Loading...
EAC Agenda 10/13/1999 COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 13, 1999; 9:00 a.m. COMMISSION BOARDROOM,THIRD FLOOR—ADMINISTRATION BUILDING I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF September 1, 1999 MEETING MINUTES IV. LAND USE PETITIONS AGENDA A. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-14 "Livingston Village PUD" Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-15 "Alexandria PUD" Section 18, Township 49 South,Range 26East C. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-98-15(1) "Bucks Run PUD" Section 35, Township 48 South,Range 26 East D. Conditional Use Petition No, CU-99-08 "Sabal Palm Golf Course" Section 24, Township 50 South, Range 26 East& Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 27 East E. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-22 "Royal Cypress Club PUD" Section 11, Township 50 South,Range 26 East F. Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-19 "Harvest For Humanity PUD" Section 32, Township 46 South,Range 29 East V. OLD BUSINESS Environmental Advisory Council Agenda .October 13, 1999 Page 2 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Notice of proposed Rule Development by DEP - "Operations within coastal waters" B. CPR-99-3; Remedial Amendments to the Coastal Managment and Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Element to implement the Final Order of the Governor and the Cabinet issued on June 22, 1999. VII. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT *************************************************************************** NOTES: A. Board Members: Notify the PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT(403- 2400)no later than 5 P.M. on October 7, 1999,if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have conflict and thus will abstain from voting on a particular petition. B. 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 insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. *************************************************************************** September 1, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, September 1, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 : 00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present : CHAIRMAN: William W. Hill Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe M. Keen Cornell John DiNunzio Daniel Jackson James L. McVey Thomas W. Sansbury J. Richard Smith ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist, Development Services Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Marni Scuderi, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Page 1 September 1, 1999 CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'd like to call the September 1st meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council to order. Could we have the roll call, please? MS . BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. MS . BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here . MS . BURGESON: Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Here. MS . BURGESON: DiNunzio. MR. DiNUNZIO: Here . MS . BURGESON: Hill . CHAIRMAN HILL: Here . MS . BURGESON: Jackson. MR. JACKSON: Here. MS . BURGESON: McVey. MR. McVEY: Here . MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: Here. MS . BURGESON: Mr. Smith. (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Let the record show we have eight out of nine . I 'd like to welcome the public . We have a full docket today. We have two major topics . One, we have a set of development petitions, and secondly, discussion on NRPA boundaries . (Mr. Smith enters boardroom. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: We are now a full board. We will take the petitions first , but in both cases we will give the public as much as of an opportunity as we can to present their views and opinions on both of the topics . I ' d like to -- council to consider the agenda and ask for their approval or additions or corrections . MR. CORNELL: Move we approve. MR. SANSBURY: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me back up. We do have the pleasure of a court reporter today, and she has asked that in particular, when a motion is made, if the individual would cite their name for her convenience, it would be nice. I 'd like discussion on that . I have one item I 'd like to add to Item 6 . MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I 'm sorry to interrupt you. J. Richard Smith. I just arrived a few minutes late, and I just wanted to make my presence known for the court reporter. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. In Item No. 6, I 'd like to add under new business a discussion on something, and I ' ll present a short document to the council at that time. Call it EAC Horizon, if you wish. There' s a motion for approval of the minutes of the agenda as amended with that one item. Other discussion? Those in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Carried unanimously. Page 2 September 1, 1999 Call your attention to the minutes of the August 17th meeting. In particular, a change . And Steve, would you want to comment on the change on the Item 7 (A) under the land use petitions? MR. LENBERGER: Yes . Good morning, for the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services . We went through the tapes and noticed that there was an error in the motion for Item 7 (A) , and that motion was corrected. And I handed out the amended minutes this morning. I just want to mention that . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a comment on that change? MR. SMITH: What page is that? MR. LENBERGER: On the amended -- CHAIRMAN HILL: On the second page of the -- MR. LENBERGER: It would be on Page 3 of the amended minutes . CHAIRMAN HILL: 3? 2? Oh, the change is on 3 . The particular change is the motion by Jackson, seconded by Coe concerning the Palm Royale Cemetery. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: One very minor item on the minutes . My name is spelled wrong. CHAIRMAN HILL: Minor? MR. SANSBURY: Minor. Seven times, I think. MR. CARLSON: You' re on a roll . CHAIRMAN HILL: I have one correction regarding the growth management sub-committee . We had five volunteers, and I indicated I 'd serve as ex officio. It was my intent when I asked Mr. Smith to chair the first meeting to get it going, but as we 've done in the past, an elected chairman of the committee by committee members . So when the growth management sub-committee continues their deliberations in the future, I will ask that committee to elect their own chairman. So I apologize if there was a mistake in the intent of my appointment there . MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I ask, was this discussed with any of the board members prior to today with you -- by you? CHAIRMAN HILL: No. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. CORNELL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. CORNELL: I just -- on that subject, it seems that we need to show John DiNunzio as a member. I don' t know that we need to amend the minutes, but -- MR. DiNUNZIO: I attended the meeting. CHAIRMAN HILL: You were at the meeting but not at the -- MR. DiNUNZIO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HILL: I think I 'd rather hold that off from a minute correction and let the appointment to the committee be handled as new business, yeah. Thank you, Keen. Any other corrections or additions to the -- MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. CARLSON: On Item 7 (C) , the First Assembly Ministries item, I made a motion to approve, but I also made a rather rambling, maybe clumsy motion that included some tower lighting, a specification that Page 3 September 1, 1999 would reduce bird strike, so that may be necessary to incorporate into ^ the minutes . Or maybe not , but -- CHAIRMAN HILL: I think we should, because it was definitely -- your motion included a statement concerning lighting with -- under the guise of FAA regulations . MR. CARLSON: Right . CHAIRMAN HILL: Would you care to word that? Because I think it was -- MR. LENBERGER: Again, Stephen Lenberger for the record. We do have the stipulation. It just was not put into the minutes . We ' ll add it in. MR. CARLSON: So it ' s on the tape? MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, we have the stipulation. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay, it should be added. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, we ' ll add it then. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Any other comments relative to the minutes? (No response . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: I ' ll entertain a motion for acceptance as amended. MR. CORNELL: So moved. MR. SANSBURY: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Moved by Cornell, seconded by Sansbury. Discussion? All those in favor, aye . Opposed? (No response . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Carried unanimously. Item No. 4 then. We ' ll get into land use petitions . 99-7, the PRC and PUD. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, Ron Nino, current planning manager, for the record. In order to facilitate the mission of this commission, and to get you as much information as possible about petitions, staff has instituted some procedural changes which would have the planner of record on each petition be the first presenter briefly describing the content of the petition, and then that would be turned over to the environmentalists and water management staff people, if that additional presentation is necessary. So on this petition -- but in this petition, Ray Bellows, who is the planning coordinator in charge of this -- responsible for this petition, in seeing that it gets to the Board of County Commissioners after appointed and statutory committees have dealt with the matter, will be presenting the planning portion of it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mr. Nino. MS. BURGESON: Just as a clarification, the amended minutes this morning, with the amended stipulation that Dr. Jackson had presented with the last meeting, requested that the item be brought back at site development plan time -- at the time that that site development plan was submitted. I just need to bring it to the board' s attention that the board needs to either approve the PUD document, deny it or continue the PUD document itself for further review. If you wish to add that, that -- once you've heard this presentation, if you wish to add that as a Page 4 September 1, 1999 n stipulation of approval to the PUD documents, then that ' s something that the board should consider. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is that clear to the members? MR. BELLOWS : For the record, Ray Bellows . I 'm a principal planner with current planning staff . The subject site is located on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and approximately three-quarters of a mile east of Logan Boulevard. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject site from agriculture and estates to a planned unit development, which would permit a public cemetery. And if they don' t receive their state permits from DEP to operate a cemetery, they have an alternative plan for an assisted living facility and related group housing such as skilled nursing facilities . The project is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. It ' s located within the urban mixed use urban residential sub-district on the future land use map. This district designation permits residential dwelling units primarily at four units per acre as a base density. It also allows nonresidential uses such as community facilities, including churches, schools, cemeteries, assisted living facilities and the nature . So therefore, this project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The basic site has a perimeter, and I have a copy of their master plan. Generally master plans are conceptual generalized plans of development . They' re not specific . The next step after zoning would be a site development plan approval where they get into detailed plans for showing parking, increased details in landscaping, water management plans . They' re all presented at the time of site development plan. Right now the conceptual plan that they' re proposing has an entry way off of Vanderbilt Beach Road only. There ' s a canal to the east along the eastern border. To the rear of the site there ' s a preserve tract for native open space. That ' s basically the area zoned estates . That will remain a preserve track. And Century Located will be their central building. And at this point we don't have locations of plots or anything of that nature. I ' ll be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, what process would the developer have to go through if they chose the alternate use as an ACLF? Would they have to come back, resubmit a site plan? MR. BELLOWS : No, we 're doing both at the same time. If they failed to receive all the required permits to operate a cemetery through the state, and they have not the ability to proceed further for that scenario, the zoning would be in place to allow for the alternate, which would be the ALF, and they would file their site plans. MR. JACKSON: Jackson. Is it customary to have "if I don't get what I want this way, I 'm going to do this"? MR. BELLOWS: Well, PUD' s typically allow for mixed uses. This particular one, most PUD' s allow for a range of dwelling types, let ' s say, multi-family and single family, or a mix of commercial retail with multi-family. And they develop master plans showing residential tracts and commercial tracts. This is a little bit unusual in that it' s either/or. But it ' s Page 5 September 1, 1999 still not all that unusual . It ' s still -- they're both being reviewed like simultaneously. Both uses would be permitted, but not at the same time. If the cemetery is approved and they develop a cemetery, the ALF cannot be developed. MR. JACKSON: How many exceptions has there been in the past? MR. BELLOWS : What do you mean by "exceptions"? MR. JACKSON: Well, it ' s either going to be this or. MR. BELLOWS : I don' t recall any this or that . But most -- all PUD ' s have a mix of uses . MS . STUDENT: Excuse me, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. A PUD is a zoning district, just like any other, in a sense like any other zoning district in our code. And if you look at our code and see our straight zoning districts, you will see there ' s a number of listed uses that aren' t necessary going to coexist on the same property, obviously. So a PUD is another zoning district, and it can have many different uses in it . And, you know, the person that owns the property could pick or choose the uses, because it is a zoning district . It ' s not -- I mean, there are aspects of it that are -- I can' t say contractual, because contract zoning is not permitted in Florida. But if you look at it like that, that it is a zoning district, and you could have a variety of uses in it, that may help orient new members to the board as to exactly what a PUD is . MR. COE: Can we disapprove the cemetery and approve the other uses, like ALF? MS . STUDENT: You could, but you have to have a rational basis for it . You just can' t do it arbitrarily. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: And, you know, we ' re here for the environmental . Is there any differential between the environmental impact of one use versus the other? MS . BURGESON: There is a potential, depending on the responses that were requested of the environmental consultant from last meeting. Those responses were directly related to the property being used as a cemetery. I don't think any of those questions or concerns would come up if the property were being used as an adult living facility. MR. McVEY: Seems like the last meeting that we had, one of the concerns was the product that went into the ground when you buried somebody. Was that addressed between last meeting and now? MS . BURGESON: Do you want Greg to or the consultant? Is the consultant for the petition -- MR. NINO: Again, Ron Nino for the record. Those types of technical details really behooves the petitioner to convince you that the facts and the technology is such that what they want to do is an environmentally safe result. So it behooves the petitioner to present that data. It ' s really not up to staff. CHAIRMAN HILL: No, I -- in defense of the question, I don't think it was a matter of asking staff to address it . It was a question as to whether the petitioners had addressed it, which was our question. MR. NINO: They have. Now' s the opportunity for them to do so. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Page 6 September 1, 1999 council . For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. And we have provided written material to the staff . Whether they have, you know, reviewed it or not, I can' t say. But we have it to share with you today and we have some people here to testify and to answer your questions . Particularly, I have Greg Stewart from Stewart & Associates, a planner. I have our environmental consultant, Jim Keltner, who was at our prior meeting. And I also have here to answer your questions with regard to some of the cemetery uses, Mr. Todd Muller from the Muller-Thompson Funeral Chapel . And I ' ll ask Mr. Stewart to come forward, please. MR. STEWART: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the board. Greg Stewart, for the record. Appreciate the opportunity of further presenting the project to you. We received from Dr. Jackson and another individual a series of questions . If you'd like, I 've developed a presentation that -- out of that list the various questions and our responses along with informational -- a packet that substantiates the responses . I could present that, or if you'd like, you could go immediately into directing questions to me. What would be your preference, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: If you would like to, we ' ll hear your presentation, if there ' s no objections from the council . MR. STEWART: Thank you. The information that we 're passing out basically is a handout -- is an outline of the presentation that we will be making. In addition, some reduced graphics illustrating the project, the geological crawl section. There ' s information pertaining to the geological strata, well location, well depth. In addition, there ' s a description of an outline of our surface water management plan that has been reviewed by staff . Finally, you will see not only an outline of the what is formaldehyde issue, but correspondence from Dodge Company. Correspondence from Dodge Company relates to funeral homes . This project is not listing funeral homes within its permitted scheduled use, but we wanted to put that in the packet because funeral homes have raised other issues . And again, it ' s a very conservative approach. There ' s a lot of meaningful information in that letter. But to begin with, the first question that we were asked was where are the graves to be located? In referring to the master concept plan, one finds that the graves will be located basically in the north three-quarters of the project . There is a perimeter rim canal system south of the -- south of the rim canal is a 4 .4 acre native vegetation tract . The Golden Gate Estates area is buffered by approximately 175 feet from the right-of-way line to the areas that will contain the grave sites . The site plan illustrates approximately eight percent paved area and eight percent lake area and 84 percent open space. Now, a key question, as I understand, is that what may be expected from water quality flow values originating from the grave sites . And based upon our research, based upon peer review research, based upon the site conditions, surface and subsurface, there will be little if any change from preexisting water quality conditions. This Page 7 September 1, 1999 is so for a number of reasons . .