Loading...
EAC Agenda 04/03/2002 b zC1 y ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL rtr t AGENDA April 3,2002 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W.Harmon Turner Building(Building"F")—Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of March 6,2002 Meeting Minutes IV. Presentation on permitting of municipal potable water wells for Collier County by Terry Bengtsson, South Florida Water Management District V. Land Use Petitions VI. Old Business VII. New Business VIII. Growth Management Update A. Review of Transmittal Amendments for the Rural Fringe. Sp I, ( i ;_„ IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2002 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition(403-2400). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. n March 6, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 6, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. IN REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Ed Carlson ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney William D. Lorenz, Jr., Natural Resources Stan Chrzanowski, P.E., Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Planning Services Stephen Lenberger, Planning Services Page 1 March 6, 2002 kind of vehicle implement, including a batteryor electrical-powered vehicle that could not be used on the beach during sea turtle season. And that was -- we were having problems with people with golf carts riding around on the beach. It's primarily on Fort Myers Beach, but Bonita was concerned that they didn't want to have that kind of problem. Mechanical beach raking has not been a problem on Bonita Beach also, so they -- they specifically put in that it would be one- time only cleaning; like if there was a storm event or fish kill, something like that, but otherwise they do not allow beach raking at all on that beach. Fort Myers Beach, on the other hand, beach raking is quite common. And I brought a bunch of pictures, I'm not sure -- here are some examples (indicating). Particularly at the south end -- I'm not sure if you're familiar with that area -- but particularly at the south end there's a lot of raking, and it's -- it's quite an extensive area that they have there. And with all the raking that -- they do it daily, weekly -- and it just compacts the sand so that when we do have a storm, we do have rain or high tides, we have a lot of water just sitting there. It's also a problem for the sea turtles. On Fort Myers Beach we have a beach and dune management ordinance as well, and that protects the vegetation that's on the beach. And prior to that being passed two years ago, people went out and just -- you know, there was a big outcry about, you know, there's going to be thickets and there's going to be vermin and we're not going to see the water and everything. And there's places like this house here (indicating) that just scraped everything they could, you know, and then they continually rake it on a weekly basis so that they have no vegetation and they have their nice sand. Here is an example (indicating) of once the water gets in there. Page 5 March 6, 2002 It just doesn't -- it doesn't drain. It's packed down pretty well (indicating). So the DEP, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, issues permits for raking. And I'm sure they. Do that here in this county, as well. October of this past year they sent out a letter saying they would no longer issue permits for raking as of October 31st. And so Fort Myers Beach said, you know, "We have all of this raking; we need to regulate it. " So we wrote up a new ordinance. We used a lot of the language from the State and that's -- you'll see that in the ordinance that we incorporated. That just passed. October 4th. If we did not have our beach and dune management code in effect, we would have lost most of the vegetation because people are out there raking -- raking the beaches. So we wrote up this new language and -- and it was -- like I said, it was passed recently. And so we haven't quite implemented everything yet. We're still working on getting the forms, you know, to issue permits and applications. So I'll let you know, I guess, at a later date whether that's working, but we will be issuing permits for raking. MR. CARLSON: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: May I interrupt and ask a question? MS. LIS: Sure. MR. CARLSON: That DEP ruling not to issue raking permits, that was just specific for Bonita Beach area and Fort Myers area? MS. LIS: No, for all of Florida. MR. CARLSON: For all of Florida? MS. LIS: Uh-huh. MR. CARLSON: So that happened here, too? MS. LIS: Yes, that would be my understanding. I have a letter. Page 6 March 6, 2002 MS. BURGESON: I think it was recently changed? MS. LIS: It was just changed back. That was -- yeah, let me get to that. They sent out a letter -- can I put that on here? MS. BURGESON: Sure. MS. LISA: They sent it out in October 11th, and it said that they do not have the authority under Chapter 161 Florida Statutes, to regulate these activities. And so after the conclusion of the 2001 sea turtle nesting season, they no longer would issue any type of permit. And so I talked with Mike Sol, who is the new bureau chief for beaches and coastal systems, and they have since set out -- what has happened, the bureau chief changed. The person that was leaving, . Al Deveroe had sent this letter out, and in January they got a new Bureau Chief, who is Mike Sol. And he has recently sent out a letter just this pass -- I guess last week -- two weeks ago, saying that they will be regulating beach raking again. And so I talked to them on behalf of the Town of Fort Myers Beach and said, "Well, you know, we just put these regulations into place and now, you know, we're going to have two permits. What are we going to do? " . His recommendation was that the Town of Fort Myers Beach take delegation from the State and issue for beach raking, and issue one permit incorporating their rules and then anything we have that would be stricter. And so I -- my understanding is we are moving forward with getting delegation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LIS: You can make copies of these if you want. That's about it. I have some other pictures That -- MR. HILL: Can I interrupt for two questions, please? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MS. LSI: Pardon me? MR. HILL: I've got two questions, if you don't mind. MS. LIS: Okay. Page 7 March 6, 2002 MR. HILL: You mentioned earlier in the Bonita Springs document, it says 9 p.m. To 7 a.m. And then it goes behind the vegetation line? MS. LIS: Yes. MR. HILL: Is that a commonly identified -- I mean, there are areas of beach, which have no vegetation until you get onto the private property. We have been working in terms of what the mean high tide, being the --. MS. BURGESON: When we issue permits for any storage on the beach during sea turtle nesting season, we first try to identify any area on the -- on the dune that may have non-native vegetation that can be removed and that area used for storage because we want to facilitate clearing the beach for sea turtles so that there's no impact there; however, in some circumstances the dunes are in high quality vegetation and we don't want to disturb that. So what we have required there is that any area of, say, concession stand or sales equipment or beach storage furniture has to be tucked as far back up against the dune as possible, and that can only be approved, if they've got a dune walkover that comes out beyond the vegetation line there and they can tuck back in behind that. So we try in every circumstance to get them to completely remove them from the beach during nesting season, but in one -- or a few cases, we have not been able to do that. MR. HILL: Another question -- . MS. LIS: We did put language in here -- . MR. HILL: Excuse me. MS. LIS: -- that I Guess I didn't include that. Where no dune line is present, a line will be projected from the closest area nearby. But in particular of areas on Fort Myers Beach where we have that wide expanse, then they have to be back two hundred feet from the mean high water line. Page 8 March 6, 2002 MR. HILL: And what is rack line? MS. LIS: What is it? MR. HILL: What is the rack line? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You stole my question. It's on page two. MS. LIS: The line of degree and vegetation that's left when the tide comes out similar to -- MR. HILL: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Can I ask Something? You said that you have the one concession; that's at Docks, I believe --. MS. LIS: Right. Docks --. MS. BURGESON: -- or in that vicinity. Do they have to remove as much as they can off the beach? Do they put it in their parking lot? I'm not sure how they store that during nesting season? MS. LIS: Yes. They have to take it off the beach. There is a --. MS. BURGESON: So it comes off the beach completely? MS. LIS: It has to be removed from the beach and put up in the parking lot. We had a problem with this one. It just seemed to be expanding each year. There was more and more equipment, and we were continually having turtles nesting or getting caught up under the catamarans or the other equipment. The rest of the beach is fine. So they started moving it off this year. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any real significant difference between the profiles -- I'm trying to think of the area up around where all the hotels and motels are in Fort Myers Beach. The profile of the beach in Lee County versus the profile of the beach we have in -- it seems to me that there's a lot more native dune lines in Collier County than there are in Lee County -- in the Fort Myers Beach area where all the development is. MS. LIS: Yes. Fort Myers Beach in like where the condos are down on the south end. There's way back by the buildings there's a Page 9 March 6, 2002 ^ few areas, and as they come into develop or remodel, we're having them replant dunes. But we do have some areas in the single family near the single-family homes that have some pretty decent vegetation. That's what we're trying to keep. But it's been a balance. A good thing we have that code In effect because people want to just scrap it away. They like the nice sand. This here (indicating) in particular is one house that we're currently having problems with that is trying to remove his grass as well. MS. BURGESON: When you made your presentation for the City of Bonita Springs to adopt the ordinance, you must have had a lot of support from the community to not have beach raking or -- it seems that that might have been a -- MS. LIS: Beach raking on Bonita, really, has never been an issue. The people there -- it's -- it's a very natural beach, and -- I think it has a lot to do with just being single-family homes that -- it's much -- it's the same Bonita. They have a lot more dunes than, like, Fort Myers Beach. It just depends on what part of the beach you're on. But we had a lot of support from the town -- the city council, I should say. They came to us. They said, "We want to amend our codes to, you know, to make sure we don't have that kind of problem on the beach before -- you know, before we start -- people start asking to rake. " So it was addressed early on. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: What do you do for enforcement? Do you have adequate enforcement? MS. LIS: Of beach raking or lighting or -- MS. LYNNE: Of beach raking and the removal of equipment from the beach? MS. LIS: Well, up -- that's something we're going to start doing now because that was previously done by the State. And they had Page 10 March 6, 2002 one person that covered three counties, and so it was difficult on some of the enforcement. And so that's why we're hoping by putting it in the local ordinance, that we would be able to regulate it more. MS. LYNNE: How often do you foresee checking the beaches just for violations? MS. LIS: We haven't quite got that far. During the turtle season we were out at least once a week, if not more than that. We have myself and another code enforcement officer for Fort Myers Beach. MS. LYNNE: Are you hiring any additional staff? MS. LIS: No. MS. LYNNE: Planning to hire any additional staff for that? MS. LIS: No. MS. LYNNE: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: But -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: I forgot what it was. Oh, Bonita Springs and Fort Myers Beach have independently faced the problem and written legislation. Did the county give this to the cities to do, or did they purposely shy away from making a countywide ordinance, or was it a vacuum in which the two cities took their own initiative to do it? MS. LIS: Well, we had the county ordinance for sea turtles. And when each town became incorporated, they adopted our codes. And then since that time, they've made amendments, you know, specifically to themselves. The county is still under contract with those cities for permitting and enforcement and most everything with the exception of maybe zoning. And so we -- county staff assisted them in writing these regulations. They pretty much said this is what we want to do and then we wrote the regulations and it had to go before the city councils to get them adopted. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman? Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The balance of unincorporated Lee County, Page 11 March 6, 2002 other than the city of Sanibel is just the sea interface north of Sanibel on Upper Captiva and Cayo Costa, which are largely less developed certainly in the Cayo Costa and Captiva. And the Captiva portion, I think that there aren't these similar kinds of issues to the same degree as experienced both by the Town of Fort Myers Beach and the City of Bonita Springs where there's a much greater degree of development. And perhaps the reason why there's been further amendments to each of those codes after they were initially adopted. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You know, a question I've never quite understood -- and it's a little off-- but it's refers to lighting. But having experience and being involved in setting codes on the east coast of Florida, and setting some very extensive codes, probably 15 years ago regarding lighting and having witnessed the problem with lighting on the east coast and seeing hatchlings getting out on AlA and things of that sort. On the west coast of Florida where the sun is coming up from the other side, what influences the hatchlings to go to the water when they're not seeing that natural light source? I always wanted to ask that question? MS. LIS: I will defer to her. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. HAVERFIELD: First of all, the hatchlings hatch at night -- COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can I get your name, please? MS. HAVERFIELD: For the record, Eve Haverfield. I'm the director of Turtle Time in Lee County. We monitor the beach from the north end of Fort Myers Beach to the Collier County line. Hatchlings hatch at night, and they have very sensitive eyes. And they can discern shadows. So as they're emerging from their nest, they look around, they look for an area of unimpeded vision; that's usually over the seaward horizon. Even if there's no moon or Page 12 March 6, 2002 stars, they can discern the difference between the vegetative shadows behind them on the landward side, and the wide-open expanse of the seaward horizon. If there's a moon out and the moon happens to be behind them, some people thought, well, the moon is going to be brighter behind the nest than over the water, but turtles can differentiate between ambient light and light that guides them. And when you've got the moonlight shining all over, it is not a brightness that lures them to the water. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So it's not necessarily the sun --. MS. HAVERFIELD: Not the sun at all. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- coming up over on the east coast --. MS. HAVERFIELD: No. No. No. They --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- it's a fact of their natural conditions. MS. HAVERFIELD: They don't respond to the sun. MR. HILL: Did it make any difference of your early morning activities when you were over there, then you were over here, the sun coming up? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't know really how to answer that question. Next. MS. LYNNE: In relation to the Turtle Time, how often do you patrol the beaches? MS. HAVERFIELD: We're out there starting every single day starting about April 25 until the last nest is hatched. MS. LYNNE: Do you report violations to the code enforcement? MS. HAVERFIELD: Yes, we do. First of all, our -- because we are a nonprofit all-volunteer group, we try to work with individuals first, using education as our primary focus. And then after -- if we Page 13 March 6, 2002 see no response from a given situation, then we report it to county code enforcement. MS. LYNNE: And once it's reported, do you see suitable action to that? MS. HAVERFIELD: Most of the time, yes. And if we don't, then we will report it again, more forcefully. MS. LYNNE: Thank you. MS. HAVERFIELD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. General question. What kind of numbers and what kind of species do we have in Lee County? MS. HAVERFIELD: Lee County is host to primarily the loggerhead sea turtles, although on occasion we will have greens nesting primarily on Sanibel. I have not documented any greens nesting on Fort Myers Beach to the Collier County line. About five years ago we had a kensarainon (phonetic) nest on Sanibel. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Really? MS. HAVERFIELD: Uh-huh. Day-time nester, so it's easy to identify. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But none of like the Hawkes Bills or the leather backs or anything of that sort -- . MS. HAVERFIELD: No. They are in our waters, and I've certainly documented stranded Hawkes bills and Ridleys. Never a leatherback. Maura, have you documented a leather back strandings? MS. KRAUSE: No. Maura Krause, Collier County Natural Resources Department. We haven't had any leather back strandings, we've gotten a lot of sightings on the beach. And we get Hawkes bills and Ridleys as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other questions we have? Page 14 March 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: Yes. Yes. Yes. As far as turtle nesting in general, are you seeing different intensity of nesting in the Fort Myers Beach, which is heavily commercial, versus Bonita Beach? MS. HAVERFIELD: Yes. Certainly Bonita Beach -- the physical characteristics of that beach are much. Better for sea turtles. It's a high-energy beach -- or at least higher than Fort Myers Beach, meaning the angle of the beach is higher, and turtles do prefer that. Also, the sand is more coarse and because it hasn't been repeatedly raked, seaweed mixes in with the sand so the beach drains well. So yes, we've had good nesting numbers on Bonita Beach. 2001 was not a good year in any way, shape, or form because of the storms and so forth. We lost about 73 percent of our nests. In 2000 -- in the year 2000 on Bonita Beach on a two-mile stretch of beach, we had 105 nests, compared to Fort Myers Beach, which is a seven-mile stretch of island, we had 53 nests last year. And the year before that I can't remember. But since I've been monitoring Fort Myers Beach since 1989, that year I had five nests, so we're now up to about 62 nests on Fort Myers Beach. So it's a combination of people being more turtle friendly, lights being out, and possibly being more turtles being out there. So, yeah, it's improved. MR. CARLSON: Okay. So in your situation in Lee County, you've got volunteers going out every morning looking for crawls and marking nests? MS. HAVERFIELD: Yes. MR. CARLSON: And this is happening at Fort Myers Beach where there has been historically an intensive amount of beach raking? MS. HAVERFIELD: Yes. MR. CARLSON: So tell us -- I mean, what we're trying to do here is resolve this potential -- or real conflict. We're trying to figure Page 15 March 6, 2002 it out between beach raking and sea turtle nesting. I mean, what can you tell us? Do you have people getting out there raking before the beach is checked? Is that a problem up there? MS. HAVERFIELD: It hasn't been, because the regulations say that we have until 9 o'clock to check the beach. So prior to 9 o'clock, the beach rakers are not allowed out there. We are out there at sunrise, and our job is to get the beach monitored and if we need to relocate a nest, that has to be done before 9 o'clock. I do have a problem in the new regulation right now because a change in the time when beach raking is allowed according to the town ordinance has been entered, and that is they're saying I have to be done by 8 o'clock and that may be a problem for them. If I have not monitored their particular area and they rake and they destroy a nest, it's essentially a take and that's a federal offense. So, yeah, I'm going to have a problem there. I'm hoping to appeal to the council that they rescind that 8 o'clock cut-off time and reestablish it to 9 o'clock. But, again, you have to monitor. You have to identify your nests. You have to do GPSs on nests and on false crawls prior to raking. So -- you know, the State -- according to State regulations -- and the State regulations are mandated by the U. S. Official Wildlife Dangerous Species Regulations, we have until 9 o'clock, basically, to complete our tasks. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Well, it seems to me there's always going to be an intense interest in commercial -- you know, commercial operators to rake the beach. I mean, that's the case in Lee County and it's the case here. MS. HAVERFIELD: I think we can co-exist though. I mean, we have to respect each other's time frame in what we have to do. Most of the time we are done before 9 o'clock. And we have a system of-- of notifying all the beach groomers and beach Page 16 March 6, 2002 concessionaires when we're done. And most -- as I said, most of the time we're done well before 9 o'clock. From a physical standpoint of the beach, I personally don't think that raking the beach is healthy for a beach. But, you know, we see turtle nests have survived in some circumstances in beaches that are raked consistently. But it does degrade the quality of the beach. There -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. Go ahead. MS. HAVERFIELD: There are methods of raking them -- raking beaches utilizing less penetrating methodologies and -- for instance, the Zambonie that removes ever bit of debris from the beach probably does more damage to the beach than anything. But if you -- there are some rakers on Fort Myers Beach that basically utilize chain-link fence. They don't penetrate the sand. They remove some of the really nasty stuff; cigarette butts and things like that, but not all the vegetation. A healthy beach has vegetation mixed in with it, and then that provides drainage, and you don't get the green slim. But, again, that's MR. CARLSON: Well, I don't think raking versus vegetation is our problem. Correct me, if I'm wrong? MS. BURGESON: We do have -- . MR. CARLSON: I mean, our raking is -- go ahead. MS. BURGESON: We have a question on raking and that would be if it's necessary to rake the beach daily during sea turtle nesting season, that it may actually be better for the beach if we can identify a maximum number of times per week that we would allow raking during sea turtle nesting season. So that's something that -- I think that we might want to consider. As far as beach raking being done prior to inspections, I don't think that's happening very often any more, and that may not be as much of a concern, from what I'm understanding this morning, as just Page 17 March 6, 2002 the constant raking and compacting of the beach to -- to provide less habitat for the sea turtles to actually come in and next on. MR. CARLSON: Now, their system has a cut off time of-- was 9 o'clock. Hopefully, you can get it back to 9 o'clock, but we don't have that kind of system. We have sort of a check-off when it's -- there's not an established time. It's on a case-by-case, after it happens something gets checked off. MS. BURGESON: Right. Our language identifies a particular time, but puts in a caveat that says under no circumstances, though, if that -- if that time comes prior to the sea turtle monitoring being done, then you need to wait until the monitoring is completed. So the language that's in our code requires the monitoring to be completed before anybody can come out and start activities on the beach. It identifies a general time of, I think, 9 o'clock, but provides for later. MR. CARLSON: It could be after? MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Just one question. I know again, speaking from east coast experience that Palm Beach County, especially the northern end of Palm Beach County has intensity of a 1, 000, 1,500 nests a mile, some of those areas. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to see if we could get a copy of what they do over there, because I know there's a lot of people that have a lot of condos in the beach -- especially in the northern Palm Beach County area. You know, I've seen the marks. I know the GPSs, the patrols are out there, everything of that sort, and they do some type of raking. I don't know what it is. But just to see how they handle it with that kind of intensity of nests. MS. BURGESON: Okay. We'd be happy to get copies of that. MS. HAVERFIELD: My understanding of the east coast raking policy is that they are allowed to -- kind of what you all have done. They are allowed to rake the rack line, but they're not allowed to rack Page 18 March 6, 2002 above the mean high tide line because they don't mark all their nests. There's just too many. You'd have a forest of markings out there. So they don't mark all of their nests. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They just keep the raking down below the high tide level? MS. HAVERFIELD: Yes. They remove the rack line. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: Barbara --. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MS. LYNNE: -- I think the language for ours is saying that the beaches are going to be monitored regularly, but we actually struck out weekly and just put some kind of regularly -- MS. BURGESON: That's for inspectors to go out, not for the monitoring. The monitoring is done daily. MS. LYNNE: Right. But I think, though, Ms. Lis from Lee County said that her code enforcement officers are out weekly. Was that true? MS. LIS: Yes. For writing regulations or code enforcement, and beach raking? MS. LYNNE: Yeah. MS. LIS: During the fertile season, we've been going out once a week. MS. LYNNE: So if that's reasonable in Lee County, why isn't that reasonable in Collier? MS. BURGESON: I think Maura could probably answer the question in terms of how often we go out for the lighting. And as far as how often we go out as a code enforcement just to see if there's concerns or issues, I would not be able to answer that for you. Code enforcement staff has three people right now doing environmental code enforcement. And I know that they try to get out there every time there's a large event scheduled during the annual beach events Page 19 March 6, 2002 permits review. So they do try to get out to monitor for each of those large events to make sure that they're in compliance. And they do spot checks, but they're probably, because of their staffing, not -- I don't want to say that they're not doing weekly, but I'm not sure if they are. MS. LIS: And if I could clarify, Fort Myers Beach we're doing weekly because of the amount of lighting problems that we still have there. Bonita, Captiva, I think that we do once a week, and Boca Grande is -- we have very few people up there at that time of year, so that's maybe once a month or as -- if we get complaints. So it's primarily Fort Myers Beach because of the amount of people and lighting we have. So maybe that clarifies a little better. MS. LYNNE: I just think that my point is, and we discussed this before, that if you're going to allow -- do you guys allow vehicles on the beach besides the beach raking, like, to put out lawn chairs and umbrellas and catamarans and stuff? MS. LIS: Right. As part of the vendors, yes. MS. LYNNE: Okay. So my point is if we're going to put those kinds of regulations in place and we're licensing to Ms. Lis say this is, you know, working, but we don't have the code enforcement out there to make sure that the regulations are followed. MS. BURGESON: I'm not saying that we don't. I just don't know how often they're out there. They may be out there several times a week, but I just can't answer that for them. Maura said she can handle that. MS. KRAUSE: The Natural Resource Department staff starts their beach lighting monitoring on the first of May. If we see a problem, we get immediately in contract with those problem areas, and if it's not corrected by our next inspection, which is two weeks later -- you know, we skip a week and then we go back on a new moon -- then we call our code enforcement and then they go out and Page 20 March 6, 2002 check it, and we work them very closely on that. But we try to resolve the problem first before we call code enforcement in. They do not do regular inspections. The Natural Resources Department does the inspections, and if we have a problem, we contract them. MS. BURGESON: Also, Maura made a presentation recently. She has copies of that with her and there may be some of the things that she could present to you that would answer some more questions. MS. KRAUSE: I don't have my full presentation with me, but the Coastal Advisory Committee has been discussing beach raking because we're talking about funding issues right now. And they asked -- there were a lot of questions. I have a couple of pictures, and I've got a small black and white of the presentation that I did give. This (indicating) is what prompted their discussions here. And these pictures were taken by a number of the Coastal Advisory Committee -- and I have hundreds of these pictures. This is from the dumpster. This is what our current beach rake picks up; lots of shell and rock. Actually, this was taken during -- during the red tide and there's only one. Mullet there. But the presentation that I gave them had a lot of examples of what we're currently doing with beach raking. Beach raking -- we started beach raking in 1991 with a tractor with a chain-link fence behind it on Marco Island and that was following the Marco Beach Renourishment. In 1995 the equipment got a little more fancy and it was a chain- link fence dragged behind a tractor that had a pronged rake that went into the ground two inches, and then it was flattened out. It's kind of hard to see (indicating) -- I had a full presentation. In 1996 the county started purchasing these beach techs and the Barber surf rake, which are much more complicated equipment. And the reason they started beach raking was to provide routine Page 21 March 6, 2002 maintenance and clean up after storm events on the restored beaches of Marco, Park Shore, and Vanderbilt Beach. It once occurred on a monthly basis. We had one rake that they brought from Marco to Vanderbilt, to Park Shore, to the City of Naples. And in the past year they've purchased two other rakes. And what once occurred on a once-a-month-basis now occurs on a daily basis on all the beaches. So I went and I did a survey -- and I don't have Lee County on here because I didn't have the data in time for my slide -- but I checked with some of the other counties -- and you can see on this picture (indicating) that, you know, all the sand that is in this dumpster -- but anyway, I checked with Palm Beach, Sarasota, Broward, and Pinellas County to find out where they raked, the frequency, if they did it during turtle season, what kind of rakes they used, where they disposed of it, and their reasoning for raking. And Palm Beach County, they have a lot of municipalities and cities and stuff, but they don't rake on the natural beaches. They only rake. Undernourished beaches. They rake twice a week. Off season they rake the entire beach. During turtle season they only rake at mean high water. And they use a tractor with tines that doesn't take anything off the beach. They dispose of it right on the beach, and their purpose is sea wood. They are close to the gulf stream, as well as Broward County, and they get large seaweed events that we don't get here. We don't have that that comes up on the beach. Sarasota County, they rake on some of their natural beaches, which is Siesta Key. And Siesta Key is a natural beach, but it's a highly utilized beach. They don't get turtle nesting on that beach. It's very, very infrequent. And it's raked every day. And during turtle season they rake that whole beach in their area only once a week and the rest is restricted to mean high water, which is -- was the State regulation is that it was restricted to mean high water. And they have Page 22 March 6, 2002 these similar beach rakes; the Barber beach rake. They dispose of it off the beach. And they do it because of seaweed and red tide. Broward County is the same as Palm Beach County, and they dispose of it on the beach as well. Pinellas County, they do it on renourished beaches, not on the natural beaches, and they do it one to four times a week, and only at mean high water. Off season -- or during turtle season and the whole beach during their off season. The problem we have with it is -- with what we're doing is we're removing a lot of sand and a lot of shell. And the natural resource impacts are that you increase compaction over a misidentified false crawl. Sometimes the wind or rain or something has obscured a turtle crawl or it's been misidentified by a turtle monitoring person, in which case there's a whole host of issues that compaction and running equipment constantly every single day over a turtle nest is not a good thing. It also removes seed sources. The dunes that we have here provide a seed source for building more. Dunes. And we're taking away any possibility of any kind of natural dune formation if we keep taking the seed sources away. We also don't know what the effects are on the Nacrone vertebrates, mold crabs -- they rake right. Down in mean high water, cocinas, and other live animals. They remove nutrients from the system. They are taking them totally off the beach and sticking them in a dumpster. So we don't know where we are going as far as -- Coastal Advisory Committee doesn't know where they're going with this issue. They're going to be listening to another presentation by the beach rakers. So what we recommended was public -- more public education. You know, leave only footprints. We don't have a real big garbage problem, although some people think that people come to the beach and just leave their Page 23 March 6, 2002 trash all over the beach. I think a little more public education of, remember, to use your garage can and stuff like that would be good. Also, we're working with The Conservancy in conducting a survey. We started the survey actually yesterday on Marco Island, which is flat and also has the green areas, just like Carol's picture there of water standing on the beach. It's currently standing on the beach right now, and it is green. But anyway, we started the survey yesterday and we're asking questions like, "Why do you come to the Beach? Do you look for shells? Do you see any difference between this beach and a natural beach? " And so we just started that and we'll be doing that for the next couple of months. Also, I was encouraging the beach committee to look into the Adopt-A-Shore Program. "The Keep Collier Beautiful" has an Adopt-A-Shore Program, and I think that we all could work a little more closely with them. It's similar to adopt a road, where people go out in the dunes and they, you know, take baggies and everything that flies into the dunes out of the dunes. We can work on keeping our dunes a little cleaner. And, also, to enforce liter laws and fines for enforcement. The City of Naples even have policemen that are out there all day long. We'd also like them to figure out exactly what -- we need to look at what we're doing. Are we trying to smooth the beach? During turtle season maybe they can equip these large machines with a chain-link fence and only allow, like, the smoothing during turtle season or off season, whatever. And we also need to keep better records of the materials. As you can see from this picture (indicating), that's a huge pile of sand. We're paying money to put the sand on the beach and then we turn around and take it all off. So, I mean, we also need to have a clear definition of necessity. You know, beach raking is allowed during red tide, during a Page 24 March 6, 2002 storm event, or when there's "X" volume of material on the beach, or "X" amount of feed-a-beach or miles of beach -- and -- that's all that I have to say. But the beach committee is looking at this, and if you-all want us to keep you informed, you know, of what's going on with them, then let us know. MR. HILL: This is a beach committee appointed by whom? MS. KRAUSE: By the county. It's a board-appointed committee. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have any other questions? Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Are the beach vehicle regulations in a different code than this? The operation and use of vehicles on the beach in Lee County or Bonita or. Fort Myers? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's back here (indicating). MS. LIS: I believe they're the same. We've all copied what the State requirement is, which is a vehicle has to have 10 pounds per square inch. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 627, it really spells it out for you what --. MS. LIS: It's going to be interesting to regulate that, but -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can I ask a question? Just generally about -- and we've had a lot of knowledge about turtles. I've always wanted to ask this question about turtles. It's a little off the track. Give me three minutes. And that is, you know, we've really improved the way that we handle nests and take care of nests. I'm sure we still have a long way to go, and it's really apparent, especially on the east coast where you see numbers, but I've always seen that the mortality rate in young sea turtles is so high. I've heard numbers, 60, 70, 80 percent. It would seem to me from a laymen's term, that a concerted effort by government in some way to Page 25 March 6, 2002 essentially catch these little guys in some manner, give them another year to grow, or two year to grow -- and I've seen information that says that mortality rate really goes down in the second year and the third year, in an attempt to re-establish the native population. Now, is anybody doing anything like that? MS. KRAUSE: I did it for five years. The State does not allow that anymore. We did -- I personally did that for five years, and we raised 60 to 80 hatchlings for eight months, and they're about that big (indicating) in eight months. When you raise them in captivity they grow much quicker than they do in the wild. But they were waiting to see -- the State has stopped that program altogether because they didn't know how that was going to affect their adulthood, their migrations, et cetera, et cetera, and they're waiting to see if they come back and nest. The problem with that is tagging -- the tags fall off. They don't know if they come back to nest. A turtle that I released 15 years ago showed up in Cuba last year. And it wasn't nesting. So they don't know what she was doing. So we know that one is alive. But they've been doing that for many, many years in Texas with the Ridley and in an attempt to establish, nesting populations, and, you know, it's still kind of sketchy. So since it takes them so long to mature -- results from programs like that take a long time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? MS. BURGESON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. BURGESON: Once in a while we get applications for vehicle-on-the-beach permits where they claim or state that they cannot maintain the 10 PSI on the tires because of the size of the vehicle or the weight of the load. I know the State ordinance doesn't address using vehicles heavier than that except during, I believe, Page 26 March 6, 2002 beach renourishment events annually, or as often they are required. I'm just wondering if any -- if either Carol or if Maura has any suggestions or comments on how we handle those. For instance, one right now is in -- where they want to bring sand out onto the beach and they're saying the large dump truck can't meet that weight. Then the opportunity is to either ask them to put that in a smaller vehicle to bring the sand out to the beach to keep the PSI low, or to allow them to bring that out in a larger, heavier vehicle and have them -- they're suggesting possibly following that with tilling the beach. And I don't know which of those is something that we would want to try to direct, and whether that's something that in the future we address in our code for those times when we are having a difficult time getting someone to use vehicles with lower PSI. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is the 10 PSI to -- for. Non -- so we don't compact the sand, or is the 10 PSI for the potential crushing of nests? MS. BURGESON: Do you want to --. MS. LIS: It's for compacting the sand. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's for compacting the sand? MS. LIS: Right. The code also reads -- it's the State regulations as well as the codes we adopted, they have to be 10 feet away from any turtle nests, so it wouldn't be impacting the nests. It's just for compacting. (Mr. Coe present.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. Hi, Mick, sign in. MS. LIS: We haven't had the situation yet, if anybody wants to come on with more than 10 PSI. We had a situation recently where the State allowed some sand to be brought onto the beach at a house, but their understanding was that the sand would be brought in from the landward side of the house where instead the fellow came with a big dump truck and came down the beach. And their only response Page 27 March 6, 2002 would be that he needed to restore the beach where he got stuck, so -- it probably -- it would be best if they could just bring it in off-- from the residence. I guess we'll deal with that. MS. BURGESON: So you are keeping them to less than 10 PSI then on the permits? MS. LIS: We're just starting this, so it's new. I don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other questions? I'd like to thank y'all for coming and talking to us today. We really appreciate it. MS. BURGESON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And turn it back over to Barbara. MS. BURGESON: Okay. We have just three land development code amendments that are environmentally sensitive for this land development code cycle. The first one -- Steve Lenberger is going to review the first one with you, which is an ordinance relating to our special treatment section of land development code. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lenberger, Planning Services Department. The amendment to the special treatment section is to allow some flexibility in administrative approval for smaller sites which have been impacted for expansion of existing communication towers, to try to get them all located in the same place, and for dealing with petitions which have already been reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, Steve, just for clarification, this is 22248? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: Currently the exception section of the special treatment section is very limited what staff can approve Page 28 March 6, 2002 administratively because of the site alteration. Basically, can't remove any vegetation, can't alter the elevation of the ground, create retention areas; things of that sort. So staff is real limited what we can approve, other than a couple of minor things such as single- family homes with less than 10 percent site alteration. So we changed the language to limit the site, which was currently listed there as 20 acres to 5 acres, and listed the criteria. And basically, the first one we did was on previously cleared areas. As you know, in some of the special treatment areas, not all of the area is vegetated. The special treatment overlays are generally Indicating the general area of a wetland. They're also indicating the whole area in the Big Cypress area, a Critical State Concern. So obviously not all the area is vegetated. So what we try to do is identify areas which have been previously cleared legally and with minimal amount of native vegetation regrowing on the site, and we've indicated 10 percent. Like I said earlier, we also indicated the conditional use process addresses environmental concerns through environmental impact statement, or they get an exemption of the environmental impact statement. And basically, staff now is required to present two petitions to the Board of County Commissioners for the same project, basically the same site plan, special treatment permit and a conditional-use petition. And instead of writing two resolutions and two separate staff reports, we basically listed here that where conditional use has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and environmental impact statement reviewed, that we wouldn't have to go -- we could reapprove this S.T. Permit for that project administratively. We would identify environmentally sensitive concerns in the conditional-use resolution at the time it was reviewed like we do now. Page 29 March 6, 2002 Expansion of existing communication towers, pretty much self- explanatory. We limit it to Five acres or less total site alteration, both existing and proposed. And we've also increased the single-family administrative approval up to 15 percent from 10 percent. I have reviewed most of the S.T. Permits for the single family. Most of the site alteration falls between 10 and 15 percent. People over 10 percent, generally don't wind up coming back. The land sale often falls through. So I felt that if we bump it up to 15 percent, we would basically allow those parcels to be developed and allow the process to go forward administratively through this special treatment program. And those are the basically the changes. There's one correction in Section 2.2.24.8.1 -- no. .2 -- excuse me -- and other than that, there is no other changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Pleasure of the council? MR. CARLSON: Question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: In the case of communication towers, the real potential impact there is not impacts to vegetation, it's impacts to wildlife, especially birds. So under this plan, are tower locations being properly evaluated for their potential affects on bird populations and potential bird strikes and where they're located near fly aways or colony sites? Is that review still happening, or is it just administratively approved? MR. LENBERGER: The administrative approval would only be for the expansion of existing tower sites, where there's a tower already. The new tower sites would be addressed under the conditional-use process, or on previously cleared areas. MR. CARLSON: When you say "existing tower site, " it doesn't mean the addition of another tower, it means alteration of the site around the tower and it's -- you still have that same tower? MR. LENBERGER: We didn't identify that. Most of the Page 30 March 6, 2002 expansions that I have seen are for equipment around the tower. But we haven't eliminated the use of adding an additional tower. MR. CARLSON: Well, I think any time another tower goes up, that should get some scrutiny rather than administrative approval. Is that still going to happen? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Didn't we have -- remember when they were putting those communications towers across Alligator Alley? Didn't they have to come before us and Fish and Wildlife, and everybody commented on it? MR. HILL: They did. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. They're listed actually in the section of the code dealing with communication towers and identifying their locations. So they are already in the Land Development Code in the communication tower section of the code. As far as communication towers, the Land Development Code allows communication towers of permitted use if they're under a certain height. Once you exceed that height, you have to go through the conditional-use process. MR. CARLSON: And what's the height? MR. LENBERGER: I'd have to look in the code. It would take me a few minutes. MS. BURGESON: I'm not sure what the height is on that either. I have a suggest that might help resolve your concern about the additional towers is we might change the language in No. 4 to say "Expansion of accessory structures associated with existing communication towers." MR. CARLSON: Okay. MS. BURGESON: So that would allow you to just expand the - - really, it would just be the accessory structures that are basically on the ground adjacent to the primary existing tower. MR. CARLSON: That sounds good. Page 31 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good. Mr. Carlson, would you entertain a motion to approve it as amended? MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh, one more question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. LYNNE: If it's going to -- excuse me -- conditional-use approval, does that mean we've already seen it once? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, if it has an environmental impact statement. MS. LYNNE: It comes through us first -- . MR. LENBERGER: Right. That's correct. Also,. Yes, any site with an S.T. Overlay -- so, yes, it would have to go through you. MS. LYNNE: We would see it at least once? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. HILL: In Paragraph No. 4 there has the . Five acres in size, is that a typical size of the site for communication towers, or is that an arbitrary -- . MR. LENBERGER: It's the minimal size for an agricultural zoned piece of land, five acres. MR. HILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Further discussion? No? Okay. Mr. Carlson, would you like to entertain a motion on this amendment as revised? MR. CARLSON: You're picking on me? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. Okay. Mr. Hill? MR. CARLSON: I will so move. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. COE: Second. Page 32 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any further discussion? (No discussion.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, then the motion. Is approved, 2.2.24.8, with the to .8.4 to add the word "accessory structures associated with communication towers. " All in favor? MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure about the protocol here. But is there anybody --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me. MR. HILL: -- that Might --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I apologize. Anybody would like to discuss this particular amendment from the public? Hearing none. All of those in favor? (Unanimous response. ) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oppose same sign? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The second amendment. Stan Chrzanowski is going to present, and that has to do with the municipal wells. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. I'm. Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the Development Services Engineering Review Department. And the amendment you're looking at is an amendment to Section 2.6.9.2 and then 2.6.9.1 of the Land Development Code. At the present time in all areas of the county, if you want to extract water for portable public municipal wells, you have to get a conditional use. The new technology that is out -- most of the wells are going in a lot deeper than they were before. I think they're hitting six, seven, eight hundred feet, hitting the mid-Hawthorne formation. It may be called the Mid-Hawthorne Act before, I forget. And the Page 33 March 6, 2002 water that's coming out is being treated by reverse osmosis. When do you this, you don't affect the small private wells in the neighborhood. You don't affect the surface bodies of water, the lakes, the canals, whatever our conditional-use system is fairly public intensive and this is an essential service, supplying portable water to the community. We, staff, the utility department, think that an objective engineering view of where you're putting these wells is probably sufficient to allow for the placement of the wells without public review. That's what this amendment is all about. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Stan, does the District still require permitting of such wells? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. The District permits and the county permit's wells --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wells -. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- it's just the conditional use -- and this applies just from now on. It doesn't apply to anything in the past. The conditional-use procedure is above and beyond the well permit and the water management well district permit. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're saying that basically all the technical requirements of wells still have to meet through the utility department, through the county, and through the District is still there? MR. CHRZANOWKSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: The underlying -- the added language in 2.6.9.1, is the methodology accurate enough to determine if, in fact, it's not impacting the individual water supplies, bodies of waters Et cetera? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It should be. You are -- aquifers are at different elevations. You have the surface water aquifer, you have the shallow water aquifer, and you have the deeper aquifers -- I don't know how many are down there. In between the aquifers, you have Page 34 March 6, 2002 what they call an aquiclude or an aquitard. The aquitard retards the water going between two aquifers. The aquiclude precludes water from moving between one aquifer and another. If you have an aquiclude between the aquifer you're penetrating and the aquifer you're trying to protect, theoretically there should be no passage of water -- you smile when I say that -- and any testing that you do ahead of time should show that. I'm sure they drill courses. They go down -- I'm only an engineer, not a geologist, but I've been Told -- . MR. HILL: You're comfortable --. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I've been told that the technology is getting better. MR. HILL: It should be. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Those of us who are, you know, very interested in groundwater use are still going to continue to monitor these kind of well fields through the notices from the Water Management District. So, you know, that is an interested party kind of notification. We will be involved in that. But I admire your guts in standing up here and saying point-blank that those -- those -- there is no connection between those lower aquifers and the upper. But are you aware of a situation in Dade County where they put in deep well -- deep injection wells to put waste water into aquifers way down there, which that material is now arriving at the surface? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Don't tell Fred Tenant. No, I wasn't aware of that, and I am aware that -- when they were talking about the -- I guess it's the Caloosa Bay project, they realized that what they talked -- what they thought was an aquiclude was probably an aquitard, and there was maybe more of a direct connection than anybody knows. Like I say, the technology is getting better. Even if you had public input into that system, would the public know anymore than the geologists and the scientists and the engineers that Page 35 March 6, 2002 are doing the study and telling us that it's going to be okay? MR. CARLSON: But the more we use these deeper aquifers, the more we learn about them. And in the case of Dade County, they did find that the aquicludes were not aquicludes, that they were permeable and they have a big problem over there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Is that a yes or a no? MR. CARLSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Yes, sir, . Mr. Coe. MR. COE: What about the ones that are already in, are we going to go back and check them to make sure that they meet the requirements, or do they need to be checked? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the present thinking on the part of staff is that we have to go back and look at some of these wells and make sure that all the procedures were followed. MR. COE: Are they going to still have buffers around them and all of that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ray Smith is rewriting -- not exactly rewriting the well protection zone ordinance, he's redoing the exhibits that accompany the ordinance that show primary and secondary protection zones what you -- the areas where you can and cannot do anything. A lot of the wells have been put in place since the last time the exhibit was updated, and he is catching those wells in this latest update. MR. COE: Is there a requirement for still checking the groundwater even though these wells are deep? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. From what I've been told, and I haven't checked this in a couple of months, but the City of Naples is presently trying to -- interesting picture -- the City of Naples is at present trying to get their -- their well field, if you look at the map on the visualizer, their well. Page 36 March 6, 2002 Field is the one out here (indicating),which is near Everglades Boulevard and Desoto, along the canal. My understanding is they've been into the district for quite a while now, and there was some question as to whether they were impacting surface water. So there is an engineering firm that was putting in a bunch of monitoring wells and going to monitor before they renew the City's permit, which to me is a moot point because you can't stop 70, 000 people from irrigating their lawn and drinking and bathing and showering. But they're out there doing it anyway. MR. CARLSON: Well, may I? MR. COE: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Were you finished, Mickey? MR. COE: Yes. MR. CARLSON: I think what it boils down to is that when the permits are issued by the Water. Management District, there does have to be monitoring, perpetual groundwater monitoring to detect any possible impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and, you know, people's local water supply for local wells. And, indeed, I think that that -- there has to be some sort of mechanism to put people on water restrictions once the - - you know, the impacts have reached whatever is defined as an unacceptable level; that water restrictions have to be implemented to prevent those kind of draw-downs and those kind of impacts. And that happens at the district level, water management district level. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, ma'am? MS. LYNNE: How many of these municipal wells are you planning to be drilling? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I had asked someone from the utility department to be here, but he's not here. I couldn't tell you. I do know that -- I believe that there's four or five that they plan on adding to this well field along Vanderbilt out at the east end of the well field. Page 37 March 6, 2002 I think that's their immediate concern. I suppose as the population grows and the need for water grows, that we're just going to keep adding wells all over the place. MS. LYNNE: And the water table is going to drop eventually? Isn't that the way it works? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not if the science is right about the deep-water table not being connected to the shallower water tables. MS. LYNNE: So what's the point? I still don't understand the point of exempting the municipal wells from the conditional-use permit? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The conditional-use procedure is extremely long. It involves public meetings, you have to rent rooms, you have to get the public involved, you have to go to EAC, you have to go to the planning commission, you have to go to the Board of County Commissioners. And from the time they realize -- or do the engineering on the well until the time they can drill it is going to be maybe in the order of six months. Seeing how this is an essential service, potable water for the community, the utility department wants to be able to drill the wells a lot quicker based on proper engineering. County engineering review staff, looking at what they want to accomplish by going to the deeper aquifers and not impacting the surface at all, we agree with them. MS. LYNNE: So you're telling me that a major change like drilling more wells in this county shouldn't take at least six months of consideration? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sure the engineering takes probably a lot more than that. But it's the public hearings that are stacked on top of that that add another six months to the process that -- I hate to /0. say we're trying to get around, but we don't see a need for it because it doesn't impact the surface water, shallow wells or canals or lakes. Page 38 March 6, 2002 MS. LYNNE: How many municipal wells have ever been turned down because of the public hearings and so forth? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The short answer is none, because none of the municipal wells that have been drilled since this ordinance was done have gone through conditional use. It's been overlooked. MS. LYNNE: It's been overlooked? You mean they've just been putting them in anyway? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But they haven't really been putting them in anyway. They've been going through an extensive process with the South Florida Water Management District and -- . MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- County Utility Department and the Water Management District and -- . CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- and the County Utility Department. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- they have not done -- . CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The full technical process is still in effect. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- the conditional-use portion of the well installation, and that might apply to all the other utilities like Everglades City, Immokalee. We don't know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other questions from council? MR. HILL: This brings up a question that's been in my mind for a long time and I don't know if there's any answer or whether it needs to be something that has to be addressed in the future. But it seems to me there is a maximum sustainable population in Collier County with respect to water supply. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Depends on the technology you use. MR. HILL: Right. Has that ever been addressed or considered Page 39 March 6, 2002 ^ for a future investigation? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, because it depends on the technology you use. If you hit the shallower aquifers where the salinity levels are low, the treatment is easy. If you hit the deeper aquifers where your salinities are about a thousand parts per million to five thousand, you can still use reverse osmosis and the treatments are a little harder. But when you start going to full seawater at 35, 000 parts per million chlorides and trying to run that through reverse osmosis, the technology becomes a little more expensive. I understand Tampa might be doing that. You look at the gulf and there's a lot of water out there. It might be a little more expensive to treat it, and depends on how much you're willing to pay to keep a population growing. MR. HILL: I agree. But I think at this point in time, we ought to be looking at the combination of supply and cost because it should have an influence on the development. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm only an engineer with review services. MR. HILL: What's that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm only an engineer with review services. MR. HILL: I know. I'm not addressing this to you necessarily, Stan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Stan, just to put this all in context, for this -- the City of Naples and the Collier County well fields, how -- the wells that are listed on here, how many of those are the deep wells that are going down into the Hawthorne? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. I know the city are not. Some of the county wells are not. The newer county wells are. Page 40 March 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: Ifuess�ou had to though -- Y g MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I wouldn't. MR. CARLSON: -- you'd guess that most of these are not. They are in the lower Tamiami and surficial does affect these surface waters --. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Correct. MR. CARLSON: So if our theory is correct that the deeper wells don't affect the surficial waters, then this is a good thing, and maybe a lot of these should be retrofitted to go for deeper water. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal? MR. GAL: If there is a dispute as to whether a well impacts surface water, who make the final decision whether to drill the well or not in this amendment? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I would guess at the present time it's probably the water management district. They really have an expert staff. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, if I may attempt to address the question. I believe that that would be something that you would discern from the application itself. Typically, for example, the South Florida, you'd be able to tell what the water source was, both with respect to the aquifer or the potential of it being from some manmade or natural occurring water body. Does that answer your question? MR. GAL: Well, no. I thought there were some instances where something was -- was an aquiclude, you mentioned, over in Palm Beach. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. It was Palm Beach County, I think, were those deep-well injections. MR. GAL: I mean could a dispute arise, who would have the final decision to whether -- to drill the well or not? If water management says that we don't think you should drill the well, they Page 41 March 6, 2002 issue a permit to you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. If they don't think we should drill the Well --. MR. GAL: Then you can't drill the well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You can't drill the well. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. As a matter of fact, I believe I was told by the utility department that one of the reasons that they're expanding the Vanderbilt well field is one of the other wells is producing water that's a little more saline than they thought. So they have to -- they think they found another source that's a little less saline and they're going to try to tap that one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: One more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: On our map what are the -- these cones of depression and drawdown, what are the intervals between the lines? I mean, how much are those intervals? Is that a foot between each line of drawdown or two or five or? MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Just as a little bit of history, I was responsible for putting together the. Groundwater protection ordinance and the modeling back in the late '80s that produced these lines, so I'm pretty familiar with them. Those lines that you see are actually travel time distances. The outer boundary is a 20 year travel time. In other words, it will take a drop of water that would be on that outer boundary will take 20 years to move to the well field under the well fields maximum permitted withdraw. So that gives you some sense of time frame. Groundwater protection ordinance was based upon travel times, developing the well field management zones that -- there are four well field management zones that -- the broadest zone is that 20 year time frame, the closest line within there, that circle, is a one year time Page 42 March 6, 2002 frame, and I believe the other one is five and ten years. So those are travel time zones. Now, the groundwater protection ordinance was also based upon modeling well fields that were located within the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer is made up of the water table, then you have that aquiclude, or that small confining unit, and then the lower Tamiami aquifer. That's where the majority of the well fields in Collier County in the past have been placed. The newer wells that are being placed, as I understand it from utilities, are going into the mid-Hawthorne aquifer. The groundwater protection ordinance and the work that we have done in the past indicated that there is sufficient degree of separation between the surface and that aquifer, such that the well field protection ordinance wouldn't even apply to wells within -- that are developed within that aquifer. So that's a sufficient degree of separation -- not only would indicate that there's not a contamination problem from the surface, but also there's not a draw-down problem at the surface as well. So that's -- that's kind of the basis for these well fields that you're seeing located on this map. MR. CARLSON: Now, I don't see the well field -- the wells. There's a series of wells going on the north side of Immokalee Road, east of 951, between 951 and Cypress -- I believe, Bonita Bay Cypress golf course. Is that a municipal well field? MR. LORENZ: I've been -- I've been away from the well fields and the protection efforts for the past, let's say, six or seven years. I do know that the -- the -- Stan had earlier indicated Ray Smith, who is the pollution control director, is now getting all of the new wells that have been installed to go through another round of modeling effort to revise these zones that you see in this map and provide well field protection zones for all the new wells. So I don't know the details of exactly where all the wells. Are -- the new wells will be. Page 43 March 6, 2002 MR. CARLSON: I mention that because as hard as I try to keep up with this and monitor the permitting that's going on through the district, those wells are a complete surprise to me. I don't know when they got permitted, how they got permitted, I don't know how deep they are, I don't know how much water's coming out. I don't know anything about those wells along Immokalee Road. And I monitor very closely the permit applications. MR. LORENZ: As I think Patrick White had indicated, the procedure from the -- for permitting a well is that an applicant has to go to the South Florida Water Management District to get a consumptive use permit. And during the issuance of a consumptive use permit is where there are -- the analysis is done as to ensuring that there will not be adverse surface of-- surface water affects and other affects to nearby local wells. That's a district permitting function. MR. CARLSON: So every single municipal well in the future will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District will go through their standard public notification process and I just missed it? MR. LORENZ: I don't know what their notification process is, but it must go through that consumptive use permitting process. MR. CARLSON: Everyone here in the local area who is on their list as an interested party will be notified? MR. LORENZ: As I said, I don't know what the district's notification process is, but the wells have to go through that permitting process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That carries over to golf course irrigation wells in the same manner. That may be what you're seeing up there. I don't know. Okay. Do we have further questions? MS. BURGESON: Yes, I have a question for Bill. A lot of Page 44 March 6, 2002 these wells are located in areas of Golden Gate Estate lots where single-family homes are already constructed. And the question that I have is not so much affecting the wells in those areas by the draw- down, but how the people that are located in the primarily zones or secondary zones might affect the wells with their uses. And I don't know that there's any notification to property owners that are within a certain distance from those wells that they're notified that those wells are going in and that they may need to be aware of-- I know some people do things like -- that they're not supposed to, but change the oil in the car in their yard, that type of--. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They wouldn't do that in Golden Gates. MS. BURGESON: Hopefully not. But the question. I have is, is there any notification to anyone when these wells are going in that are within the primary zone of those wells so that they know that they're there? MR. LORENZ: I don't know the answer to that question. The well field protection ordinance that we developed before was based upon insuring proper regulations within the zones for any new facilities or existing facilities that come in. And I can tell you that -- that within the five-year travel time zone, we were concerned with the bulk storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. We weren't so much concerned about that degree of a problem. So we were looking at the regulations that you have in that conservation coastal management element of the policy and the ordinance basically dealt with, you know, larger quantities. However, a -- certainly permitting a -- from a public information standpoint if the utilities department, you know, wanted to let people know -- what proximity they were to the county's well fields to provide for some heightened awareness or good practices and proper disposal of, you know, household hazardous waste, those types of Page 45 March 6, 2002 products, you know, that would certainly be a valid program to initiate. MS. BURGESON: Then right now the only area where we have wells that are not surrounded by single-family residential and less impactive uses would be along the Goodlette-Frank corridor where we have higher restrictions in the primary zones to protect those wells -- well, not higher restrictions, but where we would see uses that might come into that area that we'd have to be more cautious of? MR. LORENZ: Right. The Goodlette Road well field is a city well field that is aligned basically along Goodlette Road with most of the wells. Some of the wells are actually in the median, and then some of them are within the right-of-way on the other part -- east side of the road. There are -- there is a lot more concerns with regard to, let's say, commercial or light-industrial types of uses that would affect that well field. The other well field, certainly out -- the county's well field that's aligned along Wilson, and the city's well field that's aligned along Everglades, basically are within a residential setting as opposed to having any commercial or industrial types of uses. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson? MR. CARLSON: The wells -- the new wells along Vanderbilt Beach Extension, are they all the deeper Hawthorne aquifer wells? MR. LORENZ: I want to say yes. You'll have to get that information from utilities. I know the plant that is put into place, that north wastewater treatment plant is a -- I believe a membering softening plant, if you will; one step removed from a reverse osmosis, but a step up from the conventional lime softening plant. And I believe that those wells are located in a lower aquifer system. MR. CARLSON: Can either of you comment that, henceforth, the plan of the county is to put in -- all of the new wells will be the deeper wells? Page 46 March 6, 2002 MR. LORENZ: No, I don't know the answer to that. MR. CARLSON: Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to know that. Because I would agree I think that's a positive. I mean if that's the plan, I think that's a positive from getting away from the shallower wells. Mr. LORENZ: Well, let me -- that was a discussion point about 15 years ago was if you go to those deeper wells, not only do you have less impacts on the surface water and the -- let's say, even for wetlands for the draw-down for wetlands that would be above the well field, but also you -- you don't have to worry about the surface water -- the surface contamination of those well fields because they're deep enough. As Stan noted earlier the reason why, you know, you initially look at your surface, the closer to the surface is because, you know, ~ there's less construction costs, less operating costs for treatment because you're into more -- you have higher dissolve solids as you go down in that aquifer system, and you have to increase your water treatment cost. But to some degree is that's -- that's -- that's a cost factor, and I -- another point to make and Bill Hill asked about what is the resource capacity in the county. The South Florida Water Management District created the lower west coast water supply plan in the mid '90s that addressed the water -- that looked at the supply and demands in the county. They have just recently updated that report. And, as I understand it, that there is still -- even with the growth potential in the county, the types of uses and the types of locations of the wells, that report still indicated that there was still sufficient supply. It's a matter of cost, you know. As you increase your demand for go to supply sources that have less of an impact from the surface and on the surface activities, you just simply have to go to the lower aquifers, which will cost you more in terms of Page 47 March 6, 2002 ^ treatment cost. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Does that report have a title? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No. Go ahead. MR. LORENZ: It's the Lower West Coast Water. Supply Plan. MR. CARLSON: But the difference is 15 years ago or 20 years ago when people were asking that question, the technology wasn't there to really treat that lower water as effectively and efficiently. The technology has changed so now it is more feasible, and I would hope the plan would be to go to the deeper aquifers in the future. MR. LORENZ: Correct. MR. HILL: But if they don't, they're going to come through the conditional use process; right? MR. CARLSON: Right. This is only --. MR. LORENZ: Well, we can say -- will they come from the conditional-use process? I believe that the amendment, as I understand it, would not require them to come through the --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Come through the. Conditional -- MR. HILL: If they don't go to the deep aquifers, they will go through the conditional? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, they won't. MR. CARLSON: They will because this --. MR. HILL: If they don't go deep, they'll go through the conditional use. MS. BURGESON: Really? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Good. All right. Further discussion? Hearing done. What's the pleasure? MR. HILL: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 2.6.9.2. Hear a second? Page 48 March 6, 2002 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: If I may offer just a slight consideration for an amendment, that these provisions could be amended by our office for greater clarity and meaning and that your approval of them, if you will, would be subject to that -- or allow for that. I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Does maker of the motion concur with whatever Mr. White just said? MR. HILL: Yes. I'll amend it to run it by -- . MR. COE: Well, I will amend my second. How about that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good. That's very good. And, again, do we have any discussion, anyone from the public that would like to address this issue. Hearing none, any questions? Yes, sir. MR. HILL: As long as the legal review does not bring us to the point of the ag discussions on Monday concerning the interpretation. The clarity is utmost. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. WHITE: Understood. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All of those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye? (Unanimous response. ) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, passed unanimously. MR. COE: I would like to make a recommendation that we get somebody from the water people to come and explain this well business. It's very difficult for people that don't happen to work there. Page 49 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could we do that? Ms. Burgeson, at some future meeting? MS. BURGESON: Yes. We can contact them. As soon as we can schedule them for a meeting, we'll have them come and present to you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. Okay. 3.13.8. MS. BURGESON: The third amendment that we're proposing is to the coastal construction setback line, section of the Land Development Code. And this came about as a result of the single- family homes -- the only places that this applied to are the single- family homes in Lely Barefoot Beach and at The Strand, where the lots of the single-family homes that abut the dune and the coastal construction setback line, those lots -- the homeowners have chosen to build their homes right on the line. So they maximize the lot with the home right up to the coastal construction setback line. About two years ago we had our first request in for a permit to allow someone to create a lawn or a yard on a portion of that dune behind the home -- or seaward of the home, so they could use their property as a yard, I guess is the simplest way to put it. We issued one permit, and that permit was issued as an exception and not as a standard because it was the administrative decision on that one single lot that it was unique and had no -- no regular dune characteristics as it had been impacted for the construction along the strand -- of the road and possibly some of those lots. Since then, and as a result of the neighbors seeing what that single-family home had, we've had three or four requests in to allow for that type of yard, which would clearly impact the existing dune or back dune or strand area to facilitate putting in that yard. And we have not -- we have consistently not allowed any more yards to go in. And we have told them if they do want to get a coastal construction setback line permit, that anything that they planted would have to be native dune Page 50 March 6, 2002 vegetation. We have had a couple come back and say that they're having difficulty accepting that they can't put in some yard so that they have the use behind their home as well as along the side and the front. And so this is to allow a very minimal area adjacent to the home, and we've -- we've maximized that area at 15 feet, understanding that that 15 feet will actually impact 15 feet of existing dune or strand area to facilitate putting in this yard. What we've allowed them to do in that area is use pavers, decks, shell, lawn, and non-native coastal plant species. And we've limited the distance from the CCSL to 15 feet. We've required that no more than 50 percent of that area consist of pavers or deck area, but if they wanted to put 100 percent of that 15- foot stretch in non-native, which could be sod or non-native plant species, they would be allowed to do that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What kind of permit from DEP would they have to get to do this, or would they have to get a permit from DEP? MS. BURGESON: They do get a permit from DEP. DEP does not have the same regulations that we have regarding the CCSL as they've adopted a different coastal construction setback line which is much further landward. So their rules and regulations for beyond that are a little bit -- I'm not sure exactly how to state it. But they are reviewed slightly differently. They do have to get permits to do this work; however, we are more restrictive than they are. MR. COE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong here because I could misunderstand this very easily. So these people in order to maximize their lot they built right up to the setback line; correct? MS. BURGESON: Correct. MR. COE: So either they were not smart in doing this or the Page 51 March 6, 2002 ^ builder didn't tell them that they didn't have any other place to put anything on the back part of their house; correct? MS. BURGESON: What's happened in the past when these homes came in, is we did speak with several of the homeowners -- or. not the homeowners, but the developers or representatives to let them know that if they were to buildup to that line, they lose the ability to - - to have a non-native lawn or a landscaped area behind the home. But if you've been in The Strand or you've seen some of the newer home in Lely Barefoot Beach, they felt that losing that 10 or 15 feet. to a lawn, as opposed to the additional several thousand square feet on the house was something that they would rather have the home there than the lawn. MR. COE: So they made this decision consciously? MS. BURGESON: Right. However -- MR. COE: So why are we here? Why are we coming up with this now? MS. BURGESON: We're here to be flexible to allow some use beyond the home. MR. COE: But they had the use; they just gave it up. MS. BURGESON: That's correct. MR. COE: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further questions? Yes, sir. MR. HILL: It opens up a problem. I know the last storm we had was a very severe one. But the dunes, particularly in the City of Naples that had been planted with sea oats during the beach restoration, that native vegetation did nothing to protect the dunes, and most of it was lost. Is there perhaps some non-native vegetation or other native vegetation that could be implanted to help protect the dune? MS. BURGESON: This amendment -- the things that are being allowed in this amendment would not be better in terms of protecting Page 52 March 6, 2002 and providing safety to the dune than what the native dune vegetation would. For instance, if they choose -- because we have no way of monitoring or restricting. So if they chose to take out what was there in the 15 foot strip and put in 50 percent pavers and 50 percent sod, that would not be better in terms of providing safety or protection to storm events. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What can they do right now -- if their structure is up to the setback line, what can they do under the present code? MS. BURGESON: We've issued probably three or four CCSL permits in the past couple of years, allowing people to have open areas of native grass, areas where they've landscaped with 100 percent dune vegetation. And if you're looking for more specific details on those, Steve Lenberger probably could give you a better description of that vegetation that's out there. I do have photos. They're in my office, however, of some examples of what exists out there compared to the one that was allowed to put in 40 feet of sod and non-native vegetation around it. They are concerned, however, that they don't have usable space out there, and so they wanted something that's More --. MR. CARLSON: Conventional. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How would someone be able to put the 40 feet in? They got a variance to do that or something of that sort? MS. BURGESON: They got a CCSL permit that was issued for that lot specifically. And the determination was that there was no dune vegetation on that lot because of the impacts of the development around it. MR. HILL: Where was this amendment generated? MS. BURGESON: It was generated as a result of a number of single-family homeowners coming in requesting this. And we have Page 53 March 6, 2002 told them that we would consider proposing an amendment to see if it could go forward and be approved to allow them minimal use. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: I have to agree with Mr. Coe. These people knew what they were buying and what they were building. I don't see -- there's no benefit to the environment from it. I don't see any reason to give them extra use of what's a beach area. They wanted to live on the beach. That's what's there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further discussion? MR. COE: I would like to make a motion. MS. BURGESON: We may have some -- . CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Discussion from the public. MS. BURGESON: Yes. We may have --. CHAIRMAN BURGESON: Input from the public? Yes, sir. MR. GEORGE: I'd like to address. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Come on. Come up and identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. GEORGE: I'm Dan George, and I live at Lely Barefoot Beach. I'm with the POA, I'm the president of the POA there. When you're talking about some of the setback lines that -- when the -- I have the drawings here where this would be representative of the beach garden. So it kind of gives you an idea. When the plats were laid out, there -- the lots are -- these front lots on each of these beach gardens are very small. They're like 40-by-50 or 50-by-50. They're not -- but the owner of that property actually owns for the mean high water tidemark, or whatever it is. And the areas that we're talking about, if you look on the -- on this drawing -- on this picture here -- I'm a little nervous because I've never had to do this before, so if you bear with me -- these pictures here represent what happened to Lely Barefoot Beach at the time of the storm. There is water infiltrated through all the streets, uprooted some of the propane tanks Page 54 March 6, 2002 ^ clear back in the back portions of these beach gardens. The Gulf of Mexico is here (indicating) and the back bay is back here (indicating) and this water (indicating) washed completely through. We had as high as two or three feet of water on Bonita -- on Lely Beach Boulevard, which is now called Barefoot Beach Boulevard because of this here (indicating), we inquired to see if we could get county funding, state funding -- anybody's funding, to do anything with the beach. If you look you can see the beach after the storm (indicating), there wasn't much of anything -- excuse me -- okay. There wasn't much of anything left on the beach; a few of the sea grapes and Scravola plants were left. The reason that -- that I wanted to address this is that it's hard to understand unless you see it. And this is a drawing of one of the beach gardens (indicating), which shows you the CCSL line, which is the line that we're talking about, runs right at the front of these property lots and cuts back into the beach gardens back in here (indicating), and then cuts back out -- actually follows the edge of the homes. All of this area in earlier pictures -- this is what's developed - - the development where the homeowners are (indicating) -- looks like. Here's shots of what it looked like prior to the storm (indicating). This is shots of what it looked like after the storm (indicating). Here is what the dunes looked like with the sea oats (indicating), et cetera, and the walkovers before the storm. After the storm there was very little left. The homeowners -- because I'm president of the association working with the engineering firm, we went to the expense of rebuilding the dunes. We had -- I got -- emergency permitting -- was able to come in and move some of the sand. My original idea was we were just going to plant some sea oats and forget about it and let the beach take care of itself. And what the engineers came in and our property owners, they said that -- the Page 55 March 6, 2002 property owner association decided that -- to rebuild the dunes, spend the money. We couldn't get any state, county, or federal money to do this. We spent the money to push the dunes back out and re-sea -- put sea oats in. We had to put temporary sprinkling in -- and spent a lot of money to do that. So we are concerned about the beach, and we don't do the raking. We don't do all of those things. But what we do have is homes that were permitted to be built right up to the front edge of the CCSL line, and because of that the homeowners have no way to access the front of their home's or around the side of their homes with high lifts and, et cetera, et cetera, to maintain them. And so what I'm requesting -- and I've been part of this program along with Alex from code enforcement -- she's been up there and trying to work with us, but she has to follow the rules and regulations and so on, and so forth. So what -- a lot of this here (indicating), these beach gardens were installed prior to probably anybody paying any attention to what was going on because Lely is the one that developed this up there. They put in swimming pools. Some of the swimming pools on a couple of the beach gardens, I believe, if they were surveyed out, would actually be inside -- I don't know whether you want to call it inside or outside of the CCSL line. They would be Gulf-- towards the Gulf from the CCSL line, in other words so some of these things have carried way back. And what -- some of this property here has sod on it and they've pushed the sand back and were able to maintain the sod that they had in front. What I'm requesting -- or what I had requested was that we were allowed 25 feet along the CCSL line so that we could access the front of the homes with lifts, high lifts, et cetera, to paint and maintain and whatever. With all that sand and native veg -- if you put plant native vegetation, they're normally plants that would stand up. Our goal was after we got done with the sea oats was to plant Page 56 March 6, 2002 sea grapes and some other tiered planting. We've been working with code enforcement. Alex has been real good to work with in helping us to decide what we could do to maintain the beach area and yet still be able to maintain our home areas. So the 15 feet in front of the home just doesn't give you enough room to get lifts around the building and so on, and so forth. I'm pleading the case to ask that that 15 feet be increased to 25 feet, and that the sod and plantings that are left in here that are Gulfward of the CCSL line, be allowed to be grand fathered in rather than -- I don't know what the alternative is if you come in and make us -- I don't know what you do. Do you dig it up or whatever? But we've got a problem and that's -- that's why the problem. It wasn't a case of the homeowners building on that lot. Those lots in there are big enough to build a house on and that's basically all there is -- unless they built a little bitty beach house, or they didn't utilize the lots. So, the way it was platted, it wasn't -- it wasn't something that the homeowners created. It was something that was created by the developers, and I'm assuming that that was permitted through the county and so on and so forth. So that's my plea. I'll leave these pictures up here if you'd like to look at them closer. I really appreciate any consideration you can give to us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any discussion? Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Your last comment seemed to indicate -- Mr. George, your last comment seemed to indicate that the homes are built near the CCSL line because of needing setbacks on the other three sides, the lots were that small; is that what you are saying? MR. GEORGE: The lots are built -- the lots were plotted to the CCSL line, or else the CCSL line was put in there after it was plotted. I'm not -- I don't know which way that happened. But the actual front edge of that lot is the front edge of the CCSL line and those lots Page 57 March 6, 2002 typically are, like, 40-by-50 or 45-by-50-foot lots. They're real small postage-stamp lots, which basically allow for a home. By the time you get the home on it, there's nothing in front other than the owner. Whoever owns that property, theoretically owns to the mean high water tidemark. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. I can answer that question maybe a little bit better. Lely Barefoot Beach is a little bit different than The Strand in terms of the situation. It has been for the past decade a series of violations of what has slowly accumulated out there beyond -- and it's actually in Lely Barefoot Beach. It's not called a coastal construction setback line because as a result of the developer's litigation with what was the Department of Environmental Resources, the old DER back in the late '80s, what they have out there is called a coastal construction development limit line. The old CCSL was straight across where the beachfront gardens common area is, and as a result the State allowed additional impacts for those single-family lots which jog out further than what was the straight line of the State. So now that the new line comes across the beachfront gardens, jogs down and makes exception for those lots on the beach and jogs back up. So that line of protection was extended further out for those single-family homes. Over the years back -- probably 10 years ago, Mike Kirby with code enforcement had started a case out there. The violation was that a lot of those homes had put lawns in that should not have been beyond the homes. And as a result of the administrative team that was in place at the time, those -- the enforcement cases just were not brought forth to the code enforcement board. And right now Alex Seleky has been working with the homeowner's association to try to determine if they are in -- in effect in violation of the code, then they would be required to remove the sod and the lawns and restore the dune in those areas. Page 58 March 6, 2002 So this amendment would allow for those homes that the storm did not damage -- that 15 feet adjacent to the homes that would allow them to leave that there, and they would come into compliance. Beyond the 15 feet of this proposal they would have to remove it and restore it. And then I understand from Alex, that the beachfront gardens common areas have also gone beyond that setback line with sod by, I believe, 60 feet. So when this gets approved, it gives her that final determination of the code that she will be able to go out there and formally require them to remove that sod and restore that 60 foot area where a few of those beach front gardens have gone beyond that line. MR. COE: How tall are these homes out there? MR. GEORGE: The limit on the height now is 70 feet. But what she's talking about is -- is true. The sod has been placed way out beyond what would be the CCSL line. Now, this line here (indicating) is a State construction -- State coastal construction line, which is actually out in front of those homes. But the CCSL line runs right at the front of the homes and jogs back in to the beach gardens. And that's what I'm saying. They have been there since -- some of these have been there since the early -- mid '70s. And so I don't know if it was -- what the rules and regulations were at that point in time. But in recent years we haven't done anything other than maintain what was already there and it -- if this is allowed -- if this is grand fathered in, then there's going to be a large area of-- of-- that's pulled back into here (indicating). MS. BURGESON: That's not correct. Let me correct that. Currently the coastal construction development limit line comes down to this home here (indicating) and back up and is straight across at the very seaward edge of the beach garden common area. The pools are typically located back in here (indicating) with the dune walkovers. If any have been permitted beyond that, that was not Page 59 March 6, 2002 caught by our department and that's an error. I'm not sure that there's anything at this point we can do to fix that. We could look into it. So the -- what's approved right now, and this goes back to the original PUD document that did not permit -- from the original construction of this PUD and this association, did not permit non- native beyond this coastal development limit line. What we would be requiring with this is that nothing beyond this line be non-native, and only 15 feet beyond this development limit line be allowed to -- be that makes up non-native or pavers -- or effects. If there is a consideration of maintenance around that area, that might be something we could talk to the homeowner's association to find out how often -- if they're out there annually, or if they're only out there out every three or four years, it might be that they can restore if they do any damage to the dune vegetation in between that time. MR. COE: Barb, they already have 15 feet from that end of the building. MS. BURGESON: Not at this time. MR. COE: No, at the coastal setback line. MR. GEORGE: At this particular Moment --. MR. COE: From there (indicating) to the building, how far is that? MR. GEORGE: From the coastal setback line to the homes, I'm going to say almost without exception, the coastal set line is right at the front of where the home is setting. And there --. MR. COE: So there's a building right there (indicating)? MR. GEORGE: There's a building right here (indicating), yes. There's a home (indicating), there (indicating), there (indicating), there (indicating), all the way down through. And then where the building is, it jumps back in and what I'm asking for -- what they're suggesting is to allow 15 feet of sod in front of the home. I'm asking for 25 -- but I'm asking for 25 to be allowed to go around the home Page 60 March 6, 2002 on the sides so that we can access the sides of the homes with high lifts, et cetera, and not be into the native vegetation. And when this storm hit, where all this sod was and whatever was all -- a lot of it got covered with sand, but it didn't wash away. It held -- it held the property. So it wasn't detrimental to what the storm did. It actually helped to hold the sand just like your sea oats do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. For a second here -- now, the court reporter needs a short break here. Why don't we do it right now and we'll come back and finish this up in five minutes. Okay. (A short break was held). CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We are discussing 313.8. Okay. MR. GAL: I just have one question for you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Gal. MR. GAL: The lifts, you can't get around your house because they don't go in the sand? Is that why you need the grass? MR. GEORGE: Well, they don't go in the sand very well because I had one stuck out there. But primarily what we'd like to do if-- if the area After -- these areas back in here (indicating) is -- which is inside the CCSL line -- is to plant some vegetation that is native vegetation. But if you plant any kind of native vegetation in there, when you run the lifts out there, they're going to run over the top of them and then you'd be -- it would be a maintenance nightmare all the time. Every time one of the shutters break, you have to have a lift out front, and they have to -- some of the homes have to be pressure washed on a yearly or every other year basis. They have to be painted every four or five years living on the beach. So there's a lot of maintenance that needs to be done on the homes, and that's the reasons that I requested that we be allowed to have 25 feet and in the other areas, the sod, et cetera, that's already in place in there has been in there for years. It isn't something that we just did yesterday. I Page 61 March 6, 2002 know in The Strand they went in and they built homes and then they sodded out the back of the -- they were actually up on the back of the dunes area. We're not in that violation. We've got violation, but it's sod that's been in there for years and been in the back areas. Now, what we have done, of course, is replaced it as it gets destroyed from what -- either storms or bugs or whatever. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question. If the case that you need it for is maintenance, why wouldn't a 15, 25-foot maintenance easement That allowed you -- and they are rubber tire lifts because they're used on construction sites every day -- that could come down there and do this maintenance and you would not alter the native plantings in that area. You would have a 25-foot maintenance easement which would allow that you would come down there two or three times a year and do this maintenance, rather than changing all the vegetation and everything of that sort? Why wouldn't that suffice? MR. GEORGE: Well,we're -- we're not changing any vegetation at this point in time. That's -- basically -- most of these homes either have sod out. In front of them or -- and there is sod in the beach. Gardens clear out in the front. So it isn't something. That we're changing. It's basically we want to maintain what we have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Then, as I understand, should we not approve this, it's going to mean that code enforcement is going to have to go in there and do some enforcement work and require removal of stuff that's already there? MS. BURGESON: The code enforcement issues are two-fold. One is the beachfront gardens common areas, and they understood through the process -- and it's been a situation for many years, that they do have a violation and that will -- that will need to come out back to that line. On the single-family homes it's a different situation, and it's Page 62 March 6, 2002 actually been helped somewhat by the recent storm as they had to come back in there and recreate the dune. Most of the landscaped area behind the homes did not survive that storm. And so what we've got right now is most of the homeowners on that edge either waiting to see if this is approved and if they can replace what was out there or restore what was out there, or in some of the homes situations where it did survive and they are beyond that 15 feet -- whatever that number becomes through this approval, whether it is adopted at 15 or further out or whether it's not adopted will determine what needs to be restored beyond that coastal construction, either setback line or development limit line. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You know, I understand the problem completely. But I don't kind of agree with the reasoning that the developer platted these lots and somebody came along and built their house and now they have a problem. You know, I'm in the same business and we have setback lines and we have vegetation lines and preserve lines and all of those things, which we strictly enforce within our community. And that was there the day that everyone built those houses. It's not something that people built their houses didn't know about. It's not something that the county put some new regulation upon them. It was there in black and white on everybody's survey when they built the house and I kind of feel about it that if something like a maintenance easement doesn't work to solve the problem -- if maintenance is, in effect, what you're talking about here to be able to maintain your units, I somewhat agree with Mr. Coe, which is unusual. MR. COE: I would like to make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A motion from Mr. Coe to deny. Is there a second? MR. CARLSON: I second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any discussion? Page 63 March 6, 2002 MR. HILL: There are some items in the list, though. Do we want to deny all of them? MS. BURGESON: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. HILL: I'm speaking of the separation of the walkovers and several of those things that might be -- . MS. BURGESON: That's right. I'm glad you brought that up. This proposed amendment, how it began was as a result of the need from the homeowners to have that yard area. When we opened that section up, we also took a look at the other sections within here that we felt that, on a staff level, were items that we wanted to address and have amended in the land development code. What we did in the first section, 3.13.8.1, where we discussed the construction of a dune walkover, we've addressed that in the past as having the maximum width of six feet, and that could be handled as a permit. However, at that time we did not address the minimum separation between them, and we have had requests come in where those dune walkovers are fairly close to each other and had no ability to say that they could not put as many in as they wanted. So this is to address maximizing the retention of the dune system and minimizing the impacts by the dune walkovers on the single family -- or on the single parcels where they would ask for more than one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What we're coming down to then is essentially 3.13.8.3.2.3, and .3 are the two items we are objecting to; is that correct? Am I correct in that? MR. COE: Correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So then if the motion were revised to approve the amendment with the exception of .2 and .3, would the maker of the motion agree? MR. COE: I would agree. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconder? MR. CARLSON: Yes. Page 64 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Motion on the floor then is to approve the amendments of Land Development Section 3.13.8 with the exception of 3.13.8.3.2, and 3.13.8.3.3. Favor? MS. BURGESON: Wait. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MS. BURGESON: I need to clarify that. 3.13.8.3, the beginning of that allows the use of the pavers, decks, non-native, coastal shell, and lawn on the single-family lots. Okay. I guess the way that that is written it doesn't say beyond the CCSL. So you're saying that as long as it's behind the CCSL -- MR. CARLSON: If it's on the lot. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If it's on the lot, it's fine. MS. BURGESON: It wouldn't be something we would need to even put in the code because it is permitted. So if you were not approving the remainder of that recommended amendment, we would not put that in because it really wouldn't be required or necessary. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. So just .2 is the one we do not want to approval; is that correct? Is that What -- MS. BURGESON: What I'm saying is if you disagree with 3.1 and 3 -- or 3.2 and 3.3, you really would not approve 3.13.8.3 at all because that whole item really is created to address beyond the CCSL line. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe, do you agree with that? MR. COE: Yeah, I agree with everything she said. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm glad. Seconder? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor of the amended amendment, signify by saying aye. Page 65 March 6, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed same sign. (No response.) MR. WHITE: Mr Chairman, just for the record, what you've approved then is all of the staff-proposed amendments excepting from that Section 3.13.8.3 and what follows? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's correct, sir. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Okay. North Belle Meade --. MS. BURGESON: We have two quick items that we'd like to just discuss. It will only take a minute or two -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. MS. BURGESON: -- prior to the North Belle Meade presentation, and those are the annual report. MS. BURGESON: And while Bill is briefing you. On the annual report, I'm going to ask the manager's. Office regarding the two members terms expiring, about what the situation is with that. And then after that, we can do the presentation on the North Belle Meade. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We do have a situation. Our court reporter is going to be leaving us -- have to leave us at 12:30. Do we feel that we can do this? We have an hour and 10 minutes to do what we're talking about doing. Does everyone that is going to be involved feel that we can do it in that period of time? Okay. MR. LORENZ: Just very quickly, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. The -- the EAC's enabling ordinance requires you to provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners May of each year. What I've passed out to you is last years's annual report that you provided to the County Commission Page 66 March 6, 2002 that you can begin to use as -- as a -- at least as a base document. In the past one of your members, I think it's -- Mr. Hill, had drafted the report for consideration by the council to be presented and then ultimate approval by the council to be presented to the County Commission in their May -- one of their May meetings. What I would suggest would be a similar process since I think that that worked fairly well last time. If somebody from the council would want to draft a report for consideration by the council for -- in your April meeting, then you can deliberate on that report at the April meeting, finalize it in your May meeting, and then we can take it to the County Commission in their last meeting of May and have -- preferably the Chair make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think Mr. Hill did such an outstanding job last time, I would certainly recommend to have him do it again this year. MR. HILL: You beat me to it. I think the. Pleasure should be spread around a bit. This is four years now. I think it's time --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's tradition now, Bill. It's tradition. What's the pleasure? MS. LYNNE: Isn't it tradition to nominate somebody that is not here today? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That will teach them not to come. I'll tell you. What do you want to do? MR. HILL: Whatever. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, I'd like you to consider it because I think -- you know, with your four Years experience you've had, both on this council and on the previous council, you probably have a much better feeling than most of us as to where we're going. MR. HILL: Flattery will get you nowhere, but I'll do it. Page 67 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Hill is going to do it. MR. LORENZ: Thank you. I will just work with Bill and then we'll put something together and get it back to the council. And then we'll work through that schedule. And the target date for the county commission would be that fourth Tuesday, which would be May 28th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Yes. The next Items --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm the one that's supposed to do the pausing. You're not supposed to do the pausing. MR. LORENZ: The next item is the North Belle Meade overlay. This is, as you recall, the time frame when the EAC met -- basically had two meetings for deliberating on the transmittal graph of the growth management plan. This particular document was not '~ finalized by the parties involved with the North Belle Meade plan until the evening, I think, before the planning commission met, which was, like, the day after that, I think, you all met. It did go to the County Commission. Let me step back. The County Commission had two public hearings of February 27th and March 4th. They had this agreement for their deliberations through those two public hearings. The board did vote for this agreement to transmit the VCA. The VCA to then review all of the amendments for them then to provide us what's called an objections recommendations and comments report. Once we get that -- ORC report is the acronym -- once we get the ORC report, then staff will have to respond to the -- evaluate the objections, determine what the - - some alternatives for the County Commission to consider, and then go through the final adoption, which would be in early to mid June. The EAC, what we plan on doing is -- for the rest of the process, is that when we finalize the transmittal document to go to DCA, we will Page 68 March 6, 2002 provide you a copy of that transmittal document so you will see exactly the language that staff has put together as a result of the direction the board gave us on March 4th. When we receive the ORC report, we will disseminate comments to you right away of that report. We will then come back to you with a present -- with -- with the proposed adoption language, and we would request that you begin to consider having an evening hearing to consider the adoption language as well. So you will get another chance at reviewing it. The direction the County Commission gave staff was try to have some evening hearings with their advisory committees prior to adoption. The board meeting will be an evening meeting as well so I want to be able to say that, such that when you hear the presentation on the North Belle Meade agreement is what was transmitted, that you will have the opportunity to see BCA's ORC report. You will also have the opportunity to weigh-in as a formal recommendation for board's final adoption of these amendments as well so just with that, in terms of the process out there, I'm going to cover a couple of items and turn over the presentation to -- to the intervenors who worked through this agreement and they can present that to you at -- what they want to present. First thing I'd like to make a point is that -- the area agreement covers the -- collectively the north -- let's say, all of the North Belle Meade, and that is going from north of-- all of the fringe area, north of the Alley, up against where the plot of the estates are on the north boundary. All of the rural fringe in this particular area, you can see, is in some of the old parliaments that we used to have when we were talking about the rural fringe planning efforts was the Area C. This is all of Area C (indicating) that's opposed in the North Belle Meade agreement. It consists of Sending Lands, which is NRPA, Natural Resource Protection Area sending land, and non-NRPA Sending Page 69 March 6, 2002 ^ Lands. And in addition, it consists of Receiving Lands and also some neutral lands that you see there (indicating). The natural resource protections area that was finalize and approved by the board was substantially the same as what staff had recommended as a NRPA. A little bit different on the edges. It's squared off along the section lines, but fairly close to what staff had recommended as a NRPA. Also, the sending lands within the North Belle Meade area agreement are pretty much substantially the same as what staff had recommended. They are a little bit of changes. Section 24, originally staff recommended that as a receiving area. That's now being recommended as a sending area. And the northern half of these Sections 13 and 14 -- originally staff had worked through -- some of that area was -- all of that area was sending at one particular point. Now the northern half of those sections is being recommended as a neutral category. So those are some of the difference there that existed. I think there was a couple of major points that the agreement provided that we presented to the county commission. One thing that the agreement does suspend for receiving lands within this North Belle Meade overlay, that for receiving lands that the policies and the conservation and coastal management element, future land use element, public facilities element will not apply in the receiving lands. Therefore, the preservation standards that we have in those policies for -- for instance, vegetation retention, the wildlife standards, will not apply to receiving lands in the North Belle Meade. Also, we talked earlier the well field protection ordinance, those policies will not apply in the receiving lands here as well. That's part of the settlement agreement. All of the counties requirements in the sending lands will apply. There's also some requirements for the county to do some mapping efforts in the sending lands. The Page 70 March 6, 2002 difference, for instance, I'm just running through some of the vegetation retention -- the old staff proposal, if you will, the 40 percent preservation requirement in receiving lands for total vegetation, that's not going to now apply on roughly about 500- hundred-and-some acres. So that's kind of what using vegetation as a -- as a measure of the difference between what the county proposal -- staff proposal was prior to the agreement and what the board transmitted. That's kind of the difference there in terms of vegetation retention. So I wanted to make those points. The -- essence of the agreement basically is to swap out a lot of land that's under ownership with one property owner in the NRPA area and to credit that into the receiving lands. That's the basis for it. So it's looking at this area plan as a large area plan for ensuring that these large areas will be put into a preserve status and the land owner would be able to have his rights, basically, transferred to the land in the receiving lands. This is -- this is a major agreement with regard to the intervenors, that we're a party to the noncompliance review from the State that received, you know, on the original growth management plan, and it results in an effort that puts those parties together and causes a plan that's -- that is in -- is in tact and provides for preservation still for a very large portion of the area much -- very similar to what staff had recommended, and that's why staff has recommended to the Board -- that they accept it. The Board did accept that recommendation and -- and adopted it, if you will, for transmittal to DCI. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Two questions, Bill. You mentioned NRPA Sending Lands, the upper right to lower left ag area which is marked "NRPA. " Page 71 March 6, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Right. MR. HILL: That is also a sending area? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. HILL: Okay. How much of the area depicted here is the property of that single owner? I'm just trying to figure out -- . MR. LORENZ: If you don't mind, let me have the intervenors make the presentation. They have those numbers. I don't recall that, but I think it would be good for those folks to make a presentation for you prior to any questions. MR. GAL: Just for background, this is a result of a lawsuit? MR. LORENZ: The -- well, the county had -- the county, of course, through the final order had to develop a set of growth management plan amendments that would be a dealing with the rural assessment area. Of course, this is the Rural Fringe Area. So to the degree that we're proposing amendments to address that final order, ^ this is part and parcel of the amendments. What was going on while staff was developing its proposal for the whole rural fringe is that the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon got together with the attorney for Mr. Brown, who has a majority of those acres --.or that large area within the NRPA, and developed an agreement together that those parties could live with and forward on to the State and agree that this would take care of the requirements of the final order. So in that sense, we have intervenors that -- that -- that had weighed in on with regard to the final order. These individuals -- these parties now have agreed that this is an appropriate plan that they all can live with. MR. GAL: This landowner was threatening to sue the county? MR. LORENZ: Well, let me have -- let me have them make the presentation and talk about how their -- how their agreement came ^ together, and what they agreed to and, I guess, what their options were. Page 72 March 6, 2002 MS. BURGESON: I'd like to just say that Nancy Payton has asked me to let you know that the order of the presentation this morning is going to be Robert Dwayne, then Nancy Payton, Brad Cornell, and then followed up by Bruce Anderson. I'll step away so they can make that presentation. If you have any questions of me, just let me know. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right, sir. MR. ROBERT DWAYNE: For the record, my name is Robert Dwayne from Hole, Montes & Associates. I think you know the order of the speakers now to address your first question, my client owns 1,400 acres within the NRPA area and 1,400 acres. Outside the NRPA area the agreement is as simple as he's giving up his development rights for 1,400 acres of NRPA land in exchange for some concessions on his receiving lands that are located outside the NRPA. The study area comprises a little less than 16, 000 acres, about 5,500 acres is in sending areas; 3,300 acres is in receiving lands; 6000 acres is in the NRPA land; and about 700 acres is in neutral lands, which are either neither sending nor receiving areas. The boundary of the NRPA, I think Bill touched upon it, is not that much different than what was originally proposed. In. fact, I have found it has actually grown by approximately 200 acres. So it's not gotten smaller, it's actually gotten 1 or 2 percent bigger through the adjustments that we've made on our boundaries. The data and analysis that Bill Lorenz has done -- and by the way, I've said this publicly on two or three occasions -- but Bill and his staff have been just outstanding on this. It has been an effort that I think we can all take some pride in but clearly the data and analysis shows that the receiving lands can be distinguished from the sending lands. And I think the aerial photo up on the wall, I think, speaks for that. The heart of the area being the receiving lands. Permitted uses are not dissimilar to permitted uses that are Page 73 March 6, 2002 allowed on other sending and receiving lands throughout the rural fringe with one important distinction; we've made no secret of the fact that we are going to be seeking earth mining approvals within Section 21 and 28, and the quarter -- the western most quarter of Sections 22 and 27. So in that extent, we're a little bit different. There are other uses that are, of course, permitted by this agreement; residential use being one of those, a rural village being another one of those uses with standards that are a little different than other rural villages that are setforth in the overall plan for the study area. The proposal also provides for the extension of Wilson Boulevard. My client is willing to provide the right-of-way through two sections of his lands to either meet local or collector road standards. We think that that will be an asset in the long term to The Estates. It has the potential to provide another alternative for hurricane evacuation. And that Wilson Boulevard Extension to the south would ultimately have a tie-in with land fill road. So, hopefully, it could serve to alleviate traffic congestion throughout the area. There are a numberof environmental safeguards that are incorporated into the agreement. I'll will let Ms. Payton conclude or incorporate that into her presentation. That's kind of an overview. It took us along time to get here. My opinion, and I hope you'll share it with me, that this provides a much higher level of protection than certainly we ever had prior to Ms. Payton and the other intervenors moving forward with their own proposals. And I think it serves as a good example of how members of the development community and environmental community can find some common ground. And with that, I'll conclude my remarks and be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. COE: I have one question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? MR. COE: As you may or may not know, I used to be involved Page 74 March 6, 2002 ^ in the investment business. And for those of you that have invested in Enron, you know you invested in what you thought was a pretty good company and you lost some money, like happens with some investments. If you deal with antique cars, the same thing could be happening. But why is it with land, when people invest in land -- and I don't know this answer -- say you pay $300 an acre for some land because you want to develop it at some point or you think it's going to be worth more in the future. Twenty years down the road the rules and regulations have changed like happened to Deltona, for example. Now that land isn't worth near as much as you think it should be worth. Why is there such a furor over a loss -- or a potential loss in that investment versus any other type of investment? MR. DWAYNE: I don't know that there is. MR. COE: So you don't think there's a risk, if this was to be totally turned into a NRPA, the development rights would be lost for that because the regulations now would say that it's got to be unused land? MR. DWAYNE: Well, they would not -- no one in the NRPA is losing their development rights. I