resolved. No reason we should be sitting here making an environmental advisory decision with-- with totally incomplete plans. CHAIRMAN COE: Then what happens, Barb, even beyond that, is now they're permitted to go forward. It never comes back to us, so the EAC never looked at the environmental considerations in any sort of the plan. MS. BURGESON: This -- this has come up in discussion, though, over the past ten years many different times, and there have been motions at times to require that at least the initial submittal to South Florida Water Management District be provided with our packages, and that's even been discussed with some of the Board of County Commissioners. I'm not sure about previous boards, but currently there's -- there are members of the current board that have thought that that might be the appropriate way to bring things forward. So there -- there has been some support for additional information or at least a -- at least getting into that South Florida process to at least -- CHAIRMAN COE: Well, the thing is, is it's as bad for the developers as it is for us. All right. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman-- Page 86 February 6, 2002 MS. SANTORO: Could we look at some kind of-- could the EAC bring up some kind of offering or wordings to make recommendation? I mean, why do we continue the same -- CHAIRMAN COE: I think this is a staff problem, and the staff needs to solve it. So maybe, Barb, you can bring it up with the staff to see how they can coordinate these boards in the hearings so we've got something presented to us. I mean, that's embarrassing for a developer to come up, several thousand dollars I'm sure that he's invested, and you know, we -- we look at him and thumb our nose. But we got nothing to look at. Patrick, you-- you want to say something? MR. WHITE: I'd just like to put into the record that there is one point of entry -- I'm not sure what the subsequent petition might be that would require your approval, but in a circumstance such as this, the LDC in 5.13.6, which talks about the scope of land development project reviews, the last sentence of the first paragraph talks about the fact the EAC shall review any petition which requires approval of either the planning commission or the board where the staff receives a request from the EAC chairman. I don't know that this provides any vehicle to get a subsequent petition before you. I just wanted to make you aware that there was at least the potential for that point of entry. It does exist in the current code. CHAIRMAN COE: All right. Thank you very much. MS. BURGESON: And also, this board does have the ability to direct staff to consider in terms of the review of the Environmental Impact Statement that's submitted, if you want to make a formal motion, that when we are Page 87 February 6, 2002 reviewing that EIS, that we require additional information. We can certainly bring that back to -- CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: effect? Does anyone -- -- Planning Service. Anyone desire to make a motion to that MR. WHITE: Just as a reminder, that same section I cited requires that EISs do come before you. MR. HILL: Would you care to make a guess as to, Mr. White, as far as the impact that the hearing officer appointment might have in this whole proceeding? MR. WHITE: The approved -- the approved but not yet effective Land Development Code modifications relative to the hearing examiner that considered this particular section, 5.13.6, that overall was a balancing between the various boards and councils with what the duties of the hearing examiner would be essentially mimic the same process. The same things would be going before the hearing examiner and with the same degree of consideration with respect to specific petitions, land-use petitions. They would all be considered. For example, I believe EISs would be considered. And an area of critical stated concern and special treatments and overlays would be considered. Those recommendations would all be required through the hearing examiner. It's not set that way for the initial first steps that the hearing examiner's been approved but, again, not yet effective. So the board's view, Board of County Commissioner's view as we see it, is that these types of matters would still remain with you until such time as the hearing Page 88 February 6, 2002 examiner was given authority with respect to rezoning. The current vision is that there would be a limited scope that the hearing examiner would have, so there would be an interim period, if you will. Once the hearing examiner came on board, you'd still be reviewing the environmental-related land-use petitions until such time as the board expanded the hearing examiner's scope of jurisdiction. I know that's a -- a long way around, but I want to make sure you had a full understanding of what's envisioned. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN COE: Barb? MS. BURGESON: I have one recommendation, and that might be that through the environmental-impact statement, the petitioner's required to address Growth Management Plan issues that they have not -- that they have complied with all the growth-management issues of no-net loss or no-net loss of functioning wetlands. What -- what we've done in some petitions is when they've come to us and we've not got that concrete evidence, we've stipulated that they provide that to us prior to final development order approval. One thing that this board, if you chose to do, could be that we not stipulate that past this board anymore, that we require that that evidence either be provided to us for review or that they commit to specific mitigation at this time. CHAIRMAN COE: What impact does that have on the developers financially? MS. BURGESON: I couldn't answer that question. I Page 89 February 6, 2002 would just have to say that that is how we are proposing for the new GMPs to function, requiring more information up front with the approved WRAP scores and with the evidence that their mitigation will be in accordance. CHAIRMAN COE: Can't you just do that administratively, or do we have to make a motion to have the staff do it? MS. BURGESON: As long as you've discussed it and -- and basically given us direction to do that, we'd be happy to -- to look at future EISs that way. CHAIRMAN COE: Does anybody have anything against that, to have the staff go ahead and go through that? MR. CARLSON: Go for it. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. We got another petition. Staff ready for presentation on that? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that we have the swearing of witnesses and disclosures of ex pane. (The oath was administered.) MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I am a principal planner with the Planning Services Department, and I'm here to explain to you about the description of the surrounding properties and the consistencies for the project that is known as Hemmingway Place PSP. And you have an aerial photograph on the board that shows the site. Project location is right there. Also, on the visualizer you can see the subject property as shown in blue. There is Goodlette-Frank Road along the boundary to the east, and to the north is RSF-4 and RMF-6 zoning. Most of that is developed with the Cypress Wood Estates subdivision. Page 90 February 6, 2002 To the south is RSF-4 and RMF-6. The RSF-4 is developed with the North Naples Highlands subdivision. The west area is developed with Oak Knoll, Unit 1 subdivision, and it is also zoned RSF-4. The subject petition is a request for approval of a 25-unit single-family subdivision on 9.63 acres. For informational purposes, there had been a conditional use that was granted to allow an ALF. That has since expired. It was good for three years, and it expired on December 8 of 2001. This project, if you look at the site plan, you can see -- are we on? Okay. Now you can see that the site will be served by Hemmingway Place, which is a cul-de-sac-ending road, the 25 lots beginning here, going around the cul-de-sac, coming around to here for the 25th. There is no direct access onto Goodlette-Frank Road. The access will be through Cypress Woods Drive to the north. This particular parcel is located in the urban mixed-use residential land-use classification. You can see the arrow. It points generally to the site of the parcel. This particular land-use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential units which would include the single-family uses that are proposed. The projected density of 2.59 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the density rating system contained in the FLUE. I don't have anything further. At this point Steve can come forward and present the environmental issues for you. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Page 91 February 6, 2002 Planning Services. As Kay had mentioned, the subject property is an infill parcel located about a mile and a half north of Golden Gate Parkway on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road. You can see from the aerial, that parcel is primarily wooded. There are some areas of disturbance. This northern portion here has an area of disturbed, and there is an existing road bed that runs roughly about a third into the property from the western side and straight in the center. Habitats on site, native habitats are cypress strands. This parcel, as indicated up here -- these are the cypress heads here and here. And there's also a pine flatwoods; this portion, this portion. There's also a fair amount of pine along Goodlette-Frank Road. The subject property, being right next to an established neighborhood which has been there quite a long time, has a fair amount of exotics in it. The Brazilian pepper is pretty thick in the cypress areas, although some of the pine flatwoods are in pretty good shape. There's also a lot of other ornamental exotics: Air potato, surinam cherry, Java plumb, that sort of stuff. So it's -- it's fairly heavily impacted with exotics in the cypress areas. With the cypress area, the trees are quite large, so we had the petitioner do a survey of the larger trees on site with the cypress a foot or more DBH just to get an idea where they lie on the property. And that survey is up on this map here by these little symbols inside the cypress area. With that in hand, the petitioner devised a site plan, and the preserve areas were established pretty much Page 92 February 6, 2002 along Goodlette-Frank Road and in this portion of the property where there are a fair number of cypress and there are also quite a bit of large pines on this portion of the property as well. Also, the elevation on this site was a -- a little bit lower than the -- the balance of the property, hopefully allowing more water to enter into the cypress head. Wetlands on site, there are about 4 1/2 acres of wetlands. The petitioner is going to impact 3.25 acres of those wetlands. The project