-. First and foremost, if you will refer to the crawl section, you' ll see that the grave sites shall be vaulted, completely enclosed. I spoke with Kevin McCormick of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for the record this is a DC listing, area code 202-260-7772 . Mr. McCormick stated quite explicitly that the EPA does not regulate nor monitor groundwater issues originating from these type of uses . They looked at this over a decade ago . There are no impacts . And he was very specific in that . He further went on to state that when they did conduct a research to see whether this was an area that they wanted to get into for regulation, that they found that, I ' ll quote, that cemetery uses present low human health impact potential . Very important finding, because when you contrast that to gas stations that have a high human health impact potential -- and of course we all know gas stations are sprouting up like mushrooms -- I think it puts this type of use in its proper context . Now, the issue is how deep are the graves and is there groundwater contact potential . Again, referring to the crawl section, and one is included in your information packet, the existing grade is approximately 12 to 12 and a half feet . The proposed finished grade is at 16 feet . One finds that in the site -- and again, there ' s information in your packet -- based upon our borings, there ' s a cap rock approximately six feet from the existing grade of 12 feet . So succinctly we have -- after the development we ' ll have approximately a 10-foot soil column between the cap rock. This certainly provides a very adequate buffer above and beyond the concrete vault issue. Furthermore, based upon the Vineyards ' application for development approval, which was a DRI located approximately a mile and a quarter west , from their subsurface investigations they' re showing that there is a confining layer of Bonita Spring marrow approximately 35 feet in depth. Beneath that is the Tamiami aquifer. The Tamiami aquifer, as you know, is the primary source of individual well potable water. So when one asks, you know, is there a potential for groundwater contamination, when one considers the fact that you have a casket surrounded by an enclosed concrete vault with a lime rock cap underneath of it with a pretty significant soil column, followed by the real confining layer at approximately 35 feet, and then here ' s your groundwater potable water source, there is basically no potential . Now, the question pertaining to how many graves . The Florida Certificate of Need permits up to 1, 200 grave sites per acre. We haven' t made any determination on the number of grave sites . Certainly we need to go through the approval process . Once we do that, then, you know, we ' ll get into more final detail site planning. Another question was what is the current distance to the nearest well . Now, for public monitoring wells, the nearest distance that I can tell is approximately three-quarters of a mile west of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And that ' s County Rural CO-661 . The crawl section included in your information packet shows that to be at approximately 55 feet, plus or minus. The property to the west of the site is vacant . The property to Page 8 September 1, 1999 the east of the site is vacant with the exception of some type of -- it ' s some type of shed, maintenance shed. I 'm not sure exactly what it is . I do not think it ' s a single-family residence. So I believe that both to the east and to the west there are no potable wells . To the north one finds the Riverwalk DRI . That ' s using a central water system, so there are no wells. The individual wells are in the Golden Gate Estates area, again set back approximately 175 feet from the southernmost edge of the cemetery sites . Now, the issue pertaining to well -- private wells in the south adjoining property draw down and tap into the cemetery water field issue. And it ' s based upon the geology of the site and the fact that it ' s surrounded by a perimeter of canal systems . It ' s highly unlikely. And this is so for the following reason. I ' ll reiterate, first and foremost, you' re dealing with a concrete enclosed structure, okay, followed by a cap rock of limestone and then a confining layer of approximately 35 feet . The adjoining property well field will certainly -- if it ties into -- for example, if it expands to the south, it ' s going to be directly influenced by perimeter rim canal . So that again serves as a significant barrier. And again, the 35-foot confining layer that consists of Bonita Spring marrow was a very significant confining layer. The graphic that we 've included in the site plan, and from what I 've read in the application for development approval, has that anywhere from 20 to 40 feet in depth, so it ' s a very significant confining layer. So again, it ' s my impression, based upon the surface hydrology and the subsurface geology, there ' s no potential for impacts . There was a question pertaining to surface water management, specifically the -- how much surface area will be flooded, what ' s the general drainage concept , how is this going to impact adjoining properties . Currently the sheet flow is approximately to the southwest . Now, again, drainage canals -- existing drainage canals completely prohibit existing off-site through site flows, so there are no off-site through site flows . And in fact, when one really starts to look at this, the site presents an ideal of configuration for this type of use. Because again, it ' s self-contained because of the perimeter canal conditions . The water management plan calls for a state required treatment of the first one inch of water, based upon a 24-hour seasonal storm event . Additional water quality treatment above and beyond what we have modeled in the attached surface water management plan will be provided through a shallow swale system that will be incorporated into the cemetery. We 're calling it a quiet path. Specifically it will be a series of landscaping and hardscaping around the shallow swale. This shallow swale will allow for additional pretreatment that wasn't calculated in the original drainage calculation, so not only has the staff reviewed drainage plan workable from a federal and state regulatory perspective, but we are pretreating additional water quality. Finally, outfall. Based upon a 25-year three-day storm event will be in either the Harvey Basin Canal or the Vanderbilt Beach Road Canal. Harvey Basin Canal is to the east and the Vanderbilt Beach Page 9 September 1, 1999 Road Canal is to the north. So we do have a positive outfall . .-. Succinctly what will happen is that sheet flow will occur, captured into our shallow swale bypath, retained and detained in the lake . Once it ' s treated, according to state rules and standards, it will be discharged in the canal system and flushed, I presume, out to the Gulf of Mexico. Embalming substances . We do have Todd Muller, he ' s a funeral director at the Muller-Thompson Funeral Home . He can speak to this issue at a greater depth than I, because I 'm no expert on this issue. I did conduct an extensive website search. The Environmental Protection Agency website has an abundant information on formaldehyde. They regulate formaldehyde on an atmospheric level, on a respiratory level . They do not regulate formaldehyde with regard to groundwater. And the reason is very simple. It ' s a gas . You know, during the embalming process, it ' s liquified, but it ' s a gas . They do not monitor or regulate this because it has no impacts . In fact, if you review the information attached in this package, it describes formaldehyde. it discusses what uses formaldehyde is . It states quite -- the EPA states quite explicitly that it ' s an everyday nominal occurrence of typically at a 0 . 06 parts per million threshold. The EPA steps in and regulates this when it ' s over 600 times that value, at 0 . 1 parts per million. One finds it ' s a resin, it ' s used in cabinetry, it ' s used in permanent-press fabrics . It ' s all over the place . So with regard to the embalming substances issues, again when one looks at what formaldehyde really is, which is a gas, which isn't regulated or monitored by the EPA, within the context of an enclosed casket, an enclosed vault, lime rock, capstone, followed by a confining layer of marrow, it ' s a non-issue. The adult congregate living facility site plan has yet to be developed, as Ray said. It ' s a backup plan in case we do not get our certificate of need. The certificate of need process is -- well, it ' s beyond red tape. It ' s a very significant regulatory process . We felt that it was very appropriate to have a backup use in case we do not get our primary use, because we don' t want to come back in and spend the tens and tens of thousands of dollars to re-do this process. There was a question about the lake location, the surface water management plan. Again, I attached the outline of the plan. Not the detailed drainage calculations, because I don' t understand that at all . But I did attach the plan itself . Staff reviewed it . Staff found it adequate. Certainly it will comply with all the state rules, 17-3 , 17-40 and 40E-4 , which is the water quality component . So our plan will not only meet these requirements, but because of the quiet path concept, we will be exceeding the water quality standard. The last topic, as I understand it, dealt with pesticides and fertilizers. There was a comment that, hey, you know, are you going to be doing anything above and beyond the norm for this? And as I 've described, yes, we are. As I stated in my outline, the site is inherently suitable for this, because it is completely self-contained from adjoining property owners. Completely self-contained. Once water is treated to federal and state standards, it will be positively discharged in the rim canals, flushed out. Page 10 September 1, 1999 n And then finally, with regard to water quality, when one looks at the design elevation of 16 feet compared to the existing grade of 12 to 12 and a half feet where the cap rock is, we will have a minimal six-foot soil column. So within the context of the fact that the site and the project is inherently an open space project and it ' s an open space use, there will not be any significant surface water management problems . And certainly, and this is my last thing before I open it up, when one looks at uses, an open space use such as this is inherently compatible on a surface water management level . You will have greater impacts from a two-acre convenient store . Contamination occurs basically -- a non-point contamination occurs through contact with asphaltic type surfaces : Pavement, shingles and the like . Fertilizers, pesticides, the current mixtures today break down within a six to eight-inch turf zone . They' re designed to do so. It ' s also important to point out that the operation and maintenance of a facility such as this, it ' s inherent to control the use of these substances to keep the costs down. Because again, it ' s a business that has a very tight margin. They're not going to just be dumping fertilizers just to keep the grass green. They're going to be practicing -- as most contemporary cemeteries nowadays, they' ll be practicing advanced turf management practices . And. So again, between their own internal motivation to keep their costs down, turf management practices, state rules and guidelines, we do not see that surface water management will be any problem. And to conclude my presentation, again, I do have Todd Muller here to speak specifically to the embalming issues or the overall issues of the cemetery practice . And again, as I stated in the beginning, we ' re not asking for a funeral home. We have designated offices for administration and a chapel and cemetery plots . And that ' s really the concept in its totality. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions from the council? MR. JACKSON: Yeah. Jackson. You speak of Kevin McCormick which has a K on the end of his name . He reported -- he was interviewed back in January, February, and he gives the following written account . He says, "The level of concern was low. " He says, that ' s McCormick, but he concedes, "so was the amount of data. We did no field research on our own, " McCormick says . Quote, I think we looked at some studies, end of quote . I used to do that kind of stuff for the EPA so I know what they do. They look through the literature and it just isn' t . That ' s dated from back in 1989 . In contrast, information on the BBC on what they're doing in England, which you're probably aware of, is they're quite concerned. And in fact, the International Limnology Society at their meeting in Ireland, in August, 1999, announced that a study should be done in relation to possible leaching from grave sites into water supplies. As a result of this, England has taken a major step towards this and are about to come out with a review on that . That is one of the reasons I have some concern about it . Your comment about Formalin, I 'm sure that you know it says that Formalin is a mixture of 37 to 40 percent formaldehyde, water, and usually 10 percent methanol. And it is the major ingredient for Page 11 September 1, 1999 embalming, which I 'm sure your gentlemen will say. But I would like to go on and back a little bit further, if I may. And I think this may take up the rest of the day, and we have so many important things to discuss . But I think putting things down in the ground is rather important, too . And perhaps the reason it hasn't been discussed is because we 've not had an opportunity to present ideas like this . Basically you have two soil types in that particular geographic area, as I understand it . This is the soil survey of Collier County. And they are the malabar fine sand and the holopaw fine sand. And neither one of them, from any description that I 've read on it, are suitable for this kind of a site for a cemetery. MR. STEWART: May I speak to that? MR. JACKSON: Please do. MR. STEWART: Yes, if you look at the information package, one, two, three, four, on the fifth page, B.C. Excavation, we 've looked at this as just a quote . The material above the rock is four to six inches of sugar sand, four feet of orange loam material and one to two inches of white shell on top of the rock. Substantially different from the highly generalized soil conservation surface mapping that is done . One finds typically that those soils atlases are great for planning, it gives you the big picture . But when you come in -- and again, I do not -- Dr. Jackson, I do not profess to be a soil scientist at all . MR. JACKSON: Likewise . MR. STEWART: But I do understand that you have high degree of irregularities scattered throughout . So, yes, one can look at the soils atlas, but then when one looks at the actual soil conditions on-site, it ' s -- and especially -- and we have Jim to speak on that one. One looks at the surface vegetation, which is upland pine palmetto sand hill type vegetation, the site can basically be characterized as a highly -- well, as not a loamy type of soil that ' s described in the soils atlas . To respond to your question or comment regarding the BCC article, and on the last page, Bob Harris, a member of the investigating team says, "Cemeteries are just one of several particular activities which could give rise to groundwater pollution to be sure we need to have a scientific advice and understanding in order to determine whether these things present a risk or not . " MR. JACKSON: No doubt about it . MR. STEWART: Absolutely, I couldn' t agree more. So we also looked at a lot of peer review information. And in fact, we only copied one. It ' s that . The soil and groundwater quality study of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery prepared by Commemorative Services -- oh, excuse me, prepared by B Consultants, in July of ' 92 , on the last page, the sum of it, which is the last bullet item, based on the analysis results, there does not appear to be an occurrence of elevated levels of concern for the parameters tested in either groundwater or the soils at the cemetery. Then it goes on to say that these parameters include formaldehyde, methanol, arsenic, DOC, TOC. There ' s other studies that we have found that Todd can speak to. Again, when one looks at the big picture, concrete enclosures, you know, enclosures that are now being forced upon the gas station industry, the cap rock, the confining marrow, again, there will -- I Page 12 September 1, 1999 n just can't imagine there being any potential whatsoever. MR. JACKSON: Well, perhaps the reason that I got off on this in the first place was in your Environmental Impact Statement -- would you happen to have a copy of that available? MR. STEWART: No. MR. JACKSON: It was prepared in February, ' 99 . Page 6 shows a beautiful diagram of the soils and that relationship. And it seems to me that they' re reversed. And I just wondered if that was my misinterpretation of it or if that was the case. It has one zoned as being halipaw, when I think that it should be holopaw. And I was just wondering -- MR. STEWART: That ' s correct . Yes, you're absolutely -- that was a graphical mistake that you caught, no one else did. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Well, I try to read this material, and CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions? MR. JACKSON: Please, that ' s fine, for right now. MR. DiNUNZIO: I have a question. DiNunzio. You say that the caskets are going to be buried in concrete vaults . Now, I asked staff about this . It ' s not a county requirement . Is that something that ' s going to be required at this individual facility? MR. STEWART: Yes . It ' s my understanding that -- well, actually, can you speak to that? MR. MULLER: My name is Todd Muller, for the record. It ' s up to individual cemeteries to require some sort of outer burial container. The reason for that is the settling of the ground, maintaining a level of the ground. There ' s markers put over the graves to allow for some settling. Most cemeteries that have been developed beyond 1965 , 1966, all require some sort of concrete container. Whether that seal ' s hermetically airtight or watertight or not, that ' s up to the consumer. A regular concrete structure would not necessarily seal, but it would be up to the cemetery to require or make it their policy to only allow sealed concrete containers for the casket to be placed in. MR. DiNUNZIO: I checked with a casket manufacturer, and they told me that caskets, they' re basically made out of steel . MR. MULLER: That ' s correct . MR. DiNUNZIO: And that the interiors of them aren' t usually finished with a protective coating to keep the steel from rusting or leaving us, and that basically there ' s little clips put in there for sort of a drapery arrangement to hang on. And I was wondering about the effect of this -- the casket itself, if it ' s just buried in the ground. They told me that they didn't expect one in our climate to last five years without some type of protection. And I don't know, if the county doesn't have an ordinance on this, it would seem like to guarantee that there is a vault to place the casket in, that we need a county ordinance on it . MR. MULLER: Naples Memorial Gardens, for example, which is the other cemetery in town, they have a requirement that when a casket is placed in the ground, it is placed in some sort of concrete receptacle. I 'm not aware of any county ordinances. There have been older cemeteries that have been, for all practical purposes, filled up, that counties or municipalities take over. But of course that ' s Page 13 September 1, 1999 an afterthought as the cemetery is full . But I do not know of any cemeteries that have been developed in the last 15 to 20 years that do not have a requirement of this concrete structure . In regards to your comments about the makeup of the casket, I just don't want there to be any confusion between the metal clippings that adhere the head panel or the area above, you know, where the viewing would be . The mattresses are made of an absorbent material to absorb up to eight to 10 pounds of water. And this is commonly done with Batesville Casket Company, which is probably the largest or is the largest casket manufacturer in the world. They do provide a coating of the regular steel caskets . The caskets that are made of stainless steel, copper, or bronze, the nature of that material being more durable, less susceptible to corrosion. They do not put that on the steel . The metal or material takes care of itself . But they do use this material in the bedding, the cushion of the casket, if you will . That takes care of that . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: Could we ask the petitioner if they would be agreeable to stipulate that concrete vaults are going to be -- would be used at this installation, that those vaults would be sealed? CHAIRMAN HILL: I think that ' s proper. MR. STEWART: Yes . Greg Stewart . After speaking with my clients, I 'm pretty sure that they will agree to that stipulation. Needless to say, I need to discuss that . We need to discuss that with the clients . Certainly if that is a recommended condition from the board, then that would give us the springboard to say to our clients, look, you know this is the recommended condition, you ought to do it . I believe they' re going to do it . We do not have any concerns . We 've always been planning on it . But again, for a regulatory concern, I need to discuss that with my clients before stating it on the record. But we would welcome any positive conditions that you may offer. CHAIRMAN HILL: Was your intent, Mr. Sansbury, to be a recommendation or a stipulation? MR. SANSBURY: My intent would be make a motion with the stipulation that this would be required to -- MR. COE: Coe. I ' ll second that . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is that clear, it ' s a difference between -- MR. STEWART: Yes, I understood. CHAIRMAN HILL: -- stipulation and recommendation? MR. STEWART: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HILL: Would you word that carefully, Mr. Sansbury, so we can get that in the record? MR. SANSBURY: Word it carefully. Okay. That this Environmental Advisory Council, that with the approval of this petition, that the approval is conditioned on the understanding that all burial that will take place in this cemetery will take place in concrete vaults and those vaults will be sealed. And I don't know from a legal standpoint or county standpoint how that would go in the approval. We'd probably look to some help there to -- CHAIRMAN HILL: It will be an additional stipulation to the staff Page 14 September 1, 1999 report to Stipulation number 6 . MR. SANSBURY: Number 6? Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is the motion clear to the council? MR. JACKSON: No. Does that mean if it ' s approved or if it ' s not approved? CHAIRMAN HILL: Motion is that if it ' s approved, that will be -- MR. JACKSON: If it is approved, okay. I couldn' t hear that . Thank you. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Could someone answer a -- I notice in the material that you furnished to us that one of the chemicals that is listed, this is in the Mount Pleasant Cemetery, as pleasant as the topic is, discusses the fact that one of the chemicals is arsenic . I 've always heard -- and I 'm not a scientist by any stretch, I 've always heard that arsenic is one of those guys that ' s just not going to go away. Once it ' s there, it ' s going to stay. MR. COE : Arsenic was used during the turn of the century. I don' t think it ' s any longer used. MR. STEWART: It ' s not permitted any more. MR. COE: Turn of the century, it was commonly used. MR. STEWART: That ' s correct, it is not permitted. MR. SMITH: So there would not be any of that introduced to -- MR. STEWART: Yes . And I think that this research was basically looking at everything. MR. JACKSON: And that ' s one of the reasons that some of the groundwater is contaminated with arsenic is for that reason. That ' s the reason they' re concerned. CHAIRMAN HILL: There ' s a motion before council . I did not hear a second. MR. COE: Which one was that? Was that his motion? CHAIRMAN HILL: Sansbury. MR. JACKSON: Second was from Coe, that ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any further discussion? Those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye . Opposed, the same . (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimously passed. Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you very much. I should -- I 'm remiss . Is there any public discussion on this item? I ' ll close that portion then and ask the council for action on this PUD. We still need action on the petition. MR. SANSBURY: Move it . CHAIRMAN HILL: I understand the motion to include the -- both the alternate uses? MR. SANSBURY: Including the alternate uses, yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: Moved by Mr. Sansbury that PUD 99-7 be approved with the additional stipulation. Is there a second? MR. SMITH: I ' ll second that. CHAIRMAN HILL: Seconded by Smith. Discussion? Those in favor, aye. Opposed? MR. JACKSON: Aye. Page 15 September 1, 1999 THE COURT REPORTER: I 'm sorry, who was the opposed. MR. JACKSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Passed 8-1 . Thank you very much. Okay, petition B, 4 (B) . Commercial excavation, 59 . 703 . MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, board members . My name is Chahram Badamtchian. I 'm a planner with the county. This is a conditional use for earth mining. The property is located one and a half miles north of the county fairgrounds on Immokalee Road. The site contains 2 , 564 acres, 40 square miles. They are proposing to excavate 553 acres of that . No blasting is allowed -- will be allowed. And the area they' re excavating is mostly farmland, so a minimal amount of clearing is going to be required. If you' re interested, this activity is going to create 396 trips a day, truck trips a day, and probably is going to be there for the next 20 years . This request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It ' s one of the uses allowed as a conditional use . And it ' s called -- Governor' s final order allows earth mining in this area. If you have any questions, I ' ll be more than glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for staff? If I interpret our maps correctly, this is in the CREW trust area? MR. CARLSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HILL: It ' s not? It ' s called the Camp Keais, right? MR. CARLSON: It ' s here . MR. DiNUNZIO: It ' s outside of the area . CHAIRMAN HILL : It ' s in between the Camp -- oh, okay. It ' s right in there . Okay. MS . BURGESON: The area on this site -- just for the record, Barbara Burgeson. The area that ' s requested for excavation, as Chahram mentioned, is almost entirely farm field. It ' s already been impacted, with the exception of a small cypress area, which because of the hydrology changes due to farming has also been impacted. The only concerns that staff has from an environmental viewpoint is that there are several burrowing owl burrows on the property. When we went out and did a site visit, due to fairly extraordinary amounts of rain recently, the burrows were no longer occupied, and probably past the nesting season. So at the time, it wasn' t a concern, but they do use the area, and that is a stipulation of the conditional use that those wildlife issues be addressed. MR. SMITH: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that there -- it was an unusual excavation in the sense that there was a sizable island to be retained right in the center with apparently no access -- MS BURGESON: That ' s correct . MR. SMITH: -- to that island. Is there some reason for that? MS. BURGESON: That ' s how the developer wished to proceed with the excavation, just as an additional amenity. MR. COB: An amenity for a dirt farm? MS . BURGESON: For the final product of a lake with an island in the center. MR. CHRZANOWSKI : I think it would be perfect. Stan Chrzanowski with the engineering department . This may or may not be the reason, but a lot of times farmers, Page 16 September 1, 1999 n when they farm, they only farm land that ' s arable. And usually they leave a parcel like this . If you look, the land around it is clear but the parcel is not . They' ll leave it because there ' s something in the subsurface that ' s not worth clearing the land to farm. And my guess would be that if the farmers left it, that -- - I 'm sure the petitioner will say why he left it, but probably figured it wasn't worth digging. I would guess you'd be better off asking him at this point . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is the petitioner present? MR. WILKISON: Yes . Committee members, for the record my name is David Wilkison from Wilkison & Associates . I 'm representing the State Road 846 land trust . With me today is Ken Passarella from Passarella & Associates . He performed the environmental work on this project . And also with me is Don Barker, who is a trustee of the State Road 846 land trust . And as staff has mentioned, this excavation is really located entirely on pasture lands, and they were formally farmed probably 20 to 25 years ago. The owners of the property desired to retain the cypress -- it ' s a nonfunctional cypress forest, really. And the interior of the lake -- and as Stan said, typically soils underlying the cypress heads are really not that desirable for fill, or really -- rarely ever are they desirable for agriculture . So the owners instructed us to retain that as a visual amenity, and we proceeded so . And we concur with the stipulations from staff, and we ' re here to answer any questions you may have . MR. JACKSON: Jackson. That ' s quite a bit of lake you're going to be having. MR. WILKISON: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: What are you going to do with it? MR. WILKISON: It ' s -- the use at this time is to excavate the sand for commercial sales . MR. JACKSON: What afterwards? Anything? MR. WILKISON: Right now there really is no planned use for it at this point because of the moratorium that ' s existing by the state . Earth mining is really the only use besides agriculture that ' s allowed for this property. MR. JACKSON: What procedures are you using to stop it from being eutrophic? I mean, it could turn into one big algal mess. MR. WILKISON: I think the lake is approximately about a mile in length and probably about a mile in width. And we consider that wave action would help in turning it over, slightly. And also, this property was permitted back in 1992 for a citrus grove, the entire parcel . And there are two control structures that have been installed on the site. They haven' t been connected to the canals that you see that are on the east side and the south side. And what we propose to do is to connect the lake to the control structures, they were permitted by the Water Management District, to provide some circulation of water interior to the lake. MR. JACKSON: I 'm sure you haven't gotten this far with the morphometry of it yet, but what would be the surface volume ratio? Because that' s what ' s going to determine the overturn of nutrients to give you the algal growth. MR. WILKISON: Now, when you say surface volume ratio -- MR. JACKSON: The surface area that you have on entire water, and Page 17 September 1, 1999 then what the depth of it ' s going to be, the ratio in there. MR. WILKISON: The depth -- MR. JACKSON: Ten feet, I thought you were going to go. MR. WILKISON: Right . What we have there, the two canals that are adjacent to the property have had an effect over this property over time, as you can see. MR. JACKSON: I can' t see that far, so I couldn' t possibly -- MR. WILKISON: As you have read, the canals -- or South Florida Water Management District drainage canals, kind of the headwaters of the Golden Gate Canal basically is what they are. They have affected this property over time, and obviously affect groundwater table. Our soil study stated that the groundwater table that was encountered was anywhere from 2 .4 feet to about 6 . 8 feet . We can control at 17, and basically 17 will give us a -- as you had said, a volume of water of probably anywhere from the dry season to the wet season of probably about six to 10 feet . MR. JACKSON: I notice here that you' re complying with the code for littoral planning. What did you have in mind; do you know? MR. WILKISON: What we have, as you see, is the Collier County code of -- MR. JACKSON: That ' s a very poor code, too. It could be bigger. MR. WILKISON: Right . And we -- there ' s been many conversations with the owner about expanding that . What you see there, we have some graphic representation of some plantings with no planting plan. What I 'd like to do is let Ken Passarella address that . MR. JACKSON: Okay, fine . MR. WILKISON: He ' s had quite a bit of experience in excavations . He has some ideas on that . MR. JACKSON: Wonderful . Because most of these mining deals that I 've seen around end up having a great big aquatic mess for people to look at, and I think aesthetics is something that we should strive for. And so I 'm sure that he ' ll be able to put my mind at ease. MR. PASSARELLA: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ken Passarella with Passarella & Associates . With respect to the littoral zones on the proposed excavation lake, we have had discussions with the applicant . And also in those discussions talked about the aesthetics and how that may look. Also from a functional standpoint, we ' re going to take a look at that as well . I understand the county requirements require 10 percent of the lake be littoral shelves. What we 're looking at doing is through the South Florida Water Management District process and our excavation permit, and also to address issues as far as wading birds . As you know, we have the Corkscrew Sanctuary not far from here, and we have a lot of wood storks that may utilize this area. And to increase potential habitat for wood storks, we 've talked about doing littoral zones around the lake that would be an enhancement for wood stork foraging; i.e. , instead of your standard level slope going into the lake leaving some, you know, uneven areas where the water could pond and collect prey and the wood storks could use those areas as foraging. We've talked about different types of littoral zone type plantings. We have had a lot of success in these areas due to the Page 18 it September 1, 1999 type of soils that are being excavated and the alkalinity of the water. We have found certain plants to do better than others . MR. JACKSON: That ' s quite true . MR. PASSARELLA: Yeah. Specifically one that we found native to this area that does real well is eleocharis or spike rush. And so those are the type of things we' re looking at from a standpoint of not only from an aesthetic point for the applicant, but also as a functional point as far as habitat for species and wading birds and also as well as fish species in the lake. MR. JACKSON: I don't know that this is for you, but you can refer it to one of your colleagues . It seems to me that we have a -- since we have no general plans, that this would be an excellent opportunity to have a regional park put in this area, because certainly out in that area there ' s a need for a park of this nature. And I think -- of course, I 'm just speculating on just instead of having a hole in the ground with water in it . Because a lake is really more than just a hole with water in it . It ' s a real microcosm. It ' s an entire ecosystem. So we ought to utilize it . It ' s just a possibility. Hi, go ahead. MR. WILKISON: We ' ll discuss that with our client . Like I said, right now the only use is proposed. MR. JACKSON: I know. MR. WILKISON: There are some other uses on the property right now. There ' s pasture and there ' s some cattle grazing, and also a real limited amount of sod farming. MR. JACKSON: I think -- MR. WILKISON: That ' s basically it . MR. JACKSON: -- dedication of some of it for a county park, since we ' re going to be losing that space there, it would be nice to get something out of it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, I think those kind of recommendations are a little bit beyond our purview. MR. JACKSON: They're environmental, though. And I was under the impression that anything that was environmental, whether or not it ' s mandated by the state or the county, should be brought up by this committee, and that is certainly one of the most essential environmental thing when it comes to a body of water. CHAIRMAN HILL: What I meant, Dr. Jackson, was recommending -- MR. JACKSON: Oh, I didn' t recommend it . I suggested it . There ' s a difference between it . CHAIRMAN HILL: I have one question. You made a statement that there are control structures permitted? MR. WILKISON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HILL: I assume you -- with the Water Management District, you will be connecting to those structures and into their system; is that correct? MR. WILKISON: That is correct . We 're in the process right now of modifying the Water Management District permit. Back in 1992, this whole entire property was permitted for a citrus grove, and we will be modifying that permit. MR. SMITH: Mr. Wilkison? MR. WILKISON: Yes, sir. MR. SMITH: How long do you anticipate the mining process would Page 19 September 1, 1999 take place? .