want to make that clear. Regardless of how you weigh in on the transfer of development rights, each area within a NRPA is entitled to one lot per tax parcel. The board in their wisdom earlier this week also allowed identity provision of one unit per 40 acres So you have some alternatives either within the NRPA as to how you may use residential development, and you have some alternatives on how you may transfer those units out of the study area and, hopefully, property owners will be compensated for whatever fair market value exists at this point in time. MR. COE: But if you could only build one unit per 40 acres, for example, that land would not be worth as much as if you could built a 20-foot -- or a 20-story condo; correct? Page 75 March 6, 2002 MR. DWAYNE: Certainly. MR. COE: So that's what I'm saying. There is a difference in the value based upon what the rules and regulations of the game is; correct? MR. DWAYNE: Land development regulations certainly affect how you use the property. MR. COE: That answers my question. Thank you. MR. DWAYNE: Thank you. MR. HILL: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Personally, I'd like to applaud the whole group for making this attempt and coming up with a proposal at Monday's meeting a lengthy discussion was held with respect to the total significance of what the owner was doing with respect to the extension of Wilson Boulevard. What was the outcome of that ^ Mr. Dwayne? MR. DWAYNE: The Board approved the agreement by and large as we had placed it before them at the public hearing. There was some discussion as to what kind of credits would or would not be applied with regard to impact fees, but that -- that question really never was resolved, and I think it's something that we may discuss with county staff between now and the final adoption hearing. But I think that answers your question, Mr. Hill. MR. GAL: I just saw snippets of the board meeting, so I don't know if this was discussed. But is this the result of a threatened lawsuit, this agreement? MR. DWAYNE: Well, there's a -- Nancy, why don't you -- since you were the -- you're the intervenor in this, why don't I have you give them a little factual summary? MS. PAYTON: My presentation talks about how we got here today. So if I could start that, and hopefully that will answer your Page 76 March 6, 2002 questions. And if not, when I'm done I'll gladly field any and all. Shortly after the Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society announced our agreement -- our settlement agreement with Bonita Bay over the TwinEagles litigation last March, just a year ago, . Mr. Anderson approached us, the Florida Wildlife and Collier Audubon about the possibility of sitting down to resolve another lawsuit that Collier County Audubon and Florida Wildlife had brought. And that was a lawsuit against Collier County saying that in North Belle Meade, they needed to declare a portion of that area a natural resource protection area. The lawsuit was initiated by Florida Wildlife and Collier County Audubon Society. Mr. Brown intervened on the side of the county. The North Belle Meade is the successful result of eight months of hard work by The Federation; Collier County Audubon Society; our attorney, Tom Reese; James Brown, a large landowner in North Belle Meade; and his representatives, Bruce Anderson and Robert Dwayne. We also worked with school board representative, Michael Kirk, to address future school site needs. All participants in these settlement talks including the school board are intervenors in the ongoing comprehensive plan legal challenge regarding wildlife and habitat protections. Mr. Brown was the only landowner in North Belle. Meade to intervene in this challenge. Any landowner could have intervened. Mr. Brown was the only one that took up that opportunity. We began our discussions and based our overlay on the county staffs initial work identifying sending and receiving areas. We also drew on Dover Colds towards better places community character report. Protections for the sending, NRPA, and neutral areas are the same as all other sending, NRPA, and neutral areas in the rural fringe. Page 77 March 6, 2002 It is true that the receiving area, 3,400 acres of 15,800 acres is exempt from county environmental Controls. The other receiving areas outside of North Belle Meade are not. But you must remember, that less than 1 percent or roughly 550 acres of North Belle Meade's vegetative cover is in the receiving area. That hole in the doughnut -- that you see on the map (indicating), this results in approximately 220 acres that may be lost to development and other receiving areas -- I think there's 40 percent -- there is a 40 percent vegetative -- vegetation retention requirements. That's not happening there. But if you do the calculations, it results in 220 acres that may be lost. But that in comparison to 11, 000 plus acres that are going to be in protection status either as sending or receiving is something that must be remembered. The sending area is protecting 80 percent of its vegetation, and the NRPA is protecting 90 percent. In other words, the trade off is that over 11, 000 acres are receiving 80 or 90 percent vegetative protection. And the neutral areas identified for the school sites are retaining 60 percent of their vegetative cover. The receiving lands are still required to meet State and Federal environmental permitting standards. On Monday the commissioners approved this overlay with two modifications; an RCW Nesting and Forging Study will be done within a year in Section 24 to confirm its sending status. And Section 24 is this section right here (indicating). And 300 acres immediately west of the landfill is changed from sending to industrial, and that is in here (indicating). And if you look at the map -- if you can just step over (indicating) -- this is the county land fill (indicating) and that's the new neutral (indicating). The overlay includes that RCW nesting and forging habitat shall be mapped and protected from land-use activities within the sending area. And that's the entire sending area, roughly 11, 000 acres. The North Belle Meade greenway will be Page 78 March 6, 2002 created in the sending and NRPA areas. Wildlife crossings and corridors will be identified, and most notably the Wilson Boulevard extension there'll be at least one wildlife crossing underneath Wilson Boulevard extension where it is in the NRPA area -- sending area. And also it calls for a wildlife connector, either over or under I-75 to protect -- to connect North Belle Meade with South Belle Meade. Actually, the figures show that it's less expensive to do an overpass than it is an underpass. So we'll see what happens. But it does call for the county to support that and it also calls for the county to support public acquisition of the sending areas, and most importantly the NRPA area, which I need to comment that Mr. Brown -- well, let me back up a little bit. Mr. Brown is agreeing to an NRPA status for his 1,400 acres in the NRPA. And he becomes a willing participant in the North Belle Meade state acquisition program -- that's a Florida Forever Program -- submitted by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida in January of 2000 and that was submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Until now Mr. Brown, who is a major landowner in that targeted acquisition area has not been a willing participant. With this settlement agreement, he does become a willing participant and it allows that proposal to move forward. Without his participation -- because he's a major landowner, if not the major landowner within those boundaries, it was not a viable project. So that is another important component of this particular agreement is that we now have approval from that major landowner who had been stalling the project for two years. MR. CARLSON: Can I interrupt because I think this is the best time to sort this out? Okay. The proposal for North Belle Meade for Florida Forever was -- the application was made by The Conservancy -- and tell me again what the status of it is. MS. PAYTON: It's in limbo because it couldn't move forward Page 79 March 6, 2002 because Mr. Brown, who owns the majority of land within that proposal -- and it's kind of a Swiss cheese -- because he was not agreeing to it -- it wasn't a viable proposal because the State wasn't going out and buy a parcel here, a parcel there, a parcel there. They were looking for a large area. And he was not participating, and the State would not move forward. And The Conservancy had attempted to have negotiations with him -- and Mr. Anderson can speak to that. But the project has just been in limbo. MR. CARLSON: Okay. So the hope is that now that application will be reviewed and will go on the official list of projects for Florida Forever, and will get it up on the "A" list --. MS. PAYTON: That's right. MR. CARLSON: --and funds will flow in --. MS. PAYTON: With the county support. MR. CARLSON: -- and so that those lands will be purchased and will be managed by some state management entity? MS. PAYTON: Yes. The initial thoughts it would be forestry, because it's an extension of the South Belle Meade boundaries. That MR. CARLSON: And the Florida Forever application that's in there now, how does that match up with the NRPA that we have on the map now? MS. PAYTON: Actually, the boundaries for the State acquisition, if I remember correctly, are a little bit larger. They include the NRPA and a little bit more. I think they come west to include some additional RCW habitat. But they may be modified. That -- that proposal is now two years old and does need to be updated. And hopefully, if The Conservancy is not willing to do it, which we have no indications that they won't do it, we have some other possibilities to move it forward. MR. COE: I've got some questions. Page 80 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. COE: These negotiations have been going on for how long? MS. PAYTON: These negotiations have been going on roughly eight months. Our agreement with TwinEagles was in March of 2001. It was shortly thereafter -- I think our first meeting might have been in June of 2001. These were settlement talks to resolve the lawsuit. MR. COE: Was there anybody from the county staff involved in any of the negotiations? MS. PAYTON: No. MR. COE: So, in other words, the county staff knew nothing until the agreement was signed, which was the day after the EAC meeting? MS. PAYTON: The county was well aware that we were in these negotiations and it was encouraged by the County Commission for these settlement talks to proceed. MR. COE: That's not what I said. Were any staff members --. MS. PAYTON: And I answered. I said they were aware, yes. MR. COE: So they had copies of this agreement? MS. PAYTON: They had copies of the agreement when it was finalized but not in draft form. In fact, it wasn't finalized until shortly before the -- MR. COE: Right after the EAC meeting. So nobody from county staff was involved in any of the negotiations or anything -- or even saw it until after it was signed, which was the day after the EAC meeting? MS. PAYTON: It wasn't signed. It was presented to the EAC. MR. COE: What was presented to the EAC? MS. PAYTON: Actually the document that you received in your EAC packet. What's the point you're getting at? Page 81 March 6, 2002 MR. COE: Well, my point is that, No. 1, this never came before the EAC before it went to the BCC in some form. MS. PAYTON: Because it wasn't -- that's correct. MR. COE: And, you know, it just seems funny to me that negotiations went on for eight months and all of a sudden this think pops up the day after the EAC meets -- I Guess it was the day that the planning commission met. But did they see this? MS. PAYTON: Yes, they did. My recollection is yes, they did. MR. COE: So, in other words, the most important environmental committee, the only one, didn't get to see it before it went to the BCC. So, therefore, we didn't have the opportunity to make a statement? MS. PAYTON: No. But you have an opportunity between now and adoption to provide any comments that you would like on it. And, in fact, what you would have --. MR. COE: I just want to -- I want to try to get --. COURT REPORTER: Wait. Wait. One person at a time. MS. PAYTON: -- what you would have seen -- MR. COE: I want to try to get the time line in my mind correct because I'm really incredulous that this could be discussed over an eight-month period and you wouldn't try to meet the deadline of maybe getting it to the EAC so we could evaluate it before it went on. The second thing is my understanding of it just from a brief reading -- I didn't read it more than once -- but it appears that the landowner really has gone overboard in giving up land that really, truly is valuable to the county. So there's no question about that. For that he gets a back pat. However, I don't understand what authority there was, if any, for giving up all -- it appears to be, all environmental regulations on that land. MS. PAYTON: Not all environmental regulations. They still have to go through State and Federal permitting. Page 82 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me just clarify what Ms. Payton said. You're going to Say that -- we still have the ability to input the BOCC should we disagree with the agreement. I mean, it's not done. MS. PAYTON: In effect, you're getting to comment on what was finalized by the commissioners. What you would have seen has morphed a couple of times since you met. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. GAL: You sued the county? MS. PAYTON: Yes. Yes, we did. MR. GAL: But the county wasn't involved in the settlement? MS. PAYTON: No. And the county didn't have a desire to be involved. There was this -- "if you folks can resolve it, we encourage you to sit down and work it out and then bring it to us. " And you can ask every one of the commissioners and they supported that, and staff was aware of that. MR. GAL: Has staff made an assessment of this proposal as far as -- for its greater protection or flood protection in the North Belle Meade area? MS. PAYTON: I'll let you hear from their lips. MR. LORENZ: Yes, the official staff recommendation is to support it to the board. MR. GAL: Just as it is? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh. The question was, did you -- could you just briefly tell us what their recommendation is? The recommendation is to approve the settlement agreement? Is that what the recommendation of the staff was to the board? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. GAL: Does staff believe that this settlement is affording those lands in the North Belle Meade area greater environmental Page 83 March 6, 2002 protection than what would be under the amended growth plan? MR. LORENZ: There are a variety of different ways to slice it up. I mean, that's -- as a total package, yes, we're supportive of it. MR. GAL: I mean, my thought is what happens if they just dismiss their lawsuit and there's no -- there's no settlement and his land is treated like anybody else's land in the North Belle Meade area? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But, again, the lawsuit was filed by Audubon and Florida Wildlife not by. Mr. Brown. MR. GAL: Right. And they dismissed their lawsuit. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Because we came to a settlement and saved the public and everyone else one heck of a lot of money and did things, I think, the way things should be done. MR. GAL: If they just dismiss their lawsuit --. MS. PAYTON: Do you understand this is part -- becomes part of the comprehensive plan? This proposed overlay that will be in the comprehensive plan. MR. GAL: I understand that. MS. PAYTON: Okay. MR. GAL: That's why I wasn't sure if staff thought this was a better plan for that area than what's proposed without the overlay. MS. PAYTON: I don't know what's proposed. We based our -- our plan on what staff initially did with the sending areas and the receiving area, and they've been modified somewhat based upon new information. For instance, we changed this area (indicating) to neutral, which we had as sending because there was a biological survey that showed that had been badly impacted by fire. There were other environmental degradations there. And so we agreed to -- for the school site in that area, to put it to neutral status and the same for the school site here (indicating). Page 84 March 6, 2002 MR. COE: That school site there (indicating) takes up a whole section? It's a pretty big school. MS. PAYTON: There are two schools. But it was easier to do this entire area because they haven't purchased, and it also provides a connector to the proposed rural village which will be in this area in the receiving area. MR. COE: And that rural village is still going to have all the buffers and all the environmental concerns of the original plans that we all have been talking about now since November? MS. PAYTON: There's the green belt (indicating). I'll let -- on the receiving area, I'm going to -- I'm going to punt to Mr. Anderson because that's his area. Our area, we concentrated on the sending area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can I -- Ms. Payton, if you could clarify -- but basically, staff approved a proposal for this area that included some of NRPA -- not NRPA -- Florida Wildlife and Audubon looked at it and said, "We don't agree with that, " and filed a lawsuit? MS. PAYTON: We filed the lawsuit when the county drew their --. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Drew the boundaries, yes. MS. PAYTON: -- NRPA boundaries -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right. MS. PAYTON: -- and North Belle Meade, which we felt should have been an NRPA was only a study area. We also disagreed with the narrowness of Camp Keis and the -- Ocalaway Slugh, so we filed for an administrative challenge to get back into court to say, "We think they ought to be broader and more comprehensive. " And this is addressing our challenge to the NRPA not being identified in North Belle Meade. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let me just walk through Page 85 March 6, 2002 this. MS. PAYTON: We hit it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let me walk through real quickly. Then Mr. Brown came in and said, you know, "I want to be part of it. " Suggestion that we sit down between Mr. Brown, Audubon, Florida Wildlife and let's come up with something that is going to be something less -- more than what the county had proposed as it just being a study area, but less than what Florida Wildlife and Audubon initially wanted; so it's a compromise between the two so I think the answer to what you guys are asking is -- is what this is more than what staff had originally proposed? And I think the answer is yes, from an environmental standpoint. MR. COE: That's not what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. PAYTON: And during these entire discussions, the county knew they were happening and encouraged them. MR. COE: Again, that's not what I was asking. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: The negotiations, you know, went well obviously, since you guys agreed to it. But I don't know who was part of that negotiation had the right to give up all of the rules, regulations, and that sort of thing that are involved on the Receiving areas --. MS. PAYTON: The County Commissioners gave it up when they approved this plan. We presented a plan for county approval. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Cornell. Let's have Mr. Cornell come in on it for a second here now. Here we go. MR. BRAD CORNELL: I'm sorry to butt in, but -- Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. If I could add what my prospective is in answer to your question, Mr. Coe. As you know, it was -- we brought a legal challenge to a county action on which Mr. Brown intervened on the side of the county against us. Page 86 March 6, 2002 And in settling our differences about that which concerned North Belle Meade, we made an agreement and that agreement proposed a set of policies that is the North Belle Meade overlay. Now, we don't have the authority to implement that, if that's what your implication is. We don't have any authority to do that. All we had the authority to do was settle things between ourselves and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they adopt our proposed recommendations on policies for North Belle Meade. They didn't have to do that, and they considered the arguments. And there were considerable arguments in public in these meetings in the last week. And they chose to accept our recommendations, by and large. There were some changes. But they did on the whole accept our proposals, and that was the implementing authority. The Board of County Commissioners are the ones who actually set it into the growth management plan. And it was our recommendation to them that they do this. That's all of our authority that it was. It was just to recommend. Now, I will tell you, that as an agreement. As a settlement of the legal situation with Mr. Brown and the county, that any changes to our agreement definitely -- the more significant the changes are, the more that threatens the agreement. And this is the other part of an answer to this discussion, that the advantage to our making this settlement on behalf of the county and proposing these policies -- the advantage is we neutralize a significant legal challenge to implementing protections in Northern Belle Meade. If we do not get an agreement with a large Landowner, namely Mr. Brown, then what happens is Mr. Brown does not want to play the game. And he decides okay, I don't want my property to be bought by CROWL. CROWL does not make this an acquisition target in terms of the NRPA area, and also the county loses significant leverage in protecting the resources they are intending to. Page 87 March 6, 2002 This whole -- all of the sending areas, including the NRPA have considerably less support because a large landowner no longer will want to play that game. And not only will he not want to play it, you could anticipate that he could legally challenge the protections that would be put in place on his land. So by making an agreement, he accepts those protections. And this was what we thought would be a great advantage for the county. Yes, we gave up a lot -- we gave up 3,400 acres in the receiving areas. However, we feel that we gained significant assurances of protections in buying in by landowners in Northern Belle Meade. Not all of them are buying in, but at least we have one of the major legal challenges, the major objections out of the way and we think that makes this very practical, very implementable, and that's why we did it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: I need to make a comment. I think in the whole package, when we're looking at the total growth management plan, staffs responsibility is to present a package to the Board of County Commissioners that will accomplish what the final order set out to do, which is direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species and their habitats, and to balance private property rights. And in the whole process of developing a plan, you could have 100 different people come up with 100 different plans that would accomplish the same thing. And so what initially what a staff may recommend, or a set of proposals that we put in place is a working point or a working proposal for which then people to come in and provide public input. At the end of the day the first thing we have to ask ourselves is does it accomplish the overall goals of the final order, something that we can get DCA to approval and something that we can go through without challenge, because that's what puts Collier County in the best position possible so staffs Page 88 March 6, 2002 recommendation is based upon all of those factors. And I think this plan does that. Does it do it exactly the way I would have set out and made a recommendation? Does it follow exactly the boundary lines that I initially set out? No, it doesn't. But I wouldn't expect that to be the -- be the criteria for which to make the recommendation so our recommendation is that in balance this does what the final order requires us to do. I think it gets through DCA's review process so they can find ourselves in compliance. It puts three major intervenors together on board with the agreement such that our plan will not be challenged in the future. And I think that those are all successful -- those are all criteria by which to measure the success of this proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: I want to support what Brad and Bill have said. Remember, that this was a study area originally. It was Area C. And it was somewhat unknown as to what was going to happen in that area. And I think the fact that in this rural fringe we have seen an example of cooperation in trying to address both sides of the question; development, property rights, and environmental protections. I think we've created a template for what may well happen further east in the eastern lands. And I think at this point in time whether we got to see this as a council prior to the finalization, that's immaterial. We do have a chance now. There's going to be some fine-tuning going on even after this whole thing goes to the State. And I think it's a great example of what can be done in a situation from an environmental standpoint in Collier County with all of the pitfalls that were in front of us with respect to development and environmental protection and the final order. I think it's a great example of what can be done. We're still going to have a chance to comment on it. I think we can do that and help in the fine-tuning process down the road. And I think it's a great start. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. Page 89 March 6, 2002 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Payton. Okay? MS. PAYTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Mr. Anderson? Mr. Cornell, are you --. MR. CORNELL: I'm finished. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the council. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent East Naples Land Company, James A. Brown, Jr., Trustee. And staff and the other speakers have done an excellent job of explaining the overlay proposal to you and I'll just make myself available for questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Mr. Anderson? Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: On Page 5 of this where it says, "Greenway. North Belle Meade greenway shall be created. " What is that? What does that look like? Is there structure involved with that? Is it just a natural area? MR. ANDERSON: I suppose that would be a reference to a flow-way. I'll let Nancy speak. That was more their part of the overlay. MS. PAYTON: It's based somewhat on the Dover-Cole report that has greenways, bike paths, walking trails, that follow flow-ways, corridors, wildlife corridors. It's yet to be done. It's a concept that the county is agreeing to pursue. But it's greenway so people can get out there and enjoy those areas; the bike paths, hiking trails, et cetera. MR. CARLSON: Okay. My other question was, if I remember correctly, wasn't the minimum gross dwelling units for the rest of the receiving areas, the base density was .8 units? And in this it's .5. And I'm wondering what the logic is to have a lower -- if it is lower, but maybe it's not, and I don't remember correctly because the numbers have changed a lot in this process -- but it seems to me like Page 90 March 6, 2002 the amount of density of dwelling in this receiving area is lower than in the other receiving area. MR. MULHERE: The minimum -- for the record, Bob Mulhere, RWAE. There were -- the numbers changed quite a bit through the process. What was adopted -- what was approved for transmittal by the board was completely different than what was originally proposed in that -- within rural -- within receiving areas. The base density can be increased to a density of one dwelling unit per acre through the transfer of development rights, which would be an increase from one per five. MR. CARLSON: And that's where the .8 comes in, if I remember. MR. MULHERE: No. .8 was attached to the rural villages. At one point we had been proposing -- we had been proposing that an individual or entity requesting a rural village would have to acquire .8 TDRs per -- per acre of the rural village. That has subsequently been changed now to the recommendation now -- or what was transmitted -- or what was approved For transmittal is that for every DTR that's purchased to achieve your minimum density in the rural village, you get one bonus. Remember, that was a higher number before. So now it's an even -- you purchase one TDR, you get one bonus, which really is different from the -- what's in the agreement. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Here's -- let me state this another way. Let me ask this another way. Can this receiving area change the same density as the other receiving -- or is there a vision here that this area will be more commercial, and that the receiving areas in the other parts of the rural fringe will have to absorb the transferred rights to this area? That's my question. MR. MULHERE: I will defer to Bruce. I just would say that the way I saw it -- it's pretty comparable because the property owner of the receiving area has the ability to take the units from his sending Page 91 March 6, 2002 ^ area and bring them into that receiving area. I don't think there's any intent for the density to be higher in that receiving area than would otherwise be provided for in other receiving areas. MR. DWAYNE: In fact, the density is actually less. Robert Dwayne, for the record. The density is actually less. I believe it's two to three in other receiving areas and we dropped it to 1.5. We're adjacent to the Estates, so we made some adjustments. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Well, that's my problem. Because I've made it clear throughout the process that I'm worried about the size of the receiving areas throughout the rural fringe in there and their -- their relationship to conservation areas -- where they abut conservation areas. And it seems to me like the density for this area ought to be as high or higher than all the other areas, because we have all these sending areas that we want to send from. And it has been expressed over and over through the process that we may not have enough receiving areas. So I think this receiving area should have as much burden to receive as the other receiving area. Am I making sense? MR. MULHERE: I understand what you're saying. MR. DWAYNE: I understand your point. The agreement is what it is. You certainly can make recommendations. MR. CARLSON: So then just tell me the difference between the densities -- the proposed densities of this receiving area and, let's say, Area D to the south? MR. DWAYNE: Well, the other receiving areas can have a density -- a minimal density of two, and as high as three units per acre. We lowered ours a little bit to 1.5. MR. CARLSON: And what is the logic behind -- MR. DWAYNE: Well, we only -- our client only has 1,400 acres of the receiving area. The potential is that -- I think it's a cap of 1,500 acres in other receiving areas, I think is my understanding. I'm Page 92 March 6, 2002 having problems answering your question. I'm not trying to be evasive. But we dropped the density a little bit. In so doing, we also reduced the contribution, as Bob said, from the 1 to the .5; that's if a rural village ever ends up in this area. I mean, there's no guarantee that one will ever develop here. And that's the best way I can answer your question. MR. COE: Could there be more than one rural village in this area? MR. DWAYNE: There are a maximum of three in the. Rural Fringe Area. It's on a first-come, first-serve basis. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Mulhere now. MR. MULHERE: There is a three mile -- in the approved -- in the transmittal amendments, there is required three-mile separation from one rural village to another. So there can only be one in this area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We're running kind of-- getting close here now. So let's kind of bring our discussion to a close if we can. Any questions for Mr. Anderson? Yes, sir. Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Back on Page 5, very quickly. What was the logic from going to 5,440 to 6,075? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that was simply as a result of Mr. Dwayne -- Mr. Dwayne's negotiation on behalf of the school board with the Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon, and staff changing some of the sending designations to neutral to accommodate the Schools. Mr. Brown was not a party to that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. COE: You just mentioned that that was part of the negotiations with Audubon Society, Wildlife, and who else? The State? Page 93 March 6, 2002 MR. ANDERSON: The school board. MR. COE: And the school board. I understood you to say staff. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. After the planning commission meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Planning commission meeting? MR. GAL: I'd just like to know if there are any other lawsuits out there that might effect the rural fringe? Anybody know? MS. PAYTON: Not that we have out there. MR. GAL: Not that they've brought? MS. PAYTON: Well, there are issues with wildlife policies and whatever. But at this point we're pretty satisfied with the rural fringe proposal. So we're not contemplating -- and those few issues that we have under resolve, we hope to resolve between transmittal and adoption. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. PAYTON: And our goal is not to have any more lawsuits, to have more of this collaboration landowners and property owners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Further discussion? Further questions for Mr. Anderson? Further questions for anyone else involved in the settlement? MR. COE: Yeah, I've got a question. I don't know who can answer it. What type of environmental protections and rules and regulations are on this land that is the receiving land? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Nancy, do you want to answer that? MS. PAYTON: I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. MR. COE: What type of environmental rules and regulations such as -- is there going to be wetland permitting, RCW take permits, if there is such a thing. I mean, is all that stuff going to still come before the EAC? Because the way I read this, virtually the landowner can do anything he wants with this land? Page 94 March 6, 2002 MS. PAYTON: No, the landowner can't do anything he wants with the land. He still has to go through the State and Federal permitting process. MR. COE: What about the county permitting processes? Ms. PAYTON: It goes through the county permitting process, but he is exempt from the environmental regulations. MR. COE: Okay. Was that made clear to the Board of County Commissioners? MS. PAYTON: Numerous times, yes. And we met with them one on one. MR. COE: Can the county ever go back and change this with the GMP approval process or anything like that. MR. MULHERE: There can be changes -- again, for the record, Bob Mulhere. There can be changes as part of the adoption hearing. And, yes, I mean the county could always subsequently adopt comprehensive plan amendments that, you know, change what's in effect. Now, to the degree to which that might cause one or another of a person to object and take some legal action, I can't predict. But the county can always change the comprehensive plan through that comprehensive plan amendment process. Specific to this, though, there could be changes leading up to the amendment hearing, which will be in June. MR. COE: See, I thought --. MR. MULHERE: Excuse me. The adoption -- MR. COE: I thought I read something in there that it couldn't be changed in the future. Now maybe I read it wrong. MR. MULHERE: Not to my knowledge. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Margorie Student, assistant county attorney. I've been working with growth management in the county for 14 years, and I can assure you between transmittal and adoption, quite a bit can change. As a matter of fact, when we did Page 95 March 6, 2002 ^ our first plan back in 1988, there was a problem with some of the environmental regulations that, in effect, was wholesalely rewritten between the work report and adoption. We are only at transmittal. This is only one stage. Adoption is when things are set in the sand. So anything -- well, I guess within limits, anything can happen between now and final adoption. MR. COE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's make a decision right now. We will get a break in 10 minutes to change court reporters. MR. HILL: As I understand it, there -- in fact, that's what Ms. Student just said. There is a period of time where EAC can become involved in the fine-tuning process. And with that in mind, I recommend that we -- I move that we recommend approval for this overlay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I here a second? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Recommendation dies for lack of a second. MR. CARLSON: It's -- wait a minute. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Go ahead. Mr. Carlson, you have some comment. I didn't mean to put you on the spot again, sir. MR. CARLSON: That's quite all right. Could you restate your motion? MR. HILL: In view of the fact that there will be a period of time during which all county agencies will have the opportunity to be -- involved in additional recommendations and fine-tuning of this overlay, I move that we recommend approval at this time. MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved and seconded. Everybody understand what the recommendation is? MR. HILL: And I want the preferencing remarks as part of the Page 96 March 6, 2002 motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Preferencing remarks are a part of the motion. Any discussion? Hearing done. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Aye. MS. LYNNE: Aye. MR. HILL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY Opposed? MR. COE: Opposed. MR. GAL: Opposed. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So that the motion fails four to two, but we fail because of the fact that we need five for a -- an affirmative vote. Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MR. HILL: A legal question. Will this action go to the BCC with the vote, or just the fact that it failed? MR. MULHERE: There will be full disclosure that the vote and everything when we bring it back to the board. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have a growth management update? MR. HILL: Excuse me. Very quickly. We had 17 amendments. Can you tell us if any of those were not part of the final document at this time? MR. LORENZ: Excuse me, Bob. You have the --. MR. HILL: There were 17 amendments that we -- or recommendations that we made. Are any of those -- were any of those stricken? MR. MULHERE: I wasn't really prepared to go over those. I'd probably want to go over those maybe at your next meeting. I'd come back and let you know what variations there were. I wasn't Page 97 March 6, 2002 prepared to do that today. MR. HILL: No problem. MR. MULHERE: I think largely, though, the recommendations of the EAC remained pretty much intact and followed with the CCPC's recommendations. But there may be some exceptions an I'd rather go through them one-by-one to prepare. MR. HILL: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Bill, I've got one question on that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill? MR. COE: I'm sorry, Bob. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bob. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Mudd. MR. COE: Just one quick question. I just caught part of their meeting, the BCC meeting, and I didn't really see them go down specifically each one of our recommendations. MR. MULHERE: No, they didn't. They didn't. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They didn't. I don't believe so. Okay. Any other comments? MS. BURGESON: I have one comment as a response to Bill's question to go over some of the changes. I just mentioned to Bill that there are a couple that were -- that were fairly substantial that they didn't support. And the only one that comes to mind that I think maybe you should be aware of right up front is that the board did not support the EAC or the planning commission's motion that when the TDR's are transferred that there is no remaining use Of agriculture. So in the NRPA areas and in the -- the NRPA sending and the regular sending areas, those properties can be used for agriculture fully before the TDR's are used, and if they choose to use TDR's they can continue to do ag on that property. MR. CARLSON: But are they locked in at the type of Page 98 March 6, 2002 agriculture that they're doing at the time they transfer their TDR? MS. BURGESON: No, they're not. The language was that they don't intensify. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. They don't -- MS. BURGESON: But, however, their discussion said that if the property, for instance, was fairly clear and they wanted to put more container pots on the area that was clear, so they would be expanding the coverage, and the board felt that was not considered intensifying because of-- that type of expansion was not intensifying the use. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. Specifically, the board's transmittal actions would allow continued agriculture -- continued agricultural operations to the extent and intensity that it previously existed after the TDR process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, since we're still going through the growth management plan, the adoption, you're also going to be getting the eastern lands material to you soon. I don't want to -- we will have the growth management subcommittee. And I know -- of course, Ali is not here. She chairs the subcommittee. But I would still encourage that subcommittee still meet with me and staff, and we can go through a lot of these issues in detail at the . Subcommittee level, and then have the subcommittee again brief the full EAC like we've done before. So I still would like to continue the use of that subcommittee to flush out the answers. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Council concur? No objection. Will do. Okay. All right. Any council member have any comment? Any comment from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none. We're adjourned. Page 99 March 6, 2002 Made it. How about that? Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:30 p.m. ENVIRONME s� , ADVISO ' ' COUNCIL CHAIi‘N THOMAS W. :ANSBURY TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY EMILY C. UNDERWOOD, RPR Page 100