Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/07/2002 RFebruary 7, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 7, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abernathy Dwight Richardson Paul Midney Lindy Adelstin Mark Strain NOT PRESENT: Lora Jean Young David Wolfely Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Natural Resource Director Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA 2. 3. 4. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED I0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY CLERK PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES- LORA JEAN YOUNG, DAVID WOLFLEY ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rural Fringe Assessment Area Final Order Comprehensive Plan Amendments. (Coordinator: Stan Litsinger) 5. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 6. ADJOURN 2-7-02/CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'd like to call to order the February 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.). CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. At this point I'll call the roll. Mr. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd, absent. Abemathy is here. Mr. Young, Miss Young, absent. Mr. Richardson? MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Wolfely, absent. Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have a quorum. Absences are noted. I notice the chairman's report is omitted from the agenda. I assume that's inadvertent. I have a letter from Mr. Schmitt, community development environmental services administrator, of January 28th requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission nominate a representative to serve on a advisory committee to assist in the hiring of a candidate to fill the hearing examiner position. Committee must include a representative from the Planning Commission as well as Development Services Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Council, a staff member appointed by the county manager, and three members of the community. I listened to the county commission when they considered this Page 2 February 7, 2002 issue, and one of the things that seemed to have been a con reached a consensus on was the fact that the hearing examiner program would not have much credibility if the advisory committee to select the hearing examiner were loaded up with people from the development industry. The commission will have a chance to test that proposition when they appoint their three members of the corn -- from the community. I'm sure people from the development industry will apply for those positions. As far as this committee, this commission, is concerned, noting the other members of the committee, it seems to me there's some imperative in having at least one attorney on this selection advisory committee. Lawyers have a way, as do most other professionals, of sometimes spreading some bird seed in their resumes. And another lawyer is uniquely qualified to recognize jobs that are of great import and those that aren't of such great import. So I'd like to nominate Mr. Adelstein to represent the Planning Commission on this advisory committee. MR. RICHARDSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other nominations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Do us proud. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll do the best I can. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't have any -- I have no other report. We'll move on to Item No. 4, advertised public hearings, rural Page 3 February 7, 2002 fringe assessment area final order comprehensive plan amendments. Coordinator, Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. This morning you're holding your transmittal public hearing for the rural fringe area assessment portion of the proposed amendments to resolve the issues identified in the final order of the governor and the cabinet dated June 29th -- June 22nd of 1999. Today we will go over each individual concept, both in conservation and land use. I also need to make some introductions and give you some information relative to some additional handouts that you've been given since the transmittal of your original package. As you all know, you received your blue books about two weeks ago, and a supplemental package was sent to you called agenda items, public hearings, supplemental backup documents. Subsequent to that there have been additional changes, and you have received a new package this morning which contains several items which I'd like to point out to you. It contains a letter from David Ellis, the chairman of the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, who unfortunately could not be here today. He wanted to communicate his thoughts and those of the committee to the Planning Commission. Also relative to the secondary agenda package that we had sent out, we have a revised summary of allowable land uses table where we've made some corrections in addition to that. And I think it has a No. 2 on it. We have a revised proposed changes to the preliminary transmittal which would be staff errata Changesheet No. 1. We also have a summary, which I will be going over a little more shortly here, of the public -- of the rural fringe area assessment public and participation activities which are a fundamental and required part of Page 4 February 7, 2002 this assessment process. In addition for your reference, in case a question should come up during this presentation today, I gave you each a copy of the Collier County natural resources Growth Management Plan final order. The final order, I gave you a copy of that in the back of your package. And Barbara Burgeson just handed out a revised amended recommendations of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council based on their meeting of yesterday. I think the first step in this process is introduce the folks who will be making the presentation to you here today. You'll be hearing from staff members, including myself; Marjorie Student from the county attorney's office; Bill Lorenz from natural resources; Bob Mulhere, our contracted consultant in this matter. And we also have here today from Carlton, Fields in Tallahassee, their contracted legal counsel on this matter relative to resolving the final order, Nancy Linnan and Miss Marty Chumbler, give a chance to answer questions you may have in that particular area. Nancy will also be giving you a short presentation shortly. As you-all know, the process began about two years ago with the bifurcation into two separate committees, one for the rural lands and one for the rural fringe. We also have had a revision in the transmittal schedules. They will be dealing only with the rural fringe. Today we will have the transmittal hearing with the Planning Commission. On the 27th of this month, the Board of County Commission will hold their planning transmittal hearing at Max Hasse Center. That will be followed by a 60-day review period by the Department of Community Affairs, at which point they will issue their objections, recommendations, and comments report, and we will then have until approximately the middle of June to adopt the amendments to resolve the issues raised in the final order relative to the rural fringe assessment area only. Page 5 February 7, 2002 One of the major tenets of this process has been the public participation process, and I'd like to take a couple of moments to go over the -- the nature of the public participation process that's led to these draft amendments and -- that you have before you for review today. We have a long list, and I'll just hit some of the highlights. We've maintained a website which is available 24 hours a day with all the information relative to the activities of the committee and staff in preparing agendas and documents relative to the process of developing these amendments. We've had 55 advertised public meetings of the rural fringe -- rural fringe area oversight committee. We've placed signs throughout the study area. We've provided brochures and handouts from the final order. Chapter (sic) 11 does regular broadcasts and rebroadcasts of the issues associated with the final order. Community character plan has been reviewed and considered in -- in preparing these recommendations. As you know, on June 13th of 2001, we provided a conceptual report to the Board of County Commissioners on which we based the drafting of the amendments which you have in front of you today with further input and discussion with the rural fringe oversight committee. There have been meetings with the Naples Chamber of Commerce, the Big Corkscrew Island Community Property Owners, Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee, Golden Gate meeting -- committee meetings. We've had 11 EAC growth management subcommittees meetings in which these in -- this information has been disseminated and discussed. The EAC held a transmittal hearing on June 23rd of this -- of 2002, January 23rd, 2002, which you have the revised motions based on their continued meeting yesterday. The DSAC was given an oversight yesterday of the amendment you're reviewing today, and we're completing the process with your review today of the amendments that we're proposing. We're Page 6 February 7, 2002 proposing that we begin with the presentation of land use issues, followed up with a presentation of the issues relative to natural resources and then get into questions and answers that you may have for staff with public comment. And before we begin that, we would like to have Nancy Linnan give you a brief overview of some legal issues that we're addressing and some of the background relative to where we are today. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Litsinger, would you entertain any questions from us prior to getting started or-- MR. LITSINGER: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: --just-- go ahead. MR. STRAIN: Governor's order indicated that public opinion surveys should be used. Are any of those listed on here? MR. LITSINGER: Public opinion surveys? MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. LITSINGER: As far as mailed public opinion surveys, we haven't done any of those. The governor's order says it could be used. MR. STRAIN: Well, it says that the county shall insure community input through workshops, public opinion surveys, and committees, as necessary, to undertake various tasks in the study. I thought "shall" would mean that it should have been done. But it wasn't done, I understand. The other issue is you have on here the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee. I'm chairman of that committee. What occurred was a brief meeting when there wasn't even a quorum of that committee that lasted about an hour. There was very little time for questions because of the context of the time frame of the committee. So I understand that there might have been -- it might be listed here, but the effectiveness of that presentation wasn't as -- add to the whole committee, let's put that it way. MR. LITSINGER: The comment on that would be that we, due Page 7 February 7, 2002 to the time frame, have to give the best information that we have at that time based on the point at which that committee is in its deliberations, So I guess you got the best that's available at this point in the transmittal process. MR. RICHARDSON: That -- I have just a question on process here this morning. Are -- are reaction and comments only limited to rural fringe, or how would you like for this interaction to take place? MR. LITSINGER: We would prefer that we limit our comment - - discussion to issues associated with the rural fringe amendments only because it's our intent to only address those issues that are -- are associated with the rural fringe, and you will have another day to hear issues associated with the rural lands assessments. MR. RICHARDSON: How about the Growth Management Plan itself?. MR. LITSINGER: As it is relevant, yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: As it is relevant to the rural fringe? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Because you've gone and changed a lot of our policies and objectives to, I guess, take care of the rural fringe issue. MR. LITSINGER: Well, that is the presentation and the discussion, changes. MR. RICHARDSON: I guess my question, won't those policies and objectives also impact the rest of our growth management iss -- activities? MR. LITSINGER: The -- the vegetation and wetlands policies apply in the urban areas, as well as the rural fringe. Okay? MR. RICHARDSON: Maybe a more direct question: When are we going to have a chance to talk about the growth management plan for Collier County, we, this -- this commission? MR. LITSINGER: The -- relative to the amendments before you Page 8 February 7, 2002 or -- MR. RICHARDSON: No, in general. I have a hard time just extracting a piece of this out, which is your-- your agenda today, but I'd like to have -- know what the timetable is for this group to have a chance to look at the entire Growth Management Plan and make our comments. MR. LITSINGER: Well, as far as a review of the entire Growth Management Plan, that's called an environ -- evaluation and an appraisal report required by state statutes first after the first seven years and then after five years. Our next one, I believe, is scheduled in January of 2003, at which time we will go through another EAR process for the entire plan. MR. RICHARDSON: Make sure I'm notified when that meeting takes place. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Isn't this process that we're going through right now the result of an EAR that was done in ninety-six or seven? Why wouldn't we be doing it in '02 then? That's five years. MR. LITSINGER: Because there was a delay in the schedules based on requests of the various communities around the state, and all the reviews were pushed back one year. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I guess it would sort of muddy the water to be doing the EAR and this at the same time, wouldn't it? MR. LITSINGER: Very much so. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ADELSTEIN: Why wasn't this presented to us, if this was going to happen at our last meeting, so we wouldn't prepare for the overall picture and actually spent most of our time on the rural fringe doing our homework on it? MR. LITSINGER: I believe -- I believe I don't understand the question, sir. MR. ADELSTEIN: The topic that we were told to -- to prepare Page 9 February 7, 2002 on was the Growth Management Plan. There was no -- MR. LITSINGER: Rural fringe amendments, yes. MR. ADELSTEIN: The fringe, the rural fringe being the particular function you were going to handle. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. We were the -- these are the rural -- proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan -- MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. LITSINGER: -- to the elements affected, the necessary amendments to the specific elements which are the future land use element, coastal conservation element, and the water and sewer subelements in order to meet the requirements of the final order. That is the subject today. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: So basically our hands are tied to talk about anything else but this today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: Any other questions? (No response.) MR. LITSINGER: Nancy? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'd just make the comment that I studied the material that was given to me a few days ago, and I thought I was in pretty good shape. And then I get 20 more pages this morning which I can't possibly go through while people are talking and -- so I don't know where -- MR. LITSINGER: We're going to go through those. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're going to go through them? All right. MS. LINNAN: Good morning. I'm Nancy Linnan. I'm the county's outside counsel for growth management. Can you hear me now? Page 10 February 7, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: No. Your microphone. MS. LINNAN: With me today is Marty Chumbler, an attorney with our office. She's very familiar with the Collier County comprehensive plan, handled the litigation on the ongoing NRPAs and the litigation that's ongoing now. My role today is to explain how we got here, the process of where we're going, and how we and you get graded on how we act on this process. You're correct, sir. In 1996 the county adopted -- well, actually, let me go back a little further. State law, perhaps for the benefit of the audience -- state law requires that each local government in the state adopt and maintain a comprehensive plan setting out the goals, objectives, and policies, kind of the constitution of that local government insofar as development is concerned. It also requires the stance that you upgrade it every now and then for seven years and after that every five years. That's called the EAR or evaluation and appraisal process. Back in '96 you did your first EAR, and you adopted amendments, the changes you-all thought were necessary, based on that review of the comp plan at that time. Those are called the EAR- based amendments. Those were found not in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs. It has the ability to do that in this state, and several others intervened in that challenge. In 1997 or 1999, rather, after a 5-day hearing, an administrative law judge determined that the county's EAR-based amendments were not in compliance with the state statutes and rules, and that basically what he said was they didn't adequately protect the natural resources, like wetlands, listed species, and habitat. So what happens under state law is the final decision on that administrative law judge's recommended order goes to the governor and cabinet, and they sit with a hat called the administration commission when they make that determination. And they issued Page 11 February 7, 2002 what's known as the final order. You'll hear about that a lot. The audience may have heard or seen the term in the newspapers. That was in 1999. And basically the governor and cabinet did something unusual. Usually when it does that it goes ahead and imposes on a local government amendments at that time. You lose the ability to choose on your own. They say we gave you the first shot. You guys didn't do it right. We're telling you this is what it's going to say. Usually those amendments are written by the Department of Community Affairs. In this case, what we did at the request of the county was to give the county a unique three-year period to come up with these amendments on its own and to go through a very public process, and this is the culmination of that process. The date of that was June 22nd, 1999. The three years ends June 22nd, '02. That's why we are at -- almost at the finish line here. During that hearing and in the final order, the governor and cabinet agreed that eastern lands could be handled separately from the rural fringe. And the reason they did that was the folks in the eastern lands said, "Look, we don't think the data and analysis we have is any good or the data and analysis that the county has presented is any good. We want to go out, spend some money, get some new infor -- new scientific information in order to go forward, and that's going to take three years." Everybody determined at that time that no new data and analysis was needed for the fringe, and that's why you haven't seen that kind of study in this case. Now, the final order told the -- can say, in addition to having to meet the statutes and the rules, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect prime agricultural areas, to assess the growth potential, frankly, of the area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands at appropriate locations while Page 12 February 7, 2002 avoiding urban sprawl and impacts of critical habitat and all the while protecting private property rights. So what is the process? The staff has been working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee for 2 1/2, 3 years. In June of 2001 they presented the conceptual plan to the county commission. County commission said, tweak it a little bit, go out, draft it up, and start it back through the process. Take it to the EAC, the Planning Commission. Bring it back to us. The magic date was selected as June -- excuse me, February 27th, and we will transmit what we determine to be appropriate proposed amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for comments. Now at that point DCA doesn't actually grade you. What they do is they issue a report saying we object to this. We comment on this. We make recommendations on this. It's called an ORC report. The staff then brings that back, cleans it up, takes whatever action they and this body and the county commission determine appropriate under the circumstances, and the county commission will be asked to adopt the final amendments by the magic date in June. That's not the end of the process. That's where the serious ratings begins. Those amendments under the state statute go back to the Department of Community Affairs. This time it gets to decide the final grade. They determine compliance with -- they'll look at the final order. But what they really look at is the state statutes and the rules to make sure they are saying the same as everybody else. Even if DCA finds the county in compliance on those amendments, third parties can challenge that. They have 21 days after DCA acts and maybe hopefully, in my case, finds you in compliance. And then you end up back in front of an administrative law judge all over again. So what is your role in this? It's to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners to balance between natural resource protection and property rights, but your ability to balance is Page 13 February 7, 2002 not without limits. What the Board of County Commissioners eventually adopts goes through another two Department of Community Affairs reviews -- I just explained those -- and potential third-party challenges. My role as outside counsel, I'd like to stop those challenges. I'm not that good, can't always do that. But our role is to tell you -- to try and come up with a plan or plan amendments that, if challenged, means you're going to win this time. That's why Marty is here. She is kind of the litigator on the team just in case. Now, how do you win in these cases? What counts? What you eventually adopt must be based on the best available data and analysis. It doesn't mean the newest stuff out there. It means the best available data and analysis to you at the time. When you're talking about natural resources -- and that's what the issue is here -- what that means is scientific evidence. I gave an example to the board back in June. One person says, you got to protect 80 percent of the habitat. Somebody else says, oh, no, I think you ought to protect 40 percent of the habitat. You're going, well, we'll take 60 percent. Sounds good. Splits the baby, works for both. The problem is you're going to lose it -- you're going to lose a challenge, a legal challenge, if the best available data says you need to protect -- protect 80 percent of that habit. So that's what you always go back to is what -- what those numbers say. Now, what if you do choose as a county to protect 90 or 95 percent? Sometimes you can do that. But at that point you're beginning to implicate private property rights a little bit more than you might be at the lower number. So you have to be a little more careful about how do you that. So you balance, but you balance within some kind of legal limits. The last thing I'd like to say is the document before you today is Page 14 February 7, 2002 not perfect. I have been reading it over the last couple weeks. Frankly, I've had to call staff on a number of occasions and say, guys, what does this say? I -- I cannot figure it out. And I've been with you the whole time on this. My ninth grade English teacher would have flunked us all for this thing and maybe taken us out and flogged us too; it's that bad. And I just want to assure you that we will take a look at the language, maybe get some English majors, instead of lawyers and planners, involved between transmittal and final adoption on whatever amendments you and the county commission think we ought to go forward on to make sure that people can read them and understand them. And so I would urge you today not to look at the details of the language unless that would change the substance of what we're saying but, rather, look at the concepts. That's what's really important. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and we will be available throughout the hearing to answer questions. Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: The date in June, that seems to be the -- the drop- dead date for everything. MS. LINNAN: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: What happens if we don't hit that date? MS. LINNAN: Theoretically, if we don't make it, we have to go back before the governor and cabinet and ask for an extension. We have already asked for one extension. Originally the final order can be read to say that the amendments have to be effective by June. Well, there's no way that -- that they can be effective by that date because we can't control that. Third parties, Department of Community Affairs can say that it's not in compliance. We got the staff to rule that we had to do was adopt by that date. We then asked them about the possibilities of delay. This has been a long process, but we know the reality is the public pays more attention as you get closer to the finish line and you get products that they can Page 15 February 7, 2002 begin to look at. Staff said -- and we talked to the governor and the aides of the governor and the cabinet. And they said in the eastern lands, given the way that process has worked out, given the fact that it's all new information, we will give you until November 1st as a magic date to adopt that, but we will not at this time let you slide past the June 22nd date onto rural fringe because we believe there's no good reason why the county cannot go ahead and adopt those amendments by that date. So we could come running in and say, "Please, please," but it's up to the governor and cabinet. Now, what if they say no? Theoretically they can apply sanctions. Sanctions means they can cut back on revenue sharing for the county, doing a number of things like that. Do I anticipate them doing that? No. If we missed it by a week, would the world end? No. If we missed it by a month, obviously that gets a little trickier, but everybody is anticipating that we will make the adoption date of June 22nd. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. You mentioned the rural fringe committee. And I've looked through all the material. Perhaps I just overlooked it. I -- I don't see a listing of who was on that committee because I just don't personally know. I'm sure it's public record. Do you -- I'd appreciate knowing who it was, what interests they represented in terms of producing this. MS. LINNAN: I'm going to have to turn to staff on that. MR. LITSINGER: We can get you one before the end of the meeting. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. What I'd like to do is take you through the general concepts of what we've put together to address the natural resources for -- for the rural fringe area. The rural fringe area -- areas, as Nancy Linnan has Page 16 February 7, 2002 also indicated, the assessment area is basically based upon the rural fringe, and we split it up rural fringe and the eastern lands. So what we're going to be talking about today, majority of the -- the information is -- deals with the rural fringe which is this portion of the county right here (indicating) that, if you will, here's Immokalee Road--just to get you oriented, this is Immokalee Road (indicating), and this is 1-75 down here (indicating). We've split up the area when we did our initial planning in some general planning areas what we conveniently at the time called Areas A, Area B. This is all of Area C in here (indicating), and this is Area D (indicating). We've also wrote the stud-- the area up into natural resource protection areas, and I'll be throwing around the acronym NRPA or N-R-P-A. These were the interim boundaries that were established in 1999, as required by the final order. And our -- our -- our requirement for these set of amendments is to take the interim amendment -- interim NRPA boundaries to final boundaries as well. And, also, what we've listed in here is what's called the study area. This is this little squiggly line in here (indicating), which -- which was established as an area that had potential ability to be called -- characteristics to be called a natural resource protection area. But there was a lot of debate on it at the time in 1999, and so as -- as opposed to adopting it as an interim NRPA boundary, we're looking at it as a study area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bill, could I interrupt you for just a moment? MR. LORENZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Before I ask everybody else not to interrupt you so we can go straight through this, I've been through this once, and you've got about a two-hour presentation, as I recall, all told. So I'd ask the members and myself to make notes as you go along and save the questions until the end. Page 17 February 7, 2002 But for the benefit of the television audience, that -- that map is sort of hard to decipher, I would imagine. It's even harder to decipher here. Aren't we talking about roughly as far as the east-west is concerned, it's an area east of 1 mile from 951 running eastward to -- down 41 to Isles of Capri -- no, not Isles of Capri -- MR. LORENZ: The 6 L -- 6 L Farms area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's that development down there, down 41 ? Port of the Islands is what I'm trying to say. Goes east of the Port of the Islands and then roughly north in an irregular way, doesn't that -- all the way to the county line. Does that pretty well describe it? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. I guess the other way of looking at it, too, is it's everything that would be, if you will, somewhat west of the estates. It doesn't go any further east of the estates. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I think that should frame it for people. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: And the total acreage is roughly ninety -- 93,000-plus acres, when we look at the natural resource protection areas and the other planning units. Nancy Linnan indicated data. And data is an important item of what we've tried to develop our plan on. And we -- we have -- basically have used two data sources. And I want to use these -- these maps here is to -- to give some sense of what those data sources are. South Florida Water Management District, land cover database. That's a 1994, 1995 database that was flown by the South Florida Water Management District aerial photos that they made photo interpretation of a variety of different land use cover categories, as you can see on the legend here. Obviously things have changed since 1994-'95. And to some degree, anytime you do aerial interpretations, you're not going to be a Page 18 February 7, 2002 hundred percent correct. What we've striven to do through this process is anyplace that we have information that has been given to us that would show that a particular land cover has changed, we have incorporated into our database and all of the numbers that we have crunched over the past couple of years to try to incorporate those updates. So it's a -- it's a modified version of the South Florida Water Management District's database. That's where we get the land cover information, the wetland land cover or different types of vegetative signatures. A second -- a second database is coming from the -- of course, this was the old acronym -- Florida Game Water and Fresh Fish Commission, now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, through what was called the GAPs report back in '92, '93. They used information that was flown or satellite information that was in the mid to late '80s when they calculated their database. But we've also modified that to the degree that we modified the land cover database where we knew that the land cover -- let's say vegetation was no longer there. We then also modified this database as well. So we've -- we've tried to update the databases as best we can. Having said that, I think that the -- the databases that we are looking at, however, when we begin looking at the numbers at a very regional level -- and we'll start talking about landscape sale -- we can start to distinguish, certainly, some patterns with the information. Obviously this Area D down in here, you can see that the -- there's not a lot of vegetation and land cover within that area. Certainly up in Area A in this particular location. And so you can -- you can see the way that that maps out. Also, when you go to this particular map, you see some -- some general patterns, again, with the information and the data. A second set of maps here, this is the -- again, the game Page 19 February 7, 2002 commission's or freshwater fish commission's database for priority wetlands for listed species. Obviously, the -- the highest set of listed species here in the CREW lands that are basically already in conservation, some degree some down here in the -- in the Belle Meade area which is a portion of the -- of the land acquisition program from the state. And then when you see where some of these pinks are, you begin to see areas such as this (indicating) that get a little bit higher coloring there to show that those lis -- those concerns exist. The -- this other map here on the right-hand side, strategic habitat conservation areas, this is somewhat of a-- an aggregate of a lot of the data that the -- that freshwater fish commission put together to locate when you consider listed species concerns, vegetative cover concerns, etc., etc. This is the areas that we would then consider as strategic habitat. You can see that -- that there's still an awful lot of green, certainly, down in here (indicating) and certainly up in here, especially as you go into the -- the CREW areas. So, again, this is -- this is the data information. We've had other pieces of information as well. The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee, when they went through it initially and looked at a lot of the data, we created a data book that's probably as big as the book you have right here in front of you of mapping all the information, quantifying it, and trying to determine what information is important to -- to make some of these judgment calls. And I think the information I'm presenting to you here really summarizes a lot of that other information. Well, when we begin to talk about setting up natural resource protection strategies for this area, we're -- we've broke -- we've broken our efforts down into generally a scaling fashion here. Again, what I talked about before was this landscape scale. This is -- this is the large areas, if you will, almost measured in square miles. When you're looking at the total fringe, you're looking at those patterns of where the -- the vegetative land cover are, where the wetland land cover is, Page 20 February 7, 2002 where the listed species concerns are and looking at those and trying to group those in these large area -- these large broad areas. And these areas are important, because we want to prevent any fragmentation within these areas because, from a habitat perspective, the more contiguous area that you have, the better off it is for habitat concerns. We are also looking at a project site scale. And sometimes we -- we -- we -- obviously as projects come into, let's say, the Planning Commission, a particular project, you know, a-- a hundred-acre PUD or what have you, that's at that project scale where we're trying to develop standards to protect natural resources at that very localized design level. But there's also -- as we -- as we develop standards for that project scale, as you can see here, there are opportunities to provide for particular standards at the project level as well. So the landscape scale, think about it as your comprehensive planning effort to -- to find out where those are important locations of listed species wetland land cover and direct incompatible land uses away from those broad areas. Of course, you're going to have to direct land uses to someplace, and that someplace then becomes the areas that -- that we're going to have to deal with from a site review -- project site review standpoint. So we'll need standards for those as well. So what -- what kind of tools are we talking about, you know, for these different scales, if you will, of these planning scales? Again, at the landscape scale, we're identifying those large ecosystems. We use the data that -- the data, as modified, to try to define those large ecosystems. Quite frankly, there's been a number of-- of regional and state efforts that -- that have identified a lot of these areas that we -- I think we match up fairly well with as -- as we'll begin to show you of the final plan. So our first -- first -- first effort, of course, is identification. After we've identified those areas, the tools are -- for sure probably the best tool is purchase and acquisition. Of course, there's not enough money Page 21 February 7, 2002 to be able to have a complete purchase and acquisition program. In the rural fringe, you do have two major acquisition programs. That's in the CREW lands, the South Flor -- the South Florida Water Management District Save Our Rivers program. And then south of 75 in the Belle Meade CARL area you have an acquisition program ongoing. But that doesn't cover all of the sensitive lands that we've identified. So we have to come up with some other types of tools to -- to deal with those -- those areas that are not going to be under purchase and acquisition. We have -- I'm just going to jump down to here -- large-scale overlay districts that we'll be talking about of how we've identified these areas, what type of land uses we will allow within these districts. We've talked about some large-scale situations of trying to buffer these large areas. And a key -- and a key item that -- that, obviously, we've put together in Collier County and is certainly going to be -- going to be new in Collier County on this scale, will be a transfer of development rights program, because, as Nancy Linnan pointed out, as we begin to get higher and higher preservation standards in our important environmental areas, as we begin to ratchet down on the allowable land uses in these areas, we have to provide some -- some mechanism such that the property owners can realize some value from their property, even after we have increased those regulatory standards. And that's going to be an important part of the transfer of development rights program. Bob, you may want to -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. For the record, Bob -- Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. I'm sorry. That graphic there is difficult to read. I can walk through it. This is really a simple illustration of how a transfer of development rights process would work. You have your environmentally sensitive lands or, in some cases, they could be Page 22 February 7, 2002 agricultural lands. And you would be able to transfer -- a property owner would be able to transfer off of those lands the residential development rights to other lands that have been identified as being more appropriate for that development. And in the example here, if you had a hundred dwelling units on the environmentally sensitive lands and you transferred those to the receiving lands, you would increase the density on those receiving lands by a hundred dwelling units from the base. We did -- the county did hire Dr. James Nicholas from the University of Florida, an economist, to look at the transfer of development rights process and primarily to look at it in -- in -- in two areas, one, to determine whether, in fact, such a -- a process would, indeed, be marketable because remember the primary reason for the TDR process is to allow property owners who will have pretty severe regulations on their property in the environmentally sensitive lands to recoup some of that lost value. And I think you understand that Florida has very strong private property rights, and the county does have an obligation, and the final order does call for us to look at balancing private property rights with the natural resource protection measures. The Burt J. Harris Act does specifically reference transfer of development rights as one of the mechanisms to offset the impacts on local or state government from natural resource protection policies or - - or requirements that -- that would have an impact on the private property rights. Dr. Nicholas's evaluation indicated that there was a very strong market and that the transfer of development rights would work well. The second component of his report was what elements need to be included in any TDR process in Collier County to -- I won't use the word ensure but to -- to move that process to -- to one that -- that actually will work that will be effective and that will work in a simple Page 23 February 7, 2002 and reasonable format so that property owners will utilize it. And we have implemented those strategies into our proposed process. But you'll hear more about the TDR process as we move along, to give you a brief overview and for the public as well of what that process entails. MR. LORENZ: These two -- these two maps here are basically the areas that we have identified as our -- as our planning strategy areas for protection of these large environmentally important features. And as Bob was just talking about, the TDR program, we've now evaluated our data such that we've identified -- taken all of that raw natural resource information, if you will, made some judgments about it, and then determined that in certain portions of the fringe we want to have what's called sending areas. And that's the green areas that are mapped out. Remember, these are the areas -- and if you take a look at these areas here (indicating), these sending zones, these are -- this is private property now. This is -- because there -- there is a lot of public property in these areas as well. But what's mapped out is the green private property areas for sending areas, that they match out fairly well with those areas that we talked before that had some high degree of environment sensitivity. Again, this down here (indicating) in the Belle Meade CARL project, the white is basically those properties that had been acquired, but the green are those properties that are still in private ownership. And so you can see that -- that some of these areas up in here (indicating) we've also identified as sending lands. These -- these are also private property that are environmentally sensitive and important. The -- it should be red. I'm not sure if it looks red to you from -- on the screen, but the red areas is the primary receiving areas. And, again, these are the areas where there isn't that high degree of sensitivity from an -- from an environmental standpoint that those would be the appropriate areas environmentally to direct development Page 24 February 7, 2002 to. So we want to direct development away from the green areas, and it's got to go someplace. And so we're directing it to the red areas on this map, if you will. Now, we've also broken up the receiving areas into primary receiving areas and secondary receiving areas. You'll -- you'll see some further slides as we get further into the presentation for what we call some hot-button issues as to maybe some reconsideration of those secondary receiving areas. But for the moment, when we're talking about receiving areas, those are the areas that have the -- that have the least environmental sensitivity. Sending areas have the highest degree of environmental sensitivity. MR. RICHARDSON: Are some -- are some of the sending areas agricultural lands? Do I understand that correctly? MR. MULHERE: No. I was generally speaking about the use of TDRs to protect either environmentally sensitive or agricultural lands. In the case here, our primary focus was natural resource protection. There may be some small patches of agriculture in sending lands, but the primary reason was natural resource protection. MR. LORENZ: Yes. And just follow up with Bob, within -- embedded within those sending areas there -- there very well could be agricultural uses and farm fields. So there is -- so we -- we-- if we would have kept on trying to draw little lines within those areas or circle those out, we'd have a big Swiss cheese pattern. So what we're saying, that as a unit is functioning as a unit that we want to protect around those-- all those boundaries. So -- so in terms of some of these -- thinking about some -- some planning terms and -- and the way we are going to establish our preservation standards and our allowable uses, we have the -- the sending and receiving area concept. Again, the natural resource protection areas, we are proposing that these natural resource protection areas be, to some degree, modified. And I'll show you the Page 25 February 7, 2002 degree of modification later on. But this would be the CREW natural resource protection area. This will now be the north Belle Meade natural resource protection area. And, recall, this was the study area that I mentioned earlier. And then this (indicating) would be the Belle Meade CARL natural resource protection area. Basically the boundaries in this one would not have changed from the original 1999 recommendation. But, again, we will -- we will be talking about the natural resource protection areas have even a higher level of protection than just the sending areas. Again, trying to pull the -- the information together a little bit. This information has been summarized in these slides, but it is part of your data and analysis package, if you wanted to get involved in all those appendix tables. But let me just get -- show you on this global scale of what we've tried to do. This is wetland -- this is wetland land cover, this pie chart. The conservation lands, sixty -- 63 percent of the wetland land cover is tied up the con -- those conservation lands within the rural fringe. That's still important in our inventory for-- for -- for protection purposes. Natural resource protection areas that are also going to be considered sending lands, 23 percent of that wetland land cover is in the NRPAs, and then -- and then in the primary receiving, and secondary receiving, if you will, is just around 12 percent. So what -- what -- what, again, this is trying to show is visually on the -- on the slide, you can see how it's mapped out. But as we quantify that information, we're -- we're -- we're trying to, again, tie up as much of the important natural resources in our sending and/or NRPA sending lands. So this would-- this would be -- this would be the -- the inventory distribution, if you will, for -- for the wetlands. This -- this chart down here then talks about, well, what is the composition. So if we look at -- for instance, let's take -- take the Page 26 February 7, 2002 NRPA sending bar here. Eighty-seven percent of the lands contained within that -- that boundary is wetland land cover. So a very high percentage of-- recapturing a high percentage of the wetlands within those areas. It's not a hundred percent. If we look at total vegetation, it's not a hund -- it won't be a hundred percent either. But there again, there are some embedded ag fields or-- or cleared areas or disturbed areas. But when we start reaching that -- those very high levels, you can see that -- that our NRPA sending and our -- and our conservation lands, of course, are -- have a very high composition of-- of the wetland land cover. Primary receiving, you know, very low, 18 percent. It is worth note in terms of some nonNRPA sending lands, it's not as much wetland percentages within those areas. But there is some upland listed species concerns within those areas. So that's why that's -- that's still important for -- for our preservation requirements, not just wetland land cover but any vegetation that contributes to listed species and their habitats. So -- right in the middle, somewhat in the middle here is the primarily second -- the secondary receiving areas is somewhat high. And, again, as we've gotten input in the past, we'll be making some -- some proposals and some modifications for secondary receiving, so let's -- we'll just wait until we go through that. Similar patterns with-- with total vegetation. Again, a lot of it's tied up in-- in the NRPA lands, the sending -- the sending lands. And, again, we've -- try to draw those boundaries for the receiving lands that have the least amount of-- of important natural resources within those areas. So that would be your -- that would be total vegetation and, not to belabor it, strategic habitats of what I talked about before. Just --just quickly, you see the conservation lands are -- are much less, and that's because the -- a lot of the con -- strategic habitat, by definition, is not within conservation lands, as they existed when Page 27 February 7, 2002 the GAPs report came out. So you see that number being a little bit low. But if that was the case, it would -- it would still be very, very high. So that's where we're looking at trying to -- that's the rationale looking at these particular resource parameters to, again, determine, have we done an adequate job of identifying the environmentally sensitive areas, the conservation and the sending areas -- this would include NRPAs -- such that our important natural resource elements -- you can see that we're approaching 90 percent of those elements within these particular areas. Now, remember, these areas are going to have very high preservation requirements, and they're going to have very small number of allowable uses within those areas, because what we're trying to do is, again, take the final order to what it says, direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species, and