has gone through permitting because it was previously approved as an ALF, and we have just heard from the petitioner that they have their revised South Florida permit to allow for the subdivision. They have purchased 2.6 credits in the Panther Island Allegation Bank. That's a typo in your EAC staff report. It says "2.6 acres." It's 2.6 credits. I apologize for that. On-site preserves are about 1.21 acres of wetlands and. 13 acres of uplands. Protected species, there are some Tillandsia on site, which would be expected in a cypress head like that. There was a gopher tortoise burrow historically active. I believe it was on the old roadbed, but that has since been abandoned. The site -- the disturbed areas are heavily encroached with Brazilian pepper, so it's understandable to see why the gopher tortoise left. I'm here to answer any questions. The petitioner is here as well as their environmental consultant. MR. ESPINAR: Good morning, everybody. For the Page 93 February 6, 2002 record, Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. I'm here. If you have any specific questions, I'll be more than glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody have any questions? MR. CARLSON: It seems like you're a lot further along than previous. MR. ESPINAR: Yes, Ed, we are. MR. CARLSON: You -- you've got a permit from the Water Management District? MR. ESPINAR: This project, as -- as staff has mentioned, was previously permitted as a assisted-living facility. We have since come in for a modification. And yes, we have received our modification from South Florida Water Management District. For the Corps, we're out on public notice, and we don't anticipate any problems with respect to the Corps. All the wetlands -- the Water Management District required us because of the -- the wet-- the wetlands on site are so impacted with the exotics, that the agency's decided that we should mitigate for the entire wetland -- all 4 point -- it's actually 4.46 acres off site at Panther Island. Once we use the WRAP analysis, it comes out to 2.6 credits at Panther Island. So we -- not only, in addition, have we mitigated for the entire 4.46 acres off site, in addition, we have preserved what you see on site. And we are going to remove the exotics on site and route our water through those wetlands. MR. CARLSON: Just out of curiosity, the -- the plan for the assisted-living facility, did it preserve more of this jurisdictional wetlands or-- Page 94 February 6, 2002 MR. ESPINAR: Yes. The original plan did have -- the original one proposed 1.96 acres of preserved? We're proposing at this point 1.34. Okay. But the petitioner, like Mr. Lenberger stated, went ahead and did a tree survey, okay, so -- so we could capture the most -- the biggest, the most majestic cypress trees and make an attempt, and in fact, we did, by moving our road and snaking it around to try to capture as many of those big majestic cypresses as we could. So even -- you know, we might be slightly less than the acreage of original proposal, but I think it's a lot better plan. CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have motion to move to approve? MR. CARLSON: I would just like to go on record as -- remind Mr. Lorenz that we have another project here with a 70 percent wetland impact, and this has been through the South Florida Water Management District but isn't anywhere near the 16 percent that his data analysis indicated. MR. ESPINAR: With that, though, I'd like to point out that in this case we are -- you are ahead on wetlands, okay? Because we -- I mean, so we're on the plus side and not on the negative side. We've mitigated for the entire 4.46 acres, and then we're preserving what we've got. MR. CARLSON: Well, when I -- when I was reading through this project, I was wondering, you know, at-- at what point does, you know, a beautiful feature like a cypress head like this -- and I think I've been down that road and actually seen them. There are some impressive cypress. At what point does that become such an amenity that you preserve more of it and then you charge more for your lots? I mean -- Page 95 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: We have a motion on the floor. MR. CARLSON: That wasn't a joke. CHAIRMAN COE: We have a motion on the floor for approval. Do I have a second? MS. SANTORO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN COE: We have a second. All for? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN COE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Motion carries 7 to 0. MR. ESPINAR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you, Mark. Barb, I'd like to make a comment at this point. I'm supposed to sign these, aren't I? MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: be signed, and then we take those back to the office. CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: returned. CHAIRMAN COE: MS. BURGESON: Do you want your original back? The -- the originals should-- should Well, usually we sign a copy. No. The original gets signed. And the originals stay here? No, no. The originals get signed and Okay. They're-- they're brought down usually in a folder for -- for signature. CHAIRMAN COE: I've got the original right here. MS. BURGESON: Okay. I'll have to check and see what the folder is that we've got. If we could take just a five-minute break to set up for Jim Beever's presentation. Page 96 February 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. That's fine. How long is Jim going to speak? Jim? MR. BEEVER: I'll be short. CHAIRMAN COE: We know you're not tall. MR. BEEVER: I -- I planned for about 15 minutes and then any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COE: Great. Take a five -- MR. ESPINAR: Excuse me. Would the Environmental Advisory Council -- CHAIRMAN COE: Oh, is that the sheet? MR. ESPINAR: Thank you. I just wanted to give you some comments of mine for the record. Make sure. CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. Let's break. Barb, how do you want to handle this? MS. BURGESON: I'll make copies. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COE: The meeting will come to order. Do we have any old business? New business? Mr. Beever. MR. BEEVER: Thank you. My name is James William Beever, III. For the record, that's B-e-e-v-e-r, but you can call me Jim Beever. I'm a Biological Scientist, Roman Numeral IV, with the Florida Division of Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Services. I supervise the Southwest Florida office for the Office of Environmental Services. It consists of myself and other biologists and our office manager. We cover a 15-county area, which ranges from Pasco County in the north and sometimes projects in Hernando, down to Collier and Monroe County in the south, up through the Peace River Valley into areas of the phosphate district. Page 97 February 6, 2002 We have the opportunity to review all the planning permits, activities that are occurring within this whole region. We also are involved with land acquisition, conservation research and public presentations like the one I'm doing today. I'm here because I was invited to do a short presentation for you on the use of the northern Belle Meade area by Florida panthers and to provide you some information background. This presentation would not have been possible without the assistance of Daryl Land in our Division of Wildlife office here in Naples. Many of the slides and data that I'm showing you come from their research work. I intersect with panthers in northern Belle Meade in several different ways. I've been involved with the original team, along with Kim Dryden, who did the wildlife assessment of the Belle Meade area, both southern and northern for its proposal to be to the Carl acquisition list. And I continue to work with Collier County in review of various comp plan amendments like the ones you were looking at earlier this morning, and I can let you know that we have a very long letter in process making comments with regard to that document. First I'd like to point out that, you know, the Florida panther is a species very much tied to forested habitat, as you can see in this -- this first slide. Panthers use the forested areas for cover; they use it for denning; they use it for escape; and they also depend upon it for their form of hunting. The prey that they take, they normally take from a -- a wait-and-attack mode. They will wait along game trails Page 98 February 6, 2002 or watering holes. They're -- they're not a cheetah. They don't run fast after things and chase things down, so the cover is very important to their life-style. The original distribution of the subspecies of the Florida panther covered many southeastern states. This is -- be a view of where the panthers were, say, at the time that Audubon visited Flo -- visited Florida. You can see that their nearest cousins were in Texas. That's why Texas cougars were used in the outbreeding procedure with the Florida panther. They're -- they're kissing cousins, quite literally. Today the panthers' range has been extremely limited -- next slide, please -- to southern Florida. There have been some reports of cats as far north as Waldo in North Florida, but generally the breeding population is found in southwest Florida, concentrated around Collier County, Lee County and Hendry County. Panthers have been spotted this year and confirmed up in Sarasota County. They have moved across the Caloosahatchee River into areas as far north as Highland Hammock State Park. We do have panthers on a regular basis each year in eastern Charlotte, eastern Glades, so they do have a very wide territory, about 135,000 acres for a male, about 73,000 acres for a female. They're a very mobile animal. But the area of main breeding concentration is -- is here in Southwest Florida, including the area of Northern Belle Meade. Next slide, please. MR. HILL: Mr. Beever? MR. BEEVER: Yes? MR. HILL: Would you comment on the coloring scheme Page 99 February 6, 2002 you had on the last slide and the large blackout lines. MR. BEEVER: Basically the -- the shading on the bottom, as you can see, is public lands. There's the Everglades National Park in red. The big cypress in the bluish color. The dark blue outline was a general outline at the time that this slide was made of the range of panthers in, I believe, the late '80s, early '90s. But there were actually some cats, some male cats that were actually outside of that blue range -- range in a couple selected areas. This is a slide prepared by our Division of Wildlife which basically shows you concentrations of panther activity. And this was done through the radio-collaring program in which cats are basically chased down by dogs, darted, put -- put into sedation, data is taken from them and a radio collar is put upon the cats. And what this does is, it shades the concentration for those radio-collared cats, which you need to understand is a subset of the