-. MR. WILKISON: We had estimated -- and obviously it ' s based on our prediction of market conditions of 15 years . MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. CARLSON: Could you elaborate for me what ' s going to happen to those burrowing owls? MR. WILKISON: If you don't mind, I ' ll let Ken talk to that . MR. PASSARELLA: For the record, Ken Passarella. As Dave mentioned, there are existing other uses on the property right now. And those include agricultural uses such as cattle grazing and sod production. And right now those burrowing owls -- and as Barbara mentioned earlier, due to the water levels on the property, the burrows are not currently being utilized, plus it ' s out of their nesting season at this point . But what happens is when the farmer comes into work in a specific area to, you know, harvest, I guess you'd say, harvest the sod, those burrowing owls will move to another location. And basically they' re using the areas where there is vegetation that ' s typically less than 18 inches in height in the pastures, and those areas that are currently not in production by the farmer. So the owls will move around the property, depending on the activity status of the various ag. fields . And what we anticipate doing on this project is that we ' ll be required to coordinate with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -- I 'm still used to saying Game Commission. And also is felt if there ' s any activeness in the area, we have to deal with the federal agencies through the Federal Migratory Bird Act . But we don' t anticipate getting involved with any active burrows or nests . What we would do is during the non-nesting season come into an area and start in an area -- start work in an area during the non-nesting season. When we move into a new area, again we would move into a new area during the non-nesting season. If there are any burrows in that area, then we would be required to get a permit to take those burrows, even though they aren' t currently active . We will not be starting any new excavation in any areas where there are active nests during the nesting season. So once we 've displaced the birds, they will move to other portions of the ag. fields and nest in those areas . We have quite a bit of ag. field on this property, outside of the proposed lake area. So there ' s additional habitat for those birds out there on the property. MR. CARLSON: I know very little about these birds, because I 've never managed property that had them, but -- so it ' s no big deal for them to move and dig a new burrow is what you are saying. MR. PASSARELLA: Correct. And most of the studies that the Game Commission -- the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has done on the burrowing owls in Florida is revolved around Cape Coral, because there ' s such a large population of burrowing owls in the Cape Coral area. And what they see is, you know, someone comes in and builds a house on a lot, they move to the next lot or they shift around, depending on the activity of the lots. If a lot becomes overgrown, they will leave that lot and go to a maintained lot . So they are Page 20 September 1, 1999 n constantly shifting around, depending on the habitat itself . And I think historically in the natural environment, these birds, due to their limitation on where they like to burrow, you know, in a natural dry prairie area, if it was overgrown and hadn' t been burned for awhile, they would stay out of those areas . And when they've moved into areas, it was areas that had been burned where the vegetation was low and suitable for their burrowing. So I think they're used to this kind of movement around into habitats that are -- meet their requirements for nesting areas . MR. CARLSON: Is there anybody from the Wildlife Commission here? I have the same problem with the new terminology, and maybe since we all called it the Game Commission, we could just adopt Wildlife Commission and we would all know what we ' re talking about . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: I would move approval of petition with the stipulation to items that staff has recommended. CHAIRMAN HILL: It ' s been moved to approve 59 . 703 with staff ' s recommendation. MR. SMITH: I ' ll second it . MR. SANSBURY: You may have members of the public here . MS . SHAW: Yeah. MR. SMITH: For the record, I ' ll second it, for purposes of -- MS . SHAW: My name is Lori Shaw. MR. MULLER: Ma ' am, there ' s a microphone here . MS . SHAW: I 'm sorry. I live right there. Right there . I 'd like to know if there is anyone that would want to live right there for the next 20 years . Is there anybody in this room that would want to live in my house for the next 20 years? It ' s a cow pasture. We hear cows at night . 400 dump trucks a day? I know this is an environmental meeting, but I 'm part of the environment too, you know. My pets are part of the environment, my yard is part of the environment . I don' t want to live next to this mess for the next 15 or 20 years . Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Are there any other public comments? MR. MANZANO: Yes, sir. My name is Rudolpho Manzano. M-A-N-Z-A-N-O. My concern is that the water runoff, the canals out there that run along 846 and around in them areas, they' re always full of water to begin with. During the rainy season, they reach their peak. They' re about a foot -- anywhere from a foot to six inches from cresting the road. And the gentleman was speaking earlier about utilizing those canals to drain off water. Those canals are at their peak all the time. They're usually empty probably two months out of the year. And with them utilizing them to run off their water, they're going to be flooding everybody else. And that ' s one of my main concerns about using this area here. I live off Wild Turkey Drive, and this is going to be right in back -- right behind my property. And that ' s one of my main concerns. My property stays under water -- right now my property is about four inches under water. And the canals are at their peak. You know, they're going to be using it to drain off their water off, too. Where is it going to go? It' s going to go under the landowners ' properties. Page 21 September 1, 1999 And that ' s one of my biggest concerns . I 'd like to find out what they' re going to do, what they plan on doing. Are they going to build a reservoir on their land or what, to utilize that to keep water off from everybody else ' s property around there . MR. DiNUNZIO: Sir, could you point out where your land is in relation to the -- MR. MANZANO: Well, this is State Road 846 here . My property is on this end up here. MR. DiNUNZIO: You' re on the north side of it? MR. MANZANO: Yes, sir. And they' re talking about utilizing the canals that run along this area right in here. Those canals are always full of water. Like I said, they' re probably dry at the most two months out of the year. Other than that, they' re full . They' re at their peak. You go by there right now, they' re full . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a staff member that could comment on the MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Yes . As the excavation starts, they will create more capacity to store water on-site than they will lose, because they will pile up to begin with. That will not shed enough water off that pile to increase any runoff . The lake itself, as it gets larger, will have more storage capacity in the wintertime -- in the summertime when the rains come, and it will have more water stored when the dry season comes so that there is some buffering to the normal drop of the groundwater table in that time. We 've never found any adverse impacts from a simple lake dug on a site . Of course, you know, if other things happen later in the development, then that might increase a little runoff, but they' ll already have a very large lake at that time. MR. MANZANO: A little runoff is more than what we need. We already have enough runoff . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : No, but you won' t get any additional runoff from what they're going to dig. From the excavation, you will not get any additional runoff . MR. MANZANO: Is there some sort of a written guarantee in this thing that we ' re not going to get this? Because I would hate to have to come back -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI : Dave, if you want to put something in writing? MR. MANZANO: -- down the road here and find out -- you know, we ' re a foot under water now and it ' s oh, well . MR. WILKISON: In our submittal to the county that ' s a part of the excavation permit, we did prove that we could retain a 25-year three-day storm entirely on-site with the farm dikes that surround the entire property right now with no discharge off-site. And the other thing I want to point out, the southwest corner of the lake is about anywhere from 900 to 1, 000 feet from that canal, the one that goes along the southern property. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I 'm sensitive to the lady that spoke a little bit before. In her comment about the people being part of the environment, too, I 'd like to ask about the fact that, as I understand it, that there' s another excavation site just not too far to the south of that; is there not? The Orangetree Page 22 September 1, 1999 area. I mean, isn' t there some excavation mining going on there? So -- but this particular portion happens to be closer to where you live. MS . SHAW: That ' s my backyard. MR. SMITH: That ' s your back yard, yeah. MS . SHAW: Orangetree is Orangetree ' s backyard. MR. SMITH: Yeah. But I empathize. Would there be any blasting going on with this? MR. WILKISON: No blasting is permitted. MR. SMITH: It is permitted? MR. WILKISON: It is not . MR. SMITH: Oh, it is not permitted. Okay. MR. DiNUNZIO: Has the traffic pattern been -- expressing her concern again, what is the -- is there a proposal for the traffic pattern with the trucks coming in and out of there? Are they going to be using residential streets, or are they going to be directly entering onto 846 and then coming in that way? MR. WILKISON: Directly entering onto 846 . There are two drives into the property, and they both are off of 846 . Actually, three entrances on the property, all off of 846 . MR. DiNUNZIO: They' ll be no traffic -- or no roads leading into any of the residential areas then? MR. WILKISON: No, there will not . MR. SMITH: Mr. Wilkison, what about time? Is the mining going to be going on throughout the night? MR. WILKISON: No, it is not . MR. SMITH: Would that be a stipulation? MR. WILKISON: We have hours of operation that are -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. MR. WILKISON: -- 7 : 00 to 6 : 00 p.m. MR. SMITH: That ' s just a voluntary thing on your part? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It ' s our stipulation. MR. SMITH: That ' s your stipulation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes . MR. SMITH: Well, I 'd like to amend -- or to seek, Mr. Chairman, to see if we can amend the motion that ' s before the council to make that stipulation part of any approval that we might have . CHAIRMAN HILL: Before we amend -- take the amendment, any other questions for the petitioner? MR. NINO: Clarify the -- Ron Nino, for the record. When we deal with stipulations, if the stipulation is already written into the staff report and you adopt the staff report, you can be assured that that ' s a stipulation that will be carried forward to the final resolution development order. MR. WILKISON: If I may, that is a stipulation of the conditional use zoning application that is companion to this excavation permit application, which will be heard by the Planning Commission later this month. MR. McVEY: I suggest we address the motion as it ' s on the table currently. CHAIRMAN HILL: I have one question before we do that, if I might . Will CCPC address the Immokalee Road traffic problem turning �-. lanes, blisters, or however they' ll handle that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they will. We have several stipulations regarding access to the site and road improvements, acceleration lane, Page 23 September 1, 1999 de-cel lanes and possible traffic light , if warranted. And they will be presented to the Planning Commission, yes . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there any other public input? I ' ll close out at this time. And there is a motion on the floor. MR. CARLSON: Could we repeat the motion, please? MR. SANSBURY: The motion is to approve the petition with the eight conditions within the staff recommendation. MR. McVEY: There is a second, right? CHAIRMAN HILL: There is a second. Any discussion? Those in favor, aye . Opposed? MR. SMITH: Nay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Nay was Smith. Item 4 (C) , conditional use, 99-17 . MR. BELLOWS : For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning. Petitioner is requesting conditional use in the agriculture zoning district, Petition No. CU-99-17 . The agent is Wayne Arnold, representing the grand land initiative . The subject 500-acre site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive. As you can see on the location map, it ' s about a mile east of County Road 951 . It ' s in the future land use map of the Growth Management Plan. It ' s designated agriculture rural, agriculture subdistrict, residential subdistrict . In the agricultural district permitted uses are allowed for a full range of agricultural activities . It allows for wholesale nurseries . Single-family homes are a permitted use . It allows for conditional uses also. Conditional uses require further approval, review and approval by staff, and the Board of Zoning Appeals makes the final determination. The Conditional Use 17 is for a golf course . Petitioner is proposing a 36-hole golf course, two 18-hole golf courses . Since golf courses are also deemed an accessory use to residential, the applicant would not necessarily have to apply for this conditional use permit . But since they are proposing for a public golf course, the conditional use application is required, and that ' s one reason we ' re here today. MR. DiNUNZIO: I 'd just like to say that I 'm really glad that Collier County is going to get another golf course . MR. BELLOWS : The application was filed prior to the final order issued by the Governor acting as -- or sitting as an administrative commission, who issued interim development provisions adopted for this area. It was filed -- that became effective on June 22nd, 1999 . This was filed prior to that, so therefore, it ' s consistent with the current Growth Management Plan applications for this area allowing for a golf course. So therefore it is consistent with the future land use element in the Growth Management Plan. I have a copy of the conceptual plan. The access is off of Immokalee Road, primarily. And we also have a larger plan up here. Immokalee Road is up here. The primary access comes in through the development. No access is provided from Richard' s or from Woodcrest. It encompasses two sections, Section 25 and a little bit of Section 36 to the south. You can see the golf courses are arranged Page 24 September 1, 1999 n around the water retention lakes, and the conservation area is in green. There are a couple of residential tracts for future development that ' s not part of this application. We have environmental staff here to answer any specific environmental questions you have . MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, developmental services . The subject property consists of a variety of habitats; flatwoods, pine flatwoods, both palmetto understory and graminoid understory. It also has areas of palmetto prairie . And they show very nicely on the aerial that I have on the wall . There are also areas of a mixture of pine and cypress, as well as cypress sloughs . There ' s a cypress area that extends from here and on up into this way. And there ' s also areas of cabbage palm on the property. The petitioner did a threatened and endangered species survey, both plants and animals . The only listed plant species they found were tillandsia species . They are listed in your staff report . Also dahoon holly occurs on the property. Listed wildlife species, they did find a few. Gopher tortoise burrows, and also they did see a Big Cypress fox squirrel . I handed out a map a few moments ago. That was an updated map that show the locations of the burrows, if you' re interested. MR. CARLSON: Where are they? MR. LENBERGER: They' re on the map I handed out . If you have any questions, I ' ll be glad to answer it . Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for staff? I have two. This has been fought in the hopper since early June; is that -- do I understand that correctly? This was filed prior to -- MR. NINO: Correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: -- June 22nd? MR. LENBERGER: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: Things normally get to us faster than that . MR. BELLOWS : We 've been reviewing this ongoing with the applicant, making changes ongoing, and this is the soonest we could get it on to this board. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. The other question, I -- in your Environmental Impact Statement, when you discuss all of the what, 12 , 17 or 18 wetland -- or 19 wetland areas, the functional value, as stated there in most of those 19 areas, is stated as being low. Whose decision is this? MR. LENBERGER: Those evaluations of the wetlands were done by the petitioner. And I 'd like to ask them to answer your question. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. My name ' s Wayne Arnold, representing Section 25 project . We do have our environmental consultants here to answer your questions for you. We did perform assessments and have been performing assessments on this property over the last 18 months, so we do have a significant amount of well data, as well as site inventory data. I 'd like to introduce to you Dorothea Zysko from Wilson-Miller to answer your question. MS. ZYSKO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, council members. My name is Dorothea Zysko, Wilson-Miller. I just want to make a brief statement regarding your question. When we do an analysis of the wetlands on the site, we do a very Page 25 September 1, 1999 detailed evaluation of the composition of those wetlands . And in this particular case, the reason that we said that they were of low functional value is twofold. In particular, there ' s a very invasive exotics species, you' re all aware of and that ' s melaleuca. And many of these wetlands have melaleuca at the percentage cover of over 75 percent . And because of that, that ' s one reason why we do determine that they are of a lower functional value . When they have that extensive coverage of melaleuca, it does diminish their capacity to provide a benefit . In addition, the hydrology on the site has been altered, so the actual hydrology of the wetlands is extremely low. And so that ' s a secondary consideration in determining their low value . CHAIRMAN HILL: I understand that we ' re having a net loss of 50 percent of the wetlands on-site, however, mitigated by an enhancement of what ' s left . MS . ZYSKO: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: This bothers me quite a bit . MS . ZYSKO: Well, most of the impacts we -- when we determine where the impacts are to be in consideration of the site plan, we try to focus those impacts on the low quality wetlands, and at the same time provide an opportunity to enhance the higher quality wetlands by removing exotics and looking at the continuity of those wetlands with contiguous areas . So we focus our impacts, like I said, in low quality areas and try to enhance the higher quality ones . We recognize that -- MR. JACKSON: Excuse me, I think that ' s a very good idea. MS . ZYSKO: Thank you. And also, you need to be cognizant of the fact that this has not gone through ERP permitting yet . And when there is determination by the Water Management District in the future, those considerations are addressed. MR. COE : How many residents are going to be allowed to be on this property? MR. ARNOLD: Right now the 500-acre site would be entitled up to 100 residential dwelling units at a density of one unit per five acres . MR. COE: Pardon me? MR. ARNOLD: One dwelling unit per five acres . That ' s the gross density permissible under our comprehensive plan. MR. COE: I thought that I read in here that there was only 41 acres out of the 500 acres that was going to be for residences. Did I misread that? MR. ARNOLD: No, that ' s what you did read. What we 've shown on our conceptual plan are the impact development areas for future residential development. Right now we 're entitled five-acre tract development because the underlying zoning is agriculture . We have to develop in five-acre tracts. At some future date there may be provisions made for clustering on-site, in which case that may become an alternative as well. MR. COB: It didn't really answer my question. As I 've read this, and I assume that it ' s correct, that there are only 41 acres that are going to be used for residences; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: Well -- one moment, please? Well, I think as I Page 26 September 1, 1999 tried to explain, maybe I didn't make it clear to you in my first response, that the 41 acres is what we 've shown as the actual area impacted by residential buildings and the infrastructure necessary for them. MR. COE: Okay. And what that means then, you' re only going to be building on those 41 acres. MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct . MR. COE: There ' ll be 100 permitted units on that because you've got a 500-acre tract . MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct . The density is factored in on a gross basis, based on the total number of acres on the project . MR. COE : Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else from the petitioner? Any other questions for the petitioner? MR. CARLSON: I have a comment . I 've been on this committee for three weeks and I 've seen a consistent pattern of consultants getting up here and telling me how drained and abused and how low value wetlands are, and so we might as well just get rid of them. I think you've got a little different situation here. I think there ' s a lot of new water management initiatives in the Immokalee Road Canal . There ' s water control structures going in that are going to prevent that canal from having to draw down impacts that have historically -- you don' t have large canals around the perimeter of this project . The 951 Canal and the Cypress Canal are pretty far away from here . We know that during high water conditions, I know in 1995 there was extensive flooding on this property, in fact a lot of local residents here . I think, you know, here ' s an opportunity to take a piece of property and develop a golf course and avoid all wetlands and do things to restore them. There ' s plenty of room there. I 've reviewed a lot of agriculture permits over the year and if somebody came into the Water Management District with a layout like this with this strand -- this strand of wetlands on the western side of this property, I would expect to see a water retention area there with those wetlands preserved, and that would be where you would pump your water and do your water management and avoid those things. And from what I see, this is an application for 36 holes of golf, wetlands be damned. I mean, just get rid of them and put in the links . MS . ZYSKO: If I might address that . It ' s a difficult situation that developers and consultants are put in. When we go before the South Florida Water Management District for permitting, in many cases on a site like this where you have several isolated wetland systems that are very small acreage, the Water Management District has determined that if you're going to develop around those areas, then you' re causing secondary impacts to those areas and they' re going to assess mitigation for those impacts . And in many cases they will recommend to us that the alternative is to impact them and provide a more comprehensive mitigation plan for the impacts so that they have large contiguous areas of wetlands that .-� provide a better function. So, you know, in taking that into consideration for the many years I 've been in the consulting business, that is the approach that Page 27 September 1, 1999 we have taken as a result of the agency actions . MR. CARLSON: All your preserves are peripheral, and there ' s a tremendous area that ' s just being completely cleared and destroyed of upland and wetland where you have a potential for gopher tortoise, upland preserve and water preserves within the development . MS . ZYSKO: What we did in the southern portion of the site -- if you' ll notice one of the larger conservation areas is there -- those wetlands are bordering contiguous wetlands . And again we ' re providing a corridor as well as a larger contiguous tract of wetlands rather than small isolated wetlands in the middle of a development area. And again, that has been the preferred alternative of the permitting agencies . Relative to gopher tortoise, there were two burrows that were located on the property. In this particular site, the cap rock is very close to the surface, there ' s very minimal habitat that ' s suitable for gopher tortoises . Prior to development, we ' ll do more surveys . We don' t expect to find a lot more than two. MR. McVEY: Will there be any off-site mitigation required during your permitting process? MS . ZYSKO: We don' t know that . We ' re not anticipating it at this moment, but during the permitting it may be required. We just don' t know yet . CHAIRMAN HILL : On Exhibit D -- I 'm sorry, before you leave, on Exhibit D, where you 've indicated it ' s the latest -- MS . ZYSKO: Yes . CHAIRMAN HILL: You've indicated the 20 wetland areas . MS . ZYSKO: Right . CHAIRMAN HILL: Can we get that on the overhead or on the wall? And would you point out those which are going to be enhanced and those which are going to be severely impacted? MS . ZYSKO: I 'm not quite sure I understand your question. CHAIRMAN HILL: You have the 20 wetland areas that you listed in your Environmental Impact Statement . MS . ZYSKO: Correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: Those 20 are depicted on that map. MS. ZYSKO: Right . CHAIRMAN HILL: Are all of those going to be severely impacted? MS . ZYSKO: Is this on? Hello. Okay, thank you. The wetlands to the north, as I mentioned -- and they are shown on another exhibit in the EIS package . I don' t have the exhibit number at the moment . But primarily the wetlands at the north end, and again, these are contiguous with other wetlands in between, will not be impacted. These are part of the conservation area. These wetlands to the south, not all of wetland 13 but all of 17 and the majority of 18 are going to be preserved. Wetlands 19 -- well, I don't have the other exhibit, but I believe that 19 and 20 are incorporated in the conservation areas . And it ' s the small systems in the center that are primarily the ones that will be impacted. Now, I would like to add that some of those could be preserved as the development progresses, but rather than show that now, because we're not certain again at this preliminary stage, we were showing those as impacted. MR. CARLSON: It ' s very well shown in the -- towards the end of their packet here with the crosshatching. Page 28 September 1, 1999 MS . ZYSKO: Right . There ' s the fill and impact calculation sheet . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions for the petitioner? Any public input? MS . PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I represent the Florida Wildlife Federation. I agree, Ed, it is damn the wetlands, damn the wildlife, and damn the comprehensive plan. I pulled out my map that ' s drawn from the Closing the Gaps Report from the Wildlife Commission, and notice that this property is identified as one of their biodiversity hot spots with seven or more focal species, and it also contains strategic habitat conservation areas for some listed species which I don' t think were adequately addressed in the presentation or in the documentation that you received. So there ' s some lingering questions about wildlife issues and wetland issues . Also, I 'd like to address the comp. plan. Our current comprehensive plan on ag. rural land allows one unit on each five acres. Therefore, what you see in pink, it ' s eight houses that cannot cluster and they cannot bank their units in hopes of our comprehensive plan changing to allow clustering or some other type of putting units on a property. And I remind you that in March and April of 1997 , when Collier County was discussing amendments to their comprehensive plan, there was a proposed amendment to allow clustering on ag. rural lands . Now, if we could allow clustering, then we wouldn't have to amend the comp. plan. That proposal was drawn back, was pulled by the commissioners, and folded into some other studies about density and the TwinEagles issue . It is a fact that Collier County' s comprehensive plan says one unit per five acres . And I want to stress that because, Mr. Coe, you were on the right track. And to attempt to bank those units for amendments to the comp. plan is not appropriate and not honest . Somebody want to -- you don' t MR. MULHERE: You' re on a roll . Keep going. MS . PAYTON: Do you disagree? MR. MULHERE: Yes . For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. This petition that ' s before you is for a golf course . The golf course is what causes this petition to be before you as a conditional use . The residential component, one dwelling unit per five acres, is permitted. And we ' ll review that when there ' s an application in-house for the residential component . MS . PAYTON: Well, I just wanted to clarify for Mr. Coe, because I think he was misled. The other issue -- MR. SANSBURY: Can I ask a question quickly, also -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: -- if I could? Because what I 'm seeing on this drawing is potential future residential, what I 'm seeing here. There' s not any asking for any approvals at this point for any residential, so essentially what the petitioner is doing is taking the risk that there may be a comprehensive plan change at some point that would allow clustering, but if there' s not a comprehensive plan Page 29 September 1, 1999 adjustment on those parcels that are in there, they would be able to put eight units . MR. MULHERE: That is correct . And in addition, I would take exception to one other statement that Nancy Payton made and that is that think cannot bank dwelling units . In fact, they certainly can bank dwelling units . If the comprehensive plan allows one dwelling unit per five acres and they choose to build 10 acres, at any point in the future, as long as the comprehensive plan still allows one dwelling unit per five, they could come in and add those additional units . Because those are -- and the comprehensive plan and the zoning both allow one dwelling unit per five acres . So they don' t lose the balance of their density when they only build a portion of it . MS . PAYTON: Oh, I agree there. But where the golf course is, they've lost that house on that five acres is my point . MR. SANSBURY: And I concur there . But I mean, I 've been in the land use business a long, long time, and it ' s another item. But I just do not understand the reasoning that from an environmental impact standpoint, when you have 500 acres of land, why isn' t it a heck of a lot better for the environment if you have it at one in five to cluster those units in one particular location and keep the rest of the stuff where you can save some things . It ' s a reasoning I don' t understand completely. I think it ' s a progressive -- MS . PAYTON: Well, this isn' t being clustering for the environment, this is being clustered to squeeze in a golf course. MR. SANSBURY: No, it ' s clustering for the environment . Because it saves -- if you have one -- if you had 50 -- or what would it be, 500 acres, so you would have 100 five-acre ranchettes out here, certainly cannot be as positive for the environment as being able to save as much stuff as you're going to be able to save, in my opinion. MS . PAYTON: The fact is our comprehensive plan does not allow clustering. MR. SANSBURY: I agree with you. MS . PAYTON: And that ' s an issue -- MR. SANSBURY: I agree with you completely. MS. PAYTON: -- that can be addressed during the assessment . And clustering for the sake of the environment should be explored, but not to squeeze more golf courses in on ag. rural lands . And that gets me to my next point about golf courses and water consumption. This golf course is being proposed on land that ' s outside the urban boundary, and therefore, isn't connected to central water and sewer. Our comprehensive plan does not allow central water and sewer beyond the urban boundary or the urban service area. That was part of the challenge and Judge Meale ' s recommended order confirms that . So that ' s a non-issue that you cannot extend central water and sewer currently to this golf course. Therefore, this golf course is watering from well water. And from information that I obtained from the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Community Affairs and also from DEP, this type of golf course, an 18 -- well, this is a 16-hole golf course, so we ' ll have to double the figures that I have here. An 18-hole golf course in Southwest Florida can use up to 800, 000 to a million gallons of water per day. Some high tech golf courses, Page 30 September 1, 1999 such as Bonita Bay, only use 400, 000 gallons of water per day. This is water that ' s coming from a well . 150 people per day use this 18-hole golf course, according to Bonita Bay' s figure . So we have an 18-hole golf course serving 150 people a day that ' s using up to one million gallons of water. I use, you use and you use, according to the Water Management District ' s average, 200 gallons a day. Therefore, 4 , 000 to 5, 000 people can be served by the water that ' s going on that golf course. Well, actually, we can double that, because it ' s a 36-hole golf course. The point being that this golf course is competing with residents in the estates and abutting ag. land for water. And these individuals, for their health, safety and welfare, rely upon the same aquifer and competing with the same aquifer as this golf course. And I went back and looked at the mission of the EAC; I looked your enabling ordinance . And one of your missions is to protect the environment for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Collier County. And I think this is a very serious issue, as more and more golf courses are proposed outside the urban boundary and are drawing on those same aquifers, those same waters that John, you' re drawing on and maybe you' re drawing on, Ed, and some other members who are outside of the urban service area. And it would seem that people in their homes would get first choice for that water. The Water Management District is adopting new policies in terms of newly permitted wells are no longer liable for drawing down or bottoming out old wells . So residents who have their water drained off by this golf course or other golf courses are just kind of out of luck. And it does present a problem, I think, for our community and is appropriate for this council to look at more closely. The South Florida Water Management District ' s water supply assessment which was issued in 1998 identifies Collier County as a water resource caution area. And these areas, the Water Management District say, have existing water resource problems or problems are projected to develop within the next 20 years . And I copied appropriate sections out of that document . Plus another document that was issued just in May of 1999, which says that facilities that are in the water caution area must make use of reclaimed water unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. And I think to put residents at risk for 300 people to use 36 holes of golf course is not in the best interest of the community. And I urge you to take this into consideration as you deal with this golf course and all other golf courses that aren't using reclaimed water. Thank you. MR. SANSBURY: Ms. Payton, one thing on your -- Mr. Chairman, if I could. CHAIRMAN HILL: Certainly. MR. SANSBURY: On your water consumption numbers are not entirely completely factual . In the first place, the 200 gallons a day that you use at home goes into the sanitary sewer system and is treated and what have you. Secondly, of the 800, most courses, I would say, right now with state-of-the-art system probably use in the vicinity of 600, 000 Page 31 September 1, 1999 gallons a day. Of that 600, 000 gallons a day, some is lost due to evapotranspiration, much of it with the requirements that both the Corps of South Florida has, it ' s treated and it goes back in the aquifer. So a golf course doesn' t take 600 , 000 gallons a day. It takes something less than that . What that number is, I can' t tell you. But it puts absolutely nothing into the sanitary sewer system. You know, if this place was developed in five-acre ranchettes, there would be 500 septic tanks out there, or 100 septic tanks out there. And I think we have to look at that when we look at a piece of land to be developed. And I think when we put figures out like this, we need to be factual with those numbers . MS . PAYTON: I called yesterday and confirmed these with the Water Management District as I began with my presentation, and the -- MR. SANSBURY: I 'm not questioning your use . I 'm not questioning your use number. What I 'm questioning is, comparing it with sanitary sewer use and saying this million gallons or 800 , 000 or 600 , 000 is gone away forever, and it ' s not . MS . PAYTON: Well, the next step in our disc -- in my discussion with both the DCA and the Water Management District is, where does this water go? And the next step was that yes, there are concerns about where this water goes and what it ' s doing to the aquifer. And it ' s really a two-phase or two-step concern here . And I 'm sorry, I don' t have all the information on the second phase of it, but since you brought it up, there is a concern there which was echoed by DCA and Water Management District . I didn' t make this stuff up . I called and confirmed all this and provided documentation and backup. And if you' d like the names of the individuals that I spoke to, DCA has an expert on staff dealing with golf courses . His name is Richard Dedmond (phonetic) . He also used to work for DEP. And the Water Management District is the fellow that ' s taken over for Gross and his name is Elsner or Elsniff or something of that nature . And I can provide you with that . And I also spoke with Clarence Tears from the South Florida Water Management District . So these figures aren' t out of the hat, they' re not voodoo science, they' re based on those agencies that supposedly know what they' re talking about . CHAIRMAN HILL: Can staff answer this question? Back when we had water rationing, the golf courses and individuals living outside of the central water supply system were also put on some kind of rationing restrictions . Do we know what they were? MR. SANSBURY: Having been one of those persons that was put on those restrictions, I can answer that question. I think there are three phases of South Florida Management District restrictions when it comes to golf course. We were put on Phase I restrictions during this drought . Prevented you from pulling water from off-site sites, prevented you from irrigating in the daytime. Phase II of that, if it had gone a little bit further, would cut down the areas that you can irrigate, which would be restricting it just to greens and tees. And obviously Phase III is you can' t do anything. Page 32 September 1, 1999 Now, we 've never gotten in -- I don' t think we 've gotten to Phase II, at least the history that I have . But those are the three steps that you go through, through those restrictions . And we were under Phase I restrictions . Probably we reduced the use probably 25 percent of our daily consumption during those restrictive periods . CHAIRMAN HILL: There ' s no volume or rate restriction in the phases, though. MR. SANSBURY: Well, you have your volume restriction on your consumptive use term use . But you can only use "X" number of gallons . And then by cutting down the period that you can utilize it in, it cuts down the amount that you use. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell . I 'm president of Collier County Audubon Society. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue. We ' re on the record from previous issues in front of the County Commission as being opposed to clustering outside the urban boundary. And I 'd like to address Mr. Sansbury' s comments about clustering. And clustering is a very valuable tool in protecting many things; historical features, as well as environmental values . However, when you go outside the urban boundary, where we are ostensibly trying to reduce impacts and development , and concentrate those sorts of things in the urban boundary, the definition of clustering and the use of it becomes much more cloudy. And the way our comprehensive plan is now, we cannot count on that . In fact, it is not allowed. And so it ' s not that we would discount forever the use of clustering, but right now clustering to allow for residential community with a golf course, that ' s an urban community and that is not allowed outside the urban boundary. And that is a big problem for -- that leads to urban sprawl . That is urban sprawl . So we would oppose that . I 'd also like to bring up a couple of other issues . One is that the melaleuca problem on the site, when looked at by the South Florida Water Management District, is seen differently from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the county. The Water Management District devalues wetlands that have greater percentages of exotic infestation. This is a disservice, we believe, to the people of Florida. We believe that that sort of policy is in error and we believe the county and the Army Corps of Engineers are on the right track, that wetlands are wetlands, they have great function and value even when they are infested 100 percent with exotics like melaleuca. And so to say that you do not mitigate fully for the destruction of wetlands or consider wetlands that have exotic infestation is a big disservice to our community. And we lose a lot when we lose those wetlands. They provide flood protection, aquifer recharge, as well as habitat, even with the infestation. Also, I should mention that we' re not counting into the equation here restoration, and that certainly would figure into any mitigation examination. That 's basically the gist of my comments. But we would oppose this project. You cannot leave out the second phase of the project in deference -- you know, considering what Bob Mulhere said. The project Page 33 September 1, 1999 is listed, even though it is -- you' re looking at just the golf course, you can' t ignore the fact that it ' s a two-phase project and it ' s defined as such. The residential portion is yet to come and will come, and we can' t ignore those possibilities . The clustering of those units would be not legal . So thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS : I 'd just like to reiterate. This petition is only for the golf course. It ' s not a clustering petition. Right now the residential units are at one per five. That ' s all they can do. If they want to do that in the future, they' ll have to come back before the county and apply for such things . Until those other issues are resolved, they're not applying for that now. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Cornell to come back up for one quick question, please? MR. CORNELL: Yes, sir. MR. SANSBURY: The Audubon Society, as I understand it, has a golf course classification as an Audubon course; is that correct? MR. CORNELL: That is not correct . There is an Audubon Society of New York, which is an entirely different organization. They happen to use -- we have no patent, unfortunately, on the name Audubon. There have been some litigation about that issue; thus we have Audubon Country Club and other things using the Audubon name. And there is a man in New York who has adopted the name of Audubon and does have some sort of golf course certification program, but we are not a part of that . MR. SANSBURY: They're also a profit making organization. CHAIRMAN HILL: They do nice work. Mr. Simonik? MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, council members . My name is Michael Simonik. I work with The Conservancy. And I think everybody knows how many people we work on behalf of, thousands and thousands . I want to take a different approach in opposing this project . I want to oppose it on its own merits as a golf course and the application that ' s been submitted. Florida Wildlife and Collier Audubon oppose it on the grounds of comp. plans, and that interest in a broader perspective. But I may agree with that as well, but today I 'm only going to oppose it based on the project ' s benefits or lack thereof . In the staff comments, I read that the conservation areas only total 63 acres out of a 500-acre parcel . On my calculator, that tells me that that ' s 12 percent of the entire project area in preserve. It ' s -- I would like the -- my question answered as to how many acres of natural habitat are on site presently before I continue. Anyone have the answer? MS . ZYSKO: I do. I 'm waiting for Steve. Dorothea Zysko. There ' s approximately 360 acres of what is considered county native habitat. MR. SIMONIK: And is 63 acres, at least 25 percent of that natural area acreage? Does that come to at least 25 percent? I don't have my calculator. My calculator' s in the back now. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lemberger, developmental services. We did some calculations trying to estimate the percent of native vegetation on-site. We subtracted the areas which were impacted. Page 34 September 1, 1999 n Basically cleared land is shown on the aerial . We used a very conservative approach. But 25 percent would be 110 acres of what ' s the viable on property. As far as the preservation requirement, since the petition is a conditional use for a golf course and it ' s out of the urban area, the preservation requirement according to code is 15 percent, not 25 . MR. SIMONIK: Thank you. This looks like an urban development to me, and in the urban area we require a 25 percent preservation of the natural habitat, to my understanding. And that ' s just the county code that we 're talking about . Now, I want to speak to what The Conservancy believes is an adequate and appropriate percentage to use on areas of this nature outside of our urban area. We worked on the TwinEagles development with the developers, we came to an agreement long before the lawsuit started, and that developer agreed to a 50 percent conservation area. 50 percent of their parcel was going to be in conservation. This is an area not very far from TwinEagles . Actually, I live less than half a mile from this area. I 've walked the area with my dogs many times. Not trespassing in this area, but around the area. I know what ' s there . I 've seen bald eagles, I 've seen all the listed species out there . We are urging that any projects that are going on while we' re in this time of no man' s land of the comp . plan and the interim assessment, the rural assessment and all of that, when we don't -- it ' s not for sure exactly what our comp . plan is going to say, we urge that it be at least 50 percent in conservation areas . Now, I want to talk about the conservation areas that are on the map. I also read in the staff comments that -- and I ' ll just read the sentence to you because it says, "Conservation areas were designed to be contiguous and continuous with natural areas adjacent to the property boundary to preserve habitat and maintain a wildlife corridor for the area. " And I 'm going to go to this map. Is it working? I 'm looking at -- well, I guess I should be on that map where the green is . But I see they preserved this area here, this area here, this area here. How is that contiguous if an outside boundary property owner, if they don' t own this land -- I guess that ' s the question, if they don' t own this land, it ' s not part of the project , what guarantees are there to The Conservancy and the public that the area in between is going to be preserved? And this is adjacent to Immokalee Road, for one thing. Almost all the preserve areas I see, maybe except for one, are actually within the project . They're all adjacent to some other property owner, unless they own all of that . Do they have guarantees? Are those already in conservation easements? Next year maybe a church will come in or something else will come in down below and it will be cut off . That will not be as stated in the staff comments contiguous and continuous with natural areas if someone else comes in and develops those out-parcels or the boundary parcels. So I guess I take issue with saying that we have provided natural corridors and contiguous conservation areas. There ' s what, 20 separate ones, and how many are going to be left when it ' s done? They do not look contiguous and continuous to me at all. They will not preserve habitat and maintain wildlife corridors. I don't see that at Page 35 September 1, 1999 all . So that ' s my comments, and the reason why we ' re going to object on the basis of the project itself and the golf courses . And I 'm not even going to touch golf courses, because The Conservancy is going to be holding a golf course symposium at about this time next fall . It ' s going to be at least a two-day conference with national experts from around the country, and then we ' ll be speaking on golf courses then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for Mr. Simonik? Any other -- MR. SANSBURY: I 'd like to ask to make sure you tell me when that is, because I 'd like to attend. MR. SIMONIK: We don' t have the dates, but we ' re talking to all the -- there will be at least 30 to 40 expert speakers over a two-day period. MR. SANSBURY: Love to be there . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other public input? Close that portion and ask the pleasure of the council . MR. DiNUNZIO : Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. DiNUNZIO: I ' d like to ask the representatives of the developer, how many pounds of fertilizer do you think that place is going to take to keep 36 holes of golf going in a yearly basis? And how many pounds of insecticide is it going to take to keep the grass? MR. MEANS : Good morning. For the record my name is Steve Means . I 'm a principal engineer with Wilson-Miller, representing the petitioner today. I can't answer that question how many pounds of fertilizer or how many gallons of insecticide that they're going to use . I can, though, help you address that qualitatively though in that I think what you ' re getting to is maybe what is the impact of those applications on a golf course in this particular situation. I can say that there will be fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides used on a golf course. You can' t manage a golf course without them. I can tell you that those applications of those particular chemicals are state-of-the-art these days. It is a science. The people that apply those are registered with the state. They are licensed, and they've gone through courses on application. From a budgetary standpoint, obviously they want to minimize the application of those particular chemicals . The herbicides and pesticides are regulated by EPA in terms of their application. They are designed to have a very short residence time in the soils once they' re applied. When I say short, I mean in a matter of days or short weeks. That ' s why DET and Chlorodyne aren't on the market anymore, because they had a very long residence time in the environment. I can tell you from a water quality standpoint, those chemicals will be applied. But in my opinion, and this is very conservative after I 've designed many golf courses and studied this considerably, that the impact from those fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides will not have a significant impact to the groundwater resources of the region. Sir? MR. COE: Are you familiar with the Lakewood community -- MR. MEANS : Yes. Page 36 September 1, 1999 MR. COE: -- one of the older communities here in town? Would you eat a fish out of that lake? MR. MEANS : Probably not . And the reason -- MR. COE: Why not? MR. MEANS : -- is, is that -- well, because the State of Florida has determined that that particular water body, it ' s a Class III water, is not suitable for -- MR. COE: And why not? MR. MEANS : -- edible -- why not? Well, because there is the potential for the runoff into the ponds . MR. COE : Runoff from where? From the golf course -- MR. MEANS : From anything. From a golf course, from agriculture, from lakes, from any type of development . MR. COE: We don' t have agriculture there, it ' s golf course. MR. MEANS : Right . MR. COE: Thank you. MR. MEANS : Let me also address the -- what Ms . Payton brought up about the water use on the golf course. You know, water use on golf courses vary depending on the state-of-the-art of the system. But let ' s just say for argument sake it is 600, 000 gallons per day. I ran through some quick calculations here. 600, 000 gallons per day translates into 217 million gallons per year. If we assume that there ' s an average of 52 inches of rainfall per year, that multiplies over into over a 500-acre area 700 million gallons of rainfall on the 500 acres, which is about two and a half times what the irrigation use n would be . The -- where we 're going to draw the water from is beneath the site . And really, there is no competing use there with other projects . And the reason is is that there ' s -- South Florida Water Management District regulates the consumptive use of water, regardless of whether it ' s for residential or for golf course use like this . And the applicant must go through a very rigorous permitting process where they provide reasonable assurance to the district that there will not be any adverse impact to the environment or to any surrounding users. But if you look at the aquifer that we 're going to be drawing from, it ' s about 100 feet deep, in round numbers . If you take a 100-foot depth of an aquifer over that 500 acres, there ' s four billion gallons of water available . Four billion gallons . If you take the use of 217 million gallons a year -- I 'm sorry, 600, 000 gallons per day, that is . 02 hundredths of a percent of that aquifer volume. I just wanted to put those numbers in perspective for you. 600, 000 sounds like a lot, but if you put in perspective of what the aquifer can yield and what the other resources are, it is very, very low. MR. DiNUNZIO: Sir? MR. MEANS: Yes, sir. MR. DiNUNZIO: You said that 600, 000 gallons a day times 365 is how much? MR. MEANS: 217 million gallons a year. 600, 000 gallons per day times 365 days a year. Did my calculator mess up? MR. DiNUNZIO: Let' s see. How about 11 billion, 900, 000 and a couple extra thrown in for the fun of it? Page 37 September 1, 1999 MR. MEANS : No, I don't think so. MR. DiNUNZIO: Well, if you have -- okay, try -- who ' s got a calculator out there? Since none of us can do math anymore without calculators . MR. CHRZANOWSKI : John, look at it this way, 600 , 000 is six-tenths of a million, and six-tenths of a million for 365 days is about 200 million. MR. DiNUNZIO: 200 million? MR. CARLSON: That ' s like three days, four days . MR. MEANS : 217 million gallons . MR. SANSBURY: There ' s two golf courses, so it ' s 400 million a year. MR. MEANS : It ' s still a very insignificant -- MR. DiNUNZIO: 400 million is an insignificant number? MR. MEANS : In and of itself is not -- MR. DiNUNZIO: Would you write me a check for that, please? MR. MEANS : Well, fortunately we ' re talking about gallons of water and not dollars here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions for the petitioner? MR. SMITH: And of that water that would be used on the golf course, was it you that was saying before that approximately half of that would be returned to the aquifer? MR. MEANS : I didn' t say that . MR. SANSBURY: That was my non-scientific calculation, sir. MR. MEANS : I didn' t want to get into the details of it . I wanted to put it in very simplistic terms so we could all put it into ^ perspective. And much of the water that is used on the golf course does percolate back down into the water table where the source is . MR. DiNUNZIO: Anybody know how many golf courses Collier County has already? MR. CHRZANOWSKI : As of a year ago -- oh, Stan Chrzanowski, development services . As of a year ago there were about 1, 000 holes of golf . We passed the 1, 000 mark. Figure that out, whether it ' s eights, nines, 27 ' s or 36 ' s, it ' s 1, 000 holes of golf and rising. MR. McVEY: I 'm missing something here. I 'm not so sure who needs to respond to it, but I 'm going to throw it out on the table anyway. But when I was looking at this project as it was unfolding in front of me, I saw the wetlands that were on-site were being basically left as they were, with the exception of the few that were already compromised in the middle of the project, and thought that the project dovetailed well in that there were no controlled structures or retaining walls or anything else having to be built around the wetland area to maintain them. So when Mr. Carlson here started into his dissertation about the project, I was thinking he was leading towards making a motion to approve the project . So I was surprised and taken aback by the fact that he was just the opposite. So I 'm missing something here. I don't know who needs to pick that up, but help me out. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. I think we need to confirm whether or not this project is consistent with the environmental -- all the environmental regulations of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. Because Page 38 September 1, 1999 ^ that obviously is important in your decision-making. Would you please respond to that? MR. LENBERGER: There were a couple of issues . Again, Stephen Lenberger, current planning session development services . The project is proposing to preserve 44 . 6 acres of wetlands, and they estimate that 106 acres of uplands will be retained in the golf course rough areas . 