their habitats. So our sending areas are where those important parameters are. And the receiving area is -- of course, is where we're going to have a lot more flexibility for development. So let's talk a little bit about at the project site scale, what -- what type of tools we -- we are trying to develop when a project comes into play. We've already talked about these large areas, these large ecosystems, the sending lands. And we have a-- a number of tools that we've been working through through this process. And, of course, clustering is one. Bob will talk a little more about clustering with you. Site preservation and vegetation retention standards, for instance, in the urban area we have a 25 percent vegetation retention standard in the urban area. We're increasing those numbers in the fringe, and I'll show you what -- the numbers that we've arrived at in the -- in the fringe areas. And then, of course, we also have wildlife management standards, so a lot of your -- your Growth Management Plan amendments also includes how we -- we should deal with protecting Page 28 February 7, 2002 listed species when projects come in. Well, let's talk -- let's talk mostly on the standards, vegetation retention standards. This information, of course, is -- is summarized in your data and analysis and is also incorporated into the policy language. But, again, primary receiving lands, 40 percent of the vegetation present but not to exceed 25 percent of the site area. So it's still a fairly hefty increase above and beyond what we have in the urban area. The secondary receiving lands, you may recall that one graph that was -- you know, it's kind of in between. Well, we've ratcheted the preservation standards up in those areas. But, again, that's going to change, I think, that-- as we go through the process as we have received input. But where we're really talking about really getting up there is the NRPA sending lands is having 80 percent of the vegetation present to retain and the NRPA lands 90 percent. Now, we've -- we've arrived at a 90 percent figure as being our most important figure based upon two considerations: The most important -- the most important consideration from a precedent standpoint is within the area of critical state concern. That's the Big Cypress area of critical state concern. The state has adopted for-- since -- I guess it was mid-'70s when that was adopted -- a basically 10 percent alteration standard, in other words, preservation of 90 percent of the site. You can only alter 10 percent of it. When we were looking at some initial information and we were looking in comparing our NRPA sending lands to the area of critical state concern, you know, they're -- you know, it's -- although they're closer into the urban area, the vegetation characteristics, the wildlife utilization characteristics approach that particular level. So that's why we're -- we're shooting at that target of a 90 percent figure so it matches up with the area of critical state concern figure. Page 29 February 7, 2002 The other -- the other thing is, is although it's been tough to document completely in some scientific circles, you do hear that some systems and equilibrium can establish -- get to an equilibrium that's not that much different from their predevelopment standard if-- if they're at that 90 percent level. Now, that's -- again, that's somewhat subjective a little bit, but that was some of the information we have received from some individuals. And, again, that supports the area of critical state concern precedent that has been set. So when you think about these areas that we've established in the rural fringe, what we are recommending is that the NRPA sending lands be considered almost at that area of critical state concern level, and that's the reason for hitting it at that 90 percent. And our -- and I'll show you how -- we'll also look at -- at how that tracks and when we apply these percentages to all of the areas in the rural fringe. So we kind of do somewhat of a -- of an analysis. We have taken the percentages for these various areas that we have, the primary, secondary receiving lands, sending lands, and conservation lands, and basically applied these retention standards to the areas to see how much vegetation that we can preserve in the whole rural fringe. And, for the moment, let's just talk about -- let's not confuse the issue a little bit with TDRs, but if we didn't have any TDRs at all in the program, applying all of these numbers, we're getting pretty close to that 90 percent figure, and that percentage is 87.2 percent. So we're -- we're -- we're approaching -- we're approaching that 90 percent figure. Now, a couple of-- a couple of notes here. Conservation lands, of course, are going to -- assumed to be 100 percent preserved. Whatever there are in the conservation lands, we are going to assume that's going to be there as a -- as a final requirement. Page 30 February 7, 2002 And, also, we wanted to add this note here to this table because these retention standards are going to apply to nonagricultural uses; or, stated in another way, they are not to be applied to agricultural uses. And we'll talk about that as a hot-button issue later on. But this would be -- this would be, if you will, to nonagricultural development. Let me -- let me just get -- move to another slide here just to show it a little bit better visually than having all of those numbers up on the table. Again, no TDRs. We are approaching 87.2 percent of what the total vegetation inventory is in the rural fringe. Now, if we start talking about TDRs -- and, again, the TDRs, as Bob indicated, is -- is in the sending lands -- TDRs, you're going to be able to take your development rights if you live in the sending lands, and you're going to be able to transfer your development right from the sending land to a receiving land. That process is going to work by basically that TDR is a marketable commodity. And Bob will talk about that a little later on as well. But after you have done that, you have now -- we have now basically put your land into almost a hundred percent preservation status. So that's why with -- if we were wildly successful in all of our send-- sending lands, went from a hundred percent, went -- within all the sending lands, if a hundred percent of the TDRs are utilized, then we get to a 90.5 percent retention of the vegetation. So we're hitting our -- if you will, we're hitting our benchmark of the 90 percent benchmark for the rural fringe. And we're doing it-- the difference, if you will, this -- this would be the -- this would be the part that's incentivized in the sending lands. Now, just for -- for a comparison purposes, wetland land cover within the fringe is 56,600 acres. So just by looking at -- making a comparison of what we would expect retaining total vegetation, we -- we would expect to retain total vegetation that would exceed what the wetland land cover would be. So that's a -- that's another value that Page 31 February 7, 2002 give me -- gave me a little bit of comfort that we're certainly moving on the -- the -- the side that's definitely going to be protecting the natural resources looking at the sending -- a portion of sending and receiving lands and what the preservation requirements are. MR. RICHARDSON: Let me just ask a clarifying question. In your standards you talk about the 40 and 60 percent in primary and secondary but not to exceed 25 percent is primary or 45 percent of the site area. Wouldn't that change these numbers? MR. LORENZ: That could potentially change depending upon the site. It's tough to come up with -- with an exact analysis without knowing what the site would be looked at. MR. RICHARDSON: So I should look at this as an overstatement of what we can expect to achieve? MR. LORENZ: I think that's probably -- that would probably be a fair assessment as you apply those preservation standards. MR. RICHARDSON: Do you have any sense as to how far off the mark we are? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't. We try to do some analysis where we -- where we did that kind of work in the receiving lands. If you look at the receiving lands composition data, you have about a 25 percent composition within the receive -- receiving lands, on average. So, on average, see, we're -- we're -- we're hitting the market. But, again, you know, if-- you're never going to be at the average. Every site's going to be different. MR. RICHARDSON: Of course, editorially, one way to solve that is to change the standard so that we preserve more of the vegetative material. MR. LORENZ: That's certainly a possibility. But let me -- but let me -- but let me -- but let me make -- let me make a point right now about that. In the receiving lands we don't want to have a -- if you will, an overly burdensome regulatory set of standards because those Page 32 February 7, 2002 are the lands that we want to encourage the market to increase the density to utilize the TDRs from the sending lands. And so it's the sending lands that's the most important for us to try to preserve the vegetation and not so much the receiving lands. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to also .mention, relative to this issue, that there are some veg -- some incentives proposed as well to increase the vegetation preservation in receiving areas and that that -- we can't say for certain. But if people exercise those incentives, that would offset some of the discrepancies in terms of the targeted numbers. So we do have some incentives built in for increasing that preservation in receiving lands beyond the, you know, 40 percent or maximum of 25 percent. MR. RICHARDSON: It wouldn't necessarily be your one for one that you've used in your example. MR. MULHERE: No, that's correct. MR. LORENZ: Let's try -- trying to boil down those concepts into the document that you have in front of you -- I just use this slide and I think you've got in your handouts -- it will make some reference to it as we go through the rest of the presentation or your deliberations. But, again, the elements of the integrated protection strategy is that -- the landscape scale and the site scale. The elements of the natural resource protection areas, TDR program, the identification of sending and receiving areas, what the allowable land uses are, what the buffering requirements are are all very specifically addressed in the policy language within your proposed amendments. The site scale elements of clustering, the preservation standards, the wetland standards, wildlife management standards are also embodied in-- in the proposed language within your document. So when you start talking about looking at all those myriad of pages, think about in -- in this structure that we've identified these large landscape features that have environmentally sensitive areas, and Page 33 February 7, 2002 we're trying to direct incompatible land uses away from those areas. And that's what -- and that's what essentially this -- this whole framework does for us. With that I'll turn the presentation over to Bob. I know the -- I'm sure that you're not going to be able to read this slide. This is a little bit of our placeholder for ourselves. But this you did receive in your packet, a summary table of what the allowable land uses are by these planning areas that we've -- we've proposed. And -- and Bob may want to talk about these in a little bit more detail as he goes through his presentation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's the pleasure of the board? Do we want to stop and talk to Mr. Lorenz about his presentation before we get too stale on it or -- MR. STRAIN: I have a procedural question. MR. MULHERE: I was going to raise an issue too relative to some of these hot-button issues and how you want to handle those. MR. STRAIN: I was more concerned -- your presentation wasn't something given to us ahead of time. I understand and appreciate the background. It does resolve some questions, but because we were given those large booklets to review, most of my questions pertain specifically to language in that book. Are we going to be going at some point today through that book item by item? MR. MULHERE: Yup. MR. STRAIN: Because I'll hold most of my questions until we get there because that's where it really applies. MR. MULHERE: That's one issue. Certainly we can speak-- answer your questions or speak specifically to any questions you have relative to the language. The second is that as we move forward here and start to discuss some of these topic areas that are hot-button issues, agricultural regulation, rural villages, some of those questions may come up during Page 34 February 7, 2002 that point in time. And the question I wanted to ask the Planning Commission, there are some folks here who may want to speak on each of those or several of those -- maybe not all of them. Some -- some people may have an issue with one component or another. In fact, some folks here, I think you will need to have some presentation from, for example, Bruce Anderson and -- and Nancy Payton relative to -- as you may have read in this morning's paper, they're working together to resolve issues in the North Belle Meade. And, frankly, since we just received copies of that -- actually, I only looked at them this morning -- I think you'll want to hear from those folks, and you may want to give them some leeway. And that's one of the hot-button issues I've identified. So my question to you as we move forward is as we begin to address these hot-button issues, say we start with agricultural regulation and I summarize the issue for you-- for example, under that one Marty Chumbler can come up and give you-- she's written a legal opinion on that and summarize that for you. You may want to take some public comment at that point on that issue. I mean, that's certainly up to you, but I know that there are probably folks who want to speak on either several or maybe only one of these issues. And that may be the time for you to be able to get that input so that you would be able to consider that in terms of formulating your own questions. That's certainly up to you, but just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It seems to me it's better to -- to take all we're going to hear about an issue at the time. MR. STRAIN: Yeah, I would think so, yeah. One question I forgot to ask in the beginning. Marjorie, is there a requirement for disclosures today? MS. STUDENT: No, there is not because this is a legislative matter and not quasi-judicial. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. Page 35 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I had a couple of questions for Mr. Lorenz, if I might. The strategic habitat conservation area chart that you showed -- MR. LORENZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- it seemed to me, the westernmost portion of the South Belle Meade was just as green as the rest of that portion. We're going to be talking about the westernmost portion of that at some point this -- today. Is it equally important as a strategic habitat to the -- to that -- to the east of it? MR. LORENZ: We have just received -- it was in -- Monday or Tuesday -- some information from Tim Hancock who was looking at some -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Some scientific data? MR. LORENZ: Correct. We're in the process now of-- of updating our database to -- to see how much of-- of that, if you will, habitat that's popped -- showing up as strategic habitat really current -- does currently exist. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we'll get to that when we get to that hot button or-- MR. LORENZ: We haven't been able to do that analysis yet from staff. We're still work-- working on that. But I know that-- that Tim Hancock is here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's going to give us his spin on it anyway? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. And that's -- that's one of the hot-button items that we do have on our-- if you will, our list of-- to go through. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: My next question, I gathered from the hearing the other day that the TDR is sort of the linchpin of this program or at least one of them. But then you just showed a -- a chart that indicated that as far as conservation or preservation or one of these labels is concerned, you only move from 87.2 to 90-point Page 36 February 7, 2002 something with TDRs. Now, it seems to me that 87.2 is tantamount to 90 anyway. So the question is, is the -- the game worth the candle? I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you'll come to that, Mr. Mulhere, here. MR. MULHERE: I think I can answer that question right now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right now? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's an excellent question. And we discussed the same thing as we looked at that slide. Keep in mind, the primary purpose of the transfer of development rights is not natural resource protection. We achieve that through regulation. The primary purpose of the TDR is to provide some mechanism for property owners who were regulating to recoup some lost value. That's the primary purpose of the TDR program. We're -- we're -- we're implementing -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And it has that collateral benefit of-- MR. MULHERE: It has the collateral benefit of increasing the natural resource protection. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Do you have an idea of what sort of-- in round numbers inventory there is of sending -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- units and receiving units, what sort of balance there is between those two? MR. MULHERE: Yes. There -- it's estimated-- and it's a very good estimate. I say it's estimated because there may be some nonconforming lots out there that we haven't calculated, relatively few that we wouldn't have calculated, but I believe the number of sending units is less than 5,000. It's up in the 4,800 number. And, of course, as far as the number of receiving, I mean, you take the total area and -- of privately owned land and divide it by 5 to know the total number of dwelling units that you could have. But keep in mind, that number is not exact because we do have to recognize a number of legal Page 37 February 7, 2002 nonconforming lots that exist that may be 2 acres or 3 acres or 4 acres. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's the ballpark number? MR. MULHERE: Bill, do you-- MR. LORENZ: Acres or-- MR. MULHERE: No. Talking about number of dwelling units that are within the sending -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Receiving, receiving. MR. MULHERE: Well, I was going to take the total. We can subtract the sending from that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, all right. MR. RICHARDSON: I could probably do that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. There's about 32,300 acres of receiving land. And somebody who's really good with math can probably divide that up by 5 and come up with a number a lot quicker than I can. Sixty-four sixty. See, I knew we would achieve that. Sixty-four sixty. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Quick fingers rather than quick-- all right. MR. MULHERE: And, as I said, there is about-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 4800. MR. MULHERE: -- 4800 sending units. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So you're talking about 10,000 units. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I gotcha. You hadn't-- you have primary receiving areas, secondary receiving areas. Somewhere in the -- in all this literature there's some mention of mixed-use receiving areas, or -- or am I dreaming that? MR. MULHERE: You may be talking about the rural villages, and I will go over those, but those would be located within receiving lands. And before we forget that you raise that issue, there is also a secondary receiving area that we will need to talk to you about -- and Page 38 February 7, 2002 I've made a note to talk to you about that -- that's actually located outside of-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Right, I remember that. MR. MULHERE: -- the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Last question: What differences are there between NRPA and nonNRPA sending, aside from this 80- 90 distinction? Is that the only difference between a -- a NRPA and a nonNRPA sending area? MR. LORENZ: From the -- the proposed standards -- I believe that's correct. There's -- there's -- the sending lands are going to have the same allowable uses. Their preservation standards are going to be higher in the NRPA lands than the nonNRPA sending lands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, from time to time there have been people who belly ache considerably about being in a NRPA. Now, if they find themselves in a nonNRPA sending area, are they going to have the same complaints? MR. MULHERE: I would suspect. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. That's it. Anybody else have stored-up questions? MR. STRAIN: I've got one. Do you have one? MR. MIDNEY: No. Bill or Bob, you just said there's MR. STRAIN: I have one. 32,000 acres of receiving land? MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. sending. MULHERE: Thirty-two two I think was the calculation. STRAIN: And less than 5,000 of sending or-- MULHERE: No. STRAIN: Explain to me the ratio there again, if you could. MULHERE: The ratio -- there's about 20,000 acres of MR. STRAIN: 20,000 acres of sending. What possible density can come out of that 20,000 if all of it was utilized? Page 39 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Well, as we said, it was about 4800 units that we talked about. You know, if you used ballpark figures, it's five -- if you look at 20,000, you think 5,000 units. So -- when we did the calculation, as I said, it was just under 5,000, 4800. MR. STRAIN: That's the density that would be transferred to the receiving areas? MR. MULHERE: Well, depending on what the final policy deliberations are here. Yes, either into the receiving areas or potentially into some other areas of the county. MR. STRAIN: That's a lot of receiving areas for a small amount of density. MR. MULHERE: And that's designed that way. MR. STRAIN: Then how do you get the receiving areas to work if they're not concentrated enough to warrant the density to go there, I mean -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that they are concentrated enough. The receiving area -- the idea is to have a larger-- for this to work from just purely an economic perspective, if we just go to the basics, supply and demand, you want to have more demand than you have supply. And you want to have a smaller number of sending -- or a smaller acreage of sending lands in number than you would have in receiving lands. So there's greater opportunity, greater market for those units to be sent into the receiving lands. And the more things that you can do to increase that market attraction, the more that the TDR process is likely to work and work quickly. Within those -- that -- that acreage, a couple of things: We -- we do require clustering as part of the TDR provision. You send and you have to cluster. We are proposing to provide central water and sewer to facilitate that clustering process, further facilitate it. And we also have the rural village concept that would provide for a more compact type mixed-use development. And then within a receiving area you Page 40 February 7, 2002 might have a lesser density type of development extending outward from the village center. So we do think that it will work. And -- but to further answer your question, the maximum density outside of a rural village allowed in a receiving area is one to one. So there's a 5-fold -- potential 5-fold increase from 1 per 5, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, to 1 dwelling unit per acre in receiving. And that's how they will be able to accept the transfer units. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Just another quick question. I'm -- as I suppose a lot of people are, am very concerned about the agricultural land and our apparent lack of ability to regulate that. It seems to me that is absent some numbers that would tell me how much rural land we're really talking about which we have not been able to provide yet. I have some concern about that being a real Achille's heel to the data that you have glowingly presented, which I think is great. But if the farmland can be converted without -- you know, wetlands can be turned into citrus groves tomorrow. You know, I think that just destroys the whole program. MR. MULHERE: Well, certainly without the additional issues that we'll discuss with you, that would be the perception that you would arrive at. We're going to talk about that. In fact, that's probably the first hot-button issue we can talk about, if you want to move right into that, unless there's further questions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Brought to mind -- part of this discussion brought to mind another question. The last meeting on this subject for another group, there was a dollar figure tossed around about what these TDRs would sell for on the market, something like seventeen or eighteen thousand. Is there any validity to that, or what's the derivation of the source of it? MR. MULHERE: Well, you have an excellent memory. Nick -- Page 41 February 7, 2002 Dr. Nicholas's initial report indicated a-- a initial value of about $18,000 per dwelling unit. However, he indicated that in programs where TDRs have been successful -- and if we included the components that he indicated were necessary to make it successful -- there was no reason to assume that ours wouldn't be. That initial value increased significantly after the initial purchase and the demand went up. So the initial value that he is suggesting is about 18,000 per unit. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.). CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Bob. Yeah. You can go through that issue. I just wanted to start out by saying, I guess, really without sugar coating the issue or without putting any kind of a spin on it, we're here today as a result of the final order. The final order was largely issued because the county failed to develop and implement strategies to adequately protect natural resources. There were -- there were other issues, but this was, really, the primary issue. In order to develop strategies that will do that and will meet the requirements of the final order and will pass muster with the DCA and, by the way, will protect the natural resources, we are going to have an effect and an impact on some folks' current permitted uses. We do not see any way that that can be avoided. But I did want to assure you that we worked very hard during this process over three years to solicit public input collected from organizations and from individuals. The website allowed interaction back and forth, and people could e-mail questions or comments. We did receive quite a bit of that. Having said that, we tried to address each of those issues that were raised, whether by an organization or an individual. We obviously will not be successful in making everybody happy in this Page 42 February 7, 2002 process, but we certainly tried to understand the issues and develop strategies that considered those issues. One of the major issues raised by some of the environmental groups, as well as the EAC in their deliberations, was this issue of whether or not the county could regulate agriculture in the sending lands. And when you think about it, it's a pretty simple issue. We said these are the most highly valuable wetland and habitat areas in the fringe. We want to protect them. We're going to implement significant restrictions on private property owners' ability to utilize those lands. Why wouldn't we put a regulation in place that would prohibit any agricultural clearing in those lands? MR. RICHARDSON: Why not? MR. MULHERE: And we did as a recommendation initially of what we found on the advice of our counsel. And I'm going to invite Marty Chumbler to talk in just a minute as soon as I try to summarize this for you was that we were precluded from adopting standards that would prohibit certain types of agriculture. What types of agriculture? Well, agriculture under the Right-to- Farm Act that is considered to be -- A, to be bona fide agriculture and, B, for which a best management practice standard has been implemented. And that pretty much covers most of the types of agriculture that we see in Collier County. Failing to be able to do that, to that is outright prohibit that in the sending lands, we realize we probably could put some restrictions that would be more voluntary in nature. And so we've attached some restrictions to the TDR process, or we're proposing some restrictions to the TDR process. That is, if you are in sending land, you are a private property owner, and you avail yourself of the TDR process and you send some or all of your units from your property to a receiving land, you then lose the opportunity to continue any farming operations or to clear any additional land for farming operations. Page 43 February 7, 2002 In the residual, we -- we do propose to continue to allow unimproved pasture. But really that's it. In addition, then, the question came up, well, what about somebody who goes in and just clears and then uses the TDR process? Good question. You may not be aware of it, but the county does have a regulation in place where a agricultural clearing permit has been issued, the landowner is precluded from changing that land use or rezoning the property for ten years unless they -- unless they come in and re -- reestablish the -- the native plant and habitat that was there prior to the clearing, which is obviously fairly costly to be able to do that. And the reason for that is pretty obvious. Someone could come in and just clear their agricultural land, but their real rationale behind it is -- is development, and if they've cleared all the land, then they don't have any native vegetation preservation requirements. So that's why that standard is in place. We would propose to extend that in the TDR process to say that the same thing holds true for TDRs. If you clear your land for agricultural purposes -- I mean, we're talking about just sending lands now because ag is fine in the receiving lands. You would not be able to avail yourselves of the TDR process for ten years. Now, at this point I -- I think I'd like to ask Marty -- she's right behind me -- to come up and give you a little bit more of the legal foundation for her opinion. MR. RICHARDSON: Just a couple of questions, Bob, on what you said. MR. MULHERE: Go ahead. MR. RICHARDSON: This ten-year rule -- I know it's in our code -- do you know if there's a rationale for that? Could it be 50 years? MR. MULHERE: Oh, that. And I was going to get to that. Actually, even though that's what we're proposing, there have been a Page 44 February 7, 2002 number of folks who have said why ever let somebody transfer development rights if they clear, you know, in this area for agriculture, or how about 25 years or 50 years? I don't think there's any -- I'll let Marty address that, but I don't think there's any. It's purely voluntary. You can choose either to clear your land for agricultural purposes or not to and avail yourself of the TDR; and, therefore, you have to live by those restrictions, whatever they ever ultimately end up being. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's essentially a contract, isn't it? MR. MULHERE: Yup. MR. RICHARDSON: Did I understand you, though, to say on the TDR if they avail themselves of the TDR, on whatever basis it's finally approved, that they could no longer farm that land? MR. MULHERE: With the exception of unimproved pasture, yes. We -- we -- we propose to continue to allow unimproved pasture. That -- that, by the way, is different from what's in your document right now. Originally we had proposed to allow continued agricultural operations for what existed today but no additional clearing. After conversation with Nancy Linnan and Marty Chumbler, we actually strengthened that to say, no, you can't even continue your agricultural operations. MR. RICHARDSON: It would seem that that would fly in the face of what she's going to tell us about, then, about the right to farm. MR. MULHERE: I believe this memo has been distributed to yOU. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, to -- to answer, I'll -- I'll go through and give a little background in a minute. But to directly answer your question, I think, as someone suggested, it's really sort of like a contract. The TDR program is a voluntary program. No farmer is going to be required to partake of that program. If they choose to, then part of the contract essentially would be to give up their right to continue farming there. So it's not technically a regulation; it's a Page 45 February 7, 2002 voluntary program that they can choose to make use of or not. Just to give you a little bit of history on the Right-to-Farm Act, in 1979 the Florida legislature recognized the ever-increasing problem of encroachment on agricultural operations in this state. Development is growing right around what have been historically farming areas, and we all recognize that's not going to stop in this state. That's going to continue to be an increasing problem. And in nine -- and, of course, farming operations, if you've ever lived next to a farm, particularly a very active farm, it may not be the best neighbor to have. So there were increasing number of nuisance suits against farming operations by these new residential developments that had been moving in around existing farms. So in 1979 the Florida legislature adopted the Right-to-Farm Act which originally was intended to address itself toward those nuisance suits and to protect farming operations from nuisance suits brought from the -- the developments that grew up around existing farms. There was -- there were some attempts by concerned people to use that original legislation to prevent local governments from regulating through their land development regulations agricultural operations. And with that original version of the bill, it didn't work. And for-- in fact, in 1990 -- as late as 1996, the Department of Community Affairs entered a final ruling saying, no, the Right-to- Farm Act does not apply to land development regulation. It doesn't prevent a local government from enacting regulations that apply to farming operations. In the year 2000, the Florida legislature addressed that issue specifically and adopted a new subsection to the Right-to-Farm Act which very clearly states and restricts local governments' available -- availability or ability, through their comprehensive plan and land development regulations, to restrict, limit, prohibit, or in any way regulate farm operations. Page 46 February 7, 2002 In the introductory language to that new subsection, which is subsection 6, they have said that the intent of this is to prevent duplication of regulation. So what they've said is, look, there are federal regulations that apply to farming operations; there are state regulations that apply to farmer operations. We don't want there to be further regulation of farm operations at the local level. Now, there are some limitations on that. There are some exceptions to that that I've listed in my memo. The main one is that there must be the farm operations that are -- that enjoy this protection from local regulation are those for which there are adopted best management practices that have been adopted by some state agency, and that includes the Water Management District. In my memo I've -- I've listed those reg -- those adopted best management regulations that would be applicable in Collier County. It looks to me, in looking through them -- and I've discussed this with Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Mulhere here. It appears to us that virtually all of the agricultural operations in Collier County, with the exception of some grazing operations, would have a best management practice that applies to them. There's one for citrus. There's one for seasonal crops. There's one for forestry. So all of those types of agricultural operations could not be regulated or limited or prohibited by any sort of land development regulation or comprehensive plan provision that Collier County adopts. That's sort of an overview of my memo. There are some other exceptions. None of these best management practices specifically address well head protection. So if Collier County felt it was necessary to adopt a specific well head protection ordinance, that could be applied to agriculture. Collier County can adopt regulations relating to the use of pesticides; that's permitted. If there is an emergency in Collier County -- by emergency we're talking about something where there's Page 47 February 7, 2002 immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare -- then you can -- you can regulate agriculture. But those are very, very limited types of exceptions that would apply. Yes. MR. MIDNEY: What about buffer zones or prohibitions against concentrated animal, like, poultry or dairy farming? MS. CHUMBLER: There is a best management practice for concentrated feed lots, and therefore, local government cannot regulate that. The imposition of a buffer requirement would be a regulation of agriculture. And so if you are -- if it's a type of agricultural operation for which there is a best management practice adopted, then you couldn't impose a buffer. MR. RICHARDSON: I recall, though, that we have regulated things like fish farming in Collier County. MS. CHUMBLER: You may have attempted. But there's a best management practice for agriculture. MR. RICHARDSON: We have done that. We didn't attempt. We did it. MS. CHUMBLER: Well -- and, you know, there may be things on the books that have not yet been challenged. It may be that this was adopted before the year 2000. Keep in mind that this legislation was only adopted in 2000, and so there may be some ordinances on the books that predate the year 2000 that are still there. But -- but they -- you may have a problem applying them. MR. RICHARDSON: Let me just summarize, perhaps inadequately, the negative side of what I'm hearing you say, and that is that agriculture can go in and all these sensitive areas we're trying to protect, all the wetlands, environmentally sensitive things that we've talked about, that there's no impediment to them to convert to whatever they want to do as far as they -- as long as they meet best management practices? Page 48 February 7, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: No. That's not entirely true because best management practices is only one of the regulations that are subject to at the state and federal level. They're going to impact wetlands. In most instances, they're going to have to get state permits; they may have to get federal permits. And that's -- keep in mind, the legislature in adopting this provision is not saying agriculture is free of all regulation. They specifically say that they've done this to essentially preempt to the state the right to regulate agriculture. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Free of local regulation. MS. CHUMBLER: Free of local regulation. If someone is going to impact wetlands, there are state regulatory programs and, in some instances, federal regulatory programs that they will have to comply with before they can do that. MR. STRAIN: I have a question, ma'am. In the rural fringe area that we're talking about today, based on the reading that you provided, I understand there isn't a lot of ag currently. And your third item on your memo said that the Florida Supreme Court determined that the actual physical activity being conducted on the land rather than its zoned use was the key to determining whether or not the property should be classified as ag. MS. CHUMBLER: Correct. MR. STRA1N: Well, couldn't we through this process classify everything that's utilized as ag right now as ag and everything that isn't cleared or outside those current boundaries of the -- classify it as something else and then that way it cannot be utilized as ag? MS. CHUMBLER: But if they start using it as ag, tomorrow or next week or next year, then it ties it back to the ad valorem tax rolls. And you can't -- you can't say forever more this land is nonagriculture if next week they start using it as agricultural and then it becomes a bottom-line agricultural land. MR. STRAIN: So even if it's not classified, it could be used still. Page 49 February 7, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: It's the ad -- it's the use at the point in time that's relevant. MR. STRAIN: You had quite a bit of suggestions to Collier County on things we could do to tighten up the use of ag, including pesticide controls and building controls and things like that. And you even mentioned that since none of the adopted BMPs make specific mention of well field protection, Collier County would limit or even prohibit certain agricultural activities, it's limitation or prohibition where enacted as a well field protection measure. Has staff looked at doing any of these or enacting any of these in the areas out in the rural fringe? MR. MULHERE: Not as part of this assessment. I mean, we just got this a couple days ago. I think that has to be a whole and separate analysis. I mean, it's easy to say let's just adopt the well field protection strategy on the entire -- all of the sending areas in the rural fringe. But I think there probably needs to be a very deliberate study to suggest that those are, in fact, necessary for well field protection. I think, though, these issues -- and you mentioned-~ you just got to what I was going to let the planning commission know about. The agriculture issue is of less of a concern in the rural fringe because when we look at the numbers, there's probably -- of all the ag -- and fairly intensive agricultural operations taking place in Collier County, by far the vast majority is in the eastern lands portion. There's only about 3 percent of-- of active intensive ag occurring -- there's quite a bit of-- still some pasture, but of row crop, of the total in the county it's only about 3 percent in the fringe. So we think this is of somewhat less of a concern. In addition, I would also tell you that, you know, there's probably a reason why much of this land has not been cleared for agriculture already, and that that may also lower the concern of it being cleared in the future for that purpose. However, I think it -- it does behoove the Page 50 February 7, 2002 county, if that's the desire, to look at these issues contained in this report and then as part of the eastern lands study or as part of a subsequent study, look at how those could be implemented. But I agree with you on that issue, Mark. MR. STRAIN: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bob, when we finish agriculture, we need to take a break for the court reporter. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So -- any other questions? MR. MIDNEY: I had one more question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's do the questions on agriculture. MR. MIDNEY: Could the county regulate building permits for farm buildings or fences? MS. CHUMBLER: It's a-- it's any kind of land development regulation of agricultural operations. And the farm operations are very broadly defined. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. MR. ADELSTEIN: If we're dealing with a agricultural landowner and he decides to get into the TDR program that's eligible for it, now we can restrict him? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: And tell him what he cannot do? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I also wanted to readdress Mr. Richardson's recollection of regulating agriculture. Yeah, but the way that you get - - that we get into regulating that agriculture, if I'm not mistake -- mistaken, was because it required a conditional use for excavation. And then during that public hearing for the excavation, certain restrictions were placed which presumably the applicant agreed to as Page 51 February 7, 2002 part of approval process. So it's a little bit different because actually agriculture is a permitted use. MR. RICHARDSON: So he could have dug up without even asking? MR. MULHERE: If he didn't have to do an excavation-- if he did something maybe above ground, you may not have had that entree into regulating that. Marjorie, did I say something wrong? MS. STUDENT: No. I was going to say, I agree with you, and that was my recollection as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Let's -- let's reconvene at 20 past. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The meeting will come to order. Mr. Mulhere here was kind enough to remind me that we were going on these hot-button issues. We were going to polish off the issues buttons one at a time, so I'll open for public comment on the limited issue of agriculture. MR. MULHERE: Right. I just wanted to make clear that if you've signed up and want to speak generally on this issue or want to speak at the end, there will be a public comment period at the end. But for anyone who wants to speak specifically on the ag regulation issue, now's the time to -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now's the time. MR. AGOSTEN: Are you going to limit the number of times the public has the right to make a comment? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Some-- some reasonable limit, yes. MR. AGOSTEN: But -- what do you mean by that? I have a problem with this language, so every now and then I misunderstand. Could you specify that? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it's sort of like obscenity. Page 52 February 7, 2002 think we'll know when we see when somebody's abusing the right. So you can go ahead and speak until somebody tells you otherwise. MR. AGOSTEN: Flexible system. My name is Ty Agosten. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. No, no, not right now. Mr. Cornell raised his hand. MR. AUGUSTEN: Mr. Cornell, by all means. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I didn't see you ask to be recognized Mr. Agosten. I'm sorry. MS. PAYTON: Well, what is the process here? MR. CORNELL: My name's Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. And I appreciate the opportunity to have a couple words to say about agricultural exemption issue. It is a hot-button issue. It's something that we have consulted with our attorney on, and we disagree with the county's counsel on this issue, res -- respectfully. We believe that the farm act does not prohibit planning criteria adopted by a local government to protect public values. Thus, Collier County is permitted to adopt land use categories with specific agricultural use standards, as well as designating appropriate land use categories to wetlands and environmentally sensitive uplands. We think this is distinguished from regulation or duplication of regulation, which the act is addressing itself to. And since the state requires adequate protection of local natural resources -- indeed, the final order is requiring us to better protect our -- our rural resources -- Collier County Audubon Society feels that the county is really obligated to include agriculture in land planning categories and standards to protect our resources. We've got to have appropriate land use categories for appropriate lands. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Who else was signed up for this? MR. MULHERE: I'm-- Page 53 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anyone else? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure that everybody identified -- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question about this. In times past we have taken comment after a particular item, particularly in the Land Development Code or a particular element in the Growth Management Plan. And I have several slips here, and I will need some time to go through them and separate out the ag. It makes it a bit problematic this way without knowing in advance that we were going to do that. MR. MULHERE: My suggestion was much simpler than that. My suggestion was that with these hot-button issues, if someone wished to speak, they would be permitted to speak, and if at the end they still chose to speak on some general topic, some other topic that's not a hot -button issue or whatever, that they still be permitted to do that, public comment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's so simple that I can understand why you left government service, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: And-- and, yes, unfortunately since we don't, you know, have people signed up for every one by hot-button issue, if they would raise their hand I'm sure, like ladies and gentlemen, we can come up here and be heard. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Nancy, were you on deck for this one? MS. PAYTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. Then Mr. Agosten. MR. RICHARDSON: While she's coming up, can we deal with some of this? At least that's the question that's been raised by Mr. Cornell. MR. MULHERE: Well, you can if you wish to, or maybe you want to hear all of the speakers, and then Ms. Chumbler could -- MS. STUDENT: I think-- I think-- Page 54 February 7, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: Remind me not to forget that question. MS. STUDENT: I think it would be a good idea to hear all the speakers, and then our counsel will have a synthesis of what the concerns are, and she can respond. efficient. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And that would also be time Thank you, Marjorie. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. Good morning. We also hold the same position as Collier County Audubon Society, and their attorney is also our attorney, and he's working, as we speak, on his opinion, our opinion, that, yes, Collier County can regulate agriculture as a land use. I'm not an attorney, so I can't argue it. I can't counter Miss Chumbler's presentation. But we will have -- unfortunately, it's not available today, but I do want you to know that there is an attorney out there. There is a position that, yes, this county can regulate agriculture as a land use. And the bottom line is that we cannot adequately protect our natural resources, our wildlife habitat, our wetlands, if we cannot regulate agriculture. I want to comment briefly on clearing. There was a reference to that as sort of a -- a way to address agricultural impacts and setting a time frame that if you cleared your land, you -- that there would be a time fear -- period which in ten years was commented that you couldn't transfer your development rights. Well, I suspect that those development rights aren't really going to be that attractive to purchase within ten years. So we might have a rush on clearing land now in anticipation of that ten-year time frame. Also, I wanted to comment that I ran into a situation, not in this part of the county, but it's applicable, where there was land clearing taking place on -- on farm lands on pasture. And I filed a request, an inquiry, as to where their land-clearing permit was. And the response Page 55 February 7, 2002 back was that there are certain types -- there are certain ag operations, if they were in existence prior to a certain date, they don't have to have a clearing permit. They don't have to come to the county to take out underbrush, clear whatever they want to clear. So there is a loophole in that, and it still doesn't get us where we want to go. If we can close up that loophole and maybe extend that clearing time frame out -- way out into the future so it's a disincentive for people to clear their land, to be part of the TDR program, then maybe that's sort of that middle ground that we can seek. Those are my comments. Thank you very much, and I did sign up to speak on a couple of other -- other issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank -- thank you, Nancy. Ty? MR. AGOSTEN: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Ty Agosten. I live in an endangered northern Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for the Tax Watch of Collier County. I was also the member of that intellectually inferior committee that have spent some 60 meetings or at -- at 3 hours long each to absorb the same material that you fellas seem to absorb very rapidly. At -- I guess it pays to be smart. As far as this committee or any committee, for that matter, dealing with agricultural land, agriculture is a business. I came from a communist country where the government has managed to control the business activity and failed miserably. It provided thousands and thousands of starve -- starving children, starving mothers, what have you. I am not sure just exactly where this country is headed, but it appears that the environmental groups have no problem trying to outguess future actions from farmers. And if you already have a state law prohibiting you from interfering with the farmers, why should you even consider it? Let me just point out one more issue. You sit over there and, as I Page 56 February 7, 2002 mentioned to you, I bow to your supber -- superior intellect, but I don't see anybody representing the very people you are talking about. I don't see anyone there sitting from Immokalee or from the Everglades. Oh, you're from the Immokalee -- take it back, sir. I know that Mark is up in the estates, but don't see too many people really speaking out for these people. I see more weight being carried by the coastal brethren of ours who are essentially against no growth -- against growth, and they will take every avenue possible to exploit that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Richard Woodruff. MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. For the record, Richard Woodruff with Wilson, Miller. On the issue of agriculture, I would like to point out a couple of issues having to do with the rural fringe study. As Mr. Mulhere has correctly stated, the 94,000 acres that are covered by this portion of the final order, which the rural fringe committee is dealing with and which is your transmittal document this morning, it has a very small amount of actual agricultural activity. If I could direct your attention to the map that is on the television, if you will look down in the U.S. 41 area, that blue zone, that is primarily where active agriculture is occurring. Now, when I use the term "active agriculture," I'm using it in the term of row crops. When you look at the rest of the 94,000 acre, there are other agricultural activities, such as mining or pasture, but there are very limited agricultural fields. And let me tell you why: Ownership patterns. I know that you have read your document, and you will notice in the 94,000 there is a number -- and actually in my -- in my problems of dealing with interstate congestion this morning, I did not get to go by the office to pick up my book. But in the 94,000 acres, I believe the number of ownerships is what? Like 40,000 or something. Page 57 February 7, 2002 It's some huge -- 20,000, some huge number. So when you think about the reality of the wetland areas and the potential for them to be farmed, I will tell you that particular does not exist, because you're going to have to aggregate the property. The second point I would like to make to you is this: When you deal with transfer of development rights, remember, it certainly is a contract, as the chairman, Mr. Abernathy, said. Remember the final order had more than one point in it. It did not just say protect the environment. It also said prevent the premature conversion of agriculture. So I would say to you that because agriculture is regulated in this state, it is not open season to go out and do whatever you want. I can tell you -- because we have to do the regulations for many of the farmers in Collier County -- we have that privilege that we do not go out and we cannot go out and simply clear property. We do have to get water management permits. We have to get the environmental groups to concur with our best management practices. So I would say to you that when you deal with TDRs, it's not likely that that's going to occur in your area. It is not a system that is wide open. It is well regulated. The last thing that I would also encourage you to do, one of the suggestions is that you eliminate agricultural uses in sending lands after the TDRs are used. I would say to you why? Why? If you already have areas that are cleared for agriculture, wouldn't you want to actually transfer the TDRs and encourage that agricultural activity to stay rather than saying, okay, you have to give it up, and then that farmer says, well, I'm going to have to go someplace else and clear even more land? Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you want to respond to that? MR. MULHERE: I can respond to that and several other things. And I think, perhaps, Miss Chumbler will also respond to some of the Page 58 February 7, 2002 legal implications. I did, just for the record, also want to call your attention to the EAC's motions that relate to this issue. One was that they requested a thorough review, which we've already discussed, legal review. The second was to require agricultural uses to adhere to the same preservation standards as other uses in rural mixed-use district which flies in conflict with the legal opinion of Ms. Chumbler, and the -- the other motion was that all new agricultural activities, including expansion of existing agricultural activities, that negatively affect wetlands shall be prohibited. Of course, the degree to which those uses affect wetlands falls under the state's jurisdiction, not the county's. But, anyway, those were the motions of the EAC. I guess the question -- I think Dr. Woodruff raises a very legitimate issue relative to the final order also talking about preventing the premature conversion of agriculture and, also, in a sense, trying to develop some concepts that would enhance or protect the economic viability of agriculture, a very important business in Collier County. As I've said to you earlier, there is a relatively small percentage of agricultural activities, when you look at the overall scale. And, in fact, we have chosen to defer much of that to the eastern lands portion where there is extremely large agricultural operations going on. Having said that, when we identify the ecological value of the sending lands, we think that out, and given the constraints in the final order and trying to find balance, we think that outweighs in those areas the need to continue to allow those agricultural operations. So I understand his point; it's a very good point. We just would say that, looking at everything, in our opinion, it's more important to protect those ecological areas intact. MR. RICHARDSON: Bob, just in terms of this ten-year, can we somehow put a circle around that some way? Is that an issue -- MR. MULHERE: I think that's something you need to address. I Page 59 February 7, 2002 do think that's an issue you need to address as you move forward at the end towards some sort of a motion, and I have highlighted that. MS. CHUMBLER: I think there was a request, maybe, to respond to Mr. Cornell's position, if I -- I recall correctly, and I -- if I - - if I understand the question, someone had asked me to respond to his comments about the ability of the -- the county to adopt standards rather than regulations. Let me just read to you straight from the statute. "A local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit inactivity of a bona fide farm operation." Now, I'm not quite sure. It sounds to me like what he's looking for is standards that would place limitations on farm operations. I think clearly this statute is directed toward any vehicle for limiting, in any manner, farm operations. That's how I read the statute. I have not -- I have talked to the attorney for Audubon and the Wildlife Federation, but I understand he's preparing a written memorandum which I've not had an opportunity to review, and I certainly will do that when I receive it. MR. ADELSTEIN: MS. CHUMBLER: Is there any case law on this subject? No, sir. It's a -- as I say, it was not adopted by the legislature until the year 2000, so there's not been any cases that have gone that far. I have cited a Florida Supreme Court case in my memorandum, which really isn't -- isn't based upon this statute. It has to do with the - - what you mean by bona fide farm operation. The issue there was -- in that case was whether or not, by zoning regulations -- it was a case that involved ad valorem taxes, and the issue was, if a -- if a piece of property is not zoned agricultural, should it be placed in an agricultural classification for ad valorem tax purposes with the -- the local tax collector saying no. Obviously if it's Page 60 February 7, 2002 in a -- in a piece of land, a piece of land zoned for something other than agriculture, it cannot be a bona fide farm operation. The Florida Supreme Court said, no, we -- what we're looking at is the actual physical activity on that piece of property; zoning regulations have nothing to do with it. And what's even more pertinent for today is, the dissenting opinion in that case, the judges who disagreed with result, said what you have done is undercut local government's ability to regulate farm operations through zoning. And so -- and that's what I'm telling you is, in fact, the state government has -- has decided that local governments cannot regulate local govern -- the use of properties for farm operations. MR. RICHARDSON: Can I direct a question to staff?. If it is found out, you know, we can get varying legal opinions on almost anything, and hers is certainly well reasoned, but there may be other well-reasoned ones, and particularly if it's narrowed down to the definition of some terms, like land use categories. And perhaps there are, quote, unquote, regulatory kinds of things that can be done that would assist us in the overall goal, which I'm sure we're all in tune with, and that's trying to protect these natural resources to the extent it's possible. If it is found -- this may be a roundabout way of saying this. If it's found that we can, in fact, find some legal justification for doing that, would you consider changing our report to the state to reflect those changes? MR. MULHERE: Ultimately that would be a decision by the Board of County Commissioners. But -- but I will tell you that originally that was our intent. And we -- yeah. If-- if there had been a way to do it legally, it would already be included as one of our recommendations. So yes. MR. RICHARDSON: So you're open to further consideration of Page 61 February 7, 2002 this issue? MR. MULHERE: If I -- I guess really it's going to have to be left up to -- as a policy decision. If there's two sides and two legal opinions, I think the board's going to have to weigh those issues. You'll have to weigh those issues on the information you have today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bob, as a tactical matter, didn't the state bounce our EAR because it was not strict enough and -- in protecting some things? MR. MULHERE: I -- I -- clearly it was found not to adequately protect natural resources. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, as a tactical matter, what if we -- to use an old nautical term, what if we sort of tube block the state and send back a regulation that is borderline perhaps and make them say no? Wouldn't that be a refreshing change that Collier County has done something that has gone too far or perhaps is on the gray area or on the line? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I mean, you -- a comprehensive plan amendment can be challenged on either side. I mean, it can be -- it could be challenged by the environmental group, or it could be challenged by the farm operations. I mean, the end result would be or might be, if it's found that you have, in fact, violated the Right-to- Farm Act, is you still end up with a comprehensive plan that's not in compliance, and you're back to the drawing board to try to fix that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. MR. STRAIN: Ma'am, before you leave, I have one more question for you. MR. ADELSTEIN: I do too. MR. STRAIN: The other part of agriculture which seems to always be lumped with it as a conditional use is -- and I notice it's in the sending lands and the conservation lands as well as an allowable use -- is the oil and mineral extraction related processing. Those Page 62 February 7, 2002 processes can get pretty intense. Now, do they have to be in there by any kind of rule or law? MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Well, I mean, I -- from the Right-to- Farm Act position, oil and mineral extraction is not a -- is not a defined -- does not fall within the term farm operation. MR. STRAIN: Well, that's refreshing. MR. MULHERE: I can -- I can address that issue. Those are in there because almost all -- I'm not sure if all but almost all of the lands in Collier County, as part of the deed, allow the right of the previous owner, of almost all, if not all of the lands in Collier County -- that would be the Collier family, and I'm not sure whether it goes to Barron Collier or Collier Enterprises or both -- the -- they retain that right. And if you look at the -- the deed restriction on my piece of property, that right is -- is in there. The deed allows for them to extract mineral -- minerals. And what we have done, though, is we have precluded excavations in sending lands. We continue to allow those in receiving lands. MR. STRAIN: Well, if you're going to take minerals out and you're going to extract them besides -- I mean, the oil is listed separately, but what other minerals besides oil can be sucked out of the ground? MR. MULHERE: Well, we've been told there really are no minerals, but we didn't want to -- we didn't want to initiate a fight. If there aren't any minerals, then probably it's not going to happen, other than oil. But the way it reads is minerals and oils, so what we've done is we've said excluding earth mining. MR. STRAIN: But do we have to make it easy to have -- by having that in there? Couldn't we just take it out and if the deed restrictions address that issue, that could come up at the time they were to be applied for? I'm just curious. Page 63 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know the answer to that. I just - MR. STRAIN: It just seems to open the door to anybody that may have deed restrictions then. MR. MULHERE: And you may be right. That's something we'll have to look into. We'll have to talk to the attorneys about that. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Michael Ramsey, who is the chairman of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, asked if he could speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of course. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, gentlemen. My name's Michael Ramsey. I'm the chairman of the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. We are an organization that works in partnership with the natural resource conservation service. And we've been dealing with agricultural and agricultural issues in Collier County since about 1970. There are three points that I'd like to make about agriculture that you might consider in your decision-making process. Number 1, agriculture has an inherent characteristic that is one of the few land uses that can coexist most favorably with environmental systems and natural habitats. It does -- it's able to do this because it utilizes the natural characteristics of nature without destroying all of it. An example of that would be that a citrus grove coexists very well against a natural cypress slough system because they both need each other. The second point would be that agricultural systems, as you're looking to plan the county's furore on a trade -- on a cost analysis or benefit analysis, agriculture inherently requires less services from the county and municipal governments. Because they're in such large tracts, agriculture does not require a lot of service such as roads or Page 64 February 7, 2002 police or things such as that because it doesn't have a lot of roads and houses on it. So it's a cheaper cost to the county. And the last thing is, as you plan the county's future, you might want to consider that agricultural uses planned into a area, a lot of times municipal areas like the coast and Naples and Fort Myers need some kind of agricultural land use next to it because the two coexist together. A lot of times a municipal area will need an agricultural type use next to it to support it, for instance, in recycling. That's a kind of an area where agriculture does fit in well with municipal areas because one example would be composting. You can take the waste from the city area, compost it on agricultural areas for recycling and reuse it. So they coexist. So agricultural does have a place in the management of a county's future. And in that light, I'd like you to consider, maybe, considering and keeping in some of your -- on the rural fringe area, keeping agricultural uses in there because they do have a place, especially in the management. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. ADELSTEIN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Question. MR. ADELSTEIN: We're dealing with this farming law problem with not -- the ability not to change the rules. What about public health as a base for changing the rule for farming? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there -- there are two possible exceptions that might give you the opportunity there. One is related to pesticides. One of the exceptions is that you can locally impose regulations that relate to pesticides. The second one, though, is -- would only be in true emergency situations. So if there's an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, you could impose regulations or ordinances or Page 65 February 7, 2002 policies that related to that but would have to be a true emergency, not a extended public health issue. MR. ADELSTEIN: could not -- MS. MR. MS. CHUMBLER: ADELSTEIN: CHUMBLER: If there was an extended health issue, we That's the way the law's currently written. Okay. And-- and the thought is because there is state regulation and federal regulation that addresses that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? MR. MULHERE: I would--just in closing on this issue, I'd like to also add that I think what Mr. Ramsey indicated in terms of the demands on the government in terms of services is true, generally speaking, with respect to agriculture. But keep in mind, what we're talking about here is conservation compared with agriculture, which also would have no demands on public services. Then we're talking about the sending lands. Where the ag exists today primarily, as Dr. Woodruff indicated, is in this Area D. That's a receiving area. And nothing would preclude an individual from continuing to farm in that area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, what's your bottom line on agriculture then? MR. MULHERE: Our bottom line is, we want to, as strongly as we can, develop regulations attached to the TDR that would prohibit any farming af-- in an after condition. I think that there would be generally support. We propose the ten-year restrictions. If you feel that that should be longer, I don't think that the staff has any objection to that. However, based on the legal advice that we've got from the -- from Marty Chumbler -- and I think it's very clear in reading her analysis -- and notwithstanding the potential for some other analysis to come forward that might conflict with that, our position is that we Page 66 February 7, 2002 cannot regulate agriculture that's consistent with the Right-to-Farm Act. And we have worded it that way. Someone raised the issue to me, what about some sort of an ornamental nursery? The question would be, there would have to be an evaluation as to whether or not that action was consistent with the Right-to-Farm Act, were there best management practices, and if not, then we do have the right to regulate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Are we ready to move right along? MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next item that I have on my list -- MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry. Where are you at, Bill? MR. MULHERE: Allowable locations and TDRs for golf courses, okay. This -- as I indicated to you earlier, golf courses are permitted by right under our proposal in -- in receiving lands but prohibited in sending lands. There has been a lot of discussion about potentially allowing golf courses on the perimeters of sending lands, if there could be a demonstration that the golf course would improve the area because it was highly exotic infested or something along these lines; that's one of the issues. And as far as that goes, we base the sending lands on the large- scale planning -- landscape level planning data analysis, and -- and we do not support opening that up to some allowance for golf courses. There are thirty-two, thirty-three thousand acres where golf courses would be permitted, and they think that's -- that's appropriate. The second issue is -- I think someone already raised the question about the TDR process and its marketability -- one of the concerns that some folks have raised that, you know, if there's a market out there for someone to go and buy 300 acres of land in a receiving area, build a golf course and develop it at the base density that they already enjoy, which is one dwelling unit per 5 acres, perhaps some upscale housing, what rationale would they have for spending monies on TDRs. Page 67 February 7, 2002 And we asked that very question to Dr. Nicholas. His response was that in his opinion, there -- these folks that would be doing this are also, you know, rational economic individuals and that, in his opinion, there is a strong basis for them to want -- want to improve their economic position by acquiring TDRs because the bottom line would be enhanced. However, an option that's been raised is requiring a -- to enhance that TDR market is establishing a minimum density for residential golf course communities or for freestanding golf courses, some minimum TDR purchase. And that would work something like this: If you wanted to develop a residential golf course community, you may establish a .5 dwelling units per acre minimum. Since your basis 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, you would have to achieve that .5 per acre through the TDR process. That would obviously certainly generate -- most certainly, assuming that golf courses are desirable to be built out in these receiving lands, that would generate some interest in that TDR process beyond the purely voluntary process that we have outlined for you. As far as a freestanding golf course, it could be based on the base density of 1 per 5. So for every 5 acres, you'd have to buy one TDR. That's an issue that you may hear from some folks on both pro and con. And the development standards issue relates to the third bullet there, relates to the very specific development standards that we have implemented and the best management practices that we have proposed to be implemented in the -- in the language, as Mark referred to, relative to golf courses which incorporates the Audubon gold standards doesn't specifically require that you get certified by Audubon gold but incorporates those standards and other standards that Bill and his staff have determined to be appropriate for golf course development so as to protect and -- and not allow for further degradation of the environment, either from pesticides or from other Page 68 February 7, 2002 problems. MR. RICHARDSON: Bob, that .5, just on a previous issue, that's a bonus then? MR. MULHERE: That's not a bonus. Under that provision they would be required -- in receiving lands you can go up to one dwelling unit per acre. Under that provision, if you wanted to build a residential -- and we have not recommended this. It's just -- it's something that's going to come up. It's a hot-button issue. It was raised by -- in fact, by the DCA staff in a preliminary discussion that was had by them and others. In -- under that scenario, if you wanted to build a residential golf course community, you would be required to have a minimum density, say .5 dwelling units per acre. Since your base density right now is one per 5, to acquire that, you would have to purchase TDRs. So it's not a bonus. You've got to go out and buy them -- it would force -- for lack of any better way to explain it, it would be a forced market for the TDR. It would enhance the likelihood of that moving forward. MR. RICHARDSON: However, they still get the one per 5. MR. MULHERE: They get their base, yes. MR. RICHARDSON: So it's something more than they would have gotten. MR. MULHERE: No, they have -- they have 1 per 5 right now, but if they're in a receiving land, they're already allowed to go out and acquire TDRs to go up to 1 per 1. So they're not getting anything more. They're being required to purchase a minimum for the golf course, yeah. It's not any bonus. They're not getting anything more than any -- they're actually having a regulation imposed on them requiring them to go and purchase the minimum density under that provision. MR. STRAIN: Well, the value of golf courses in this county, it would seem that that would be an incentive just to build a golf course? Page 69 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Well, you could do it either way. I guess the point is this: Without that provision, someone can go build a freestanding golf course and not have any reason to acquire TDRs, or they can build a golf course with residential at the existing base density and not have any incentive to acquire TDRs. Now to be fair, Dr. Nicholas didn't think that that was a -- a major issue. He felt there was enough economic incentive that folks would use the TDR process, but others have raised this as an issue, and that's why we raised it. I don't know if you have any speakers on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does anybody want to be heard on the golf course issue? Mr. Cornell? If there's anybody else, please line up over here by the door. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society again. Just very briefly, I would concur with some of the recommendations that Bob Mulhere suggested, that equating golf course -- if you want to build a golf course in the rural fringe, that you -- you be required to buy TDR units because, you know, Collier County has plenty of evidence that golf courses at low density get built just with the present market. So I think we do need -- I think it would be very good to have incentive to protect sending lands through requirement of TDR purchase. And, also, I like the idea of-- of a minimum density of a half unit per acre where you have to go buy TDRs to get to that from the -- from the base density. I think that's a good idea. I think that's one way we can draw in some of those TDR units that we want to buy off of the sending areas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor. One of the inherent problems in what's being proposed is that Page 70 February 7, 2002 when TDR programs are introduced, rarely are they successful. In a few cases they have been successful when the purchase is mandated. Mr. Richardson, you asked a question that I think is very important; that is, well, don't they have more now than they would have had previously, and the answer, sir, is no. The receiving lands have been designated receiving lands because their environmental quality is deemed to be of a much lesser value or nearly nonexistent value than the other lands in the balance of the area. Previous to the -- the interim development standards that were required by the administration commission, you can build a golf course in 1 unit per 5 acres. It was generally perceived that that kind of low density golf course development is not desirable as a buildout condition for the county. What this does is instead of .2 units per acre, it makes it .4 units an acre. It's not very different. If it was undesirable as a buildout condition at one unit per 5 with a golf course, why is it desirable at 2 units per 5 makes no sense to me. What it is is it's forcing anyone who wants to build a golf course to be a participant in the TDR program. It is taking something they had as a right prior to the order and now saying in order to enjoy that right, you have to make our TDR program work. Either TD -- the TDR program should stand alone and work as Dr. Nicholas has said that it would work, or it shouldn't. We should incentivise people to partake of the TDR program, not mandate it. My concern is you're mandating participation in the TDR program. Those are my comments. Thank you. MR. ADELSTEIN: My -- I wrote the same thing you did, just said. I can't conceive of how you have a right to take away my right, the land I own, that I want to build a golf course on and tell me now I don't get that 1 unit per 5 acres; I have to buy that right a second time. If we want to look for a lawsUit, I think we would find one right there. Page 71 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner Adelstein, if I may, Bob, just real quickly, and then I'll be done. One of the problems is the end product is really not where we want to be going as a community anyway. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's my point. MR. HANCOCK: There are areas in which we can incentivise property owners to build in a manner that's constructive and positive in these receiving areas. I don't think this gets us to that point. So all it is a mandate and forced requirement on people who want to develop golf courses, and I believe the program either works or doesn't work on its own. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Tim, I just wanted to -- I just wanted to add, Mr. Adelstein, I think you indicated a couple times -- probably it We were not proposing wasn't clear -- we were not proposing this. this. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, I get the -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. Okay. But I did want to indicate that the EAC, for example, did have a recommendation to support the concept of having a minimum density associated with golf courses that is tied to the TDR program, so it's an issue, and that's why I raised it. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Tim, with the receiving areas being designated as going to be developed in some manner, what would -- where is the incentive to develop them as rural villages and towns like the concept is if they can just be developed as golf courses? MR. HANCOCK: The incentive -- and -- and I think we can address it more fully when we get to that section. But the incentive actually for rural villages lies in an actual density bonus, that if you agree to a particular style of development which is consistent with new urbanism and smart growth, if you agree to develop with that Page 72 February 7, 2002 concept, you receive a bonus. MR. STRAIN: But I think that Bonita Bay and Twin Eagles have shown us that while we can offer that concept, the preference is golf courses and that they're probably more profitable than affordable housing in rural towns at marginal value when you can pay three or four hundred thousand dollars for a membership in a golf club and make a lot more money. MR. HANCOCK: There's no question that current market shows that it works at 1 unit per 5 acres. My question is, if-- unless you're going to eliminate that ability altogether, to require it to go from .2 units an acre to .4 units an acre, when the final product is not terribly different than the Twin Eagles style of development, why would you mandate that on a property owner just to build a golf course? It doesn't change the character of the -- MR. STRAIN: Well, at least we get some environmental benefit out of it; that may be the reason. By getting the TDR process involved, the TDR process starts to work, and there's some environmental incentive there. At least there's some properties that are re -- you know, set aside after that. MR. HANCOCK: I don't disagree with that statement. I'm more concerned with the mandate. In order to build a golf course, that you have to build a slightly higher low-density development. It does -- it seems to get away from the concept of-- of better planning for future communities. MR. MIDNEY: Aren't you doubling it, though, by going from .2 to .4? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. But .4 units an acre is still an extremely low density. MR. MIDNEY: Extremely low. But what is the market -- what is the ideal market for a golf course community -- what density seems Page 73 February 7, 2002 to be most profitable? MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Commissioner Midney, they run the gamut from as low as what you've seen with Bonita Bay Group at Twin Eagles at 1 per 5 acres. They've shown that works. I think that surprised a lot of people. I think that caught a lot of people in this room off guard. They weren't aware that you could actually be profitable at that low a density. Low density in golf course communities are not exclusive or nor are they tied specifically. Many golf course communities will develop out a density of 3 and 4 units an acre such as what you see from U.S. Home where they package the golf course with residences. So it runs the gamut. There's no one single magic bullet. MR. MIDNEY: My understanding was that the problem is that we only have a certain amount of receiving lands and we don't want them to be taken up by a lot of low density golf courses. Is that my -- is that correct? MR. MULHERE: I-- I-- if I can. MR. HANCOCK: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I would think that that's not so much the issue. That may be the issue for some people. I don't think that's so much the issue for us. We have identified a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre in receiving lands. We have identified the receiving lands as the location where we want to send the development. The issue for -- the issue as I see it is whether or not a minimum density associated with this use would enhance the TDR program. And, as I said, we have not proposed that, but the issue was raised and voted on by the EAC, and others have raised the issue. It's really a question -- I think you can do that. I don't think there's any way -- there's any prohibition on you, you know, attaching some minimum density for golf courses. I mean, that -- that's a land development Page 74 February 7, 2002 regulation you could have. If it so happens the only way you can achieve it is through a TDR, then you have to go out and purchase those TDRs. It's just a policy discussion really at this point as to whether or not you think it's worthwhile to mandate that. And Mr. Hancock is absolutely correct. Really, this -- this program is largely based on incentive and voluntary participation and is largely based on the expert opinion by Dr. Nicholas that there is sufficient economic incentive for people to participate in the program. And there's some incentives built in. MR. STRAIN: Bob, is -- are golf courses considered open space? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they are. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Then that brings up a question there. You call parks open space and passive recreational uses on all the nonNRPA sending lands, the sending lands, and the conservation designated lands on your chart. And I'm wondering when you previously said they were moved strictly to receiving lands -- MR. MULHERE: They are. Other types of open space are permitted in there, not golf courses. Golf courses are expressly prohibited. So, you know, you go to the code-- you go to the comprehensive plan, and golf courses are expressly prohibited in sending lands, but other types of open space would be permitted. Just because we use the word "open space" doesn't mean that you can't restrict that open space. MR. STRAIN: But, in your mind, open space is golf course -- MR. MULHERE: Under the definition in the Land Development Code, golf courses may be counted towards your required open space. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Agosten, are you up again? MR. AGOSTEN: Is that all right? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yup. Page 75 February 7, 2002 MR. AGOSTEN: I don't want to impose on you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go right ahead. MR. AGOSTEN: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty Agosten. No. Just make it gentleman -- let me keep it that way. One of the problems of allowing county-paid staff to get involved in activities against the taxpayers is that they take it as a blank license to apply the same freedom on a number of areas. And the way they were let loose against the taxpayers in the sales tax promotion kind of spread across to other issues. A transfer of development rights, gentlemen, has only worked in two areas of the country: In New Jersey and in Delaware. The entire proceedings here are going along on a basis that the county commissioners will approve the transfer of development rights concept. To be honest with you, anything that works in New Jersey I have found very doubtful that it would work in Florida. But that's an opinion. The transfer of development rights have been practiced with very, very poor results across the country some -- 13 5 or some -- in that neighborhood areas unsuccessfully. And who paid for that unsuccessful experimentation was the landowner or the taxpayer. It wasn't the staff who proposed it. We are here dealing with and trying to prohibit the developments of golf courses. Why? Because it has been found in a number of instances that in Collier County you develop a golf courses, and a development will work profitably by building one home per 5 acres. Consequently, the environmental community and the coastal wealthy of our community do not want any eastward extension -- well, let me add the Naples Daily News to that list -- do not want any eastward development. Consequently, they will try to prohibit whatever mechanism the private community comes up with in order to gain successful use out of their land. For you -- and I'm as a -- even this whole issue I find a shell Page 76 February 7, 2002 game where Bob is standing there, and I have listened to him some 50 times for what 3-hour length each time on various issues. And now he doesn't mention that the rural fringe area assessment committee has not approved the concept of transfer -- transfer of development rights. And, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not exactly sure just exactly what kind of a technical background do you own to be passing judgment against a number of people who had already made a judgment about this. Thank you very much. MR. STRAIN: Wait a minute, sir. We've got a three-ring binder here that is supposed to be a result of the Rural Fringe Committee's 50, 60 meetings. You're telling us now that that isn't the case? They didn't approve any of this? MR. AGOSTEN: No, I didn't say that. What I have said, that the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee did not approve the concept of the transfer of development rights. MR. STRAIN: Well, that's what the whole book's basically based on. I mean, that's -- MR. AGOSTEN: Well, now, I'm from New York. So, you know, it depends on which game you want to play. MR. STRAIN: I don't want to play any games. I'm trying to find out an answer. MR. AGOSTEN: Okay. Well, you talk to the staff, and the staff will tell you that the success of this entire operation is based on the using of transfer of development rights. Well, in that case the whole trust of the study was flawed because it did not pass our committee, did not pass. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Mr. Agosten. MR. STRAIN: You attended the meetings as well? MR. MULHERE: Sure. MR. STRAIN: What was your take on it? MR. MULHERE: The committee voted, with eight members Page 77 February 7, 2002 seated and two vacancies, to remove the TDR program from the rural fringe process. That motion failed because it was 4 to 4. There was no final motion to approve the TDR program from the committee. Notwithstanding the committee's position, we're still going to carry forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners because we feel very strongly that it will work exceptionally well. We think it is an important part of the process. We have expert testimony to support us in that opinion. It has worked in more than two places. I don't know if Mr. Ty Agosten is an expert on TDRs or not, but I know Dr. Nicholas is, and he will be here for the board presentation. In addition to that, it is a key component. It's a key component relative to allowing some opportunity for compensation to those property owners where we've affected their property rights. So in that respect it is a key component. We are put -- suggesting something that will, at the very least, enhance their opportunity to recoup -- recoup some value. Now, we agree that it has not worked well in many places. That's why we asked Dr. Nicholas to tell us what components were necessary to ensure or increase the likelihood of this process working, and we have included those components. In addition to that, we have suggested that it will need to be monitored, and it will need to be monitored on a regular basis to see if it is working. And if it is not working well, we will need to tweak that. And the second step in this process after we adopt the policies that will allow for the creation of this TDR program is to actually create it, although this is off the subject of golf courses particularly but, you know, since it was brought up. MR. STRAIN: I just -- I had to follow up on that statement, and I wanted to make sure we were here for a reason. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Mulhere, I don't in-- intend Page 78 February 7, 2002 for you to engage in a debate with Mr. Agosten. I think it's inappropriate for you to bait him about what his credentials are. Mr. Agosten, on your part, I'm not going to allow you to engage in these philosophical polemics or criticisms of motives of some of the staff members. Just get up and tell us what your position is on an issue without any of the extraneous stuff. MR. AGOSTEN: I'm sorry. I'm wasting your time, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Woodruff. Dr. Woodruff, excuse me. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. Although you are supposed to be discussing golf courses, you've gotten into the issue of TDRs. And since that is another hot topic, I would like to make just a comment on that. Again, Richard Woodruff with Wilson, Miller for the record. Wilson, Miller through me did a study of transfer of development rights. It was presented to the Rural Fringe Committee. What that study shows is that there are a number of communities that have had TDR programs. For example, Dade County currently has one. Collier County currently has one. Lee and Charlotte County currently have one. And what we identified in those studies were also presented to Dr. Nicholas, and he concurred in the points. TDR programs normally fail where there is too much government decision in the process. What our study showed and what Dr. Nicholas certainly says in his experience and study is that a transfer of development right program works best where there is surety, where it is the same process. Once the regulations are adopted, it is the same as taking out a building permit. There are no legislative actions necessary. There are no public hearings necessary. Now, for the record, the -- I sat through all 53 meetings of the Rural Fringe Committee. And I can tell you the reason why the committee was split 4 to 4 was not the basic premise of TDRs. It was Page 79 February 7, 2002 the fact that the program as currently proposed has in it the following language for sending: It says that you can either transfer your development rights at 1 unit per 5 acres, or you can build on your property in the sending area at 1 unit per parcel recorded as of June 22nd, 1999. Now, that doesn't say you can build 1 unit per 5 acres as it is zoned. What it says is that if I owned 5 acres, I get 1 unit to build on, or I can send that unit away. What it further says, though, if any of you own 50 acres, you have the right to send 10 units or to build 1 house on the 50 acres. And I will tell you, that is where the issue broke down with the planning -- with the fringe committee. It wasn't over the value or the lack of merit of the TDR program. The four votes -- Mr. Agosten was certainly one of them. And he has told you why he voted. I do not see any of the other members here, but I can tell you that they are Ray Pelletier (phonetic), Gary Hayes, and David Bryant. They voted with Mr. Agosten against the motion to include it because of that added language that if you chose not to transfer in -- from the sending, then you were limited to one unit per parcel. Thank you for letting me clarify the record. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Woodruff. MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Would you -- because I don't know these people. I know Mr. Agosten and his background, but can you tell me what Bryant and Pelletier what their interests were -- what interests they represented in this process? MR. WOODRUFF: Let me say what they do for a living. I don't know what interest they would represent. David Bryant is a former county attorney and is in private practice as an attorney. To the best of my knowledge, he does very limited land-use work. I don't know. I -- I have not seen him do that. Page 80 February 7, 2002 Ray Pelletier is a nursery man who owns his own nursery on Immokalee Road but not in the rural fringe area, immediately adjacent to it. Mr. Hayes, to be quite frankly with you, I don't know what he does. Do you? MR. MULHERE: He's a plumbing contractor. MR. WOODRUFF: He's a plumbing contractor. Okay. Thank yOU. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The next issue? MR. MULHERE: If you'll go back, Bill? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: More on golf?. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, can't get away from that. Buffering of natural reservations, this -- I'm really going to defer to Bill on this issue to talk about what the staff recommendation is, and then we have -- well, here it is right here. The current proposal from the staff is 300 feet, but that could be increased because we would propose to require a hydrologic assessment in conjunction with the development adjacent to that natural reservation, which, by the way, is a conservation area or a NRPA. That's what that term refers to, conservation or NRPA. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And so at the time of looking at the development, the county would require this hydrologic study, and that 300 feet may or may not need to be increased. That's a minimum. If it needed to be increased, it would -- it would need to be increased based on potential impacts to the natural hydrology and the wetlands, and there would be a modeling program that would occur to identify that. The EAC recommended -- took a motion to require a half-mile buffer -- oh, by the way, that 300 feet could also be increased if there were listed species. There are management plans for listed species. And, for example, for a bald eagle, it might be 1500 feet from the nest. So if you were within proximity to a bald eagle's nest, you may have Page 81 February 7, 2002 to increase that buffer. And the other species have different management plans and the buffer widths. The EAC voted to recommend a one-half mile of buffer in -- and I'll go to the map over here -- in Areas A and D. That -- that really is a pretty simple issue. I don't know if there are anybody -- any speakers that would like to talk-- MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Mulhere-- MR. STRAIN: No problem. MR. RICHARDSON: -- I'm searching for the language, and you can find it. It says 300 feet could be adjusted more or less. What are the conditions under which it could go down to zero, for instance? MR. MULHERE: I'd have to defer to Bill on that. MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question, please. MR. RICHARDSON: The stan -- the standards for buffering that are in our book here say that it can be 300 feet, but then it can be adjusted either up or down. And I wonder what circumstance the down -- 300 would seem maybe reasonable if it was a -- a lower limit. But if you can take it back to zero, why have a -- why have a standard? MR. LORENZ: This -- the summary slide is correct in the sense it's 300 feet. That's for -- that's for a particular set of open -- of-- of uses that we've listed on page 31. One intent is to try to -- is to require that your open space, certain, if you will, non -- certain passive types of open space be adjacent to the boundary. Now, there are certain -- certain kinds of open space that we specified that in no case those be located closer than the 300 foot to the boundary. So that's -- that's -- that's -- that's a little bit of the -- if you will, the -- the more precise -- precise language and wording that you have to look on page 31 in your -- in your -- in your book. MR. STRAIN: In the three-ring binder? Page 82 February 7, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Yes, in your binder, correct, under the conservation and coastal management element. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does that answer your question? MR. RICHARDSON: Well, it just says that you can go less than 300 feet if it was a residential yard. Is that -- is that the sense of it? MR. LORENZ: No. I'd say in no case shall these be located closer than 300 feet. MR. RICHARDSON: Residential yard areas may be located closer than 300 feet to the natural reservation -- MR. LORENZ: Oh, yes, for the residential yard, that's correct. As long as you have a separation like a fence that's specified there, that's correct. MR. STRAIN: Well, then you don't have a buffer if you've got a residential yard. MR. LORENZ: Well, our -- the -- the rationale there is that a residential yard would -- would be an appropriate buffer for the natural reservation. We would -- we would want to have the fence to make sure that -- that any domestic animals -- or you'd have to have a separation point there. But that's the -- that's the -- that's the -- work through -- as we work through the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee to come up with a set of standards that would address a series of different kinds of open spaces. MR. STRAIN: You also have golf courses allowed in this area? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The adjacent-- the -- the golf course rough, the natural area, could be adjacent to the boundary itself. MR. STRAIN: And wouldn't that encourage the 1-to-5-acre development that could go around the outside of that area? I mean, then everybody's got a house on a golf course, which is what everybody wants, at least it seems. MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm not sure whether it would encourage it or not. But as I said, we're trying to maintain that separation with Page 83 February 7, 2002 open spaces between the -- the boundary and the -- and the -- and the more intensive uses of the project. MR. RICHARDSON: If the BCC came along and agreed-- happened to agree with the EAC position that it should be a half mile, how -- do you see that able to be implemented in a -- some reasonable fashion? MR. LORENZ: I believe that they recommend it with their half mile to just simply allow a rural development pattern. So you could still -- at that particular point you could still have a residential house with a yard up against the boundaries. That wouldn't make any difference there. The -- the -- the concept with a project in the receiving lands is that the -- the residential components would be clustered away from the -- the boundary. That's what -- that's what would be -- that would be the -- that would be the desirable out -- outcome. MR. STRAIN: Would you have any -- and, Bob, you kind of touched on this. Would you have any problem with the buffer being as wide as it would take to assure that there's no water table draw- down of the wetland edge? MR. MULHERE: I thought that was the intent of the language, it, Bill? MR. LORENZ: MR. STRAIN: MR. LORENZ: isn't Yes. Okay. The -- I guess that's on page 32, parentheses 4. What staff is recommending there is -- is basically an analysis that would have to be performed at the South Florida Water Management District, does require to ensure that you don't have an adverse draw- down from a -- from a project from setting water control elevations, that you don't have that adverse draw-down on a -- a nearby wetland. So that's -- that's the -- that's the procedure that we're recommending as opposed to try to set some type of presumptive number that will be Page 84 February 7, 2002 very much dependent on the -- the site circumstances. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Again, I'm not sure if there are folks in the public that want to speak to this issue. MR. AGOSTEN: Ty Agosten again. You have passed the various areas defined as NRPAs or natural preserve, whatever the acronym stands for. It has not been pointed out to you that North Belle Meade has not been approved by the committee to be included as a NRPA. The staff has recommended the air -- the area to be a NRPA. And if you go back to -- at a time of the Southern Belle Meade was essentially condemned to be a NRPA, at that time The Conservancy have specified that North Belle Meade is not an environmentally sensitive area. As a matter of fact, they specifically excluded North Belle Meade. I also want you to be aware that North Belle Meade contains some 534 property owners. So you'll be pushing around your neighbors. You're not talking about somebody just living somewhere. You're talking about 534 people who dreams of building a retirement home. And you're going to tell them that you're going to give them something for nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we're going to talk about Belle Meade sometime. MR. RICHARDSON: We're still on buffering, so -- MR. CORNELL: Hi. Brad Cornell again. I see what's happening here, and I have a -- some written input that might help make this a little more succinct, if I may pass this out. And I -- I want to add on the point of buffering that I recommend in there that -- Collier County Audubon recommends that we explicitly state that our goal is no water table draw-down at the wetland edge, rather than just defer to the Water Management District process. Just so that it's clear that this is our goal. Page 85 February 7, 2002 And in addition to that -- I don't say anything in there -- but it is the EA -- EAC had talked -- talked about this. And I think it would be a very good idea to consider the needs of fire management in natural reserves. We need to have buffering of any development adjacent to natural reserves to allow for fire management, and that's an important consideration. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: The receiving area, the rural fringe mixed-use receiving area, does require property owners to 40 acres or greater to establish a fire management plan and to work with those public land managers in the establishment of that plan. So that would be part of the zoning process. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Hancock, are you appearing on this issue as an individual or as a representative of a property owner? MR. HANCOCK: I'm appearing on this issue as a representative of a property owner. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Lorenz and I think is important to get on the record, the required buffer, whether -- and obviously for this property owner, 300 feet versus the half mile would be a preference. If property is located in the urban boundary but is adjacent to a NRPA, does this requirement extend to lands in the urban boundary? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it would. MR. HANCOCK: So we are taking urban land out of production to provide a buffer for the -- a natural resource protection area? MR. LORENZ: Well, the urban land would have to follow these requirements in terms of the buffering standards for the land that would be outside the urban boundary, correct. MR. HANCOCK: That answers my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Page 86 February 7, 2002 MR. DUEVER (phonetic): My name is Michael Duever, and I'm speaking as someone who's lived and worked in Collier County for most of the past 28 years. My work has dealt largely with studying wetlands and the hydrology that supports these wetlands. An important aspect of the rural fringe planning process is protection of natural features, particularly wetlands within the rural fringe area. The current plan does a good job of keeping development out of most important natural areas. However, there is one aspect that does not seem to have been adequately taken into consideration in developing boundaries or at least uses within receiving areas, at least until the EAC made their recommendation that you see here. This aspect has to do with the effects of hydrologic alteration of developed areas on adjacent protected natural features. The best available scientific evidence indicates that drainage associated with development can extend a half to 2 miles into adjacent lands, including those that we are trying to protect. Drainage is very important to natural lands. The types of plant and animal communities that are present in an area exist largely because of the hydrology of that area. And over the long term, these communities will be impacted in proportion to the degree of hydrologic change that occurs in areas adjacent to them. This is significant in terms of how land is developed in proximity to areas that are being set aside for protection, particularly the NRPAs. An example of this problem is portions of receiving Area A at the north end of the rural fringe area which lies adjacent to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the CREW lands. Development that does not affect hydrology currently exists in the Big Corkscrew Island community. There are a lot of people living without drainage in this area. This is not a problem. However, I don't understand how the increased density in receiving areas would be possible without draining the areas to be developed, if not initially, Page 87 February 7, 2002 then at some time in the future when flooding inev -- inevidentably is going to occur. Thus, if these portions of receiving Area A close to Corkscrew Swamp and CREW are developed at allowable densities, we can expect drainage to affect portions of these areas. This would suggest that these areas within one mile, more or less, depending on the area and what the proposed study would show, within one mile or more -- or more or less of Corkscrew Swamp or CREW not be included in the receiving area or, if they are included, they should be developed in a manner that does not require drainage, either before or after the site is developed. This concept would also apply to the other NRPAs, such as Belle Meade. And some people just mentioned the idea of fire in these systems. I brought this up at some of the meetings that we've had, at least one of the meetings, anyway. And the point isn't so much-- is -- is partially fire hazard with a dryer condition in the developed areas, such as these 40-acre parcels. But, also, when you change the hydrology of places like CREW or Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, if you drain them, functionally you're also going to increase the fire frequency and severity in these areas. Fires will impact these areas in a way that will adversely affect them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. RICHARDSON: Can I ask you a question, please, sir? I understand the concerns you've raised and also the sense of what the EAC has recommended by trying to put some -- some numbers on this buffering. But I'm also somewhat persuaded by the language that we've been given from staff that says -- and I'm sure you've read it, but I just want to get your take on it, that proposed development shall demonstrate. That means on a site-specific basis we'd have a process that the groundwater -- the groundwater table draw-downs or diversions will not adversely impact the natural reservation. Now, perhaps you're saying that can't -- that's not reasonable to -- Page 88 February 7, 2002 to do, but if it were and this is a standard that we apply, doesn't that solve everybody's problem? MR. DUEVER: Yes, I think it was. And the main point of my being here today is to get the idea out that we're talking about something on the order of a mile to two miles. There's places like in south Golden Gate Estates that the Fakahatchee Strand people have been monitoring for, what, 14, 15 years now where you can see effects going out over 2 miles into Fakahatchee Strand from the edge of south Golden Gate Estates. And some of the work we've done up around Corkscrew has shown draw-downs associated actually with shell beds, natural shell beds in the landscape there, that go out a half a mile. So I'm just trying to provide some support for the idea that the distances from drainage that we're talking about. MR. RICHARDSON: Perhaps rather than focusing on a specific number which kind of gets us into trouble, we can look at effect and cause that to be cared for at the development point. It seems to me that's the best solution. MR. DUEVER: Right. I think what -- the idea that Bill mentioned of doing some modeling to try and figure out what those distances are would be an excellent approach to try and nail that down specifically in different portions of the area. MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any other questions? Thank you very much, sir. MR. MULHERE: Next item, Bill. Okay. Natural resource protection areas, there's a couple of issues here. One Mr. Agosten raised was relative to the North Belle Meade. And it is true that the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee did not vote to include the North Belle Meade as a NRPA. As Bill indicated earlier, it was identified as a study area at the interim process Page 89 February 7, 2002 and that the reason it was identified as a study area was to require further analysis to determine whether, in fact, it should be a NRPA and what those boundaries should be. The committee, as well as the staff, relative to this issue was also waiting to hear whether or not there was a resolution between one of the large -- one of the major property owners in the North Belle Meade and outside of the north -- projected North Belle Meade NRPA areas and the intervenors, the Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society. And so I -- I would have to say to be fair that it's my position or my belief that the committee would have dealt with this issue perhaps differently if they had had an opportunity to address and look at what the resolution between those two parties was, but that only got resolved, as I understand it, yesterday. So I do believe that they deferred, really, taking some action until they were able to find out what that process would result in, and they were not able to find that before they completed their task, so they did not take any motion on that. The staff recommendation, of course, is that North Belle Meade be a NRPA. I think it would be appropriate at this time if the Planning Commission thinks that it's a good idea to hear from Mr. Anderson and the -- the intervenors as to what strategies they've agreed on in terms -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think this would be a very good idea. Your previous slide, though, talked about the zero to 1 mile -- MR. MULHERE: And that's another issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's just in-- south, is it? MR. MULHERE: That's in the South Belle Meade, correct, or what's called the Belle Meade NRPA. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Correct. South? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Page 90 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Who wants to go first? Nancy or Bruce? Since you-all are such good friends, come up together. MR. RICHARDSON: This is a sight I've been waiting to see for years. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Actually, I thought we had a -- a plan here, and Robert was going to go first and -- so I'll defer to Robert because he knows what the lineup should be. I've just put on here the map that we've decided upon that you -- you can look at. And I also think it was -- think it was distributed correctly. You also have your own personal copy of the map. Yes. MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates. You have before you a draft of the proposal that we are calling a sector plan for the 15,000 acres that are located more or less in the Belle Meade sector planning area. It's a relatively significant area in size. It actually encompasses about 15 to 20 percent of the study area for the rural fringe. We've worked with the Wildlife Federation and Audubon over the past year to try to come up with an agreement that will not only satisfy my clients' interests but, hopely, the community at large. Our client, as was previously noted, is one of the larger landowners in the North Bee-- Belle Meade area, owns approximately 3,000 acres with about half of it located in the NRPA area. My client has agreed to give up certain rights of his lands in the NRPA area in exchange for some enhancements on his lands in the receiving area. And the three parties are in agreement with the proposal that's before you. I know that the environmental groups are hopeful with the 1400 acres that we're giving our development rights up in the north -- in the -- in the NRPA area will be a catalyst for them to -- able to purchase Page 91 February 7, 2002 additional lands as time goes on, and that was always one of their objectives, was to -- particularly the eastern portions of the Belle Meade area were -- was to try to preserve those areas for wildlife and habitat. That's just a overview of the agreement. There are provisions for rural villages, somewhat smaller than there are -- than there are in other locations in the rural fringe area. We're also making provisions to ultimately extend Wilson Boulevard to the south or at least provide the right-of-way for that so we can have some better connectivity between northern Golden Gate Estates and areas along Landfill Road and leading out to 1-75. And we have a number of provisions for things like wildlife crossings and -- and the like that I'm sure Miss Payton can go into somewhat more detail than I will this morning. But that's just a brief overview, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I just -- I conclude by saying that the NRPA portions of this plan comprise about 5,000 acres and are generally located in the eastern portion of the study area. And we have about an equal amount of areas of what you're designating as sending areas on the map that's before you, including some sections for receiving areas. And that concludes my short presentation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain has a question for you. MR. STRAIN: I have -- on your MBM sector plan, I do have quite a few questions, but I think some can be answered by the -- towards the ends of your presentation. Before you walk away, I definitely would like to ask you some questions. So let's just finish up then. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I don't have any particular prepared comments. I did want to tell you our emphasis for protecting this area is because it's significant red cockaded woodpecker habitat. Panthers have used this area. In fact, a Page 92 February 7, 2002 female panther gave birth to several kittens in North Belle Meade. Part of our goal is to connect North Belle Meade with South Belle Meade, both for wildlife use and for human use to connect those large areas and also eventually to connect it through that most southern part of northern Golden Gate Estates through protecting some sort of wildlife pass to the panther refuge. And so it fits into a larger land conservation program. We -- we were also encouraged with the concept of rural villages because we know that northern Golden Gate Estates needs some services. We know that there are problems for the school board in terms of finding large areas in North Belle Meade to site schools -- or, excuse me, in northern Golden Gate Estates for school sitings. So our hope is that the school siting can be within the rural village or near the rural village to augment that growth because in -- in the challenge for - - that brought about this planning effort, schools were an issue, and the judge did rule that if you built a school, people will come. And we see schools as being one of those magnets that will pull together the rural village and make it more of a success. That summarizes what I have to say. I -- I wasn't planning on going into specifics. And maybe it's easier for us just to respond to your questions to clarify what we've done or what we haven't done or why we came to the decisions that we did. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is the North Belle Meade NRPA as a result of your negotiations the same size as it was? MS. PAYTON: I can't tell you immediately whether it's acre for acre the same. We did do it a little bit differently. We did square off- - if you notice, our lines are by section lines or quarter or half-section lines. That was a decision that we thought that was an easier -- easier planning tool for property owners and -- and citizens, quite frankly. Bill's reaching -- I don't know if he -- I -- I can't answer. MR. DUANE: More or less the same size. We made some Page 93 February 7, 2002 minor adjustments to the boundary. We -- they're not significant. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In the interest of moving along, it seems to me if one of you could summarize what your agreement boils down to and salient points, it would be more expedient than us probing around while we're leafing through this thing trying to ask questions. So can somebody do -- put a little embellishment on what the newspaper had to say this morning? I'll -- I'll defer to Bruce because he finalized the MS. PAYTON: document. MR. STRAIN: He does get along with the newspaper well. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent East Naples Land Company, James Brown, Jr., trustee. He owns approximately 2800 acres in the North Belle Meade area. Half of this acreage is in a proposed NRPA. I would reiterate the fact that there is not a NRPA there today. And the other half are in proposed receiving lands. I want to point out that Mr. Brown is the only property owner in North Belle Meade who has fought any proposed NRPA in North Belle Meade. And he is an intervenor with party status in the pending NRPA challenge that is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. So he stands unique among other property owners in North Belle Meade in that respect. We have worked closely and collaboratively with Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society over the past several months in an attempt to resolve differences with these groups concerning their desire to have a NRPA designation imposed on a portion of North Belle Meade. We have reached an agreement that balances protecting the environment and protecting private property rights. Last week in a part of your agenda packet, you received the next- to-final draft of an -- of the agreement. It's our proposal that -- that we Page 94 February 7, 2002 work from. What I distributed to you a few moments ago is the final version where the changes that are different from what were in your agenda packet are shown by strike-through and highlighting. They are minor changes. Specifically, I would direct your attention to pages 2 through 6 and page 9 are the only changes. You asked me to encapsulate this agreement, and I'll just put it very straightforward and succinctly. My client is willing to give up his rights to develop 1400 acres, half of his holdings, within the proposed NRPA. But in return, if he's going to do that, he wants to be able to use the other half of his property unfettered and to count the NRPA lands towards meeting requirements in the receiving lands. And it's just as simple as that. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Anderson, to the extent that you have numbers and factors in here in your agreement, if it turns out that the final version of this TDR plan, as it probably comes out on the other end of the sausage grinder with the BCC, if it's different than that then this -- then this agreement would have to be reworked, or perhaps we don't have an agreement at all. MR. ANDERSON: No. This is designed as a stand-alone agreement. This is a specific plan for North Belle Meade. It applies where there is conflict with anything else. So it's a stand-alone so that my client understands and gets what he bargained for. MR. RICHARDSON: That's the certainty that you're looking for. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: It seems from a county standpoint, though, if we set up a different set of criteria for one owner, that -- that prejudices our ability to do that to -- MR. ANDERSON: It's not one owner. MR. RICHARDSON: Just complete with staff. It would seem like that would -- we'd have to have this all work together, unless you're talking about a contract that's apart -- this is contract zoning in Page 95 February 7, 2002 an effect? MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- it's a sector plan. It would apply to all property owners within that area. It is largely, largely similar to what we're proposing in other areas of the fringe. There are a couple of differences. The rural village size that they're proposing is a little bit smaller. They're getting some credits for transferring some stuff from the lands adjacent to it. But largely, from my view, from what -- you know, the few hours I've had to take a look at it, it's very similar to the staff proposal in other areas, receiving and sending. Generally, I -- I haven't seen anything that jumps out that would cause us to have any concerns with it, and it would apply to all property owners within that sector plan. The size -- there's about 5,000 areas outside of the NRPA? MR. DUANE: 10,000 acres outside of the NRPA. MR. MULHERE: So it's pretty significant and -- excuse me. But I think Mr. Anderson's client only owns 1400 of those acres. MR. STRAIN: Bob or Bruce or whoever, I've got quite a few questions I need to ask. MR. CORNELL: I was going to -- just before you ask questions, Mark, I was going to say that one of the features of this -- and to answer your question, Mr. Richardson, is that it's a sector plan that -- that provides much more specific planning than we can in the rest of the Growth Management Plan. This is something that provides much more surety and clearer expectations, both for the community and for the landowners who are in that area, and for the protection of the resources, which was the whole point of the exercise. And, in fact, that's the whole point of this entire big exercise. This is just a much more specific execution of that -- of that exercise and hopefully we'll - - we'll encourage more of this kind of-- of planning, sector planning, in the future if we can all sit down at the table and do that. MR. RICHARDSON: Is that the road we're headed down then Page 96 February 7, 2002 with Bill -- Bill Lorenz, is sector planning take these broad concepts and go down and work out contracts with individual landowners that has varying -- varying degrees of protection, maybe a little more here, a little less there? That's a can of worms, in my mind. MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm -- I'm not a planning expert. So when you start talking about the planning concerns, I might have to defer to Bob on it. I can tell you, however, from a natural resources perspective, there would be areas in the county that have a different kind of natural resource combinations and a different kind of land uses. To some degree that's why we've bifurcated the process from the rural fringe lands and the eastern lands. And-- and they're going to come up with a set of strategies that's going to be different from the rural fringe. So from a natural resources perspective, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem knowing that there are going to be different strategies for different areas in the county because the natural resources are different. Now, when it comes down to issues of-- of zoning that -- that you're speaking of, I really need to defer to Bob or some land planner on that. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, they flow from the standards that you're proposing and from the objectives that are now included -- have been changed and are now in our growth -- proposed to be in the Growth Management Plan. So I just -- I just worry, maybe needlessly, that -- I'm sure what they've done is beautiful and perfect, but if it doesn't apply in other places -- MR. MULHERE: It doesn't need to. There can be some changes within a sector or an area, and that's what -- I mean, the differences are relatively minor. But, you know, what we're trying to accomplish here is getting through this process in a way that protects the natural resources and balances private property rights. This does that. This Page 97 February 7, 2002 does that. In this sector area it's slightly different as a result of this negotiation, but we don't -- we don't have a problem with that. I mean, these people were participants and intervenors in the process and negotiated these terms which largely are -- concur with everything that we're recommending. There's a couple little differences. But, like I said, the rural village size is a little smaller. And, by the way, that may come up in the discussion later. And maybe we'll even hear that that is to a greater degree after you hear about rural villages. I don't -- I don't know. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I don't know who representing the owner, the land can answer the questions, but the wildlife crossing and the wildlife corridor under 1-75, who would be obligated to pay for that? MS. PAYTON: At this point nobody's obligated to -- to pay for it. It's a -- a goal. There are some federal monies that -- that are available that possibly we could pursue. But there's no obligation for the county to build it or to a property owner to build it. It's just a concept in there that's a goal that we would like to have to work towards getting that wildlife underpass or overpass to connect those lands. We -- we did find some monies that are -- were available for a wildlife crossing on Immokalee Road, and that's federal funding. That -- that's something that has to be explored, but there's no obligation in here that the county has to pay for it or anyone has to pay for it at this point. It's just a goal that we would like to -- to have in there. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So as far as the project's concerned, it could continue whether or not this crossing went in or not; is that -- MS. PAYTON: MR. STRAIN: MS. PAYTON: MR. STRAIN: Yes. Okay. Yes. The extension of Wilson Boulevard. Page 98 February 7, 2002 MS. PAYTON: Well, with the extension of Wilson Boulevard, we would like to see the wildlife crossings there because it connects to natural areas. MR. STRAIN: You -- does it -- I don't think it says it that way, thOugh. I mean, is the agreement, then, required -- in order for the development to proceed, are you assuming that the wildlife corridor or the underpass would have to be in place? That's kind of what I'm asking. And if that's the case, is that going to hold up development, or is development going to come in to pay for it? MS. PAYTON: The wildlife crossing for Wilson -- the extension of Wilson Boulevard where it goes down into the NRPA area, I don't see how that could hold up development in the -- in the receiving area. MR. STRAIN: That's fine. That's what I'm trying to find out, if that's what your expectation is. MS. PAYTON: Is -- when Wilson is extended down to 1-75, that's when we would pursue monies to build that wildlife crossing. MR. STRAIN: Okay. The extension of Wilson to 1-75, obviously that's not going to happen fast. Norm Feder was in the audience. I don't think he still is. This development, I'm -- would assume, would start before any interchange was completed or -- or done on 1-75. Do you have any input as to the timing of that? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking, Bruce, is the access to this area is going to have to be through Golden Gate Estates. Wilson's two lanes. Golden Gate Boulevard just got expanded to four lanes for part of the -- out to Wilson, and it's already packed. Adding the density that you're adding here with the access only through Golden Gate Estates, I think, is going to be detrimental to the people in the estates. And my concern would be that this development not proceed until the interchange is put on 1-75. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Two things: Number one, no Page 99 February 7, 2002 particular development other than earth mining is proposed at the present time; number two, we are proposing as part of this to do this Wilson Boulevard extension which would either tie into a potential future interchange at 1-75, which is way, way down the road, or, more likely, a tie-in to Landfill Road and gaining access to the interstate in that fashion. MR. STRAIN: Would you be willing to add to your agreement that the -- would not be developed for residential use, say, figure out some kind of unit count until such interchange is in? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. STRA1N: So the potential is there anytime. MR. ANDERSON: Right. I just point out -- you used the term. I meant to call you on this. You used the term "increased density." that is incorrect. It's redistributed density. MR. STRAIN: How about focused density then? MR. ANDERSON: Those units could be built Out there under the prior comprehensive plan. All this does is simply move them from the NRPA area. MR. STRAIN: Well, I wanted to ask you about that because one of the things in here that I don't recall from reading about the TDRs is in this location you have a -- a statement that says 1 unit per individual deeded parcel or lot that existed prior to June of 1999 or at a ratio of 1 unit per 5 acres, whichever is greater. And I thought on the rest of the TDR program it's not set up that way. It's one per parcel, isn't it, or am I mistaken? MR. MULHERE: No. I'm sorry. As far as -- as far as the TDR process goes, it is exactly like that. You are allowed to transfer 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or 1 per legal nonconforming lot that existed. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Then if you had a parcel that was bigger than 5 acres under the current plan, you could only build 1 unit. MR. MULHERE: You can only build one -- Page 100 February 7, 2002 MR. STRAIN: On this unit they're increasing the density by saying those parcels are converted at 1 to 5. I mean, every -- you get - - you don't get just the parcel. A 50-acre parcel now has what? Ten lots, ten units, transferred? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Whereas before it would have been one unit if it was built out under the current plan. MR. MULHERE: No. MR. STRAIN: It's always been 1 to 5? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: And I have just a couple more. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For the staff or for the intervenors? MR. STRAIN: For the intervenors. The sending areas, the -- I haven't had a chance to review the package you just gave us, Bruce, so you may have corrected this. Florida Wildlife Federation had talked about 4,160 acres of land that is identified as a sending area, and -- and you identified 5,440. There's about a 1300-acre difference there. Did you guys address that or get that figured out, that discrepancy? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. We went with the five-forty figure. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And that's the last of it. MR. RICHARDSON: Nancy, could I just ask you a quick question here? On this section on public acquisition -- and I presume this is probably something which you might have inspired to go into the document. The county should support the public acquisition of sending areas in the North Belle Meade. Is that -- I'm -- I'm just puzzled by that in that what we've heard about the sending areas so far is that once they give up the development rights, it can't be farmed any longer, it's going to be -- you know, why would we want to spend public monies on it if it's conserved already? Page 101 February 7, 2002 MS. PAYTON: For public-access purposes, to -- to continue to protect it in perpetuity. It should be an option that maybe we do want to protect it. It might be red cockaded woodpecker habitat that we'd like to protect under the county. It's just an option that's -- that's available. There also is a proposal to have North Belle Meade be a CARL acquisition area, and there is a pending application before the state that was presented by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And so there -- there is discussion about part of this NRPA or all of this NRPA being in that CARL project area and projecting North and South Belle Meade. MR. RICHARDSON: So you're not necessarily talking about identifying county funds for this. MS. PAYTON: No. It could be public funds, state, federal. There may be monies out there that want to protect panther habitat, just leaving all options open. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. MS. PAYTON: And a property owner may not want to continue to maintain his property after he's sold his TDRs, and this was a way to have it maintained and managed properly. More affordable, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Anything else? MR. MULHERE: That is one of the benefits of the -- of the -- removing the residential rights, is that land, you -- you increase your ability to acquire more land for less cost from a public -- MS. PAYTON: And it provides several options for the property owner. They cannot only sell TDRs, but then, in turn, they can sell the land to the state or to some other public entity. MR. RICHARDSON: But unlike what we've heard about in Lee County and some other places where this has been done that they get a second bite at the apple in that they also get the value of the development rights on it. You know, that -- this would be constrained Page 102 February 7, 2002 in this regard; right? MS. PAYTON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay, Bill. Unless there are other comments, I -- I don't know if there's other members of the public that want to speak on this issue. Okay. MR. HANCOCK: The 0- to 1-mile issue. MR. MULHERE: We're moving on to that now. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: For planning purposes, we're going to change court reporters and take a lunch break at one o'clock. There will be a duration of 30 minutes or whenever all 5 of us are back, up to 45 minutes. So be on guard. Anything -- anything after 30 minutes you're at your peril. Now are we going to go to South Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: Correct. That was the other issue. And -- and, largely, this -- this is an issue that Mr. Hancock will, I'm sure, want to make a presentation to you on. But just to summarize, Mr. Hancock made a presentation to the -- on behalf of the landowner, made a presentation to the Rural Fringe Committee, as well as to the EAC, to exclude a O-to-1-mile corridor immediately adjacent to the urban residential fringe within the area that is -- has an interim Belle Meade NRPA designation on it. And I'll point it out to you. Okay. Then Bill's -- Bill's showing you that in -- in red. And I don't want to get into a great deal of detail as to the rationale. I think Mr. Hancock will address those issues. But largely they deal with the pattern of ownership being largely private property ownership in there, that it will provide a -- an additional transition from the urban residential to the rural fringe that some of it has exotic infestation and there are several other reasons, so I don't want to steal his thunder. I think probably the best thing to do is to let him make his presentation to you. Page 103 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's your bottom line? MR. MULHERE: We are -- the staff is not supporting the removal of that from the Belle Meade. The EAC made a motion not remove that from the NRPA as well -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Hancock. MR. MULHERE: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I remember that, yes. South Belle Meade. Sorry. Yes. MR. HANCOCK: Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor representing Mr. Mike Taylor, a property owner with lands both in the urban residential fringe and the South Belle Meade. Before getting started, to most of the members of the Planning Commission, I believe we were able to courier a package to you, with the exception of Mr. Abernathy, who asked that the information be presented in the public forum. And if I may -- MR. LORENZ: And while Tim is doing that, if Kady could shift to the visualizer, please. MR. HANCOCK: And I've also provided one for the public record. Adding to what Mr. Mulhere has -- has really started, it wasn't until the last quarter of last calendar year when a lot of the objectives and policies, written policies, were actually reviewed by the committee in such a way that on behalf of a property owner, you could begin stacking these policies or putting together almost like a mosaic to determine what the actual impact for a given property owner would be. It was at that point when I began to realize that lands that were designated as a NRPA that were immediately adjacent to the urban boundary were being targeted for 90 percent preservation, a near complete elimination of land uses, with the exception of a single- family home per parcel and agricultural purposes and no ability to move any of those units into the urban boundary. Page 104 February 7, 2002 It didn't make a lot of sense to me. It didn't make a lot of sense to the property owner that you could have land in the urban boundary and land immediately adjacent to it, and while your rights are being taken from this piece of property, it could not be moved to an adjacent parcel. Just one issue that we needed to address. We began looking at what the makeup of this area is. And, if you will, please allow me, on the exhibit on your -- your television, what you'll see is 1-75 borders South Belle Meade to the north. 951 is over here (indicating) on the -- the edge. You have an urban residential fringe which allows a full range of urban uses at a density of up to 1.5 units per acre up to 1 mile from 951. The proposed South Belle Meade NRPA begins at this line (indicating) and continues eastward until it hits what is the platted estates or South Blocks, which are predominantly in public ownership. What this exhibit shows is the areas in green are those lands that are currently in public ownership. Staff was making statements regarding the South Belle Meade. The total area was 80 percent publicly -- publicly owned. That is roughly correct. A distinction is that for everything more than 1 mile east of the urban boundary, it is more than 90 percent in public ownership. For the area within 1 mile of the urban boundary, including this section here (indicating), which is already in public ownership, there's 73 percent private ownership. The final order issued by the governor and the administrative -- administration commission basically says that for those areas that are in public ownership, their management plan should be reviewed and more or less adopted as a part of how we proceed with our comp. Plan amendments. For those lands not in public ownership, data collection should be -- and I quote -- focused on private property. Staffs recommendations based on the 1994, 1995 aerial photograph interpretation that was executed by the South Florida Page 105 February 7, 2002 Water Management District indicates that this area (indicating) is very much like the areas to the east. There's not much distinction between the two. In looking only at the '94-'95 data, I can see how that position would be made. It became apparent to us that there were two major distinctions between lands adjacent to the urban boundary and lands in the balance of the South Belle Meade. Those distinctions fall in the categories or areas of, one, property value and, two, environmental impacts. We were able very quickly to present to the committee the property valuation differences between lands in a O-to-1-mile corridor here and lands in the middle of the South Belle Meade which was referred to as the 3-to-4-mile corridor in the report. In that overview the average property valuation, including all valid sales, would appear to be arms-length sales, within the 3-to-4- mile corridor, including purchases by the State of Florida; had an average per-acre valuation of just over $2,000. When you compare that to, again, all valid arms-length sales, including some purchases by the state in the 0-to-l-mile corridor, we were seeing a property valuation in excess of $9,000. Those numbers were adjusted -- the numbers I just gave you were adjusted to June of 1999 for sake of comparison. The increase in valuation in this property over a period -- a period of time has averaged 2.6 percent per year. The increase in valuation in these properties (indicating) is an average 8.7 percent per year. I will also tell you that based on more current sales data, there has not been a reduction in property values even during the period of this moratorium in the South Belle Meade. What that means is the properties in the O-to-1-mile corridor increased almost three or more than three times faster than properties in the middle of the South Belle Meade, and the property values are Page 106 February 7, 2002 more than four times greater. There has to be a basis for that. Property values don't go up arbitrarily. They go up for reasons, multitudes of reasons. The two reasons that we were able to very easily ob s -- observe is that the proximity to the urban boundary meant that you had near access to urban services and, more importantly, near access of just that word, "access," physical roads. The majority of sections in the urban residential fringe have been required to have easements across the section line so access can be obtained. Logically if you're within 1 mile of a major arterial and you're adjacent to urban lands, the value of your property is going to be very different than that that has very remote access and may be surrounded by private lands and of a small size where your-- your flexibility is greatly diminished. The reason for the property valuation wasn't rocket science. We presented that to the committee. And by a vote of 6 to 1 the committee recommended that this area not just be pulled out of the South Belle Meade NRPA but be given a designation called a neutral lands designation. That designation does not mean business as usual. The designation contains in it several factors, such as, number one, maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres with no ability to transfer in; number two, the required preservation is at 50 to 60 percent. Understand right now, your required preservation under the exist -- the comp. plan that existed as of June of 1999 for rural lands is zero. That's the base we're moving from. There was no preservation requirement in the rural lands prior to this exercise and prior to what's being proposed. In this corridor that neutral lands designation would require a preservation ratio or element of 50 to 60 percent. Any residential units to be built would have to be clustered so you wouldn't see Page 107 February 7, 2002 ranchette or larger type of-- of single-family development. The committee approved on a 6-to-1 vote with Miss Prosser dissenting that that be recommended. Staff then told us that really what they need is more data and analysis in order to go to the state if they were in any way going to support or be able to justify the committee's recommendation. What we did then is we looked and reviewed the data and analysis that was done in 1994 and '95, which is predominantly, if not singly, the aerial photograph interpretation. It was based on infrared aerials that were to scale that you may be looking at property on a large 24-by-36 sheet that's up to 3 miles on a side. We're very fortunate that we have aerials flown in Collier County that are accurate as of 2000 that can be taken down to a 1-to-50 scale with absolute clarity. Resolution allows you to tell the difference between a pine tree and a cypress tree. We felt that what we needed to do was provide staff with an updated FLUCCS map to determine if, in fact, the '94 -'95 date was valid. That exercise was performed by our biologist and our environmental resources department. They used the updated aerials which have greater clarity, greater resolution, and also show changes that may have occurred from '94-'95, both development based and environmental. What we found was somewhat disturbing in that as we're proceeding forward with information that is at least seven years old, that information that was gathered from a landscape scale for the purpose of general planning we're making decisions that tell somebody who owns a 10- or 20-acre parcel what they can or can't do with it and that that is the -- the primary basis for our information. In looking at the 2000 aerials and doing an entire FLUCCS mapping -- and FLUCCS -- I'm sorry -- is the Florida Land Use Classification and Cover System. It's the standard by which we Page 108 February 7, 2002 determine types of vegetative -- vegetative communities -- one glaring thing stood out. In 1995 the aerials indicated a FLUCCS code of 621, which is cypress, not cypress infested with melaleuca or cypress with pine, just simply cypress. When you see cypress as a FLUCCS code, you know you're dealing with something that's wet, period. It indicated 1,364 acres of cypress in these five sections of land. Based on the 2000 aerials, the amount that is purely 621 cypress is 190 acres. Does that mean the cypress up and left? No. It's simply that with the greater resolution, you can determine where you have pine and cypress mix, which is the basis for arguing whether or not when you have upland and wetland species on the same parcel, whether or not you're truly a wetland. Have you over time become more of an upland-dominated parcel? That's an 86 percent reduction. There's 86 percent less cypress, based on the current data, than there was in 1995. To move forward on determining that this area should be a natural resource protection area because of the extensive network of wetland properties is not a valid basis. In addition, the FLUCCS mapping in '95 showed no ditches or trails or primitive roads. And these are all signs of activity and development. We're saying because, again, with the greater resolution and, I'm sure, additional impacts, there are over 4 miles of ditches out there. There are 27 acres of primitive roads. These all serve to impeach surface water flow, to change hydrology and surface hydrology in an area and, again, are factors and elements of is a property being used and for what and what is its long-term environmental value. In addition, the '95 mapping showed approximately 200 acres of land with -- no melaleuca was present. The 2000 mapping reveals 8 times that amount, 1,600 acres showing some level of melaleuca infestation, therefore, also saying that the land is not as environmentally sensitive, because when we have melaleuca Page 109 February 7, 2002 infestation, it's only a matter of time that melaleuca can become a monoculture, particularly if it's aided by fire and other factors. The basis for that FLUCCS mapping was to find out whether or not the '95 data supported the recommendations of a natural resource protection area based on the supposed wetland land cover in the area. Based on the data we've provided staff, I think this body and staff and the county commission will be hard pressed to make recommendations solely on a --'95 data. The purpose of the presentation today is to simply ask this Planning Commission -- and I had three things in the sheet I've provided you, and I've added a fourth one based on information I've received today. I'm asking the Planning Commission to adopt the following: Number one, that based on the updated data that has been provided in the O-to-1-mile corridor that that area is changed significantly to the point that using the 1995 FLUCCS data as a basis is not appropriate. Secondly, that the significant difference in property values for lands adjacent to the urban fringe as compared to lands in the balance of the South Belle Meade requires that the proposed TDR program be altered to ensure adequate financial compensation for lost development rights should this land remain as a natural resource protection area, the same as the balance of the South Belle Meade. Third, that the Planning Commission direct county staff to review the new environmental data and to develop specific standards for the O-to-1-mile corridor that respond to the existing conditions while providing for a high level of protection for vegetation and habitat where appropriate. We now have a better idea of what habitat types are there. I believe we have the ability now to look at that and create a management plan for this area that responds to the environmental needs without shutting down the property owner. The last item is one that -- that I have to add because of something Mr. Lorenz informed me of earlier today. And that's to ask Page 110 February 7, 2002 the Planning Commission to identify this corridor as a buffer or transition area between the urban and the proposed natural resource protection area. One of the reasons for that is that, one, that it makes sense. I mean, to go from urban on one line and take one step over, all of a sudden you're now pristine preserve. Somehow I -- I lose how an apartment building and preserve right next to each other makes sense from a planning standpoint. There is no buffer provided here until I heard this morning what Mr. Lorenz indicated. And that is that the buffering requirement for sending areas applies to the urban boundary. So based on what is in the proposal going forward to the county commission, urban lands, which is where we're supposed to be sending our density, urban lands, which is where we're supposed to be promoting development, are going to be lost for the purpose of buffering this corridor when this corridor is not nearly as sensitive as the '94-'95 data indicates. A 300-foot swath represents a 17 percent reduction in available lands in the urban residential fringe. Almost 20 percent of that 1-mile corridor gets lost due to a 300-foot buffer. I'm sorry. I'm incorrect. Far less than that. My apologies. It's about 3 percent. If you go with the EAC recommendation of a half a mile, that -- that's simple math. That's half. Basically it's taking the urban residential fringe and shutting half of it down for development with no ability to move units from the South Belle Meade into the urban boundary under the current proposal, with no ability to put anything other than 1 house on a parcel of land within that 1-mile corridor, and with its designation as a NRPA, requiring a set-aside and buffer in the urban boundary, I don't believe that we have in front of us a plan that is responsive to the current site conditions, nor is it -- and -- and, most importantly, responsive to the private property rights of the 73 percent of those lands that the final order requires us to be responsive to. There are too many gaps. Page 111 February 7, 2002 Rather than today try and say, here are the exact elements that we need to be placed in there to make sure those protections are provided, I'm asking for this commission to give direction. Staff received this information on Monday, Bill? It's not a lot of time, but it is enough time to determine that what we have may not be appropriate. Bill feels otherwise, based on what he's reviewed. I'd be happy to listen to that today. But that is my specific set of requests for this commission, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. ADELSTEIN: Until that time when a designation can be made, what about your idea of a neutral lands designation? MR. HANCOCK: We still remain in favor of that as a -- a way to move forward, but I'm not going to stand here and say that I'm convinced that that is the solution. We now have specific data that may allow us to say, well, this area up here should be treated differently than this one, something a little more targeted. So in lieu of that being available, we still support the neutral designation or we wouldn't have proposed it. MR. ADELSTEIN: Until the proper study can be made. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And, to be honest, we have provided the raw data to Miss Payton, Mr. Cornell, and Miss Prosser is with The Conservancy, and hope to have an opportunity between now and the county commission to sit down and go over that data with them to try and be a little more inclusive in how we move forward. The data is new. It's fresh. So we're hoping that we'll have an opportunity to do that. I have not approached them with that yet. You know, they're probably hearing it the first time now so ... MR. RICHARDSON: I have a couple questions. If you succeed in having this in neutral area, that then moves the half-mile buffer over onto your property, so you'd have to -- or the properties you're representing, so you'd have half of that, then, that would be subject to some -- to the buffering that we talked about with our standards. Page 112 February 7, 2002 MR. HANCOCK: If-- if it is a half-mile recommendation that goes forward, that would be correct. MR. RICHARDSON: You brought the half mile up. I was just using your words. MR. HANCOCK: Actually the staff recommendation is 300 feet. The half mile is a EAC recommendation. I was using the two examples as an impact as currently proposed to the urban boundary. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, as we discussed before, it is really neither one of those. They have a standard that talks about any draw- down and whatever the development causes, whether it be 2 miles, 1 mile, 300 feet, or 10 feet, will apply. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. RICHARDSON: This -- your view that the increased value of the properties is due to its proximity to the urban area, I certainly would agree to and it certain -- but I'd also argue that there might be some speculation in those dollars that some positions like yours might prevail so you could have more intense development in an area that's not currently permitted. MR. HANCOCK: Prior to June of 1999, I don't think you need to read speculation into those property values because the list of permitted uses and what you are able to do on the land was a matter of right. You could build golf courses in this corridor prior to June of 1999 as a matter -- and I'm sorry. If it was a stand-alone golf course, it would be a conditional use. But if you had 1 unit per 5 acres and built your golf course, you can just simply go do it. So in adjusting those numbers to June of 1999, Mr. Richardson, I have tried to reduce the area of speculation to real market values based on a given set of uses. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm not sure you've succeeded, but that's the position you've taken. I'm wondering, curious why under your proposal you would not want to enhance the value of the increased density by transferring Page 113 February 7, 2002 TDRs into this area. It would seem like that would work in our collective favor here getting more of a development closer to services, and yet I think I heard you say you would be against having TDRs apply to this as a receiving area. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. And the basis for that is that while we feel and we have shown that '95 data may not be valid, this is still an area that does have habitat value. It does have environmental value. And by transferring more units in, that could represent an adverse impact to the habitat. So it's trying to strike that balance between do we think this area ought to be a receiving area -- I don't put this area on the same level as I do what has been designated sending areas from a habitat, an environmental value. I think it falls somewhere between the sending areas and the proposed receiving areas by way of environmental value. That's why I did not feel that transferring units into this corridor would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But you don't want it to be either one. MR. HANCOCK: I don't think either is appropriate. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You remind me of an admiral I used to work for who said, "If you want to put a guy in a blue suit, dress him in white and then turn on a blue light." It seems to me you're saying it's too much for this and not enough for that. That -- I don't know how you can walk that tight rope without falling off somewhere along the way. MR. HANCOCK: I think you can walk it through reviewing the information that's been provided in that it does not have the same environmental characteristics as the core areas within the natural resource protection area, nor has been denuded through agricultural activities such as Area D. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I think you would agree, we have to draw the line somewhere. And we've had a proposal to drawing the Page 114 February 7, 2002 line; you have another proposal for drawing a line. And I presume there will be others coming forward that want to jig -- zig and zag it to represent their particular interests. So that's what we have to balance MR. HANCOCK: Understood, Commissioner. MR. MIDNEY: I'm grateful for the new information that you've brought forward because we need information in order to make good decisions. What I -- my comment is that what you're comparing is within Belle Meade, the 0-to-l-mile corridor versus the rest of the sending lands in Belle Meade. But you haven't compared them to the other lands that are supposed to be NRPA lands or the -- and I know that when you compare the Belle Meade corridor-- I'm sorry, Belle Meade, which is Area C, to some of the other NRPA lands, C is the highest one. So even though the O-to-1-mile corridor may be less than the rest of South Belle Meade, it still may be higher than the areas, say, around the CREW area and the Corkscrew area. And I think what the county staff has been trying to do is to get sort of a balanced presentation of all the lands to see which are most valuable. And what we have here is a limited analysis that only breaks it down within Belle Meade, and that's one problem I have with your reasoning. I think the county staff was trying to look at the fringe area as a whole. The other thing that I would like to say is that we need to draw the line somewhere, and it's hard, if it's -- if we are kind of basing our decision on which landowners can afford a good consultant or are organized enough to -- to do that, and others may not. And the other comment I had about the land being -- having been degraded by changing the hydrology and the exotics coming in, that can be restored if the land is given protection over time. It would take Page 115 February 7, 2002 some money to do it, but it could be done, whereas, if you allow a higher level of development in land, then you won't be able to do anything in the future to restore that. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Midney, the concept that the natural resource protection area will result in the restoration of these lands is not only not guaranteed but not required. For example, if I have a hundred acres in the 0- to 1-mile corridor and I may have a high level of exotic infestation, sell my development rights off to somebody, I can just walk away. I do not have to touch the exotics on my property. I don't have to control them. I don't have to do anything. However, if I'm permitted to impact 25 percent or 30 percent of my property, whether it's for a golf hole or for a small cluster of homes, I'm required to clear the exotics on the balance of my land, thereby reducing the negative environmental impacts that property continues to attribute to. The idea that the natural resource protection area designations means long term, better and higher environmental value for all lands in that area, I believe, is a flawed concept where it comes to the issue of exotic infestation and habitat preservation. As the exotics grow, habitat is reduced. MR. MIDNEY: I think if you look at the really long term, maybe it's not a flawed idea because, sure, it's going to be hard to clean up that -- those exotics within a short time period of say, 10, 20, or 30 years. But I think we have to be thinking about what are we leaving to future generations. We have to take a longer kind of time scale. And I think if you look at it from a longer standpoint, then it is a valid concept. MR. HANCOCK: Point of disagreement there. MR. STRAIN: Just one comment, Tim, you made a point about something which I thought for further application down the road might Page 116 February 7, 2002 be interesting. The exotics that are apparently on this property, I believe, are in -- are part of the reason they're there is because of the draining of the property due to the 951 canal? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Which dovetails to the conversation the gentleman had up here earlier about the impact of development around the Corkscrew area with that one rural village that's proposed up in that area. The same thing could foreseeably happen to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary if that area was similarly drained with canals and development drainage. I just wanted to make the point while it's on the table. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: And that is, in looking at this O-to-1-mile corridor, it has a geographic difference because of the impacts of the hydroperiod, the reduced hydroperiod. That's not going to go away. That canal's not going away. And the extent of the -- that canal's impact on these lands will only continue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Members of the public? MS. DURRWACHTER: I'm Sonya Durrwachter with Division of Forestry. And I manage the state lands that are in South Belle Meade, so I'm pretty -- pretty well familiar with the -- especially with the exotics that -- that we have. And I had a couple of comments. I found the properties, the state lands, and I've been -- you know, I had to cross some private lands to get there. The exotic infestation on that 1-mile corridor is much less than it is further east. I don't know if you've driven on Sabal Palm Road, but as you go further east, some of it is incredibly bad. But it also can be controlled, and you can see the areas -- we've controlled 3,000 acres already. So I just -- I mean, it's a herbi -- just herbicide, a crew, and some money, and it can be done, and the land is not destroyed by -- by having melaleuca on it. Page 117 February 7, 2002 And, also, you cannot -- I guess they said they mapped the melaleuca by air. You can't do it. When you're in a forested system, you have only seedlings and saplings underneath, and you just -- it would be nice if you could do it. I mean, it's the easy way to do it; it's just not accurate. You just -- you know, I've tried to do it, and you can't do it because you just can't see from -- you know, from the top. And, let's see, and the drainage, I believe there's -- Rookery Bay has been working with South Florida Water Management District to install some weirs on Henderson Creek. I'm not sure where they're at in that project. So as far as, like, the effect of the drainage, that should greatly reduce that. Like I said, I'm not -- I -- I don't know if it's a certain project or whatever, but I've heard -- you know, heard about that going forward, so that should help on that. And, Mr. Midney, he stole about half of my comments or whatever, so -- but -- and I appreciate it, and thank you. But -- let's see, and also the values of the land when -- even if he's comparing 7,000 to $2,000 an acre, compared to the lands that are worth preserving in Rookery Bay or Naples Preserve, I mean, the scale is just not -- and it can be reappraised. If those landowners want to be reappraised by -- by DEP, all they have to do is request that. And if the land-- you know, and they go by appraisal values, if the -- if the value is up, then they can get a new appraisal. So -- and I -- I had one request that really hasn't been addressed is, if it would be possible to rezone South Belle Meade to conservation. I think like now it's, like, rural agriculture. And that would assist us as far as our management because -- as well as south Golden Gate, too, it's zoned estates, and we can't allow camping legally, you know, which people do it all the time. But if-- if we could get those two areas zoned conservation, it would certainly assist our management. Page 118 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much. MR. MULHERE: I can comment on that. Generally the county has taken a position not to designate that conservation until the acquisition is complete. But about 80 percent has been complete. I'm sure that -- Bill has indicated that the problem has always been try to map on a large scale the size of the county, the little parcel somewhere in the middle of something that hasn't been acquired, and leave them rural ag while we map the rest of it conservation. So we've just left it until the acquisition is completed. Now, if we can map that accurately and that is a -- an addendum to the future land use, you know, map, then I would think that that -- that might make it a little bit easier to designate those lands as conservation. Something we can look into. MR. RICHARDSON: We can say except where posted and require the posting on private property. MR. MULHERE: You could. I mean, the map isn't really -- that's not the purpose of the future land use map is to show what the designation is of the land. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Hi. Again, Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. This brings up an opportunity to make two, sort of, broad-issue points about natural resource protection areas. One is that one of the goals of natural resource protection area designation is for restoration, you know, not only do we -- we designate pristine areas but we designate integral areas that need to be restored that have an important keystone value. And this being in the Rookery Bay watershed does have such value. We do need to protect that watershed, and that's the reason for it being in the natural resource protection area now. And the other issue is exotics infestation and wetland hydrologic function. We have a problem with mitigation assessment and the Page 119 February 7, 2002 agencies here in Collier County where function is -- is considered low, and mitigation is -- is low for wetlands that have exotics in -- infestation, and that should not be the case because that hydrologic function -- hydrologic function is still there. And, indeed, the county does regulate wetlands more strongly than the state, and we should have a stronger program to do such regulations of wetlands and mitigation for wetlands. So that would argue for keeping this as a NRPA. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a question, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: As a layman, anytime I drive around Collier County outside the city, I see canals that are brimming with water. Doesn't the water table -- isn't it governed by the level of- - of that water? MR. CORNELL: I believe the Big Cypress Basin is very actively trying to maintain higher ground level waters by keeping the weir -- using weirs, as Sonya Durrwachter was just talking about. Yes, that does influence the water table. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is that -- would it be a generalization that if I can look at the level of the water, that if I went a hundred yards in, that there's some relationship between that and how far I dig before I ran into the water table? MR. CORNELL: I'm not a hydrologist, and that would be a technical question. My intuitive answer would be yes, there is a relationship. And that is why that they install weirs and don't let everything just flow to tide. They want to hold back that water for that very purpose. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Hypothetically, if the canals were properly managed, lands closer to the canal would be advantaged rather than disadvantaged. MR. CORNELL: They could be if that was the management Page 120 February 7, 2002 goal. And I think that is part of restoration plan for the South Blocks and in adjusting the water levels and changing the way the -- the canals do drain that area. I think that's part of the plan, yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. You had a question? MR. RICHARDSON: Just perhaps to staff and perhaps -- perhaps Mr. Cornell could also respond. We get very often as a part of our regular business requests for mitigation or review of mitigation. And there seems to be a difference between what degraded wetlands are versus regular wetlands. And what I'm hearing from Mr. Cornell is that we really shouldn't be making that kind of distinction. We should be looking at mitigation for wetlands, regardless of their condition. Is that a fair assessment, and is that something we might want to take under consideration? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think when you begin talking about wetland functions, you have a whole list of functions. You have some listed species and habitat functions. Obviously, with a wetland that has a lot of-- it's infested with melaleuca, those listed species and habitat functions have decreased. However, I think the point Brad is making is that there's a hydrologic function; there's a storage function. Simply the fact that that wetlands still can store water and even though it has melaleuca infested, that particular function had not been severely compromised to the degree that the listed species function has been compromised. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, and, in fact, the listed species could be improved, too, through restoration. MR. LORENZ: Correct. Simply the removal of the -- MR. RICHARDSON: I guess I would just have to put that as a little checkmark for staff to perhaps review our procedures to make sure that we have a -- we need a little more balanced view towards protecting what has been previously termed degraded. Page 121 February 7, 2002 MR. LORENZ: We -- we -- we will have a panel and walk you through wetlands protection, because that's another hot-button issue, and that's a -- that's a point that needs to be made through that discussion. MR. RICHARDSON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thanks. Ma'am. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing Florida Wildlife Federation. A couple of random thoughts about this proposal. First of all, we support staff's position that there shouldn't be a change in the NRPA boundary, that the lines should remain as they currently are. This area is a natural resource protection area designated, a state acquisition area because of its environmental significance. It's the headwaters for Rookery Bay, and it's also priority habitat for panthers. And that designation was reconfirmed this summer, this past summer, by the Fish and Wildlife Service. I did want to comment that there is an opportunity, as I recall, under this current proposal, to transfer density from rural lands to urban lands through density blending; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Density blending, yes. MS. PAYTON: So there is an option to -- to transfer density if you have property straddling both lines, which was something that apparently Mr. Hancock isn't aware of. MR. MULHERE: But just to clarify, that only applies in receiving lands. And since this is sending, it wouldn't apply there. MS. PAYTON: Good. Good clarification. I agree, Mr. Richardson, that it is speculative to go ahead and buy property in an area that's under a governor's order to do a better -- a better effort of planning and protecting natural resources. So I do think it is a bit speculative purchasing that might be going on in that area in hopes of influencing this planning effort in a -- in a decision that benefits certain interests. Page 122 February 7, 2002 I wanted to comment on the 951 corridor and buffering that my recollection is that most of the land within that rural corridor, between 951 and the South Belle Meade NRPA, is mostly permitted. There are PUDs there that we know what's going to be there, and most of it's been developed. So to talk about them not being -- having a buffer, there is -- we can't talk about a buffer in those areas because that -- that land use is already known. So this mile in that we're having the discussion now really is the buffer for the CARL lands. And if we think about removing that out of the NRPA lands, then we've got to think about buffer lands and kind of have this snowball effect deeper into the CARL lands. And, lastly, there are federal programs that are available to property owners to remove exotics and improve their -- their land for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and there was a report-- actually, two reports that were submitted to the rural lands committee recently. One of them, a list of various programs that are available, and that was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And the other was provided by the Florida Stewardship Foundation. And there are monies out there. I must say that I know there are monies out there because I looked for them for Florida Wildlife Federation's land in southern Golden Gate Estates, and there are opportunities if landowners are motivated. These are -- in some cases they'll pay 100 percent to remove the exotics or to do improvements. They're very good programs, and we'd be happy to work with any property owner to locate these funds so that they can, indeed, improve their properties and remove the exotics. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you, Nancy. Any other member of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You have a 15-minute item? MR. MULHERE: I might be able to least introduce it. I don't Page 123 February 7, 2002 know that we'll get finished with it. And it's not on the list on the slide here, I don't think. But Michael Kirk on behalf of the school board is in the audience here and I think Bob Duane, also, representing the school board. The school board has an interest in some properties in the rural fringe. One -- there are three properties in particular. Again, I'm -- I'm not going to steal their thunder. I think they probably have a presentation to make. If you want to know our position, you know, after they've made their presentation, I think the staff position, we can let you know that. But maybe they can do that in the 15 minutes that we have before we break if you'd like. And, Michael, if you have anything you want to put on the visualizer, you can come over here. I think you do have some maps. MR. KIRK: Good morning, Chairman. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. KIRK: Is it afternoon? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. KIRK: Commissioners. Public Schools. Good afternoon. Yes. Good afternoon, Chairman, and also For the record, Michael Kirk from Collier County And today I come before you to -- for a couple of reasons. One is to make the Planning Commission aware of the school board's needs to acquire and to build school facilities in the rural fringe area and also to appeal to the Planning Commission to make modifications to the draft policies that will aid the school board in meeting these facility needs for the students of this county. One of the things I want to talk about is coordination and cooperation between the school district and the staff and -- and various agencies. I've attended many of the meetings that the Rural Fringe Committee has had over the past two years. I've met with various staff members to discuss the school board's issues concerning siting schools. I also met with various stake holders through established Page 124 February 7, 2002 county committees as well as one on one with a number of agencies. We desire to make all the stake holders aware of the school board's facility needs for the next 20 years. We get that through a tool that we update on a yearly basis known as a capital outlay plan. Currently we're working on a update of that plan. But the 2001 plan identified the need for 5 high schools, 4 middle schools, and 10 elementary schools over the next 20 years for Collier County. It projected that there will be approximately 60,000 students in the public school system 20 years from now. Currently we have about 35,000 students. Currently there are two elementary schools that are under construction and scheduled to open in August of this year. To add to that, on -- on January the 24th of this year, the school board updated the 5-year work program to build 1 additional elementary, 1 middle school, and 2 high schools within the next 2 years to meet growth needs. We have a need to build and acquire property in order to meet these needs for our students. In the rural area-- what I need, sorry, is that in 19 -- 1998, immediately after I came to this school district and to this county and started looking at the planning for schools in the future, one area of concern to me was -- was Golden Gate Estates. I understand that there's been a lot of planning on the behalf of the staff concerning the Golden -- Golden Gate Estates area, and there's a lot of information out there. It shows that approximately 31,000 lots exist out there over approximately 103,000 acres. The county has approximately 76 platted-- platted lots for the entire county and 31,000 of those are in the Golden Gate Estates area. And I want to point that out because I'm -- I'm talking about some area that's already been platted, and we'll have -- have a great potential to generate students and to grow. The difficulty that we've had in meeting needs in that particular area and to service Golden Gate Estates area is that we projected what our needs will be once that -- that area is built out. We -- we project Page 125 February 7, 2002 that we'll probably need new -- three high schools, three middle schools, and five elementary schools to serve that -- that projected growth for students in that area, along --. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's just in the estates? MR. KIRK: In the estates alone. And-- and because of that, we've -- we've -- we've already pursued aggressively throughout the county in acquiring sites to build schools and particularly for the Golden Gate Estates area. And we have been fortunate over the last year and a half to be very successful in acquiring properties. However, we still are -- have fallen short. And the reason that we've fallen short is that there's a lot of difficulties in acquiring properties. One is that we're in competition with developers. The other thing is that because of how Golden Gate Estates is platted, there's some difficulties in acquiring large pieces of property. And that-- that difficulty is assemblage of property. Most of our elementaries require at least, minimum, 25 acres. Most our middle schools are minimally 35 acres and most of our high schools at a minimum of 55 acres. Because of that, once you step into an area where that's -- has lots as small as just over an acre and try to go through a process of assembling, there's a lot of difficulty in doing it. And anybody who ever worked in real estate understand the difficulties of getting people to agree on prices of property, as well as to -- to sell their property for public use. We -- we -- we've done that. We've been successful in some areas. We haven't been successful in a lot of areas. And because of that, that's -- that's kind of pointed us in the direction of looking at the rural fringe as a possible area that we can locate property to build schools and not in the -- in the -- we're -- we're looking at areas in the rural fringe that are adjacent and contiguous to the Golden Gate Estates area in order to meet that need. Our primary need to site schools within the rural fringe area is to Page 126 February 7, 2002 meet the need of growth within the -- not within the rural fringe area particularly, but our primary reason for looking for -- at property to site schools is to meet the needs of Golden Gate Estates. In order to do that, we -- we have analyzed what your-- the staff and the Rural Fringe Committee has recommended to -- to this commission, and we'll be recommending and -- and taking out that the other stake holders can have a say in this process. And what we've ana -- once we've analysis -- once we have an analysis of that, we've -- we've -- we've come up with some concerns regarding that. One of the concerns, primary concerns, if you would, that we have here is -- is -- I just wanted to show that -- that we are concerned about the fact that the draft proposal kind of limits our ability to -- to buy property. And it -- and it actually require us to spend more of a -- more of a -- taxpayers' dollars in order to acquire the amount of property needed for school site. Presently we have three -- we have three sites that we have been talking with staff about. Two of them are already owned by the school district, and one we have been analyzing and considering for acquisition. Of those two -- those three sites, two of them present a -- a lot of problem for us. Site No. 1, which is located in the -- what we call the Naples farms area, is a property that was -- has been owned by the school district since the '80s and has always been planned to -- to build a middle school and an elementary school. And when we acquired the -- the help of Bob Duane from Hole, Montes, his expertise in -- in applying the policies to these properties, we found that we -- we had a real serious problem with property we already owned. One instance that the site area is roughly about 66 acres and that to place those facilities that we need on there, we -- we require 46 acres. When you -- when you examine the policy, what it actually requires is, is of-- we already have 66 acres. There -- actually Page 127 February 7, 2002 requires us to add an additional 117 acres of property in order to be able to site a school. Similar with site No. 2 and site No. 3, we -- we run into the same type of situation where in order to site a school in a place that we actually need and that we've acquired property to meet the need for Golden Gate Estates, that what happens is, is that we have to acquire a -- a -- a major amount of additional property in order to -- to meet that need. And so what -- what we've looked at is -- is trying to find some -- some standard that would allow us to meet the need for students in the future for -- for not only the rural fringe area but primarily for the Golden Gate Estates area and -- and -- and also consider what is trying to be accomplished through this process of-- of preserving wetlands and preserving areas of our natural resources and find some medium in order that we can accomplish that. And what we've come up with is -- is that -- we've come up with some recommendations that we would like you to consider in this process in order to help us meet our needs of providing school sites to build schools for the children of Collier County. The first is we're -- we're requesting or making a recommendation that there be a modification to Policy 6.1.2 to state that public schools that include multi-use facilities and county park and recreational facilities may impact no more than 25 percent of the native vegetation, not to exceed 20 percent of the total site area. And -- and we're asking for that for not only for -- not only for receiving property but possibly also for neutral areas that have been identified by staff. The second recommendation that we are recommending that -- a modification to the North Belle Meade area future land use map be included in order that the north half of sections 13 and 14 of township 49 south and range 27 -- 27 east either be designated as a receiving Page 128 February 7, 2002 area or a neutral area to allow the schools -- schools to be sited or built in that area. Prior to this meeting -- and I talked with Nancy Payton and talked about getting with her and also staff to come up with a way that we could come up with a standard to include this as either neu -- neutral area or include it as a receiving area in order that we can strategically place a school there to meet some needs that we -- we project in the -- in the Golden Gate Estates area. And we understand and we've talked and had dialogue many times with the -- many of the groups and with the staff. We understand the concerns. And -- and, basically, the directives that was given by the states to basically put in place regulations that would protect the natural resources of this county and not only this county but this state and, if you understand wetlands, even beyond that. And we want to -- to help in that, but, also, we have been given a charge to be stewards of the students of this county, and part of our job and our charge is to provide sites in order that we can build schools to meet the need of not only existing kids but future students that will be generated by the growth that's occurring in this county. And so what we're asking is that you would consider these changes to the policy in order that we might be able to meet that need. And we see that. It's a case -- many of the people who have come and basically asked for changes, they have different reasons. They -- they have -- if you wanted to make it plain and simple, they have dollars tied to these decisions. Well, we're not -- we don't have dollars tied to it, but we have children tied to this. And we need to have that opportunity to be able to site schools in the rural fringe to meet a need that we know will be created as Golden Gate Estate grows, as well as the children that would be generated from the development that will occur in the rural fringe. And pretty much that is my presentation, and -- and if there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Page 129 February 7, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: I've got a question. These standards that we're looking at, the policy changes and so forth relative to the rural fringe, in many instances they're not all that different from what we've had in the past in terms of vegetative requirements and that. I suspect you might have had problems with the 66 acres without any of this having come along. Would-- MR. KIRK: Well -- well, most of the schools that we've built have been in -- in the urban area. And we are not held to the same standard in the urban area as developers. The school district has with the county an interlocal agreement that basically kind of lessens some of the requirements for us to develop schools. Say, for instance, in the county there's a percentage that developers are required to preserve for natural vegetation. MR. RICHARDSON: Right. MR. KIRK: Well, basically, our only requirement as of the interlocal agreement, which basically was -- was directed by the state that we enter into these type of agreements, is only that we provide a - - what is known as a Type B buffer which basically gives us the ability to add all of the rec facilities that we have and all of the parking that's needed and other facilities that are needed on a site. So moving on to the rural fringe, you know, in order to incorporate all of those facilities which are required by the state, you know, we need a lot more flexibility, or we buy three and four times the amount of land we need to provide those same facilities. MR. RICHARDSON: But the fact of the rural fringe, how -- I'm not really understanding how that's really changing your -- if you've got some special deal which I, frankly, wasn't even aware of, that you don't have to follow the same rules that everybody else does, why don't you just apply those rules on -- on the site and go for it? MR. KIRK: Primarily because DCA will not allow us to do that. It -- one of the things that has been a major concern of your staff is Page 130 February 7, 2002 before -- one of the key issues that led to this final order was the fact that staff tried to assist us in-- in obtaining exemption in these areas. And DCA basically said no way, because their perspective of the situation is that wherever you build, if you -- if you build schools, they will come. And-- and we have not been able to convince them of that, of something else. But because of the fact that that has been a concern, we understand that we won't be able to use that same interlocal in the rural fringe area. Therefore, we must, in this process, provide some type of regulations or guidelines for us to site schools in the rural fringe area. MR. RICHARDSON: So what you've come up with, then, will aid your process but make our acceptance by DCA, perhaps, more difficult? MR. KIRK: Not necessarily, because what we've come up with is -- is that we still -- in -- in what we are recommending, we still have to provide native vegetation but not at the level of developers. And -- · and that's what we're trying to do, because where we -- we're going into the rural fringe not because we want to be there and there's profit tied to it. We're going because we need to be there because there's a need that we already know needs to be met in Golden Gate Estates area. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, we have looked at these issues. We do have some recommendations. They probably don't quite as far as Mr. Kirk and the school board might like. We do have some recommendations. It may take a few minutes. I think some of the mathematics are incorrect too. I'd like to go over those with you. But I just didn't know if you wanted to maybe break now, and then we could deal with this when you came back because I know you must be hungry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think -- Court Reporter, do you want to go ahead until your relief gets here and then that be the Page 131 February 7, 2002 trigger, or are you ready to -- (A discussion was held off the record between the court reporter and Chairman Abemathy.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We're adjourned until 1:45. (A lunch break was held from 12:59 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we ready to go? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I am. With respect to the school issue that Mr. Kirk just made a presentation on before we broke for lunch, we've met with -- actually the staff and I met with Bob Duane and talked a little bit about it. In the first example, which is right here, our preservation standards don't actually present a problem, and I want to walk you through that. The total site is 66 acres. If it was 100 percent vegetated, the maximum that you would be required to preserve is 25 percent. It's 40 percent, not to exceed 25 percent of the site. 25 percent of 66 acres is 16.5 acres. If you subtract that from 66 acres, you come up with 59 1/2 (sic) acres, and they need 46 acres to develop the site, so that one actually works. The next example, Site 2, which is the Kaufmann site, does present a little bit more of a problem in that they have 114 acres, and if it was 100 percent vegetated, again, they'd have to preserve -- by the way, both Site 1 and Site 2 are in receiving designated lands, and schools are permitted in a receiving designated land. So in that case they would need 105 acres to develop the site. That does present a problem. That only leaves 9 acres, and they would need to preserve 25 percent of 114 acres or -- I guess that's somewhere around 27 or 28 acres. Somebody can do the math better than I can, 25 percent of 114. Anyway, they do have a couple of options there, and one option available to anyone is you can off site up to 50 percent -- you can off- site mitigate up to 50 percent of your on-site native vegetation, so that would reduce their need to acquire additional lands to meet that Page 132 February 7, 2002 requirement. But in that case, under our recommendations in Case 2, yes, they would have to acquire some additional lands, and I think it comes out to be about 15 or 16 acres of land to meet the native vegetation preservation requirement. Now, we concur that there is a benefit to colocating schools with other public facilities: Parks, perhaps EMS, sheriff's office, those types of things. In fact, the statutes require now that schools and public facilities be colocated, and that language exists in our plan. And based on that benefit of colocating those uses, particularly in terms of trips and traffic generation and need to develop other aCcess points, roads, and things like that if they were separated instead of colocated, we would support a reduction in the native preservation requirement from 40 percent to 30 percent, but only where schools and other uses are colocated. Of course, that really doesn't help them very much because we're not prepared to reduce the minimum standard, which is 25 percent. So in Case 1 it works. In Case 2 they would have to acquire some additional land to be able to develop that site at the proposed 105 acres. I mean, they have a choice to reduce the development area or acquire some additional lands. It's not a great deal of additional land, but there would be some additional land required. Now, Case 3 is actually in sending lands. For the first hurdle, we're not proposing to allow schools in sending lands. And, as Mr. Kirk indicated, we know that DCA feels that schools are an attractor and that if we were to locate them in sending lands, that they would be a generator, in their opinion, of some growth. So that will be an issue, in our opinion, with the DCA, to allow a school to be located in a sending land. We would not support allowing schools to be locating in sending lands. There is the opportunity, I would think, for some negotiation in that area to still be able to put a school there -- remember, this land has not been purchased yet -- particularly, Page 133 February 7, 2002 perhaps, with Mr. Brown or some of the other property owners in that area where perhaps they may be thinking about a rural village or some other type of development in that area. I did want to let you know that within the rural village designation within send -- within receiving lands, there is a requirement in the plan to provide a school site if such is requested by the school board. And, of course, you would be granted impact fee credits for that because I think that's a necessity under the law. But if requested, you have to provide a school site in conjunction with your rural village. So that might be one way to address that. I'm not sure we're going to be able to resolve that issue here today as far as that third site, which is in a sending land. We are prepared to reduce the native vegetation preservation requirement where schools and other public facilities are colocated from a maximum of 40 percent to a maximum of 30 percent not to exceed, though, 25 percent of the site. I think that really summarizes the staff's position and -- on that issue and my position is -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sites 1 and 2 are already owned, and Site 3 is not? MR. MULHERE: Site 2 (sic) is the only one that's actually currently owned. And there is another element to Site 2 that might make it a little bit easier. Site 2 is the Kaufmann property. And the county has also purchased -- I'm not sure what size. I think it may be 129 acres adjacent to the school board site, so you already have the colocation capacity there. In addition, I'm not a hundred percent certain of the county's plans, but I do recall that they were talking about some passive uses there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you point these out on a map for us? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Site 3 is hypothetical, or is there Page 134 February 7, 2002 such a thing as the Clark acreage? MR. MULHERE: It exists, but it has not been purchased yet. 2 and 3 have not been purchased. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On Site 2 you said it's -- you were assuming 100 percent of it was vegetated? MR. MULHERE: That's the indication from the school. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'll see if I can point these out to you. Site 2 is right here. This is Golden Gate Boulevard here, Wilson Boulevard here. That's Site 2. That's the Kaufmann property that's co-owned between the school board and the county -- well, I mean, they each respectively own portions of it. Site 1 -- I'll get out of the way here -- is right here, and that is the one that the school board does own and has owned, I think you said, since the early 1980s. And Site 3 is out here, and that's just at the northern portion of the North Belle Meade NRPA. And Bill -- Bill is kind of showing you where they are on the screen there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Now I can see it. MR. MULHERE: So, again, I think there may be some members of the public that wish to speak on this issue, but the staff's position would be not to allow schools in sending designated lands, and No. 3 is in a sending designated land. Number 1 and number 2, there are some opportunities to resolve those issues through a slightly lesser preservation standard. On No. 1 they can meet the current standards. On No. 2 there may be the opportunity with the county to meet those preservation standards since the county is proposing some more passive uses. But, of course, that really hasn't been fully explored, and I certainly, you know, can't stand here and commit anything on behalf of the county relative to that site.~ CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Page 135 February 7, 2002 Federation. We echo the staff's position that there should not be schools in sending areas. These are natural lands, lands that have been identified for their natural values, and schools aren't consistent with the goal of identifying these lands as sending lands or environmentally sensitive lands. This is a bit annoying with the school board, I must admit, because this is not the first time that they've come forward in this planning process with a new site for schools. The Kaufmann property was purchased during this assessment process, and that was the property that Bob pointed out to you. I think it's -- it's Site No. 2, and they purchased that along with the county before this process ended. And one of the reasons we were in this planning process is because there was supposed to be coordination and a comprehensive planning effort that included schools and all the other aspects that are associated with it. At a recent Rural Fringe Committee meeting, Mr. Kirk was present and presented this possibility of purchasing the Clark property for a school. I asked him, and it was asked again twice at that meeting, about moving the school into the receiving area. And there was the issue of time that a student might be on a bus, and there's an hour time frame, that a student cannot be on a bus longer than an hour. And the recommendation that -- that I made at that time was to have an access road along the most northern border of North Belle Meade, between North Belle Meade and northern Golden Gate Estates so that there could be that connector with that section of northern Golden Gate Estates into the receiving area. We promote schools within a receiving area. That's where they should be, and that's one of the issues that was very prominent in the challenge that brought about this assessment that schools do stimulate growth, and it seems appropriate that you would want to stimulate growth in your receiving area where you're going to have your rural villages and rural hamlets. Page 136 February 7, 2002 Lastly, I'll just cite -- state again that it's disappointing that we have the school board acting somewhat independent of this planning effort, finding these sites and then trying to retroplan or retrofit this planning effort for what their needs are. And we're supposed to be looking at community needs and all needs. It's not that we're unopposed (sic) to sitting down, and-- and we would look forward to the opportunity to sitting down with Mr. Kirk and whomever else is involved in this to -- county staff, Collier Audubon, whomever, to try and resolve this. And not only are we opposed to the school being in a sending area, at this point we are not supportive of changing a sending area to accommodate a school site. Thank you. MR. KIRK: Excuse me. I'm Michael Kirk for the record. I wanted to address the -- the fact concerning the Kaufmann property and the reason -- well, some of our reasoning for acquiring that property while this process was going on is the fact that a unique opportunity opened up for us to be able to get the property, and we had some very, very tight deadlines to make that decision. And one of the things that we made -- one of the factors that we used in making that decision was the fact that over the last year and a half prior to us acquiring this property, that I had been coming to the Rural Fringe Committee meetings and getting a feel and a flavor of the direction of this -- this -- this proposal. And based on that and based on the fact that we knew the need, we -- we decided to acquire this property with the county in order that we could do joint facilities, and that was what led us to there. And we understood that it was in a location that -- that would meet our needs. We also understood that there was opportunity for us to be clustered with another governmental entity, but then also we have to, in our program -- and we are right now in the midst of an aggressive program to acquire property throughout the county to meet our needs for the next 20 to 25 years, that -- that we understand we are at a slight Page 137 February 7, 2002 disadvantage being the fact that we cannot compete with developers. And this was an opportunity that we saw that we could actually acquire property without having that -- that -- with having, really, a level playing field. So we seized that opportunity because we're trying to be proactive in providing that -- this -- the property that we need to build the schools. As -- as far as it relates to Site No. 3, we have only looked at that as a possibility and that we have not acquired nor have any contract or, really, are not even pursuing owners to purchase this land, but we are evaluating this and other property throughout the county to determine whether it meets our needs for school sites. And being the fact that we had been looking there, and -- if-- if-- I think that Bill Lorenz could tell you, initially that area for No. 3 was a receiver area, and that's what caused us to look at that area. And in the process it went from being a receiver area -- I think it went -- did it ever go to a neutral area? It never went to a neutral area, but it went from a receiver area. And once we saw that, we were happy because we had been looking at property there. But once it went from receiver over to a sending area, then we had already done some analysis. And so what we wanted to do is to see whether or not, based on the current rules or policies that are being recommended, we could actually build a school site there, and so we have included it. And -- and if the rules do not allow us to go there or even the rules are too -- too stringent for us to place a school there, then -- then we're not going to push that issue. But -- but we do want to have that as a possibility, and one of the primary reasons is because of connectivity. And it's right in the comer where we can not only -- we can not only bring students from north of there, but also from east of there into that site. Yes, we understand that there's going to be a rural village created on property that probably belongs to Mr. Brown; however, that's a little bit further west than we need for the areas that are located just east of the NRPA area Page 138 February 7, 2002 or the Belle Meade -- the North Belle Meade NRPA area. So we are trying to look at connectivity because that is an issue, the amount of time that -- that students are on the bus and coming to school. So -- so we're still open. We're not -- we're not pursuing acquisition of 3, but we have analyzed it and said that if-- if the regulations fit -- fit what we can do there, then -- then we could proceed with it. So we're just asking for that to be considered. And, just like Nancy said, we -- we will sit down with her and staff and talk some more about that and see whether or not, you know, it -- it meets the needs of this county to have that as a receiver area or neutral area in order that we can place a school. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It looks like there's a receiving area just 2 miles west of-- of the comer. There are -- two sections there are receiving at the same latitude, so to speak. MR. KIRK: Yes, there is, and it starts dealing with this connectivity because the area that's east of the North Belle Meade area, in order to get kids from there over to that area means you have to take them all the way up to Golden Gate Estates, drive them over, and then bring them back down south. And when you do that and pick up students along the way, you can easily exceed the time that we are basically restricted by the state to have kids on the bus. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You have the same standard for the children of people who voluntarily locate themselves out in the middle of nowhere as you do for people who live in the urban area? MR. KIRK: As much as -- much as possible, because we're required by -- by the state to do that. We -- we -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The state doesn't differentiate between remotely located people? MR. KIRK: It -- they take it case by case. And -- and if there are enough kids there, then we have to -- then we have to apply to that Page 139 February 7, 2002 standard. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But if they approve this as a sending area, it sounds to me like they're hoisted on their own petard. They'd almost have to give you some latitude of going a little further west. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Either that or consider buying faster school buses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or homeschooling. MR. KIRK: So -- but also one of the -- the other things that -- that Nancy threw out -- Nancy Payton threw out was the fact that we also talked about the fact of creating a corridor along that north area in order that we can have that. And then that meets our needs because that -- that will save us almost three times the distance we would normally travel. So if-- if we can't come to an agreement there, then that would be our -- our fallback, is to -- to have that corridor in order that a road can exist. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There's always a way. MR. MULHERE: And I would say that if that's the kind of resolution, if you want to leave that option open, that's something you should consider when you get ready to make some final recommendations, that there be allowance for an access in that area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wouldn't that access have to impact neighborhoods that already exist in Golden Gate Estates to get to where you got to go? Is that what -- MR. MULHERE: I think the access would be along the northern portion of that sending area just north of the NRPA, but unless -- yeah. Want to go to the next -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you very much for coming out this afternoon, this morning as well. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next issue -- there's really only three more. Sending and receiving area locations and boundaries and Page 140 February 7, 2002 secondary receiving and neutral designations, there currently are no neutral designations. For the moment I'd -- starting out with the Corkscrew-- Big Corkscrew Island community, representatives from that community have been participating in this process all along. And let me point that out to you generally on the map. Basically the Big Corkscrew Island community exists both north and south of Immokalee Road to some degree -- lesser to the south, more to the north -- along -- just past the bend on Immokalee Road in the northernmost receiving area. The residents asked to meet with the staff, and I think it was on January 10th. Anyway, some time ago in -- December 10th, we did meet out at Corkscrew Middle School with residents from the Big Corkscrew Island community, and I would tell you that -- I don't know that all of the residents were in attendance. There was probably maybe 40 people in attendance, and I'd say to a person they expressed the desire not to be designated as a receiving area. They -- the reasons largely, I think, from their perspective, were that they didn't want to see the kind of lifestyle that they appreciated and enjoyed and the reason why they moved out there changed through increased density. Other issues have arisen relative to this, and I think Mr. Duever referred to one being that that pattern, in his opinion, was less negatively impacting on the hydrology in that area, which is in close proximity to the Audubon property. And so that would be another reason. And the EAC actually also addressed that as -- as a reason for sort of leaving that area in a neutral status, basically allowing what exists and what is allowed today, which is one dwelling unit per 5 acres not designating that area -- which consists of sections of land -- as a receiving area. The staff had a couple of concerns. We initially based these recommendations on the natural resource values in that area and, based on the data, had -- did not have as significant natural resource Page 141 February 7, 2002 values as the other areas that -- that would drive it up to a -- a sending designation. It -- it fit the criteria from a natural resource perspective to be designated as receiving; however, we -- we also understand the concerns of the residents out there. And we asked Dr. Nicholas to take a look at this issue and tell us whether or not he felt that that would be a critical flaw, the removal of those five sections, that would create an imbalance in the sending and receiving relationships, that would be a critical flaw in the TDR process such that it would cause that to be significantly less likely to succeed. And his position was that he didn't think we should take it out of the receiving designation, but he did not also think that it would necessarily be a critical flaw for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a lot harder to go and try to aggregate these parcels that exist in 5 acre and, in some cases, less sizes to be able to aggregate those and then potentially develop those for some sort of a large-scale development. Certainly folks that want to do that will go where it's a lot easier to acquire the larger tract of land. The staff generally feels, as do I, that we could accommodate the removal of these lands from the receiving designation, but we would propose a couple of alternatives to potentially strike a balance relative to maintaining the -- the viability of that TDR process. You remove those five sections of land, you remove five potential sections in which someone could send units. One proposal would be to allow for a transferring to the urban area under very limited conditions. Those conditions would be only for qualified infill development. As you know, the larger tracts in the urban area are increasingly disappearing. That's where we have the infrastructure. That's where we have the economies of scale to support development. Land costs, although, are very, very high in the urban area. And if you allow a transfer of-- we talked about one to two dwelling units per acre into the urban area only under qualified infill development Page 142 February 7, 2002 scenarios, it would limit it to, currently, parcels that are 10 acres in size or less. The proposal would be to increase that to 20 acres in size or less. That's one option. That would increase the market for TDRs. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You're talking about in the urban area or -- MR. MULHERE: In the urban area. Another option would be to leave the receiving designation on these lands, but to prohibit rural villages in those areas and also increase the minimum size for a project to 200 acres, thereby making it more difficult to aggregate that. That's kind of a -- that's not really going to address the concerns of those folks out there. The third option was that if you were inclined to support the removal of some land -- and this is not what we're recommending; it's just an option that's out there -- for example, that 0 to 1 mile corridor also is approximately five or six sections of land that's currently designated as sending. And if that was removed, you'd have some balance there because there's five or six acres of-- five or six sections -- five sections of land in receiving in the Big Corkscrew Island area. Our preferred approach would be one that allows a limited transfer into the urban area of perhaps one dwelling unit per acre in connection with qualified infill development where it makes sense, where you have economies of scale, where you have the infrastructure to support that, and it's under a very limited application. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And bypass Corkscrew Island altogether. MR. MULHERE: Correct, and take them out of the receiving designation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why has there sort of been a problem or hesitancy to have the TDR shifted into the urban area? Why are we trying to do most of it into the urban fringe area? MR. MULHERE: Well, there are a couple of reasons. Number Page 143 February 7, 2002 one, when we talked to Dr. Nicholas, we asked him if the market would support it within that area so that we wouldn't be increasing overall density, at least not largely, except through whatever bonuses might apply. And his response was, yes, he felt like there was a strong market within the fringe to transfer from fringe to fringe, and that was the primary reason. The second reason is I think that there is some concern generally about increasing any density in the urban area generally out there, and I -- and I suspect that any sort of broad application of increasing density in the urban area would not receive the kind of support from the community, or even from the policy makers, that we would be looking for. But this -- this limited urban transfer would not increase density. You'd be taking it from one place to another. It would be locating it more appropriately in an area where you have more services to address those -- that increased density, and it would be a very limited increase by right, one dwelling unit per acre in qualified infill development of, say, 20 acres or less. That, really, I think, is where you want to promote that. And that's likely to result in, perhaps -- and I'm not going to say affordable housing, but some more work-force housing because if you can offset the land costs a little bit by increasing the density in those infill developments, you're likely to see some mixed use or more reasonable costs for housing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That seems to -- well, I don't really have any problem with that, but I -- I want to go back to Corkscrew Island. It seems to me that to take an area and insulate it from what has happened to everybody else -- MR. MULHERE: But there is one difference, and the difference -- and I neglected to say that, and perhaps I should have -- really, this is the area that does have a very -- pretty well-defined existing development pattern, and that was the reason why we -- we felt some - Page 144 February 7, 2002 - some understanding and some support for their requests. Based on the biological and -- excuse me, ecological evaluation, sure, it should be a receiving area. But you do have an existing development pattern out there of one dwelling unit per 5 or less. You have a community that is limited, really, in terms of its, you know, opportunity to expand. And those folks really have expressed a desire to stay the way they are. And on top of that, you've had an expression from the land manager of the -- of the -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sanctuary. MR. MULHERE: -- sanctuary that that would be their preference as well because they fear hydrologic impacts from any type of other development and that this is more -- more acceptable to them the way it is as it stands. And, I forgot to mention, there's been a lot of expression that there's some wildlife value to that existing development pattern that we have not captured. I don't know that that's something that can be backed up with scientific data, but that was expressed. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, is Corkscrew Island built out insofar as the one per 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I -- I don't know that it's built out, no, but CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, what if you at least had a token receiving area so that it received what everybody else -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we're not talking necessarily about the whole area. We -- we actually would leave the receiving designation on the largely undeveloped portion up there that's south of Immokalee Road, under our proposal. We would only pull out those five sections that really have sort of developed under that pattern. And, you know, again, we recognize that there's an impact, and we would want to offset that impact a little bit, and that's why we've offered some options to do that. If it's a policy -- it's really a policy consideration Page 145 February 7, 2002 for you to recommend to the board and for the board to consider. There are some folks here that will speak to that issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it just seems to me that, considering what's gone on in the 20 years that I've lived in Collier County, everybody ought to share in the negative part to the extent that they can without really altering their lifestyle. Now, I've lived in the city the entire 20 years, and certainly my lifestyle has been materially altered by the rampant growth in the county. I mean, it takes me five times as long to get to Interstate 75 as it did when I moved here and so forth. I mean, you can go through a whole litany. So the people in Corkscrew, it seems to me, ought to participate as a civic matter to the extent that you can carve out some sort of program for them to do that. MR. MULHERE: And the other -- I guess the other issue that -- that I -- I probably failed to mention was that that -- that within that community -- during the discussions when we had the -- the sort of meeting out at -- out at the middle school, we raised the issue that it is a voluntary program. There's no -- there's no requirement that you sell your land to someone who would want to aggregate it and then develop, you know, some other type of development. On the other hand, I think a lot of those folks felt that they really couldn't control what a neighbor might do, and they really didn't want to see that -- that happen. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Certainly. I'm not -- assuming that rural villages are a viable concept -- and I'd like to hear some more about that when we get to it -- I wouldn't wish that off on Corkscrew Island, but it seems to me they ought to be left a receiving area to some limited-- if-- if it's only more than token. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- Ken, I disagree with you, but I think that's going to severely alter lifestyles out there, and it's going to have a dramatic effect on the way -- people have moved out Page 146 February 7, 2002 there to get away from suburbia. By putting that location on your map, out of all the five areas that you have as receiving areas, that one, to me, is the far most troubling as an argument for urban sprawl, because to get to that location, all the utilities, facilities, transportation, water, sewer, everything has to go down Immokalee Road. And there's -- I've found where you're interconnecting it all. All that's going to do is give every development argument that everything in between that Corkscrew location and the current urban boundary can become infill, and you'll see not less Twin Eagles, not less Bonita Bay East, but a lot more of those, as well as the homes that will go with them. I'm strongly against that one in Corkscrew. I think that ought to be removed completely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: To that point, are there other areas in the -- in the receiving areas that have anything like these characteristics? Are we likely to hear them come forward and make the same kind of argument we're hearing? MR. MULHERE: No, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So their characteris -- they're not developed at all or they're -- MR. MULHERE: They're much more sparsely developed, much more rural. I mean, this is rural, sort of semirural, but it is -- it does have a prevailing development pattern. I think no one could argue with that when you look at an aerial and see the developed parcels. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In terms of this infill, as we well know, within the urban area, the problem has not been having too much density. The problem has been getting the density that's been authorized to -- even utilized. I'm wondering how -- I can't quite understand how the incentive's going to work. MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand that, and I think that's very, very true when you talk about a large piece of land, 3, 4, 500 acres; a thousand acres; 1500 acres. A couple of golf courses, you come in, Page 147 February 7, 2002 and your gross density is two or less or three or less. That is not -- it is exactly the opposite of the case when you're talking about a smaller infill parcel. The land values are extremely high. You cannot amenitize 20 acres. You can't put in the golf course or any of those other amenities that someone is attracted to in a larger development. And in order to recoup those values, you -- you must have some higher density. And they -- they are qualified to come in right now and ask for that higher density through the rezoning process, and generally they're granted because they're usually located in an area where they're compatible with something higher, four, five, or six dwelling units per acre, maybe higher. What we're saying is at least by right they could acquire one of those without worrying about having to come in for a rezone through a TDR process. I'm not saying they should get three or four. I'm simply saying let's enhance that market for TDRs by allowing for at least one or two dwelling units per acre in qualified infill. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could you just remind me, just location-wise, where one of these might be so I could have it in my mind? MR. MULHERE: Well, if you just think about the urban area and you look at development, you can think of any example where you see a 20- or 1 O-acre site that's undeveloped, that's what we're talking about. And there are, you know, a few hundred of them, and perhaps David Weeks might be able to speak to that issue better than I. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this-- so this TDR transfer to -- as an infill perhaps should be considered more widely than just as it relates to Corkscrew? MR. MULHERE: No. It would be -- it would be for the -- it wouldn't apply just to there. It would apply universally. Any -- the policy would say that you can -- you can increase your density if you are a qualified infill development in the urban area by acquiring one or Page 148 February 7, 2002 two dwelling units from anywhere in the designated sending lands. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So that wasn't just for Corkscrew. MR. MULHERE: No. But it does offset the loss of that as an option. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: While we're talking about locations, I meant to ask this about the North Belle Meade area. You have two sections as receiving lands down there or two areas. One is larger than the other, and you have a smaller one to the west side. What is that one? Why did that end up being receiving area, and why is it separated and not contiguous to the other larger receiving area? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Number 24, isn't it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can't-- yes. That little one right there. That's about one section in size, about 640, 690 acres then. Is there a reason why that was singled out and separate and not contiguous? Because to have two receiving areas separated by a -- any other area is going to require -- another infill issue is going to come into play there, and I'm just wondering -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they are going to have the extension of central water and sewer into that area and so they would be able to cluster their development in that section. I'm -- I mean, first, primarily the basis of designating -- primarily the reason that it was designated as a receiving area is based on the lower natural resource values, as with all of the other receiving areas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There are probably little pieces of those all over the place. I'm just wondering why this one -- MR. MULHERE: This one's fairly large and contiguous. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. Some of these calls are, you want to say, on the border. When you look at this particular set of maps here in terms of listed species for priority wetlands, you can see that that's -- that's fairly vacant of that, although this one here has some, and that's Page 149 February 7, 2002 why we made -- made that call here, although strategic habitat information may show that there's a higher upland type of species in there. We -- we looked at some of these areas as well as -- since these were also butting up against the estates on -- having estates on three sides of it, that it would be more appropriate in terms of a receiving area since you've got three sides of estates lots on this area too. So those were some of the -- those were some of the thinkings that we had. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just curious. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if there's anybody that wishes to speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Corkscrew, Corkscrew Island. MR. MULHERE: want to speak on it. MS. HITTINGER: Actually, I do know there's some folks that Lynda Hittinger, and I live out in Golden Gate Estates. I just have a question about this receiving area in Corkscrew. Ed Carlson is the manager of Corkscrew Sanctuary, is he not? MR. MULHERE: MS. HITTINGER: MR. MULHERE: MS. HITTINGER: Yes, he is. Where does he live? I have no idea. He doesn't live in the Corkscrew area where you're talking about, does he? MR. MULHERE: I -- I don't know where Ed Carlson lives. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He lives in Golden Gate Estates. MS. HITTINGER: Okay. I was just wondering if that might be a conflict there. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I didn't ask him. MS. BONNESS: My name is Maureen Bonness. I am a homeowner in Big Corkscrew Island community, and I've got a map here to show you a little bit better what are the delineations of the Page 150 February 7, 2002 community that we are calling Big Corkscrew Island community. And this area is about -- it's five sections of land total, and it's mostly divided into 5-acre parcels. The homeowners there have septic tanks and wells, and there is -- other than Immokalee Road, there's only one other mile stretch of paved roads. Otherwise, it's all dirt roads and just ditches, not really canals. I have organized a petition by the homeowners there, and I've got 200 Signatures from residents and property owners in the area to keep Big Corkscrew Island at the current density that it is now, at one dwelling per 5 acres. In 1978 the residents out there also petitioned, and successfully petitioned, the county commissioners to keep their density at one dwelling per 5 acres, because at that time it was starting to get subdivided into smaller and smaller lots. And the residents out there didn't want that, the majority of them did not want that, and so it was set at one dwelling per 5 acres. I am -- I prefer to live in a rural area, and I am willing to put up with some of the hardships that incurs, such as the distance you have to go to this meeting, for example, just to have our voice heard. And we have had some of the impacts from the greater growth and mostly in the form of driving times. It took me almost an hour and a half to get here this morning. One of the oppositions to the TDR process in this area is that we have a lot of 5-acre parcels, some of them smaller, some of them larger. And in order to take benefit of the TDR process, perhaps higher property values then, for a resident there, in order to take that value, you would have to sell your land and move, and that's kind of a bitter pill for the residents that live out there. The only way that they'll benefit from it is by selling out and moving. It's also -- I feel it's an ineffective area as a receiving area because of all of the subdivided 5-acre parcels. Overlaying the TDR process on top of that makes it very difficult for utilities because it's proposed Page 151 February 7, 2002 to have central water and sewer in any area that now becomes a dense area. So you're going to have to overlay utilities and roads. And the other thing that kind of bothers me, too, is that at this point I don't believe that Immokalee Road is scheduled for four laning through District A, at least not in the next ten years or more, I believe. I don't think it's on the books at all right now. So if nothing else, I would recommend that you delay any receiving area in that area through the TDR process until after the four laning has been completed. I believe the utilities will be a problem in there too, to try to get utilities to any little area that you end up developing and clustering. And right now it's all -- it's mostly just dirt roads. And so if you want to start to develop in that area at a density of one dwelling per acre, there's going to be a lot of filling; you're going to need more roads. And in order to have a density of that -- of that magnitude, you will have to build canals, which will affect the drainage then and will affect-- probably negatively impact Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I do believe the area has more environmental value than has been assessed by the county, and more so as the watershed for Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. It is my recommendation, then, that Big Corkscrew Island -- and I'm speaking now for 200 residents out there -- that Big Corkscrew Island community be removed as a receiving area from the county's plan. I believe it does not fit with the TDR process. Why -- first of all, why put in a receiving area in the TDR process that some people say, "Oh, it won't be used anyway because you have to aggregate all these parcels"? Then why put it in as a receiving? I believe it's -- it'll have a negative impact on the environment, particularly for Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. It won't work in well with either roads or utilities. In my effort to try to convince people to take this area out of the receiving area, I realize that the county has needs. We are growing. Page 152 February 7, 2002 People have to live somewhere, so I've tried to find an alternative receiving area, if nothing else. And so I did come up with one parcel of land that currently is not in the rural fringe. It's in the rural lands, and it's this area pointed out here in pink, and it's surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate. It doesn't have the environmental value. It has easier access to services and infrastructure and would probably make a better-- a more likely receiving area. I'll be up front with you. I am a stockholder on that piece of property. That's part of why I came up with the idea. But I'm trying to find any reason for you to be able to make a plan to keep Big Corkscrew Island community out of the receiving area. We enjoy our rural character out there. We pay for it in a lot of ways too. There's a lot of things -- amenities we don't have, but we're willing to deal with that because we enjoy where we live. Any questions? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No. I just want to tell you, I don't have any ill will toward Corkscrew Island, far to the contrary. I just wonder if the county commission is going to be comfortable carving out an exception to favor one small enclave. MS. BONNESS: It is. But I know how far I have to go to get from Big Corkscrew Island to anything that's going on on the other side of 951, and I'm not sure you want a lot of development having to go that far away from the main resources in town. MR. BONNESS: I'm Joe Bonness. I represent Winchester Lakes property. My sister Maureen did point out this section of land on her map as to what we were talking about. It is Section 16 that -- it's in the rural land plan at this point, and we feel that it should be brought back over into the rural fringe. It's separated from the rural fringe by Golden Gate Estates. As you can see, it is bordered on three sides by Golden Gate Estates. It's right on Oil Well Road, has only 2 miles to be able to get to services in OrangeTree. It was a -- a stripped out agricultural field. It was basically in vegetables. Page 153 February 7, 2002 It currently has a 500-acre excavation permit on it, so to protect it as agricultural property into the rural zoned -- rural land in the future wouldn't protect it as that, because it's never going to be returned to agricultural property. It only has 2 acres of wetland on one comer of the property, so it won't -- it was uplands to begin with. It will never be turned into wetlands, outside of the lakes that are being dug in it. Being close to -- close in proximity to services, it would work very well as a receiving area. It's -- it has good road access. It has very close proximity, and it has three sides that are bordered by higher density property at this point, the 2 1/2 acres per unit -- or 2 1/2-acres- to-a-unit property that it has around it. So it would fit in with -- with the local area as far as being able to have receiving area to be able to bring it up to that standard. So we're requesting that that unit -- or that section of land be put into the rural fringe, and that could help to take up the numbers that would be offset if you do deduct something from the Corkscrew area. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't the sheriff's department's firing range out there somewhere? Is it near that piece? It's off Oil Well, but I'm not sure where. MR. BONNESS: I think it's farther out at this point. It may be in the Golden Gate Estates, I thought. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought it was in the estates. MR. BONNESS: Yeah. It was in Golden Gate Estates, because I remember Golden Gate Estates gave the property to them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bill or Bob, what latitude do we have to square this thing off?. MR. MULHERE: Well, we -- we don't feel that now is the time to take something that's not in the rural fringe area and put it into the rural fringe area. If you'd like to make a recommendation to the Eastern Lands Committee and, ultimately, to the Board of County Page 154 February 7, 2002 Commissioners relative to that, that would be appropriate. But there is a -- a advisory committee set up looking at the eastern lands. This is in the eastern lands. We don't necessarily object to, as I said, the removal of the Big Corkscrew Island community from receiving designation, especially if we can make up for that in some way. But we don't think -- even though there may be a lot of merit to what has been suggested, we don't think now is the time to be dealing with that other piece of property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that just because it's too difficult or-- MR. MULHERE: No. Because it's -- there's a whole other committee that's been set up, and that's not part of this geographic area. And they're looking at that, and they'll be coming back in November as part of that evaluation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, let me ask it this way, then: Is there some sort of process that these two study efforts will ever come together? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And in that process could some of these issues be addressed? MR. MULHERE: Yes. And that -- that process will be during the completion of the eastern lands portion of the study. The standards that we will have already adopted will be reviewed by the eastern lands portion and then, you know, look at making sure that they're compatible to one another. That's not a long time frame. That's -- that's got to be adopted by November. It's coming in shortly for -- you know, within a few months for -- for you to hear about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, your secondary receiving lands, that large, black triangle in the upper, say, north of Immokalee/951 intersection -- MR. MULHERE: Right. You read my mind. Page 155 February 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. I was wondering if you could explain how that is or got there or what it is now or -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Those are -- I think that was the next issue on our hot button list anyway, and there are four sections of secondary receiving lands, and I'd like to point those out to you on the map. I don't know if it's exactly four sections, but approximately. This is the one that you were referring to, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And here's another one here. It looks like a little bit of a different color. I'm not sure why. Probably because the other colors overlaid on the map. Again, we -- we designated those as secondary receiving areas based on their higher ecological value than the primary receiving areas. As Bill showed you before, they have a higher occurrence of wetlands and a higher occurrence of listed species habitat than the other primary receiving areas. But through the deliberations, through the discussion as a result of the EAC hearing, and actually even before that, we began to recognize that a couple things were important and may obviate the need for calling those secondary receiving areas. One, the majority of that northern area north of Immokalee Road is in the Mirasol PUD and is designated already as part of that PUD for conservation. We are proposing a policy that would not allow -- and this was -- the EAC raised this issue, and we concur with them -- that would not allow for either units to be transferred in or transferred out when you already have an approval, you already have an approved development plan, and you're -- and the land is in some sort of a conservation easement or some other easement that precludes development. So in the case of those two sections, even -- they wouldn't be able to do it by policy, so there's probably no reason to even show them on the map as secondary receiving lands. Same thing with the -- well, different situation, but the other Page 156 February 7, 2002 receiving lands that are south, in this area here, that is predominantly -- or a good portion of that is under the ownership of the county and the school board. That's part of the Kaufmann property. I don't know about all of it, but a portion of it is. And, again, by policy public entities are not allowed to participate in the -- you know, the transfer process, so they would not be able to bring units in or transfer them out as long as it's a public entity. That's for private -- private land. And so we would also remove that designation on those lands. Now, the alternative would be to simply leave them in that neutral status. And, of course, the Mirasol PUD is already governed by the PUD, but for those other lands there, we would simply leave them in a neutral status, which would allow all of the uses that are permitted by right, today, on those. Obviously we know that the school board and the county are interested in building a park and a school there, but we would take that secondary receiving language -- and those are the only two locations of secondary receiving, and so the proposal would be simply to take that out of the plan. And that was the recommendation of the EAC relative to that as well. There is one other area that I haven't discussed with you that falls under the sending and receiving topic area, and that is the secondary sending area. This is not located within the rural fringe. The final order required us to basically look at -- just to simplify it, to look at all of the privately owned lands in Collier's rural area. And the fringe is in here, and the eastern lands study is outlined on blue on this map. That surrounds Immokalee. There was another portion of rural ag designated land that's outlined in blue on that map down south that surrounds the urban areas of Everglades City and Chokoloskee. That is 99.9 percent title wetlands, marshlands. If you've ever droven (sic) out east 41, you know the area by 29 there. Our proposal is to call that a secondary sending area and allow those property owners, those private property Page 157 February 7, 2002 owners, to transfer units out of there into receiving areas but at a different rate: At a rate of one dwelling unit per 10 acres. And that lesser rate is based on the -- the absolute and extreme unlikelihood of anybody being able to do anything there anyway given the fact that that is title marsh wetlands. So we haven't heard any objections from anybody. No one's even raised an issue relative to it. Maybe somebody will today. I don't know. But it seems like the appropriate way to deal with that -- that area and to still allow that property owner to have some ability to -- to garner some value through a -- a lesser rate of transfer: One per 10. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's the only area like that? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Can't even build microwave towers in there, huh? MR. MULHERE: You -- you might be able to. Essential services and -- and probably that -- you know, those are not precluded in sending lands so -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I mean in this marsh. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if you'd be able to get a permit for that if you had some impacted uplands. There is a little bit of impacted uplands in that area, mainly at the intersection. In fact, there's a sheriff substation, the Chamber of Commerce, and a gas station there. And those, of course, are -- would enjoy the right to continue to be in existence. We're not taking away that right. But this mainly would apply to the -- to the wetland areas that surround it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if this were considered agricultural, they could go in and fill it in and have one for five? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess that would -- the answer to that question would be yes if they could get permits from the jurisdictional agencies. And I don't know. That probably would rise to a federal, Page 158 February 7, 2002 because that may even be navigable. I don't know. Probably not. I don't know if-- is there anybody that -- from the public that wants to comment on these remaining issues relative to sending and receiving? If not, we can move on to the next one. Okay. Bill asked me to talk a little bit about allowing -- allowable uses in sending and receiving areas. And I think it probably behooves us to start with the sending area where there are significant regulations. We've already talked about the residential allowances, and that is that you would only be allowed one dwelling unit per lot or parcel that existed at the effective date of the final order. We already talked about agriculture. We had a lengthy discussion on that in sending lands. So those primarily are the allowable uses in sending -- in sending lands subject to an 80 percent preservation standard in non-NRPA sending and a 90 percent preservation standard in NRPA sending. There are some other uses that you'll see on that list up there -- and if I can read it from here -- parks, open space, and passive recreational uses; habitat preservation, conservation; as I said, essential services; and then some uses that are -- that would be coincidental to those recreational or passive park uses such as dormitories, sporting and recreational camps, commercial uses that are accessory to those park facilities, and then we have that oil and mineral extraction and related processing. The language actually in the plan, I think, says excluding earth mining. So that issue is one that you've noted that you want to talk about as you move on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, on the commercial uses, it says here, commercial uses accessory to other permitted uses such as a restaurant accessory to the operation of a park or preserve. MR. MULHERE: Right. Big Cypress Preserve may have -- may wish to have a restaurant, may have a restaurant. I think probably the Corkscrew Sanctuary, you know, has a snack bar or some sort of-- I Page 159 February 7, 2002 don't know if they do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, a park that's there for preservation wants to have a commercial restaurant in a NRPA land? I don't know what -- MR. MULHERE: Clearly accessory to that. I mean, people -- some people -- I guess the example would be somebody may go out to Everglades National Park for the day, and I'm sure they have a concession stand out there. I'm sure they sell food somewhere out there. I don't know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They do at the headquarters. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And that is what that is for. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The western headquarters, I should say. MR. MULHERE: Remember, these would be -- in conservation uses these would be the land managers deciding that they want to have some ancillary use, so my guess is they're not likely to go in and put, you know-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: McDonald's. MR. MULHERE: -- McDonald's or something like that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or Subway. MR. MULHERE: Right. As far as the -- the receiving lands go, agricultural uses are permitted. Single family, as we discussed, is permitted. Parks, open space, passive uses, habitat, essential services, dormitories, all of those uses that are permitted in the sending lands; also commercial uses, subject to, you know, whether they're in a rural village or they meet the locational restrictions of the other ones in the comp plan for commercial uses; utilities and communication facilities; multifamily residential structures shall be permitted under the residential clustering provisions; and group care facilities. Obviously farm labor housing is already permitted in rural ag and is still shown up there. There really isn't very much of that, and we -- Page 160 February 7, 2002 usually that's now located in more urban or rural village area. Public schoOls are permitted; social and fraternal organizations; zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, those types of uses. Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste, now, let me talk about that one. The EAC voted to remove that as a permitted use, and their concern, I think -- you know, and not to para -- not to try to paraphrase, but I think their concern may have been the possibility of a landfill. But, however, if you're going to allow development in these receiving areas, we feel strongly that transfer stations are an appropriate use and, you know, you have to handle solid waste somewhere, somehow. They also -- the next one is asphalt and concrete batch-making plants, and that was also -- the EAC also voted to prohibit those uses. And, again, we feel that we're allowing earth mining, we're saying that the receiving lands are the location that have the least environmental value, and that's where development should occur. You may have an asphalt and concrete batch-making plant located in conjunction with an excavation process. And, by the way, that's a very limited resource. We're talking about building a lot of roads in the county. It seems like that is the appropriate place for those to be permitted. Earth mining, again, there you see the oil and mineral extraction with the earth mining use included; TTRVCs, that's travel trailer and recreational vehicle parks; and community facilities such as churches, day cares, and cemeteries. That-- that use is pretty much the same use that is permitted in the rural ag district today, the difference being that the residential component in rural villages and clustering requirement, that we would look for a more compact development pattern. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So somebody could have a home, and right next door to them they have an asphalt and concrete batch- making plant? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's actually -- I believe it's a conditional Page 161 February 7, 2002 use in the LDC. So you have to go through a full-blown public hearing to locate that, and one of the issues is compatibility, and so if they're right next to a single -- these are just the comp plan. Now, you still have standards that have to be written. And, again, within the LD -- certain Land Development regulations -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aren't asphalt and concrete batch- making plants, though, more of a -- zoned an industrial -- MR. MULHERE: They're allowed in industrial as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And we have industrial in Collier County, so why would we even want to consider it for -- MR. MULHERE: They have always been allowed in the rural ag district. We're prohibiting them in sending lands. This is not new. They have always been permitted out there. And the only rationale that I can -- that I can give you is that, again, if you have a limited location where you can acquire those raw materials -- I -- I'm not an expert. I don't know if Joe Bonness is still here, but I think that oftentimes you will have some sort of a temporary concrete or batch- making plant located in conjunction to a -- I'm getting nods. So that -- that would be the situation where you would have somebody who has a fill pit and is using that material to create -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, by the time they made the concrete that far out and they drove it in town -- like the lady said, she took an hour and a half to get here -- they'd have a solid truck of hard concrete. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure it's pract -- MR. MULHERE: -- happening right now on the East U.S. 41. What's his name has a -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Krehling. MR. MULHERE: Krehling, yeah. And he's making -- I see the trucks rolling so ... Page 162 February 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I do too. MR. MULHERE: I think that's a -- pretty much a good summary of the permitted uses. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bob, could I just ask one thing. This -- we have no secondary receiving lands -- do I understand that -- now -- correctly? MR. MULHERE: that we eliminate those. If-- if-- that would be our recommendation, What's left beyond those things that I told you, the sections in Mirasol and the government owned, is very, very small. It really doesn't -- it doesn't make any sense to create that district, and just leave them in a neutral -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it seems like, at least from my vantage point, it would simplify a lot of understanding this to take that out of the -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. You know, just have receiving and that would be it. Bill, could you go back to that list again? We're not following in quite the same order so I want to make -- okay. The next topic is rural villages and density size and locational restrictions. And as we've proposed rural villages, we've -- we've reduced the minimum and maximum size a little bit since the first proposal to a minimum of 500 acres and a maximum of 2,000. The density, as we've proposed it, is a minimum of 2.5 and a maximum of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. And the locational restrictions are such that you could have a rural village anywhere within a receiving area, but that one should not be located any closer than 1 mile to another rural village. Now, a lot of folks have raised issues about all three of those issues, those characteristics, and I wanted to walk through this process a little bit with you. There's a little graphic up there -- it shows the limit of my artistic capabilities -- where you have a thousand-acre rural village and a surrounding -- by the way, that's certainly not to Page 163 February 7, 2002 scale -- 800-acre green belt, and that 800 acres is just arbitrary. You've got to have a green belt surrounding your rural village that is -- that averages 500 feet in width, so it may be more or less than that. But in this example -- I already indicated the minimum size was 500, the maximum was 2,000. The densities I've shown you just below that -- they are 2.5 and 3.5 -- and the locational restrictions. If you move up to the top on the right-hand side, it shows you how you can achieve your density. And the first -- the first way that you would achieve your density -- you have to achieve that minimum density on -- based on the rural village size, that thousand acres. And the first way that you would achieve it is by -- you -- obviously you get your base density not only for the village, but for the surrounding green belt area. The base density is one for five, so if you take 1800 acres and you divide it by five, that's 360 units. The next thing that you're required to do is to acquire .8 dwelling units for each acre in the rural village area. So .8 times a thousand in our example is 800 units. But, again, your minimum is 2500 at 2.5 times a thousand. So you're at 1160 there. For each -- you achieve the additional density as follows: For each TDR that you acquire, you get a bonus of two dwellings units per acre, so a thousand times two is 2,000. You add those up -- I'm sorry. Those numbers somehow -- they were in line, but they somehow, in the transfer over to Bill's office, got shaken up a little bit. But the bottom line there is that you would end up with 3,160 dwelling units via your base density, your TDRs, and your bonus, and you would meet -- in this case exceed -- your minimum density. As I said, a lot of folks have raised concerns about not necessarily the concept of rural villages -- and, by the way, this is really a-- a -- I guess, a cutting-edge concept. The governor's growth management study committee, many national planning initiatives and studies have been written about this concept. And it does provide, I Page 164 February 7, 2002 think, a very viable opportunity for some mixed-use, compact development with a significant reduction in the amount of trips that would otherwise be necessary without that mixed-use, compact development, back into the urban area as a characteristic. It can also have some commercial and some employment located within it. As we've proposed it, these things require a rezone approval. They would have to come in and provide with that rezone a plan for the impacts on public facilities and public infrastructure, including transportation, water and sewer, and all those types of things, police protection, schools, all of those types of things. However, as I said, some people have expressed concerns about the overall size, the overall density potential, the extent of the density bonus and the not having some cap on the number of these that might be otherwise able to be built out there. Our feeling was, look, they're in receiving areas. If you get this type of development, it's going to have a beneficial impact in the long run. If two or three are -- if-- you know, my guess is the market is going to limit the number that you'll see out there. But, you know, an issue has been raised about establishing some cap or some maximum number. Originally we had proposed a maximum of three, and we took that off based on the committee's advice that let the market dictate that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Speaking of the market, has this concept been market tested, or are these things that have been written about it written by planners? MR. MULHERE: Both. I mean, most of this stuff is academic. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It works somewhere? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can't say -- I can't say, standing before you right now, that I've seen it work. But these -- there are locations where these rural village concepts are in place and are evolving as we speak about it. And Horizons West in Palm Beach County is -- is one example, and they're moving out towards their rural Page 165 February 7, 2002 area. They've created some rural village opportunities, and a lot of these strategies were based on that. In addition, a lot of the strategies were based on this document, Rural By Design, which is primarily authored by Russell Errant (phonetic), and it's the planning expose or-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Somehow the bonus density strikes me as excessive. Did you come up with that figure of two just to make the bread and the molasses come out even, or-- or do you economically have to use that as a carrot to get anybody to do it? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a difficult question to answer, and it's a very good question. And actually the rationale for arriving at two dwelling units per acre was, yes, that -- that we know we need some incentive to cause people to do this. If they have to acquire every single unit that they need to achieve this through TDRs, I don't think you'll see any. Maybe some people would like that. We think it's a good idea to have them, so we proposed a density bonus. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What about if it were one? MR. MULHERE: I -- I think that most likely that would work as well, just cost a little bit more. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON' Well, the two does, it seems to me, provide quite an inflation factor to the value of the TDR. MR. MULHERE: Well, the benefit of having -- we can use your example. The benefit of having one to one is it's a pretty even split there. You go and acquire one, you get one, you still have to meet your minimum density. But the Other component to that that I would suggest that you consider, then, is perhaps a reduction in that minimum density to, perhaps, two dwelling units per acre and a maximum of three, because the maximum is little high. And if you reduce the TDR bonus, you can offset the impacts of that by reducing the minimum density. And two, I think, is probably more palatable to a lot of folks anyway. Page 166 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That sounds a whole lot better to me. MR. MULHERE: I thought you'd feel that way. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I guess I didn't stay around long enough for the EAC. Maybe they took it up after I left. MR. MULHERE: The other issue, as I said, was locational restrictions and perhaps a cap. You could either have a cap on the number -- and, again, this is something that will need to be studied as it moves along. It's not going to happen next week, six months, a year from now. It will take time. It will take time to see whether these, you know, come forward and are successful. And they're really only a bonus benefit. If they don't occur, we still have the sending and receiving, and we still have the opportunity for that process to occur. So the -- the benefit of these in the areas where -- where we have these rural fringe receiving areas is that they will serve a very wide area surrounding them, including much of the north Golden Gate Estates as well. And OrangeTree has often been sited as an excellent location for this type of activity, and I think it probably would make an excellent opportunity, but there is another committee, the Golden Gate Master Plan Study Committee, that really is charged with looking at that, and it was not part of our study area, but it has been raised as an area that might have good potential. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't there other bonuses available? MR. MULHERE: There is a proposal for up to 10 percent increased density based on increasing your on-site preservation in receiving areas. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And isn't there a work-force housing or affordable housing -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- bonus as well? Page 167 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yes. There is proposed also work force, which is .5 units for every -- for every -- but you still have the max. In other words, Mark, we haven't -- that doesn't mean that you can go above the maximum. So whatever the maximum is -- however you achieve it, that's your choice, but you can't exceed the maximum. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can you go above the maximum if you were to apply for blending? Because two of the larger areas for sending -- or receiving happen to be against -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- urban areas. MR. MULHERE: No. And I think if you-- if you're inclined to reduce the maximum, I would still leave in the affordable housing density bonus and go to a bonus of one to one. That would still work well, but just by reducing that maximum. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The maximum right now is what? MR. MULHERE: 3.5. Bill was reminding me -- I mentioned this, and I maybe skipped over it a little bit. But just to make it clear, the huge advantage that we have here if a rural village is developed is that mixed-use concept, that concept of mixed housing types, but also commercial, institutional, and even some work opportunities. And the degree to which folks can avail themselves to those facilities much more close -- much closer to where they live will offset the very difficult problems that we have on the roads that lead in and out of north Golden Gate Estates and into the urban area. I recognize that this is a -- as I said, a cutting-edge concept. I see, though, no harm in the policy being located in there if you've got the protection of the parameters on it that make you feel comfortable. And if it happens, then I think we'll reap the benefits of that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I asked a question this morning about mixed-use receiving areas. Are you going to designate areas for rural villages? Page 168 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: No. As it stands right now, you can develop a rural village in any receiving area. They just cannot be -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So there's no such thing as mixed- use receiving area? MR. MULHERE: Well, they -- no, there's no such thing as a mixed-use receiving area, but the rural villages are mixed use. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And -- and the only restriction is 1 mile, as we currently propose it, no closer than 1 mile to one another, and the green belt around it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I guess I -- unless there's more questions -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just want to make this comment: If we're going to go down this road-- and, you know, I'm certainly leaning to try these things out -- I really would like to see them work. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And -- but I'm not -- I don't know that I have the wisdom to select numbers that would be better or worse. Is there some way that we could, you know, get this process through the BCC, of course, but get this process launched and then have some -- some way to evaluate how it's working and-- MR. MULHERE: I think you could. I think just like the TDR process, there needs to be a regular evaluation of the process. Of course, there's no sense in evaluating it until such time as someone comes forward with a recommendation, and at that point you're going to see the market analysis that I think you're looking for. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to -- you know, I don't want to make a bonanza for everybody, but on the other hand, I want it to work. MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- at a one to one in a lower Page 169 February 7, 2002 density, I don't think you're talking about a bonanza. I honestly think what you're talking about is an incentive for someone to come in and do this. What I wanted to tell you was that there's been a lot of expression of interest on the part of some land owners out there, so we do have people who have expressed an interest in this, including, I believe, Mr. Anderson's client, but others as well. But you're talking about a very significant investment up front, keeping in mind you're talking about, you know, providing that -- the infrastructure, providing the sites for the institutional and, you know, the social-type uses. There are -- I mean, there's great detail that has gone into this that you're not going to see as part of this, but you're going to see later as land-- land code things -- minimum park areas, greens, squares, all of these types of components -- to ensure that this retains a rural village character. And -- and we have developed a lot of those, but they're not appropriate to be located in the Comprehensive Plan. They come at the next step. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Tim, you want to talk about this? If you stay in the NRPA, you want to be a rural village? MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Vanasse Daylor representing Florida Farms, a landowner in Area D, which is a receiving area, along U.S. 41 to the south. The -- by way of background, the committee had worked for some two years and had met over that period of time and had worked predominantly on environmental issues. I'm sorry. My apologies. Normally I'm not accused of being too soft spoken. We get into year three, and this time is -- the clock is ticking, and it occurs to me and several other committee members that the final order required us to look at different development scenarios for lands, and today within the rural fringe, there were no new development Page 170 February 7, 2002 scenarios being proposed. Yes, sending and receiving, but the concept of new towns, urban villages, satellite development, none of it had been brought to the surface. I raised the issue with the committee and had several committee members respond at that time, but that's what they thought they were getting into when they started doing this, is writing the rules for a new, better way to develop, and they wanted to see more information on it. I crafted an initial set of language, presented it to the committee. They liked a lot of it, they had questions about a lot of it, and directed me to work with Mr. Mulhere. And I think Mr. Mulhere added some language and concepts to it, and what came out the other end was decidedly better than what I had initi -- originally proposed, and credit to Mr. Mulhere for his assistance on that. As it then continued to kind of work through the process -- and let me take one step back and just say that this is probably, in my opinion as someone who's been doing this for 12 years and someone who's involved in the Urban Land Institute on a national basis, one of the most exciting elements of what's coming out of the rural fringe plan. The reason is that all over the country new development is being required -- not asked, but required -- to develop in a fashion of what's called new urbanism. What new urbanism means predominantly is let's be smarter about how we locate our resources and our homes so that you can recon -- reduce trip links on the roads. We can put people near the things they need so you don't have to get in your car to get a gallon of milk every time you need it. And it requires a balance that you have enough density and enough rooftops, if you will, to support a certain amount of office and retail commercial so that you can try and be as self-containing as possible; thus, the idea of rural villages or new towns. You're really trying to create something that is as nearly self- sustaining as possible. Page 171 February 7, 2002 As we've gotten into this process and this has worked its way through, there are some market conditions that have been more or less thrown out the window in looking at certain facets of this, and the first I want to deal with is the minimum and maximum size. I agree with having a minimum size. I mean, you don't -- in some of these areas to say you could have a true rural village on a hundred acres doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, you better put 16-story buildings up if you're going to get enough mass to even support a quick stop. So a minimum size makes sense. And I think tailoring rural villages to different needs, such as in Area C where they would be utilizing the surrounding area as a part of their demographic profile for who would use the commercial services, that makes some sense. When you get down to Area D, it's surrounded by publicly owned lands. There's no access. There's no contributing population around that area. It is an island, if you will, access off U.S. 41. I have objected through the process to a 3,000-acre maximum on rural villages. I've also objected to the 1-mile minimum distance saying that one or the other needs to go, and the reason is simple. Mr. Richardson, you said if we're going to do them, let's make them work. I have been involved numerous times on due diligence studies for shopping centers for grocery stores. Almost every new urbanism approach has to have an anchor like a grocery store at its retail core in order to feed the other uses. You can't put in a dry cleaner store and a store that sells sandwiches and a store that sells sweaters in the winter and call it an urban village. It doesn't work. You haven't captured any trips. All you've done is increase the density and force that density out onto major roadways to go get what they need. So there has to be a balance of having enough rooftops to capture enough traffic that you can entice the national retailers, mainly grocery stores, as anchor Page 172 February 7, 2002 tenants. That density is not a gift; it's a requirement. It is also necessary because in these types of-- of developments, what they're finding is Publix won't come in and pay 6 or $8 a foot for a 35,000-square-foot store in the center of this new town you're developing. The shopping and retail components have to be built as an amenity, no different than a golf course or a park or a tennis court, in order to attract these retailers. So the expense to someone who's developing this concept is far, far greater than that of a traditional community. What that boils down to is when you do work for Publix, for example, and you're providing information to their real estate location committee, we do rooftop counts. And we take the store location and we draw a 3-mile circle, and we count rooftops. They like to have a contributing population of in excess of ! 0,000 people. They like to have a contributing area, where it is closer to come to that store than other stores, of ! 0,000 rooftops. In the case of Area D, you're not going to draw from much of anywhere else. You are geographically limited. And by limiting 2,000 acres as the maximum size, you will not generate enough rooftops to support any substantive retail component. Without the retail component, the commercial, retail, and office components die. Now what you've got is a higher density, amenitized community with a church and a school. That's not the new urbanism approach, and it's -- it's going to force people out onto the road, which is what we're trying to avoid. My suggestion is -- is this on the -- on the size issue: I don't think enough work has been done to either validate or invalidate that size. However, in order for these to be developed, we're going to have to create language in our Land Development Code for urban villages. That's where the size belongs, not in this document. I ask that you consider taking that out. If we can use that as a land development Page 173 February 7, 2002 regulation instead of putting it in here, it will give us the time to go to some of these national retailers and find out, "What is it specific you're -- specifically you're looking for" so that we can maybe tailor these things in a manner that they will work. If we try and ease into this thing by limiting it too many ways, we're going to end up with a horrible hybrid that doesn't get us where we want to go, and so I would ask that you have consideration for taking that language out of here but require the size considerations be placed into the Land Development Code. That way if they don't work, we can amend them at the local level. We don't have to go back through DCA to amend something that we figured out doesn't work in the real world. So I'd ask that you consider that. Outside of that, if-- if that is not a consideration, if you feel like you have to limit the size of this or if you're going to drop the density on these, then I ask that you look at either reducing significantly or eliminating the minimum distance between them so that if they may be a half mile or a quarter mile apart, the two together may have enough mass to support an anchor retailer in one or the other. But, again, it all comes down to demographics. Do you have enough rooftops to support the concept? And if you don't, the concept simply isn't going to work. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Bob, you know, some of-- some of his comments sound reasonable; maybe all of them do. Is there some way to -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's -- it's tough to make everybody happy. The -- the concerns the people have of having no limits are that -- that you won't know, perhaps, how many of these might occur or how they might grow. I think there's a rationale -- I mean, I do agree with Mr. Hancock with respect to preferably being able to tweak these through the land development process. And we did take a lot of -- of detail out of this that we feel should fall in the land development Page 174 February 7, 2002 process, but we left in the maximum size, the location restriction, and the densities because we felt that the DCA would want to see those things when we submit that to them. They want to know what the potential impacts of these things are, worst-case scenario or best-case scenario. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Excuse me. Have we made any -- has the staff made any study on what it would take for us to get a retailer such as Albertson's or a store like that in an area? MR. MULHERE: We haven't specifically made any study, no. We do know and we do concur with Mr. Hancock that you do need to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10,000 rooftops to be able to support, you know, the typical kind of grocery store that you look at. Now, having said that, we're not expecting that that entirely comes from -- as I think, also, Mr. Hancock indicated, from the receiving areas. There are large surrounding areas of Golden Gate Estates that are developing very rapidly that would also be the -- the service area for these rural villages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we're talking about a rural village, we're talking about an entity that is basically self-supporting, at least, again, you want to be able to do for your family in that area. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: in an area of 2,000 people, then-- If we can't get a grocery store MR. MULHERE: But I think you can. If you look at that -- it's not 2,000 people. If you look at that 2,000 acres -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. You're talking about the 31007 MR. MULHERE: If you look at the maximum of 2,000 acres and then you -- you look at the density that's permitted, which is between 2.5 and 3.5, as we recommended it, dwelling units, 2,000 -- let's use the minimum. 2,000 times 2.5 is 5,000 dwelling units. Okay. Page 175 February 7, 2002 Now, if you consider that approximately 2.5 -- and that's a pretty good estimate -- individuals per dwelling unit, you are up in the 10,000 range. So at the larger scale, not even considering the service area that surrounds the rural village, you have achieved that amount. I mean, we didn't just pull these out of thin air. We went through a process of evaluating these. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was my question. MR. MULHERE: But, on the other hand, you know, there are other prototypes. There are smaller stores. There are more rural stores, and this is an evolving concept. So when you think about these major retailers, they may change some of their plans to provide a design that is still profitable that could address a smaller rural village than that 10,000, 8,000, or 12,000 population. And I think that's something that we will see to evolve, so that's the flip side. I think there are very legitimate issues that -- that were raised there, and it's hard to, you know, find the -- the right number. What is the right number? But I will tell you that, you know, there have been a lot of concerns expressed over the potential of the larger size rural village. Remember, originally we were proposing, you know, 3,000 acres, and at 3.5 you were up to 10 and 12 and 13 and 14,000 dwelling -- population. And there was a lot of concerns, and that's why we scaled it down. But when we scaled it down, that number at the larger size does still support enough population to be able to be self- sustaining. And-- and, again, that hasn't even considered-- there could be smaller -- I think the example of the North Belle Meade where the -- the sector plan calls for a smaller rural village of maybe only 300 acres, that may be very appropriate there because that's a place where they really will be able to serve a much larger segment of the surrounding Golden Gate Estates area so that -- that that market segment is increased. You might be able to do it on 3 or 400 acres. Page 176 February 7, 2002 You're not going to get the population from that that you need, but you'll get it from the surrounding lands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Bob, we can only speculate about the size parameters. What about his point of taking it out of this study and putting it into the LDC? What's the pros and cons of that? We could decide that today. MR. MULHERE: You sure can. I think the only thing that I would suggest to you is that you may -- and that would buy us some time, at the very least, to do some further evaluation. I think that there may be a -- a question that would arise from the oversight Department of Community Affairs as to, well, what's the impactment? How big? How small? How many units? I'd defer to Nancy to -- so we might get (inaudible) on that, but then again, I think Mr. Hancock raises a pretty a good issue. It certainly would give us some time forewamed to do some further evaluation and try to come up with a number that works better. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. Well, the way we handle, of course, PUDs, we have some parameters. MR. MULHERE: You do, and you get some market information. And you would with these, too, when they come in. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I'm just trying to think of having this level of specificity in something that can't be changed without going through another growth management amendment. MR. MULHERE: That's true -- that's -- that's generally, though, true about any type of development. You do generally know what your maximum densities are, and they're generally located in the Comprehensive Plan, those maximum-- in the density rating system. And to not do that here, I think, would cause some concern. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Cornell. Page 177 February 7, 2002 MR. CORNELL: If I can add a couple of cents' worth of this. Brad Cornell for the record. I do agree with Tim Hancock that -- that we need all the information we can get to -- to make this a viable plan, but I also do agree that we need to have some sort of idea of how big, just on the scale of things. One thing to consider, just thinking about this, would be the problem of acreage, perhaps increasing the density of the rural village beyond 3.5 units per acre. While that would be a more intensive use, you would be compacting that use in a smaller area. Along with that I -- I have to say that I -- I think that there needs to be more distance between these things, and we do need to limit how many of them there are, both of which -- these factors would achieve that. You know, let's look at -- I wrote down 3 miles. Maybe 10 miles -- I have seen proposals as much as that -- between these things. Again, I think we can have some -- some comfort in their being adjacent to areas like Golden Gate Estates where they can draw from those service areas. The green belt around the rural villages, you know, as it's outlined needs to be bigger. Five hundred feet is not-- we're trying to prevent sprawl. And if you want to prevent sprawl, you want it to be compact, you want it to be well-defined, and you don't want any temptation to bleed out into other areas, thus the separation. And I -- I also agree with Mr. Hancock on this -- the idea that these should be designed with smart growth and new urbanism design standards. I think we should explicitly reference those. You know, while we don't have to -- to spell them out specifically -- that's for the LDC -- but we could reference that specifically, that this is what we're trying to do with these. I know it's sort of implicit in the way we're -- we're describing them. And I agree that the -- lessening the bonus density; instead of two units, something less. It does make me feel nervous to see that much Page 178 February 7, 2002 created density just appear from nowhere. Even though I want to see this -- as Mr. Richardson said, I want to see this succeed, but I feel nervous about adding too much bonus density. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: As Brad was talking, I -- and Stan just suggested -- whispered something in my ear, and that is that we have quantified -- in a sense we have quantified and limited the number of these in another way. Remember, you have to acquire TDRs. If you go to a one to one, for example, there's only 5,000 units out there to be sent. And if you have to acquire a unit for every bonus unit or for every two bonus units, whatever the case may be, your -- you know, your maximum number of units that are available at this point in time is -- is plus or minus 5,000. That's probably going to limit the number of rural villages to three in that general area, which is what we had originally recommended as a limit anyway. In addition, I think, you know, that -- that also limits the potential population increase from that bonus because you-- if you were given a two-unit-per-TDR bonus, there's 5,000 units, the maximum increase is 10,000. If you lower that to one, then the maximum increase is 5,000. So we do have limits in place based on the limited number of TDRs. And 10,000 may seem like a lot, but in the overall scale of things and by incentivizing this very beneficial development style, I think that the benefits outweigh the relatively low increase in density, especially low if you think about reducing that number to a one to one. Then it's only 5,000. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could you describe for us - - we haven't talked about it -- what that green belt is likely to look like or how big it is? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And that's interesting. The green belt really isn't intended necessarily to -- you have a locational separation, Page 179 February 7, 2002 and that's what's intended to separate these rural villages. The green belt is -- is really more of an amenity and intended to be more of an open-space amenity tied to that development because you're going to have more compact development in the rural village itself, and you will have likely less open space and greenspace in the rural village because you want it to be more compact in its development. You can have a surrounding green belt. Now, that green belt can help you meet your preservation requirements, and that's another benefit to it because you will have preser -- there are 40 percent preservation requirements in the receiving area. It can also help you to address any species or wetland preservation requirements that you have. And -- but other than that, I have no objection and the code doesn't provide for any objection to whether or not that happens to be agricultural land or golf course land. You've got to meet your preservation -- it's in a receiving area. Remember, these are all within receiving areas. And within receiving areas those are permitted uses, and we want those uses in receiving areas. That's where we want them to go. So the green belt -- you've still got preservation requirements, and you can partly meet them through that. You've still got to address your species and your wetland issues. Most likely that will be an area where you can do that. But once you've met those objectives, it would be further punishment, in my mind unnecessarily so, to suggest that you couldn't use that green belt for open space, some sort of open space. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could it be used -- could it be used for residential, one per 5 acres? MR. MULHERE: No. That's the one prohibition, no residential development. That's to be transferred into the village. And that is one of the small ways where you can provide some measure of protection for existing agriculture out there as well. Page 180 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Golf courses? MR. MULHERE: Well, why not? They're permitted uses in receiving lands. Remember, this is the land that we've decided is appropriate for golf course use. This is receiving areas. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I mean, so why not? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But you-- well, you've grafted a requirement on the village that it have a green belt, and then you turn around and -- and let them use it in another way. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. Golf courses are green. I'm not saying that that has to meet the native vegetation. I think you're going to hear the difference here. I'm not suggesting that the golf course should be able to meet your preservation requirements or that it should do any -- no. You've still got to meet those requirements. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. MULHERE: But you may have an excessive area. You could throw a few holes in there, you know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You were talking about that being your preservation area, and then you went from there to golf courses, and I -- MR. MULHERE: No. I'm not suggesting -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- can't jump that far anymore. MR. MULHERE: No. I'm not suggesting the golf course would meet your -- no. You've got to meet your 40 percent, you know, in the receiving area. And my guess is that you would -- it would give you the opportunity to protect that contiguous, valuable native habitat or wetland area within the green belt, but not all of it has to be used for that. And I think it would be sort of double -- double punishment if we said that on top of that you -- you know, you couldn't use some of that land that you didn't have to use for preservation for -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Somebody suggested that you Page 181 February 7, 2002 could do a golf course in 80 acres. I don't know that it -- is that -- MR. MULHERE: I -- you know, 110, you know-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Eighty. MR. MULHERE: Eighty probably. I -- I guess Mark would know better than I. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So you would have a lot left over. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you would have a lot left over. I see Mr. Duever's -- MR. DUEVER: One thing that was said was that -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Identify yourself. Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. DUEVER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: New court reporter. Tell her who you are, please. MR. DUEVER: Okay. I'm Mike Duever. And one of the things that was said was that you had to have a certain number of transfer development units for a rural village, and there's something in here on page 50 that says, The requirement to achieve a minimum of .8 units per gross acre of land within the rural village through the transfer of units from designated sending lands may be reduced or waived by the Board of County Commissioners if the number of units available for transfer from designated sending lands is insufficient to meet this requirement. MR. MULHERE: That's -- that's correct. And that was put in there because we assumed that that number would -- would be exhausted fairly quickly. But based on this discussion today and the EAC, I think, you know, you could strike that language if that's what you so desire to do or what this committee so -- it's something that's going to have to be reevaluated because once the sending units are exhausted, that means they've worked. They've worked the way we wanted them to. We may want to find some more sending units so Page 182 February 7, 2002 they can work again. And so -- MR. DUEVER: Okay. Just curious. And based on what you said a few minutes ago -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That was originally put in here. But, I mean, if you really want to limit it, you'll have a limited number of sending you can-- MR. DUEVER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If you're going to move on to another area -- MR. MULHERE: I was. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's fine. I'd just like to -- since this is still fresh in my mind, I'd just like to offer my opinion, for one commissioner, that I'm inclined to go with -- with whatever numbers you've got here, and let's see how it works. I don't have the wisdom to tell you that this should be a bigger number or smaller number, and I have faith in the staff work that you've done. Unless you come up -- based on your other technical input, you come up with some recommendations to change these numbers, these are the ones that I would go with. MR. MULHERE: I think we're up to -- this is it; right? Wetland preservation, this was the last hot button issue, and then I know there's lots of questions. So I'm-- really, this is Bill's -- Bill's issue, and I think I would defer to Bill to talk about what -- what conflicts there are relative to our recommend -- recommendations, and maybe you could start out with what they are. MR. LORENZ: Right. Well, the -- the wetland preservation, as we earlier talked about at the landscape level, was trying to look at these large areas where there's a lot of wetlands and direct land uses away from there. That's the -- that comprehensive planning process that -- that works, and -- and I think that we -- we've shown you all the Page 183 February 7, 2002 maps and figures for that. Now, talking -- it was more difficult, quite frankly, working at the project site review and -- because we do have a number of agencies that are involved in wetlands permitting, and we have a number of concepts that we're trying -- we're trying to juggle with. And what we've come up with, I think, is a good shot. It's not perfect by no means, but let me tell you what it does, and I'll tell you what it doesn't. It does propose a no net loss of wetland functions, and it's very clear and specific that we're talking about no net loss of wetland functions. And that means, for instance, that you cannot compensate the destruction of wetland with some type of preservation of uplands. Sometimes that is being done with the federal and state agencies. Our policies will basically preclude that. You have to show us that you're not losing any -- a loss from wetland functions. So we do have that in -- in the -- in the policies. We don't have a -- a new regulatory permitting process, other than the fact that you're going to have to meet these requirements, and you're going to have to demonstrate that you meet these requirements prior to some type of final land alteration approval. The wetlands will be part of the vegetation preserved that's required for the vegetation retention requirements. Now, we're talking -- now, I'm also talking about the urban area because those policies are written for the urban designated area as well as the rural fringe area. That's that 25 percent requirement. In the receiving areas, it's 40 percent requirement. The way we've drafted the policies is that on-site wetland will have to be the first -- will be the top priority vegetation to put into those preservation requirements. Now, what that doesn't do, however -- and whatever impact you make -- you have on wetlands that you don't preserve on site, you're going to have to impact -- you're going to Page 184 February 7, 2002 have to mitigate -- excuse me -- you're going to have to mitigate under the no net loss of wetlands functions. But what it doesn't do is it doesn't tell you how much wetlands are going to have to be preserved on site after you've satisfied the vegetation retention requirement. So, for instance, if you have a hundred-acre site, a hundred -- a hundred acres is -- is all in wetlands and then you were in the urban area, your vegetation retention requirement is 25 acres, 25 percent. Our standards would require you to have preserved on site 25 acres, but then you can then impact the other 75 acres. We haven't addressed that. We've just capped it at the total vegetation retention requirement, and that has been some point of discussion with the EAC and others, that there's a desire to see some county requirement for more acreage to be retained on site. Again, if you mitigate it off site, you have to mitigate it according to the no net loss of wetland functions. So that's -- that's kind of where we've arrived at. Let me -- from my perspective, the wetland issues were some of the most toughest issues of trying to develop through the process, trying to be sensitive to the fact that you have other agency reviewers out there trying to -- to work at the landscape scale and the project site scale, but still provide appropriate wetland protection for Collier County. And this -- this is going to still be an issue because on one -- on one hand I know that individuals would like to see additional requirements for more wetlands to be preserved on site within, if you will, the project area. But we are limiting that requirement to the total vegetation retention requirements. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let's talk about mitigation a little bit, because I brought that up earlier. MR. LORENZ: May I also -- may I also -- I'd like to have Barbara Burgeson come up and also speak and answer your questions Page 185 February 7, 2002 very specifically since it's her and her staff that will be dealing with the very specific implementation of these policies and -- and the way they're currently doing the work now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Your Policy 6.1.1, parens, 9, I guess, is the one -- this policy shall not be interpreted to allow development in wetlands -- this is page 22 -- should the wetlands alone constitute more than the portion of the site required to be preserved. I have a lot of trouble understanding this particular-- because we've had language similar to this in the previous policy, and every time it comes up to the Planning Commission, they say, "Oh, well, we're not following that anymore. We're doing something different." And I just want to make sure that the one we get here is the one we're really going to follow. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. That language, as you say, is in the current Growth Management Plan, and staff has had that language available to mean that if, for instance, on a piece of property where you have to retain 25 percent, if 40 percent of your site is wetlands, it does not mean that you can develop greater than the 25 percent -- from the 25 to 40 of those wetlands. However, staff's difficulty is in -- in having any kind of measurable, discernible standards to go above that 25 percent. So in some cases we've had support to say that you have a pristine flowway. It's adjacent to a flowway South Florida's trying to protect, and we've gone above the 25 percent. It's very rare when we can do that. And that's why Bill Lorenz has been saying that there are not just the EAC members, but staff has concerns that unless we try to define it a little bit better and measure it a little bit better, what happens is what's happened in the past 12 years or 13 that I've been with the county, and that is that you end up in a position where it's very hard to defend it, even though it's always been in here that we can protect the Page 186 February 7, 2002 wetlands. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems that we lose, too, in the mitigation process, or apparently, because we're not in control of the mitigation. And I'm hearing you say no net loss, but if we depend on an outside agency to -- to broker this for us -- you know, they've got so many acres on this site and they're going to have to mitigate off in order to make this thing work and then they look at the quality of these wetlands and they start going through all kinds of mumbo jumbo and you come up with a number, that's not, in my mind, a no net loss. It comes up with some -- in fact, if it's a small number, they kind of ignore it. MS. BURGESON: There -- there are a number of-- of site projects -- I go to monthly meetings. In fact, I'm going Tuesday to the South Florida Water Management District office in Fort Myers for an interagency meeting. At the last interagency meeting, there was one site in Fort Myers, for instance, where they had two isolated wetlands that totaled approximately 6 acres of pristine cypress heads that were mitigated for on site with uplands. So for that example, you clearly had a net loss of wetlands on site. South Florida has -- has an agenda that is very important. And I'm not -- I'm not saying that what they're doing doesn't satisfy their -- their requirements. But, for instance, they -- they take a look at a regional issue. They look at what the mitigation will do for the South Florida Water Management District, and it's very important. However, Collier County sometimes looks at the fact that we have neighborhood wetlands that are very functional to that neighborhood or that local area. And if they're mitigated for 50 or 60 miles away somewhere else in Collier County, that's very valuable to the regional issue, but it can cause some problems to the local issues. It can be just as simple as aesthetic. It could be wildlife issues. It could be water recharge and flood control issues. Page 187 February 7, 2002 So we'd like to try to get some neighborhood or some local control on the wetlands on site, not step on the toes of South Florida, but there are -- there are a lot of the RPs that are issued where there is, if not a net loss by their evaluation, a net loss in the terms of the way a lot of us take a look at the projects. MR. LORENZ: One thing -- one thing we will -- will be doing with these policies, however, for the net loss considerations, it will be the county staffs responsibility to evaluate the -- the information to ensure that there's not (sic) a no net loss with regard to Collier County wetlands. However, that still doesn't address the idea that Barbara talked about, of how much we would actually preserve on site versus off site. MS. BURGESON: To go into that just a little bit further, what Bill was saying, we will make sure through these policies that when South Florida issues a permit, for instance, with upland mitigation, they will still have to come back to Collier County, do additional mitigation, make sure that it's equal or greater functional wetlands that are mitigated for, and we will have to probably address what that quantity will be. And we will protect the wetlands and the total function. It just may not be locally; it may be on a more regional level. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, good luck. And I hope that, you know, we're taking some appropriate steps. It seems that we're taking the appropriate steps to get closer to protecting what is really ours. I just, you know, feel very uncomfortable with letting other agencies decide for us what -- particularly when they come up with an answer that isn't one for one, at least one for one. So we can expect to see that somehow into our Land Development Code changes so that we'll have some local jurisdiction over wetlands in our -- as it relates to this type of issue? MR. LORENZ: Very specifically, the no net loss issue, we will Page 188 February 7, 2002 ensure that we review the mitigation proposals, that there will be no net loss of wetland functions. That's what we are proposing in the -- in the plan. And we've strengthened the language through the change sheet so that we don't automatically accept the agency's permitting to say that. So we will review it, and if it -- and if it is truly the case, then -- then it's a go. If not, then we can have the -- we have the authority, then, to hold any land development alterations permits from that point on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, in terms of the time line when this -- these local activities might take place, one of the things it seems to me we're faced with when we review a PUD or something coming in is that we don't know -- they haven't gotten their permits yet. We don't know what the numbers are going to be. Is this more a site development plan kind of an issue, or could we or should we be bringing this forward so we have more information at the -- prior to the time we give approvals of the PUD? MS. BURGESON: We do have one item in here that will help address that, and that is that because we are deferring the South Florida perm -- well, in permitting to South Florida, they currently are -- we are required to defer the wetland delineation and-- and definition to South Florida. We are also requiring that when the petitioner submits information to staff, that they submit a WRAP score, which is a wetlands assessment score, that is agreed upon with South Florida so we know what South Florida has determined those wetland functions to be. So you probably will stop -- it may take a little bit of time between now and when we adopt these. Staff is going to try very hard to make sure that we at least get close to some information or an accepted score from South Florida prior to when you will be receiving those petitions for review. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I'm sure you have some members of the public Page 189 February 7, 2002 that want to speak on the wetlands issue. MR. CORNELL: Brad Comell. This is kind of a -- a mixed bag. I -- I want to say at this point that -- that Collier Audubon generally supports staff's recommendations, the proposed amendment language that you have in front of you. We think that on a landscape scale, we are protecting, through these amendments, the majority of the wetlands and habitat in the rural fringe and through the sector plan in North Belle Meade. However, I think that we are vulnerable on protection of wetlands in -- in the receiving lands where perhaps things are a little more disjointed and less connected, but there still may be quite a lot of wetland value and function, particularly for wading birds, flood control, recharge, those sorts of functions. At any rate, I had two things to suggest to you. One was that even on the level of protection that we are proposing for -- for wetlands through these policies, it's pretty safe to say that we're going to need more staff. And so I think that that ought to be a recommendation that comes from the advisory committees, both the EAC and -- and the Planning Commission, that they're not going to be able to do an effective job reviewing what the agencies are permitting if there isn't more staff. And that's, actually, one of the problems with the agencies themselves. They don't have adequate staff to effectively monitor and -- and do a good job of permitting and mitigation in Collier County. And so I would say that, you know, we need to be the best -- we need to have the best oversight on that, and that means better staffing for -- for our -- our local staff. And the second thing is to consider -- and I know this -- this actually follows up a little bit on what I just heard about looking at WRAP scores, having WRAP scores in front of you before you look at a permit. But it would be good to have a policy that requires permits in hand before we issue building permits, agency permits, or at least a letter, you know, citing the -- the wetland and wildlife considerations Page 190 February 7, 2002 on any particular project. And, you know, we would need to go into some of the details of that. But I think that's something that's -- that we should start considering. If we're going to be deferring to the agencies, we need to see what the agencies say before we issue building permits if we don't do it in house. And that would be, I think, a good program overall. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I'd like to address the -- just the last concern of Brad's. We -- we do require, by the Land Development Code, that prior to any final development order that would require clearing -- and that's typically any final development order, whether it's a site development plan or final plat and construction plans -- that we have all of the agency permits in house before those approvals are issued. So we would not be issuing any building permits in terms of the larger projects until those agency permits are in hand. However, we do fall short of that whenever you're talking about any project that's previously been approved as a subdivision, for instance the Golden Gate Estates area, where those building permits are issued prior to us requiring wetland permitting in hand. So for the larger projects where we go through the site development processes, we do require the agency permits first. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Barbara, that just sounds like an administrative issue. Why can't we just do it for everything? MS. BURGESON: The only thing that I can say about that is that I have seen these discussions brought forward over the past ten years in front of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is their final decision on that. The concern is a duplication of effort, as far as I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't think I understood. Maybe you didn't understand me. I'm not -- it's not a staffing issue I'm raising. It's a -- that's a different one. But it's -- if-- if your approval process -- you know, you got a time line. You have things -- certain Page 191 February 7, 2002 things happening at certain points. MR. MULHERE: But if we're talking about the -- the fact that we require permits before we allow commencement of construction for most projects but not for single-family homes in existing platted subdivisions -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- it's primarily, I think, because the board has - - has in the past -- whether they would change their mind on this policy or not -- has not wanted to burden single-family property owners in Golden Gate Estates in a platted subdivision, where only some of them may be required to have that, from having to have that prior to submittal. We notify them on the perm -- the county notifies them on the permit that they may need a jurisdictional permit. And we've had a lot of conversation about trying, over the years, to make that a better process. In fact, at this point in time, I think the county has a DEP staff member who's assigned -- who is working out of the county and reviewing those Golden Gate permits for compliance with those issues. But the board has, in the past, been reluctant to institute a policy that said that they had to have those permits in hand prior to submittal for single family. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Staff would accept a recommendation from this board-- this commission to the board to repair that? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: That -- that concludes the -- at ten to four -- the hot button issues. I didn't know if you wanted to take a five- minute break. I'm not sure about the court reporter. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think maybe before we take the break we ought to talk about what we do the rest of the afternoon and how long we go. Page 192 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Okay. I know Mark has quite a few questions that he's indicated that he wanted to kind of go page by page. I was under the assumption that -- that we could do that in -- probably in, you know, 90 minutes or so, and that would bring us to, you know, 5:30 or so. And I don't know if that meets with your abilities in terms of continuing that long. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm good till seven in the morning. I got to go to work. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I was hoping to be good until five o'clock. I don't know if we can -- we can do that or whether we should continue tomorrow or whatever the case may be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A lot of the questions I have have been answered already by the presentation and by the questions of this committee, so we might be able to get through mine fairly quick once we start on them. I just don't know. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state I believe some have left, but I have 14 speaker slips. Many of those people have spoken already. I don't know if they have anything left to say but CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I was going to ask the long- suffering people that I see in the audience who haven't spoken, if they wanted to have their say, why don't we listen to -- and then -- MR. MULHERE: General public comment? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: General public comment. And then you can close the public hearing and MR. MULHERE: have questions. MS. STUDENT: spoken, they-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Shall I read each name and then if they've Let's let the ones that are -- that Page 193 February 7, 2002 are here -- this lady and gentleman, are you prepared to speak? I can imagine. State your name for the court reporter, please. MS. KEMP: Cindy Kemp. I commiserate with you all. A heck of a job you do. I'm a member of Property Rights Action Committee, and there were about seven other people that wanted to talk, and it just went too long. I've been up since 4:30 this morning to get here, closed my business down to come to this meeting. Property rights is a watchdog organization that protects private property. I am here for myself and for those who could not attend, the very people who pay your salaries and are so often not given the opportunity to have meetings in the evening, as is done in Lee County. If you'll notice, I chose to wear the Gadsden flag to emphasize my sentiments. It says "Don't tread on me." Colonel Gadsden designed the revolutionary flag in 1775 for colonists fighting for freedom from the tyranny of the British government. The rattlesnake was, quote, chosen because of the peace -- because it's a peaceful creature unless provoked. I feel provoked. Do we not live in a constitutional republic? Do you know what that means? It is not a democracy, as is so often cited. Perhaps Ben Franklin was right when he said to the woman who queried, "What type of government have you made us, Mr. Franklin?" And he replied, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Surely you remember the last part of the Fifth Amendment, "Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." When property is usurped, then tyranny takes over. Since government or conservation groups have already acquired over 80 percent of the land in Collier County, I wonder if the next article I'll be wearing will be a shackle. As I try to analyze how the current proposals will impact the future, I see the TDRs being manipulated into nothing more than incremental land acquisitions that further impinge freedoms and Page 194 February 7, 2002 devalue private property, not to mention the cluster areas of questionable character and destruction of rural lands. When land is devalued by any percentage through regulation, it is the same as expropriating a comparable percentage from a savings account. I attended the EAC meeting on January 23rd and wondered how nonchalantly TDRs were moved into the estates. Weren't the estates exempted from the rural -- from the final order? It is my understanding that the objectives of the planning committee were to first stop urban sprawl. However, doesn't it make sense to do this in a way that does not violate property rights, thus avoiding conflicts, lawyers, and upholding the constitution? Do you understand that property is the basis of our freedom in this country and that the first plank of the communist manifesto is to abolish private property? It is only slaves who do not have the rights of owning and controlling property. Second objective is to preserve environmental resources. Can you explain to me what resources you are talking about since there's only 20 percent of the land left for private ownership? I am a nature lover and enjoy rural living, which is why I live where I do. I kind of call it my Hiawatha experience. It has nothing to do with economics for me where I live, but it does for many other taxpayers. My beliefs include -- include a divine creator, and I feel compelled to be a good steward of the earth. So I'm -- I'm looking out for the environment. However, do you know that the No. 1 species on the endangered species list is humans, who are being overregulated and forced off their land, quote, voluntarily by environmental agencies with political agendas that skew science and -- and doomsday tactics on ignorant people? Two articles that just came out of the Washington Times: NASA debunking global warming and another article about Klamath River Basin, how those people were pushed off their land, and the science is skewed. Page 195 February 7, 2002 The Burt Harris Act may be presently untested in the courts, but I think more and more people will become aware of it through the efforts of property rights advocates such as Stewards on the Rains (phonetic), who just won a major lands rights case; Pacific Legal Foundation in Miami, whom PRAC has already been in contact with; the American Policy Center; American Land Rights Association; Dr. Michael Kaufmann, who stopped the ratification of the biodiversity treaty and whom PRAC hosted this past October at The Community School -- I hope you had the opportunity to come and attend -- Henry Lamb; Julian Simon; environmental scientist James Hansen (phonetic); and many more intelligent people. The third objective being agricultural land use, all I have to say is, do you like to eat? But then again, I just question, what are the motives behind the regulations? As the comic strip Pogo says, "We have met the enemy, and it is us." We are destroying this country through overregulations and disregard for the constitution. All I can say is that I am provoked and so are a bunch more people. Property Rights Action Committee will continue to expose the issue to the people and pursue justice for property owners. Why can't we all come to the table to plan intelligently to the benefit of all? And that includes constitutionally too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Where do you live, by the way? Golden Gate Estates? MS. KEMP: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. How about these two gentlemen midway back on the aisle? Do you want to speak? MR. MALONEY: I'm Tim Maloney representing myself, individual landowner. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Landowner where? MR. MALONEY: In every receiving and sending area on the map basically. I've got 360 acres roughly that I'm concerned -- Page 196 February 7, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Scattered around. MR. MALONEY: Yes. I think one of my biggest concerns mostly is the lack of opposition to this -- the TDR plan, probably because most of the public that ended up in sending areas I doubt were notified of any meetings going on. The only -- the only way I found out about it was in the newspaper, but I know there's a lot of absentee landowners that probably don't even know what's going on. You know, I'm sure they'd be concerned if they -- if they were made aware of this. That -- that's one concern. But sitting here all day, I was staring at the map on the wall over there, and the point was already brought up. The state already owns a vast majority of Collier County. And I'm all for preservation, but I do disagree with allowing someone or some committee, who has probably never set foot on most of my land personally, deeming it a sender or a receiver. Most of the receiving areas that I see on the map I was given a couple weeks ago -- contrary to what some people have said, most of the receiving areas are already cut up with hodgepodge development. What I mean by that is Big Corkscrew Island in particular. I agree with Maureen Bonness. It's already cut up with 5 -- you know, small 5-acre tracts. The chances of a developer utilizing this receiving area to do anything with is going to be very hard because trying to put all those individual people together is very difficult. So whatever happens with, say, Big Corkscrew as we remove -- say -- say it ends up that you remove that from a receiving area. Now all of a sudden you didn't do anything with the sending areas, so now-- now I have a concern. Unfortunately, the majority of my land ended up in sending areas. You know, how can I have a guarantee that I'm going to be able to -- to do anything with my development rights? That -- that's one concern. Page 197 February 7, 2002 If you -- if you look at the map, and even if you visit some of the places on the map deemed as receiving areas, you'll -- you'll realize real quick that the possibility of-- of a developer putting -- putting everything together in one large piece to utilize my sending rights is pretty nil. It's hard to get individual people together that way and buy them out. I mean, it's going to be very expensive to do that. And most of the people that are living in -- in these receiving areas live there for a reason. They live in, you know, rural areas. They like their privacy. You know, I agree with that. But I think the receiving areas that have been designated and the sending areas, I don't know who -- who all decided on these, but I disagree with some of them, and I just want to express my concern. You know, down -- down at the bottom on U.S. 41 in Section 31, a major concern of mine, the receiving area touches the -- it would be the southeast comer of Section 31, of which I happen to own the northeast quarter of that section. Now, if anyone's ever been there -- I have many times -- there are no wetlands on that comer. It's basically pine flatwoods and uplands. So who's to say -- or who decided that I got cut out of this receiving area, you know, just -- just because it was already cleared land? That seems -- that seems to be the pattern that I'm seeing in most of the receiving areas. It's like the committee is going around either with aerial photographs or maybe visiting parts -- part of the sites and saying, "Well, that's already cleared. We can make that a receiving area." Well, I don't agree with that. I mean, just because I didn't get around to, say, farming tomatoes on my 160 acres -- which it is, you know, zoned ag; I could probably do -- I suffer, and thus, I don't get a receiving designation. I mean, that's -- to me, that's kind of ridiculous. So that's -- that's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yeah. Page 198 February 7, 2002 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What -- with the land that you have, what would you like to do with your land that you won't be able to do with it under this plan? MR. MALONEY: Well, I bought -- I've been buying property over the years, upwards of 30 years, and I -- I bought my property for investment. I was always told you buy on the outskirts of town, development will find you, and there's my retirement. You know, I'm real up front. I buy real estate for investment. And I'm all for saving the environment, but -- but if you look at the map over there, we've got plenty, plenty of-- of area that's already designated wetlands. And I'm not saying go in and wipe out everything else that isn't owned by the state. I'm just saying that you got to be careful with people's property rights, because I have -- I had every intention, as an investment, to do something with my property, not just to be limited to selling a TDR that I may or may not be able to sell. Let's face it. You've taken away more receiving areas, possibly. Well, who's going to buy my senders? What about large property owners that end up with 50/50, like earlier today? He's not going to buy any sending rights from anybody. He's got his own. He's going to do his own trade-off. So basically, you know, that -- that's the point of view that I'm taking. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Mulhere, can you answer that question? What does a sending person do when he has no takers for what he wants to send? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what we're going to have to wait and see because -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He can't do anything else, can he? MR. MULHERE: lands. Yeah. MR. MALONEY: Well, he can put one dwelling unit or pasture Well, one -- one for -- one per parcel, Bob, Page 199 February 7, 2002 and I happen to have 160 acres. MR. MULHERE: MR. MALONEY: MR. MULHERE: I understand. That-- that's lousy. The only thing that we can tell you is we went out and had an expert evaluate it, and he tells us that the value of those sending units will be significant. I don't know how long that time frame will be. We've got to implement the process and monitor the process. If this doesn't work, if we don't have a TDR program that does provide for a viable option for those people who are in sending lands, then I suspect the county -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Would have to back away from it. MR. MULHERE: -- may be subject to a challenge, you know. But we can only hope that will work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bob, if we expand the uses of TDRs to infill inside the urban boundary, to build a unit on a project right now, you know, generally you're looking at around 20 to $25,000 in base cost to get the unit started. Wouldn't that, then, theoretically increase the value of those TDRs that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- people like this gentleman are holding? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the only trigger there is that we need to spread these TDRs into the existing urban boundary as well as the sending areas that we're looking at. MR. MULHERE: That's a very good point. If you open that up, that's certainly going to increase the value. Again, what Nicholas told us was in the examples that he's seen where it was successful -- and, again, he'll be here for the board discussion, so some specific questions could be directed to him. But what he told us was the initial value that he's estimated he would predict will increase significantly as Page 200 February 7, 2002 the demand goes up. So it's a question of whether or not there's going to be a demand. By -- by opening that up, you will increase the demand, and yes, the value will go up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because then any development in Collier County that wants more than what the base rate is, as long as the infrastructure can support it, they could buy the TDRs. We have environment gains because the TDR is then used, and then the landowner actually gets more than he would if we waited to go to sending lands. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me ask -- we have a gentleman waiting to speak -- who else wants to speak? The court reporter's been going for 2 hours and 15 minutes here. If there are two of you, I think we'll go ahead and take a break for about ten minutes to give her a chance to move about. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. MR. GERSTEL: Good afternoon. My name is Mark Gerstel, and I'm a Property Rights Action Committee member. A few words: I work hard. I pay my taxes. I give to charitable organizations. I love my wife. I love my son. I worship God, and I fly Old Glory. But I cry when I see what's happening to the constitution and to my way of life by overzealous environmentalists and government agencies that kowtow to their wishes. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I saved a number of comments to the end so I didn't have to keep jumping up. Mostly they're here to support staff. One is supporting staff's position that there should be no golf courses in the sending or NRPA areas. That's been a concern of ours for a very long time. And it is our position, as I understand it's staff's, that no golf courses in sending or NRPA lands, as is proposed in the document that Bob's Page 201 February 7, 2002 leafing through at this time. Secondly, we support Corkscrew Island not being a receiving area. It's unclear to me, but I think it's going to be a neutral area, and that's -- that seems quite acceptable to us. And we've raised concerns about that area in the past, so that's a consistent position of ours. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I get the feeling that's the way it's going to leave here. MS. PAYTON: Good. And the third item is the secondary receiving areas, that we've been concerned about those, and we support the recommendation that those be neutralized. And lastly-- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Eliminated. MS. PAYTON: Eliminated. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is it not eliminated? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. They-- we would eliminate the secondary receiving and call them neutral areas. MS. PAYTON: Call them neutral areas. And lastly, I want to comment on allowable uses, and that's this chart. And there are a number of allowable uses that we would like to see deleted from the NRPA areas, the non-NRPA sending areas, sending areas, conservation lands, the last three columns. Agriculture we touched on, and I'll -- I'll jump over that one because that's an unresolved issue, but you understand our -- our concerns. Then I jump down to parks, open space, and passive recreational uses, and those appear on all three lists. And we don't have definitions for what those might be, and we feel it would be appropriate to have definitions so we could better understand what sort of activities those might be. And it does seem a bit strange to have parks in conservation lands because isn't that what they are? MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. The public access in -- in constituting a park that has, you know, the ability for people to go in Page 202 February 7, 2002 and out is different than, perhaps, a conservation land that doesn't have any access. MS. PAYTON: You mean a parking lot? Well, I think that's why we need definitions, because there is confusion about what a park might be, what open space is. And we heard that open space can be golf courses, but yet there is an exclusion for golf courses on these lands, and there's not a cross reference and-- MR. MULHERE: Well, they're clearly prohibited in sending lands. MS. PAYTON: Well, it still brings up my point about open space. The definition includes golf courses, so there's conflicts within -- possibly within various sections. Essential services, we don't have those listed. But as I remember, going back and looking at the LDC, that it's infrastructure, and we're opposed to that, that sending lands, NRPA lands, conservation lands shouldn't be viewed as surplus lands waiting to put public infrastructure in there. Therefore, we would elimit -- eliminate essential services. And also I raise the issue that if we reference the LDC, doesn't this make it a self-amending plan, and essential services gets -- can be modified and changed through the LDC, and we don't really know through the Comprehensive Plan what that might be? MR. MULHERE: Do you want to deal with that one, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. The DCA has opined in the past that if we put an ordinance number reference and a -- and a date, that that's sufficient because then if you amend it on a later date, it no longer is the date that's in the comp plan. MS. PAYTON: Very good. I remember that now. It locks it in. But still, we don't think essential services are appropriate uses on -- in -- on environmentally sensitive land. Then I jump down to commercial uses accessory to other Page 203 February 7, 2002 permitted uses, and then we have the reference to the operation of a park or preserve. Well, a preserve -- I don't understand this. And, again, I think we need to have some clarification about what would be appropriate commercial uses, and that seems to leave a wide open area for what might happen. We might have a hotel out there. That would seem inappropriate. The staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services, does that mean a firehouse with firemen spending the night or any other type of facility? Again, that goes to essential services and public facilities which, again, we think are inappropriate facilities and uses of these environmentally sensitive lands. And lastly, the oil and mineral extraction and related processing, that was a -- I liked Mr. Strain's idea that we eliminate that and deal with it on an issue-by-issue basis. And lastly, in conservation lands we're allowing churches and day-care centers and cemeteries, and that just seems totally inappropriate to me as well. And why they would be acceptable in conservation lands but not NRPA and sending lands, what the heck is the thinking there? MR. MULHERE: I don't think we have any objection to removing those uses. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The copy I have doesn't even have those on it. Did that come out today? MR. MULHERE: I think they came up on that spreadsheet there. MS. PAYTON: It's on page 3 of 4, the last column. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. That's -- this is the one that came out today. I haven't had time to read it yet. MS. PAYTON: So in summary, we think infrastructure, essential services, public facilities are an inappropriate activity or allowable use on conservation, NRPA, or non-NRPA sending lands. Those last three categories are lands that are identified as environmentally Page 204 February 7, 2002 sensitive. And these have been issues for us since the get-go on this. MR. MULHERE: Just -- David just mentioned that the inclusion of the churches, cemeteries, and whatever the other use was in conservation lands was that there are some inholding, some privately owned lands designated conservation down in and around Ochopee where -- you know, that they may wish to put that type of use to serve that very small population out there. But I don't think that it's a major issue, and certainly I don't think that we would object to removing those uses, those three. MS. PAYTON: None of the other ones? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we'd have to -- we'll have to talk about those other ones. I certainly don't mind -- I mean, I think the staff would be inclined to maybe meet and talk about how we could clarify some -- like, the essential services, because some of them we think probably are appropriate and may need to be located out there, and others we don't feel are really a legitimate issue because it's very unlikely that you're going to see, for example, a firehouse to serve no population out there. MS. PAYTON: Well, why do we have it in there then? MR. MULHERE: Well, we -- we don't. What we have is essential services, and then you go through the land code. So, I mean, I think that the idea is that some of the essential services are appropriate and others aren't. And I think what you're saying is we should spell them out, and I think that's something we're willing to take a look at. MS. PAYTON: And I'd be happy to sit down with you to help you spell them out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If there are no further public speakers -- we'll hear from an intervenor before I close the public hearing. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Page 205 February 7, 2002 Bruce Anderson. I raise these issues not on behalf of any specific client, but just as a matter of internal consistency and procedure. Number one, some of these amendments that are included in this package deal exclusively with the urban area, and it's my feeling that it's inappropriate for them to be included as part of the rural fringe assessment package. I would ask that you make them the subject of a separate ordinance so that in the event there's a challenge filed to these amendments that deal with the urban area, that it doesn't hold up the rural fringe amendments and vice versa. MR. MULHERE: That's something I'll have to defer to Marjorie or Nancy. I suppose you're talking about some natural resource protection strategies that deal strictly with the urban area? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. For instance, I don't think we need to worry about marinas or sea turtles in the rural fringe. MR. MULHERE: I think that's true. But -- but the final order really didn't preclude the development of natural resource protection strategies from applying outside of the rural area. I'm not suggesting your suggestion is a bad one. I'm just saying that the final order said develop natural resources protection strategies, and they apply countywide in some cases. If it's a legal strategy in the event of a challenge to prevent all of it from being challenged, I think that's something I would have to defer to -- MS. LINNAN: For the record, Nancy Linnan. We would only consider that at adoption, obviously, not at transmittal. It's not necessary to do it. It just makes it a little cleaner in case there's any doubt. We'd be happy to talk to you about that. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. My -- my second point is if you'll look at the handout that you got today, the errata -- the errata sheet dated January 7th, page 14 and 15, the Policy 6.11 that applies to the urban designated area, on page 15 there is a -- in subparagraph No. 9, there's a reference to this policy being applied retroactively. It said it Page 206 February 7, 2002 would be -- the language is, "Parcels that were legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall be exempt from this requirement." And I don't think it's right to go back and apply some new standard that we're hoping to adopt in the next few months and apply it on a retroactive basis to clearing that occurred over the last 13 years. If you want to adopt a new standard and enforce it, that's fine, but do it prospectively, not go back in time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, would you mind giving us that reference page again? I haven't been able to find it yet. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The errata sheet, I have that, the one that was passed out -- MR. ANDERSON: The errata sheet, yes. Page 15 -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: -- and it is paragraph No. 9, in parenthesis -- oh, page 6 of 17. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 6 of 17. MR. ANDERSON: Well, they've got two numbers written on here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because 15 and 6 are different. Okay. Now it's a little easier to follow. MR. MULHERE: I think I can cut this fairly short. Unless I'm mistaken, I think Bruce is probably correct, that if parcels were legally cleared prior to 1999, which is the effective date of the ordinance -- the point is that if they were legally cleared prior to 1999, the date of the final order, then I think that that's an appropriate date to put in there, which would be June 22nd, 1999. MR. ANDERSON: Although, see, this policy only applies in the urban area, and the final order had nothing to do with the urban area. MR. MULHERE: So it might be the date of adoption. Page 207 February 7, 2002 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We'll take a look at that. I have to talk with Barbara and other staff members to see what the implication was. Now, the -- moving along here, we talked about the possibility if we had to continue this meeting. I guess there's an available time at 8:30 on Wednesday, but I understand Mr. Adelstein would not be able to attend. Mr. Strain, I was talking with Marjorie. She indicated that if it was language concerns only, we could get with you and talk about the language concerns outside this meeting, but if you could -- if there were policy issues, if we could kind of concentrate on those, we might be able to get through them. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And I-- I'm not talking about necessarily a meeting either; maybe by phone. As long as it's just you, I don't -- and if it's just language stuff, not talking about policy or debating, if you have just some questions about what something means. But if it's more than that, then I think we better -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know where it would lead. MS. STUDENT: -- or if it could flow into more than that, then I don't think we better hazard that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me we might-- and I can't recall this -- pick up Mr. Budd, who's off in Atlanta at a building -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He's supposed to be back on Sunday, I think. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's supposed to be back over the weekend. We could pick him up as a substitute for -- MR. MULHERE: My problem -- I'm not sure that -- I guess I'm going to have to defer to Marjorie, but he wouldn't have been privy to -- and maybe if he looked at the tape or -- he hasn't been here for this meeting. If we have a continuation, what's the implication there? Page 208 February 7, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Well, this -- this has happened before, Bob, and that doesn't preclude somebody from -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are we saying the only time anyone else can make it is Wednesday morning? Is there no other days? I would like to be a part of this. Thursday morning is fine with me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm flying -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's leaving town on Thursday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What happened to Monday and Tuesday? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, they weren't -- Tuesday's a board -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How about Wednes -- oh, we've got Wednesday. I can't. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Monday I have a doctor's appointment, but I can scrub it if that's -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Monday, I could do that too. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: How is Monday, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Monday works for me. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Monday morning only. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Monday morning's fine. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. MULHERE: We could-- It's not good. Not good? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, what's your time line here? When does this -- MR. MULHERE: It's going to the board on February 27th, and we need-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: When's our next Planning Commission meeting? Can we continue it to the first part of the 21st Page 209 February 7, 2002 meeting? MR. MULHERE: We have to have a lot of documentation prepared for the board well in advance, and the public, of that meeting. And if we could do it sooner, the board-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we have a assignment for Monday if we do it in the morning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: good. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, Mr. Midney says it's not I'll come if I'm the only one. I think this might be a convenient place to stop for the day and let Mr. Strain ask his questions in an orderly way on the record. We might all learn something. And then there are issues within issues. We got the hot button issues, and then within them, there are little side things. And I don't think we could do that today if he waived his -- not by 5:15. MR. MULHERE: Well, hopefully Stan will be back in a moment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If we get -- Budd will be here, we hope, on Monday, so we'll have six. MR. MULHERE: Well, what we'll have to do is the staff tomorrow will have to contact all the other members of the Planning Commission to see who could make it for that meeting on Monday, in addition to yourselves. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In addition to -- MR. MULHERE: The five. Right. You already know, but we'll contact -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Budd you can't contact tomorrow because he's not back until Sunday, we think. MR. MULHERE: Well, anybody want to try to call him Sunday night? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can't do that until Sunday Page 210 February 7, 2002 night anyway. We have enough for a quorum on Monday. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We can call his business and find out a -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll do that. We'll do that -- have the staff do that tomorrow. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think I'm ready to close the public hearing, for whatever difference that makes at this point. MR. MULHERE: You're actually closing it, or if there's no more public comment, you're just going to continue to have discussion amongst yourselves on Monday; right? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: On Monday. And we want you to run through all of these items. I don't know whether we want to follow down the EAC's list of motions and see where we stand on them and see how much -- MR. MULHERE: I think that's a good suggestion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would be a good way to approach it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The old motions or the new motions? MR. MULHERE: Well, we've got them all on one sheet. There's 17 or 18 of them or 19, 23, something like that. MR. LITSINGER: 8:30 Monday morning is good. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm prepared to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Don't adjourn. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm prepared to but I won't. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we continue this meeting until Monday at 8:30. Otherwise, you haven't got notice for Monday's meeting. MR. MULHERE: Yes. It has to be continued. You're right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move we continue this meeting till -- Page 211 February 7, 2002 MR. MULHERE: You can close the public meeting, but it's got to be -- the meeting's got to be continued. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We need a second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'll second-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are we going to close the public hearing as part of this or not? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We already -- I just did. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Then that's fine. Call the question. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So the public hearing -- there won't be any public hearing on Monday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If they're here, they -- it's a continuation of this meeting. MR. MULHERE: Let me defer to Marjorie. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We've closed the public hearing. MS. STUDENT: Let me explain. If the public hearing is -- if the meeting's just continued, then the public can still speak. If you close the public hearing now and you -- then Monday it's just discussion amongst the commission. However, I -- if you felt so inclined, you could open -- you could close the public hearing, continue the meeting now, and then if some other people showed up, you could always open -- open it again and take some more. I think you could. It doesn't say you have to do that. I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not inclined to do that because the EAC, it got completely out of hand where you had people in the audience who wanted to take issue with parts of the discussion. And we could -- you know, it could be a tennis match after a while. MS. STUDENT: Correct. And it can get to where it never ends. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I support the chair in Page 212 February 7, 2002 closing the public hearing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now, we had a motion on the floor to continue until 8:30 Monday morning. Any further -- excuse me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's been seconded. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DONOVAN AND BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 213