population, not the total population. And this slide here, you can see that the brightest colors that are colored are the highest intensity use areas. And then the blue are -- are lesser use, but these are all panther habitat. So don't think of the blue as not being panther habitat. It's an area that's used. It's just used less by the radio-collared cats. And you can see there's a strong area of concentration associated with Collier County in the vicinity of the Fakahatchee Strand, the Florida panther preserve areas of-- immediately adjacent to and in association with Belle Meade. Next slide, please. Now, why do panthers travel around? In part, it's to Page 100 February 6, 2002 get their dinner. They have to find sufficient prey in order to support themselves, and then they need even better nutrition in order to breed successfully. This slide shows the breakdown of panther feeding, and you can see that in this study of panthers whose diets were able to be assessed -- and again, this is a subset of panthers, but this data comes from the Collier County area. Wild hog was the principal food eaten, followed by deer, then raccoons, armadillos, rabbits and then other species. Panthers can feed upon whatever happens to fall prey to them, but these are the things that they -- they concentrate upon, and lands which are able to produce hog and deer are very important for panther success and for panther breeding. And to a large extent, that's -- that's important in the type of landscape that panthers use. Next slide, please. So here's examples of panther in northern Belle Meade. It's a hydric pine flatwood area where we have an overstory of southern slash pine, understory of wetland vegetation, which during the wet season has maybe a few inches of water over it; during the dry season, is dry. This type of landscape with an open mid-story will provide a lot of opportunity for plants in the understory, a wide variety of plants, which are good forage for wild hog and deer and the other animals that panther feed. So this is important habitat to provide forage. Next slide, please. Here's an example of-- of some more of that -- you know, from that same general area. In the back, you can see a -- a bit of more heavily forested area, and this Page 101 February 6, 2002 would be a place where panther might rest during the day and where the radio-collared track signal would come from as a fixed-wing airplane would fly over. During the nighttime, they would move over into these more open areas as well. Next slide, please. Some prey items in the area, some -- family of wild hogs. You can see that we have probably a male and a female and -- or maybe two big females and some young. The less young we often see -- obviously, this group has had some predation on it. Next slide, please. And deer in -- in that landscape setting. In this case, he didn't want to stand still, but basically this is the sort of habitat. And here you see the deer moving through some hydric flatland and in the back some more forest areas as well. And it's these ecotones where different habitats meet -- meet each other between cypress and hydric pine, between oak hammock and cypress. These boundaries are good places for panthers to successfully feed. So panthers use a wide variety of upland and wetland habitats across the Belle Meade area. And just a little bit better view of a deer standing still. So very -- very important prey for panthers. And as I understand from our panther biologist, it's important for them to have a good diet of white-tailed deer in the places where they most successfully reproduce. Next slide, please. And then, of course, no hog or deer, there's always these guys around, and they -- they can form a staple basis, particularly in wetland systems. Next slide, please. Here's a night shot of a radio-collared panther, and Page 102 February 6, 2002 I just want to show you what -- what that looks like. This is a cat with a collar on it, and the collar emits a signal, and our biologists will use fixed-wing airplanes, occasionally helicopters, to locate where the panther is at the time that they're flying. So these are points of space and time. And it's important to understand that that point doesn't necessarily mean that's the only place the panther is going to be, and if you have a point taken one day and a point taken the next day, there's certainly no guarantee it wasn't a straight lane between those two points. It could have gone quite a few different places in that regard. But it does give us some estimate of where panthers are and the areas that they're using. And what I'm going to do now is go to one of the handouts that I provided you. And this is the black and white one. And here you see a view that includes Collier and part of Lee County with radio telemetry points from 1994 to 1999. And if we look in the area, here is northern Golden Gate Estates, southern Golden Gate Estates, Florida Panther Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand. Here's Northern Belle Meade in this area, and you can see an area of panther utilization in the area of northern Belle Meade, which is what we generally call the eastern half of northern Belle Meade. Okay. Going to the color handout that I've provided you, this is a very recent handout that just came off of our computers. And what this is, is it's an infrared of an aerial as -- to properly orient it, look at -- look for those blue burrow pits, and that should be on the left-hand side. So the handout is actually a-- a Page 103 February 6, 2002 vertical view. And these yellow dots indicate panther telemetry locations. And you can see in the middle of the page is the Golden Gate Estates area. To the right-hand side of your view would be the Ford test track indicated by these landscape features, and then the panther preserve lands off towards your right. And then on the left, this is the northern Belle Meade area that's utilized by panthers. Then we'll go back to the slides. MR. HILL: Do you have an estimate of the number of population and also the collared population? MR. BEEVER: The estimate of the total population, which I actually heard this morning, is approximately 80 -- 80 adult cats. This is up. Actually, when I first started working for the commission, the estimate -- and this is about 12 years ago -- the estimate was approximately 30 adult cats. That's an estimate from the area that I showed you with the blue outline. The number of collared cats varies, and I -- I really would ask you to talk to Darryl Land. I know they -- they number each cat successfully as -- successively as they collar it, but there is mortality. So the top number of the cats doesn't mean that all the cats that were previously captured and collared are still alive. But it's -- it's not the full population that's collared. This is a panther. This one's 66, who's actually been in northern Belle Meade. So this is -- people always say, you know, show me a picture of it. Here it is. This is a cat that spent time in northern Belle Meade and actually travels around quite a bit, so we can -- we can see northern Belle Meade as part of their territory -- of Page 104 February 6, 2002 this cat's territory but not all of it. We've had females in northern Belle Meade. And -- next slide, please. This is one of the difficulties of having to do it this way. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. MR. BEEVER: It's not your fault. It's -- just -- just -- and-- and we have had one female two years ago raise kittens in the northern Belle Meade area. Next slide, please. This is a view actually sitting in a helicopter about the midpoint of Belle Meade looking to the east along Alligator Alley before' they did the work to four-lane it. This is a slide that I took while I was working -- and the design of and the installation of the panther under-crossings. And what you can see is that landscaped setting from the view. So in the foreground -- and I hope my thumb isn't too super big here -- this here is -- is the eastern part of northern Belle Meade. Then we go over into the northern part of northern Golden Gate Estates, which connects over to the panther lands. This is southern Golden Gate Estates up here, and then on the other side right there, Southern Belle Meade. And you can see just the -- the large expanses of habitat available for panther in this particular location. And generally, with the exception of having the extra lane of 1-75 -- extra two lanes ofi-75 in. And the exception of some panther under-crossings between the panther preserve and the Fakahatchee area and also an extra canal on the south side, it's pretty much the same view today, and so that is why it's very important for this area to be Page 105 February 6, 2002 considered for preservation and why it certainly qualifies as a natural resource protection area, the northern portion of Belle Meade. Next slide, please. And just a view off the -- the side of the road; situation like that, the roads themselves can constitute to very significant barriers. And before we did the rebuild work back in the '80s on Alligator Alley, which was not yet done, to be designated 1-75, was the major source of mortality for Florida panther in this region of Collier County, was that particular roadway. So I worked at that time with a lot of other great biologists and a lot of other good people in the public and in the government, and I have to say that public support was very instrumental in having the support from legislators to be able to fund this. We put together a design for panther under -- wildlife under-crossings for Florida panther under the rebuilt Interstate 1-75. And I want to point out some design features just so people -- there's been some things said about these which aren't accurate, just to point that out to you. Note that there is dry ground on both sides of the underpass, and it's designed to provide a crossing of those canal features. And it was important to us, too, because we wanted to segment the canals into successive pools to promote sheet flow across the landscape instead of linear through -- through the canals to adjacent canals and downstream. This helped rehydrate areas which had been cut off from flows south of the Alligator Alley. So this is a panther under-crossing. This is the westernmost one, the -- the very first one that-- that starts out in Page 106 February 6, 2002 Fakahatchee. Next slide, please. Here's one in the Fakahatchee Strand proper. And you know you're there because you don't see the southern canal in the Fakahatchee Strand. We made an arrangement with the people building the roadway not to dig a canal through the Fakahatchee Strand and alter its hydrology, but instead to build -- to buy the 4 square miles around the intersection of State Road 29 and 1-75 so that those would not be developed as secondary fume of impacts and to take the fill for the road out of that large lake excavation in the southwest corner of that intersection. At the same time, we made sure that that lake was dug in a way to enhance fishery habitat values so it would be a better bass fishery in that particular location, provide more habitat for wading birds. So we worked very well with the Federal Highway Administration in putting in these features. Next slide, please. CHAIRMAN COE: Excuse me. How good is the bass fishing there? MR. BEEVER: I've heard var-- variable reports, depending on the time and weather. I've heard some very -- very good bass fish if you stay in the northern perimeter where it's more -- more shallow, more rough features. Not good when you first pull off where people -- everybody parks. You have to go in a little way. Just to point out, this is the first time in -- in that -- Florida in the southeast we've done a wildlife underpass of this scale. And there was significant resistance to this, and we had to really persevere to make Page 107 February 6, 2002 sure these design features were put in. Interest-- and there was a lot of resistance from the people building the highway. Interestingly enough, now they go around to international conferences very proud of their accomplishment. One of the big questions was, well, if you build these, will the animals use them? Now, one thing is, you don't just put these in and expect -- you know, put signs and say, "Panthers, use the underpasses here." You locate where the panthers are currently moving through that area and locate the undercrossings along the areas that they're utilizing. So it took quite a bit of study to determine where these underpasses would be located. Next slide, please. And then here's your eyeview as -- as you approach one of these. They're funnel fences. There's fencing along the interstate, 12 foot with a barbed wire return to discourage the animals from climbing over the fences. There's funnel fences that lead you towards these underpasses. But even so, these are areas they had always been crossing under. And I -- what I wanted to point out here is how relatively'open it is. You can see to the other side of where you're going. And that's important in wildlife underpass design. Also important is a natural flooring. You don't want to have them going over grates, rock, other foreign materials. Next slide, please. And this is in the middle of an -- of one of these underpasses. You know, I'm standing up here just giving you a view. The base design was supposed to be a 12-foot Page 108 February 6, 2002 to the lowest number. It came out to, I think about 10 -- 10 foot 8 inches by the time they got done. But nonetheless, people were saying, okay, you put them in the place you want them to be and so forth. Prove it to us they're being used. Well, a study was done by researchers at the University of Florida, Dr. Steve Humphrey and his graduate student. And his graduate student actually did her master's degree on this project. Cameras were put into the underpasses with an invisible beam, so as animals moved through them, they triggered the camera and photographed themselves. So here's one of our collared cats moving through the underpass. Next slide, please. MR. CARLSON: Does anybody know what the panther does after that flash goes off?. MR. BEEVER: It keeps walking from what-- from what the -- the tracks indicate. And -- and another-- this is a -- a different individual. Not just panthers have used these. A wide variety of wildlife have taken advantage of the underpasses, including young deer. And just to show you, again, another criticism, even when underpasses are under high water, wildlife will utilize the relatively shallower water to get past and underneath the highway. And even species you wouldn't necessarily have predicted have used the underpasses. Here are wild turkey. And we have alligators, wading birds, all sorts of things that have moved through there. The oddest creature we -- we had was an individual dressed up in a gorilla suit with a sign that said, "Waste of taxpayers' dollars." Page 109 February 6, 2002 For a moment we thought we had a skunk ape siting. There was a -- some concern about the relative cost of these large undercrossings on 1-75. The people were claiming it would be costing about a million dollars. Once you do the real cost accounting, it's about three-quarters of a million dollars for one of the overpass features, including the fill and everything leading up to it. So designs were put together for a somewhat smaller undercrossing still with good height clearance, and this is one -- well, let's leave that up for a little bit. This is one that has been installed on State Road 29 in Collier County, the north-south road that intersects with Interstate 75. And this has proven also to be successful for the panthers in that area as long as the fencing is in. And basically it's -- it's very critical if you're going to do underpasses, you've got to have the wildlife fencing at the same time. And in some cases -- there have occasionally been cases where underpasses have been installed, the fences haven't been put in yet, and there's still road mortality until the fences are put in. Now, in the case of northern Belle Meade, between southern and northern Belle Meade today, we do not have any of these features. We do not have 1-75-sized undercrossing or even the somewhat smaller State Road 29-sized undercrossings. Currently there are -- and that's what we're going to look at -- some drainage features, essentially equilizer culverts that have -- that are in place to allow water to flow through, and it's possible that wildlife is use -- Page 110 February 6, 2002 utilizing this to get between northern and southern Belle Meade. Now I'm going to go back to the color handout. But there's good evidence that right now most of the panther movement to get into northern Belle Meade is actually coming through -- is coming from cats moving from the east to the west through the area of the southern end of northern Golden Gate Estates and then into the northern Belle Meade. See, it's -- it's possible, utilizing existing wildlife underpasses for panther to come from the south up through here very easily between the panther preserve in Fakahatchee, and then any animals that are in this area or animals that come from the south there can move across the landscape from the east going back to the west. MR. CARLSON: Is the test track fence to prevent their movement? They got to go around? MR. BEEVER: I've heard various discussions with that, and you might want to ask Darryl Land for more details. My understanding is that they move both around the fence and they've actually come inside the fence into the test track area, across the test track and gone over the fence on the other side. So basically, you can see that panther do get into northern Belle Meade today, and I anticipate during the periods in which they're talking about the rebuild of 1-75 and restructuring ofi-75 and reviewing, that with the commission right now from an area in Sarasota County all the way back down into Collier, we will request that wildlife underpasses be included in the plan between northern and southern Belle Meade. Page 111 February 6, 2002 Now, panther can act as an umbrella species. Thanks. And quite a -- other -- list of other listed species are found in the same habitats as the Florida panther in Belle Meade. And Florida black bear is definitely present in the northern Belle Meade area. And actually somewhat more prevalent. If I'd go out with you today -- let's say we took -- say we wanted to go on a field trip, I'd be much more likely to be able to show you a sign of black bear in northern Belle Meade than panther. Next slide, please. So basically I wanted to share this information with you. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have that I can answer, and I'll direct you to our experts if I don't have the direct answer for you. CHAIRMAN COE: Do you have any questions? MR. HILL: You said there are 80 adults approximately? MR. BEEVER: Uh-huh. MR. HILL: And less than that collared, obviously. MR. BEEVER: Yes. MR. HILL: There's a tremendous number or telemetries points on here for just that number of panthers. MR. BEEVER: Well-- MR. HILL: You must be running a lot of flights to pick up that many data points. MR. BEEVER: Understand that each data point is one sighting of each cat on one particular day. So -- and it's covering '94 to '99, so it's over a five-year period. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions? MR. HILL: The 80 adults is in -- in Collier County or-- Page 112 February 6, 2002 MR. BEEVER: Within that -- within the range of Collier, Lee, Hendry, a few in Glades. MR. HILL: Right. MR. STONE: Have any of the cats ever been snagged with their collars? MR. BEEVER: From what people have determined, no. The -- the collar design doesn't seem to interfere with their life-style, so we've never found any -- where somebody came and found a cat that had been caught in something or any evidence on the collars that they had been caught on something. CHAIRMAN COE: Any other questions? MS. BURGESON: I have a quick question. Are there any areas that you suspect, for whatever reason, don't work well with the -- the collaring program that you think the panthers may be inhabiting but we have no accountability for? MR. BEEVER: Well, there -- in order to do the collaring program, you have to undertake the work with the people who are expert with the dogs and -- and the tracking of panthers. So you have to have that step in order to start collaring. So that's been concentrated in areas where we've had the breeding population. And in other locations where we know there are young males, there hasn't been that same level of effort in -- in other areas. MS. BURGESON: Do you know what particular areas that you're interested in-- MR. BEEVER: I know that the Division of Wildlife was looking at areas north of Collier County, north of southwest Florida, but they've just done preliminary Page 1 13 February 6, 2002 investigations and really hadn't implemented a collaring program. There have been black bear collaring programs here in Collier County. Darryl Land, again, has all the information on that. And there's also been collaring programs on black bear up in Pasco and Hemando County which I participated in. They're -- they're rather prevalent in areas of Chassahowitzka Loxahatchee State Forest. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. MR. BEEVER: You're welcome. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. Next is the Growth Management update. Nothing there. Subcommittee Report? Nothing there. Any comments by any other members of the EAC? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN COE: Meeting's adjourned. Public comments? Nope. Thank you very much. Page 1 14 February 6, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL MICHAEL G. COE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY LINDA J. SULLIVAN, RPR. Page 1 15