19 of those upland acres will be retained in the conservation areas . The project, as it ' s proposed that way, it would meet the preservation requirement, the county. As far as the wetland issue, this seems to be another big issue, and Dr. Hill was talking about the mitigation of wetlands . And the way the comp. plan reads is there shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable functioning wetlands . So that ' s kind of open to what you feel to be acceptable . So it ' s something I really can' t answer regarding the wetland issue . We 've looked at everything else, and we feel that it is consistent with the code. MR. MULHERE : Perhaps -- for the record, Bob Mulhere. Perhaps discussing in general, and not specific to this project, but in general, the county' s wetland policies and -- the county does not have a jurisdictional permitting -- or review staff . The county does not have a wetland permitting staff . We do not permit wetland impacts . We rely on the jurisdictional agencies . And we are not required by the statutes to do that, to have our own permitting staff . In relying on the jurisdictional agencies, it has been the position of the county to interpret acceptable loss of wetlands as whatever the jurisdictional permitting agencies in their review have approved. If that means that some wetlands have been determined to be of low value and minimally functional, and as mitigation the jurisdictional agencies authorize restoration of wetlands by exotic removal and replanting and some other natural flow way restoration, then the county accepts that review process . That has been our position. That is not to say that this body could not look at that issue from a general perspective and make recommendations, A. And B, with respect to this review, this body could recommend, based upon your environmental assessment, additional stipulations, additional retention, additional preservation, or whatever you deem to be appropriate as part of the environmental review. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: It ' s my understanding that the number we're seeing, the -- is a number proposed by the consultant . You have not gone to South Florida, you have not gone to the Corps at a point to determine jurisdictional? MS. ZYSKO: The -- as far as the jurisdictional wetlands? MR. SANSBURY: Yeah. MS . ZYSKO: A portion of the site has been determined by the South Florida Water Management District to be jurisdictional. There is another portion of the site that we' re still undergoing review. i—. I have to add to the, I guess, consideration at this point that there' s a possibility that the Water Management District may conclude that none of these wetlands on the site are jurisdictional in their Page 39 September 1, 1999 eyes, and that is due to the altered hydrology and the fact that we have been collecting well data for well over a year. So I just wanted to make that consideration, or something for you to consider as well . And we have not gone before the district for permitting, as I mentioned earlier. MR. CORNELL: I wanted to ask for clarification from Ed Carlson. Ed, were you suggesting in your discussion about the wetlands that the petitioner could present alternative designs that would do a better job at preserving wetlands? MR. CARLSON: Absolutely. I would have no problem supporting the golf course plan outside the urban boundary, if I could see some environmental sensitivity in that plan. You' re starting out with a clean slate . You have existing wetlands . They may be degraded but there ' s opportunities to restore them. And I think that ' s what we need to do in this county. I see opportunities to link these things together and create corridors, wetland preserve areas, stormwater treatment areas, and to be more sensitive to the site. And this plan is just in my opinion insensitive. MS . ZYSKO: If I might just respond. Again, having been in this business for many years and being a certified ecologist and professional wetland scientist as well, our experience with Water Management District is that they do not want these small, isolated, patchwork wetland systems retained on-site. And we are subject to their regulations . And as we go into permitting, that has to be considered from our standpoint . And like I said, I don' t know how to respond other than the agencies have really guided us away from preserving these small wetlands in the middle of a golf course or development area. MR. SMITH: Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? And I 'm glad you mentioned that you were a scientist . If this was to be developed without any overall plan by individual people going in there and buying up five acres and building on each five-acre parcel, we wouldn' t even be here. I mean, you wouldn' t even be here MS . ZYSKO: You' re correct . MR. SMITH: -- and there wouldn' t be any preservation. MS . ZYSKO: You' re correct . MR. COE: I have one other question. Does whoever' s developing this own any of the land that is on the -- that we can' t see on this? MS . ZYSKO: No. MR. CARLSON: I would take issue with the comment I just heard about if this was divided into five-acre tracts and developed there would be no preservation. i take issue with that . MS . ZYSKO: I don't think there ' s a requirement of the agencies for single-family homeowners to preserve wetlands -- MR. CARLSON: But there are -- MS. ZYSKO: -- on the property. MR. CARLSON: -- developments that are like the clustering communities that have deed restrictions on clearing. MS. ZYSKO: But there is no requirement by the agencies to reserve -- MR. CARLSON: But there can be -- MS. ZYSKO: -- for single-family homes. Page 40 ii September 1, 1999 MR. CARLSON: There can be superior environmental resources and environmental protection on this site with five-acre ranchettes and the right kind of community with the right kind of deed restrictions and infinitely less water use. And so there ' s 100 septic tanks scattered out over this 500 acres . Compare that to the nutrients and the other chemicals that are going to go in here. I think other types of development can be environmentally superior by far than this . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, just one final thing, because I -- and one thing I would like to ask The Conservancy to make sure, that in its symposium on golf courses, that we do talk about this subject, because the golf course 10 years ago, and I don't know how old Lakewood is, but golf courses 10 to 15 years ago were some of the worst degraders of surface water in the country. Golf courses today, from the state-of-the-art of pesticides, nutrients, the use, the application, the training and everything of that sort, it ' s not the case . I would put the water quality of many of the places I 've been or am presently up to the water quality of many of the natural lakes around, from the standpoint of those levels . And that ' s something I really would like to make sure that that is a part of the symposium to look at just said matter. Because what ' s being done today is not what was done 10 to 15 years ago. MR. MULHERE : I may not have heard this correctly, and if I didn' t, I apologize. Again, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. I think it was stated that if this was a subdivision of five-acre tracts and was not coming from the conditional use, then there may not be any environmental review and any preservation required, and that is not necessarily a true statement . There is still, even through the subdivision process, an opportunity for the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement for the staff to review that . Because they' re coming through this process first and because this is going to be a planned unit development master plan, there is a greater opportunity for preservation and connection of preservation areas which wouldn' t be available if you broke that down into five-acre tracts . And I agree with that statement . However, I don't agree with the statement that we would not have an opportunity to look at the environmental impacts of that subdivision. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay, I ' ll ask for action from the council . MR. CARLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I seem to feel most strongly about this. I make a motion that we send this project back to the drawing board and that it not be approved. MR. DiNUNZIO: I ' ll second. DiNunzio. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is it fair to send it back without any particular reference to considerations to be made? Should we broaden that? MR. CARLSON: Well, I think the wetland impacts are excessive, and I think there 's more opportunity for upland preserve areas within the main body of the golf course. I don't think flow ways have been addressed and potential enhancement of the existing wetlands. CHAIRMAN HILL: My point is, I think it ' s -- we have to give a little guidance if we're going to send it back for consideration. All your -- included that in your motion, those items? MR. CARLSON: (Nods head affirmatively. ) MR. COB: Mr. Mulhere, let me ask you a question: What does your department do, or the environmentalist do within the county? Let's Page 41 September 1, 1999 just take a hypothetical case but using this case. Let ' s say we tie in all these places, the wetlands, we do all this stuff or they do all the stuff they're supposed to do. What happens with the landowners on the other side? Just like the gentleman from The Conservancy said, do you all think back and say, hey, we 've got this project back over here, this golf course, and we did all this stuff, now this guy wants to put a church or a 7-Eleven up here . Do we consider that maybe we 've got to continue this beyond the boundaries of this project? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. Every review. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: There is a motion. Is it clear, Mr. Carlson' s motion? Is there a second? MR. DiNUNZIO: I seconded it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I must say, I have not heard what I consider to be any real scientific evidence, if you will, that this particular project is damaging to the environment . I 've heard a lot of discussion about how we 'd like to do this and we ' d like to do that and we 'd like to preserve. I think all of us would like to preserve, there ' s no doubt about that . But one concern we always have to bear in mind is that this property is owned by private people . They are doing their best to comply with environmental concerns . What I have heard today is that they have done a very good job in looking at those environmental concerns based on the guidelines that they have to follow. What I seem to also hear is that we have some concerns on our council that maybe there ought to be more extensive requirements . But I don' t know that those more extensive requirements should be placed entirely on the shoulders of these private property owners, who after all are the owners of this property. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. JACKSON: I 've been evaluating back and forth, to and fro with the knowledge that I have, and I strongly support the recommendation that it be sent back. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other discussion on the motion? MR. DiNUNZIO: I think it can be done better. CHAIRMAN HILL: I ' ll ask for a vote of the council . All those in favor of the motion? MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. DiNUNZIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL:. Aye. MR. CORNELL: Aye. MR. SMITH: Aye. MR. JACKSON: Aye. MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Opposed? MR. SANSBURY: Aye. MR. McVEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: 7-2 . Motion was approved 7-2 . MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification purposes, and I did wait until after the motion was taken so that -- I feel it' s �. important to let all of you understand on the Environmental Advisory Council that that recommendation will be carried to the board. This Page 42 September 1, 1999 will not now go back for redesign at this point in time unless the board chooses to accept your recommendation, Board of County Commissioners, and return this -- and deny the petition and instruct the applicant to go back to the drawing board. So at this point we will carry that forward with your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners . CHAIRMAN HILL: I suggest a 10-minute break. MR. DiNUNZIO: I ' ll second that one . (Brief recess . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Reconvene the September 1st Environmental Advisory Council meeting. I 'd like to take a few short minutes to outline the procedure for this afternoon and then break for lunch. We have a full plate . We have consideration of several NRPA' s, Natural Resource Protection Areas . The council will act as a body, since there ' s no recommendations from the Growth Management sub-committee. Our original intent was to have a recommendation finalized today from the council, submitted to the Planning Commission tomorrow at their meeting. We can stick to that . I want to caution the council that with the revised county proposal of the boundaries, this question is extremely important, and I don't want the council to rush into a decision today purely based on the fact that we have to -- or want to have a recommendation to the CCPC tomorrow. If that ' s clear, then I 'm simply saying that you may want to continue our discussions into the future, perhaps at another meeting. In the event the council decides that ' s proper, then I would suggest that we cut off public input at the close of this meeting and only have council deliberations at any future meeting for that . Okay? Starting when we reconvene after lunch, I will ask Mr. Lorenz to present the revised NRPA boundaries, as seen by the county. Then we will take each NRPA in order and discuss the NRPA' s one at a time, hopefully reaching a conclusion and a recommendation that we then can forward. Is that acceptable to the council? MR. COE: Yes . MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I 'm not sure I understood about the deliberation without public input . That would be at some point further on during the meeting, is that -- CHAIRMAN HILL: No, no, we will have public input this afternoon. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Should the council decide that we ' re not totally prepared to come up with a final recommendation on the boundaries today, and would like time to reconsider some of the aspects that have been presented and want to continue that to a future date, it ' s that future date that I would suggest we limit no public input . Is that clear, Mr. Smith? MR. SIMONIK: Can I speak? Michael Simonik from The Conservancy. I just have a quick question about that for this afternoon. Are you saying you would like to hear public input on each specific NRPA as you take them, or at the end are you going to be making motions on individual NRPA's as we go and you would like to hear input as we go? CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s my intent . We will consider each NRPA individually with the approval of the council. That ' s simply my Page 43 September 1, 1999 suggestion at this point . So there would be public input this afternoon on all of the NRPA' s . My only concern was I did not want the council to feel totally pressed for time in making a hurried decision in order to have a recommendation to the CCPC tomorrow. We may find that we ' re prepared to do that . The statement of no public input was a suggestion on my part that if we continue the NRPA deliberations to a future date, that we do not have public input at that point . That ' s all . MR. SIMONIK: If I can again -- Michael Simonik -- I don't think I 'd agree with not having public input if you reconvene a meeting on another date, because there may be more information, more data that the public may have found out about that would like to speak on if you reconvene later. And I just want to reserve that right to come and speak, if I have more and can tell you more, for a better decision later in the future . CHAIRMAN HILL: Am I correct? Do I stand corrected? MS . STUDENT: Mr. Chairman and members of the council, I just have a concern about limiting public input, because the terms and conditions of the order from the Governor and Cabinet talk about why broad-based public participation in the whole process, so that would be my only concern on limiting it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. This is the third meeting at which we 've had public input . If I am violating the Sunshine Law or legal constraints, then I apologize . MR. JACKSON: I think we ought to have public input all the way through. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. MR. JACKSON: That ' s why the public ' s here . CHAIRMAN HILL: Very good. Then my request for the procedure this afternoon stands corrected, that if we do postpone this, there will be public input again. MR. JACKSON: That ' s the only way. CHAIRMAN HILL: If there ' s no comments on that schedule, Bill, I know you're up there, we ' re going to convene for lunch, if that ' s okay. Let ' s reconvene at 1 : 15 . (Lunch recess . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay, let ' s reconvene the September 1st meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council . Chair recognizes we have a quorum with seven people present. Before we get into the afternoon' s business, Mr. Mulhere has some things for us . MR. MULHERE: Yes . For the record, Bob Mulhere. I just wanted to let you know, what I handed out to you is -- there actually are three documents . One is a survey of zoning definitions produced by the American Planning Association. The second is sort of an update of that, a more recent update with some additional pieces of terminology. And the third document is an excerpt from our own county Land Development Code. It ' s the definition section. And I just thought that might be helpful as you hear some terms or as you look through some petitions and deliberate on other environmental issues. You may have a question as to how the county Page 44 September 1, 1999 n currently defines some of these issues, and you can find that in the county' s definition section, which you now have an excerpt of . If you do not -- not everything is defined in the county' s Land Development Code, and so therefore I gave you also the more general zoning survey that ' s produced by the American Planning Association. I just thought that might be helpful . Additionally, we are still planning on scheduling a more formal orientation/workshop to -- and we want to invite all the members of the EAC to that as soon as we can schedule it, and we ' ll probably have that down at the development services center and sort of walk you through the process of development review so that you have some greater level of comfort as to what happens, you know, at the staff level . Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Will there be an exam on Zoning 101? MR. MULHERE: No exam. Open book. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay, as we indicated before the lunch break, we will discuss the NRPA' s. And with the permission of the council members, I 'd like to do it one at a time . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Prior to that -- yes . MR. SANSBURY: For the record, Tom Sansbury. I will not take part in discussions on the Camp Keais area . I 'm going to pronounce it wrong. MR. CARLSON: Camp Keais . MR. SANSBURY: No, the other one . Okaloochie (sic) . MR. CARLSON: Okaloacoochee . MR. SANSBURY: Okaloacoochee area. CHAIRMAN HILL: Either one of those . MR. SANSBURY: Either of those two because -- CHAIRMAN HILL: So noted. MR. SANSBURY: Potential conflict . CHAIRMAN HILL: All right . Mr. Lorenz has some information -- oh, before you do that, we were talking about documents . I would like to simply indicate for the record that each individual member of the council was provided a document from -- would it be the Wildlife and The Conservancy and Audubon? We ' ll take note of that and deliver that and put that in the record. And I will -- let me give this for staff . MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SMITH: I was not provided one of those. I 'm looking at one now from my co-council . CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. I just got it before our meeting, too. MR. SMITH: Okay. MS . PAYTON: We didn't eliminate you. We used the address that was in the commissioners ' packet . MR. SMITH: Well, all I can tell you is I didn't receive it. (Mr. Cornell enters boardroom. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: We acknowledge Mr. Cornell. Mr. McVey probably will be back before the afternoon session is completed. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. What I'd like to be able to do is just cover some general information, again to provide you with the background of the proposal Page 45 September 1, 1999 that staff has provided to you. I believe you've dated it August 27th '' draft . This is a work in progress, even though we -- the time frame for the work in progress is very short . That ' s why we came to you back in early August, to try to have you, as the Environmental Advisory Council, to solicit public input, consider the issues involved with the lines on the map. And certainly as we as staff gather information from the public and discussions from the EAC, it is at the -- hopefully EAC council meeting or the sub-committee meeting, we 've taken that input and we 've tried to incorporate it into the drafts that we 've been producing for you. The -- obviously you know that the process requires an endorse -- or a recommendation from the Planning Commission, which of course they will meet tomorrow, and the Board of County Commissioners will meet on September 14th to consider the NRPA' s and the other interim amendments and transmit those to DCA as required by the final order. Just on the screen I have put up the final order requirements . I know it ' s somewhat difficult for maybe the public to read, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody' s aware again that the final order does require us to map what it calls general areas, which will be further refined as the assessment moves forward. And the assessment there is the two-year -- with the one year extension assessment of the non-rural area of the county to determine what the appropriate land use restrictions are, and what -- and to look at the various natural resources that would be protected through that assessment . In the interim, we will be basically under the moratorium that ' s listed in the final order. And I also want to make the point that these -- even though the final order says these are general areas, the final order does specify that there will be different restrictions within NRPA boundaries than outside the NRPA boundaries . And those restrictions are listed in the final order. What I have on the view graph here specifies that the land uses permitted within the NRPA boundaries would include agriculture and directly related uses. Also single-family dwelling units per parcel or lot created prior to June 22nd of 1999 . One of the uses, for instance, as an example, that is different outside of the NRPA boundary than with inside the NRPA boundary is earth mining. Earth mining would not be allowed within the NRPA boundary pursuant to the final order. So that ' s an example of a use. That ' s the difference. So when we adopt these lines on the map from a regulatory perspective, it will restrict some of those uses. The input that we 've received since the first proposal, which we 've created our second proposal, is basically the mapping along what we 're calling habitat boundaries. This is the future land use map, which will be the map that the Board of County Commissioners will adopt on September 14th. Of course, all the other material that we have as supporting material will probably be sent to DCA as support for the final land use map. A bigger version of this is located on the wall. This map was not available for you at your -- when we mailed out the packet because it had to be translated to a different computer system than ours and put on the future land use map. I do have extra Page 46 September 1, 1999 copies available, if you want to have an eight and a half by eleven. But what I 'm going to try to do is I 'm going to try to work on some other -- the map that you have in your packet, because it will be a lot easier. But I wanted to be able to show you that indeed that this is the map that the Board of County Commissioners will adopt . And of course we ' ll have to reconcile all of the boundaries in our discussion with some of our other resource maps to present this to the Board of County Commissioners . But I want to be able to note a couple of things up front. As I said, based upon public input that we 've received, we ran our boundaries down along what we call habitat features . Those could be an important upland habitat or a wetland habitat, as opposed to going straight down a section line that would either divide a habitat or break up a farm field in half . So that ' s one of the major reasons that this map is different from the other map that we presented to you earlier. Also, the Belle Meade, at the sub-committee meeting, there was -- the public provided or asked the question, what CARL acquisition boundaries were we using for our map. When we checked it, we found that the CARL boundaries that we were using were 97-98 vintage, so this particular map, we ' re looking at the 1999 CARL project boundary. And we 've modified it a little bit . And as we go and discuss the individual NRPA' s -- as we discuss the NRPA' s individually, we ' ll point out where those differences lie . But that made a difference in terms of the Belle Meade area. As I said, we 've also tried to incorporate the other CARL boundaries, and also we 've taken a look at some of the areas where we had information that it indicated that some of the wetlands were somewhat of a problem in terms of their function. They've already been impacted and their functioning was different . So again, as we go through individual NRPA boundaries, we will bring that information up to you. This is the map that you've got in your packet, and these are the Natural Resource Protection Areas that have been identified by staff for you to consider today. I think the chairman recommended that we may look at south Golden Gate Estates as the first NRPA. Then maybe we could kind of move clockwise from that point and cover the other NRPA boundaries. But these are the boundaries that were drawn with those criteria that we had in mind, that I 've already discussed. Now, one of the questions is, is how do we reconcile our lines with some other information. The -- all of the data that we've used to create our lines come from existing data sources such as the 94-95 land use cover data base from the South Florida Water Management District . And most of the other data comes from the Wildlife Commission' s Gap Report . This again is an example of looking at priority wetlands. And these are the wetlands that were listed in the Gap Report for wading bird foraging. I believe the red to yellow is the areas where there ' s the highest utilization or the highest quality of wetlands for wading bird habitat. As you can see that just as a general pattern, as we come down in these areas here, we're picking up for the most part, you know, those higher quality habitats up through the Okaloacoochee and Camp Keais; Page 47 September 1, 1999 obviously the CREW is very much there. There ' s less quality habitat .-. than some of the other NRPA' s . MR. CARLSON: Can I make a comment since we ' re on wading bird foraging habitat? I don' t know if the rest of the board is aware of this, but it is a fact that wading bird populations in the region are down 90 percent over what they were historically, even with those habitats . And it ' s not a disease and it ' s not pollution. It ' s a reflection of a loss of former shallow wetlands throughout the region that were drained for residential and agricultural development . CHAIRMAN HILL: Historically means what in time frame? MR. CARLSON: 1920 ' s, ' 30s . MR. LORENZ: Again, a similar map from the Gap Report looking at what they call biodiversity hot spots . The orange has seven or more focal species, so the red and the orange are the more important areas . Again, as staff tried to define where these boundaries are, we were using this information and are using it as the justification for the boundaries . Suffice it to say, a lot of Collier County is still in the areas where it has the highest degree of focal species . But again, we 've tried to incorporate most of the areas that have -- the wildlife habitat plus the wetland flow ways that are basically unimpacted through either transportation systems or residential development as the criteria for identifying our NRPA boundaries . More specifically, these -- this map shows the red dots or telemetry points from the panther studies . Some of the other dots indicate wading bird rookeries . Again, showing the pattern here of what we tried to box in through the NRPA boundaries looking at the areas, the wildlife habitat areas . This is the map of the panther priority habitat from the panther plan. They look at two types of habitat : Priority I , Priority II . The pink is Priority I , and the kind of the bluish grayish color is Priority II . Again, you know, we weren't a slave to these lines . We looked at running our boundaries down to habitat features or water features . But this is how we 've come up -- our lines match up with the panther plan that was developed, i guess it was 92-93 time frame . One of the areas we were criticized during the administrative hearing with Judge Meale was the failure to look at listed habitats, listed species habitats protection. And that was some testimony that was brought out through the administrative hearing. And again, the Game Commission' s Gap Report was very instrumental in providing the data and the information for that finding. So here ' s how our proposed NRPA boundaries match up with the Gap Report ' s what they call strategic habitat conservation areas . There 's a lot more green on that map than we have in NRPA boundaries. But we, as staff, feel that we ' re justified not covering all of those areas, because many of those areas that are outside the NRPA boundaries are more larger agricultural fields and have lesser habitat importance, and certainly from a wetland flow way perspective and connections than the areas that we are proposing for the NRPA. You know, one could take this information simply and say well, all of Eastern Collier County ought to be considered an NRPA, but we — don't feel that way. Staff does not feel that way at all. But this is the information in the data base that ' s -- of course Page 48 September 1, 1999 that ' s available for the state. But we feel pretty comfortable with our boundaries, and we wouldn't want to see them, quite frankly, any larger than what they already are proposed. Let me use this map again just as kind of a -- for some of my notes here that we ' ll talk about in a little bit more detail, because I want to bring up some issues that you can be aware of before you talk about the individual NRPA' s and get public input . But we have -- as staff, we have a couple of areas that we feel are somewhat of an issue, and we'd like to have the consideration of the EAC and have the benefit again of some discussion. The areas up in here, just that I flagged around the CREW boundaries, are illustrative of one area. We have a vested rights issue . And that is that a project exists that has already received its permits prior to June 22nd, 1999 . We weren' t aware of that . And when we mapped the area as an NRPA, we 've overlapped those areas . The final order indicates that those areas that were permitted prior to June 22nd would -- those uses permitted would be allowed. So it ' s our recommendation that any place that we have an area that has that vested standing, that we would be taking that off of the NRPA designation. So there ' s a couple of -- there ' s a couple of areas here on the CREW. There may be an area over here on the Okaloacoochee that we need to take a look at where those boundaries are so that we can carve them out of the NRPA designation. Another concern in the CREW area that we would want to have some discussion later on is we 've got a little part of this point coming down here in the estates . Perhaps it ' s easier for some of the public to see it up on the map on the chalkboard. But that particular area comes down into a subdivision or part of the estates that already has homes in them. When we mapped the habitat mapping, it came into that area, and that ' s an area that we want to have some consideration to again squaring it off and not incorporating that area into the NRPA designation. The other thing right down here in south Golden Gate Estates, although it shows up on your other map, when we translated the -- our electronic file with the future land use file, somehow it didn't show up a boundary, but we 're proposing that the NRPA boundary in south Golden Gate Estates come down to 41 . I think this was -- this is a current -- or this is the acquisition boundary that ' s currently in the CARL report, so we need to reflect that . What I 'm referring to right here is this area here that we -- showing up. That ' s the new CARL boundary map. So we ' re going to have to reflect that properly on the future land use map. Another issue that staff struggled with, and we want to get your consideration for, is this area here is the Camp Keais NRPA. The green is wetland systems. Now, they could be a mixture of, if you will, natural wetlands or agricultural reservoirs, the stormwater retention systems, that we as staff consider still have habitat value and we have mapped. That's an issue from the property -- in terms of the eastern property owners. But we have mapped those areas as functioning wetland habitat. But the issue that we are concerned about and still would like to hear some additional testimony and some consideration by the BAC Page 49 September 1, 1999 members is when we get involved with some larger parcels of agricultural land that are within the NRPA boundaries . And I 'll give you an example right here . One of the criteria that we 're trying to use as -- for the NRPA' s is to make a connection between some larger preserved areas to the south; that would be the Florida Panther Reserve . And of course to the north would be the CREW lands . And to make a wildlife connection, it needs to be -- it can' t be just a very small connection, it has to have some degree of width. And we can all debate and perhaps get a consensus as to how wide a connection should be for it to function properly. But what we found ourselves, when we started drawing the lines through habitat boundaries, we felt that we needed to incorporate some of these larger agricultural fields within the NRPA boundary itself . If we don't incorporate it in the NRPA boundary, then we have a hole . Then we can have land uses that would be to some degree incompatible for any movement of wildlife through those features . Now, of course you have to realize that these features that we 're mapping here in the pink are agricultural fields . So that was an issue for staff . And for the moment right now, we ' re proposing that it be incorporated in the NRPA boundary, that the mosaic between uplands, wetlands, and even for some moderate or low intensity agricultural areas is still a valid -- still a valid concept to create this habitat mosaic for listed species concerns . But that ' s -- I think that ' s a fairly arguable and debatable point . And I 'd like to have some consideration for that . MR. COE : What effect would it have on the agricultural people if we made it a NRPA? I mean, are they going to still be able to farm on it and do everything? MR. LORENZ : They would still be able to farm on it, they'd still be able to have all of their currently permitted uses on it . It would eliminate the ability to use that land for earth mining until -- and perhaps the assessment would then make some other recommendation. But earth mining would be eliminated as of the adoption of the NRPA boundary. There are a couple of other land uses such as, I think it ' s community facilities, essential services that would be -- that would not be allowed in those areas . But I think the major land use, at least as I see, would be earth mining. And then the question comes, would an earth mine in that area, if they were to go and develop an earth mine, would that jeopardize the integrity of that whole NRPA. So that ' s the issue that we like to have some additional discussion on. (Mr. McVey enters boardroom. ) MR. LORENZ: That really covers, you know, the general presentation as to kind of where we 've -- how we 've gotten to the point we've gotten to. CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for Mr. Lorenz? I have two questions. I 'm looking at this about a year and a half old map which shows the Belle Meade area, or the CARL acquisition area. Is that what you're referring to as the erroneous CARL boundaries that you first were looking at? It seems to be much more chopped up than -- MR. LORENZ: The map you're showing is -- was an exercise that Page 50 September 1, 1999 staff made several years ago to look at what the currently open space areas would be in Collier County. And those consisted of lands that had been purchased and put into conservation status . I believe that those lands there that you have there were the lands that were either -- have been purchased in the south Belle Meade or were under contract or had some more definitive status with regard to sellers willing to sell their land. So that ' s -- I don't think that that was an actual project boundary on that . CHAIRMAN HILL: I have a basic question that kind of bothers me. I feel comfortable in trying to delineate these on the basis of wetlands and habitat and critical areas . How do we legally identify these things in such a vague fashion? I don't like section lines, and yet how do we put down on paper so that everybody knows exactly what those boundaries are? How do we accomplish that? MS . STUDENT: Well, the map. But then I guess what you'd have to do -- and I don't know what resources the county has in this regard, but it could be surveyed to get a metes and bounds legal . I mean, that ' s the only way I know to do it . I 'm not an engineer or a -- a civil engineer, so maybe -- you know, I don' t know if there ' s any way from a map you can do things like that or not, but for -- CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s what I thought that we ' d have to do to certainly be able to put those lines on a map that don' t follow some kind of regular pattern. And as much as I 'd like to do that, I have concerns about -- MR. LORENZ: The one way of doing it would be to show the -- on a ^ better aerial photograph the lines on the map and then a narrative describing those lines as those lines that would take into account the habitat cover, which is a describable -- which is a definition using the Florida Land Use Cover System, the FLUCS Code, in that the lines that we would show on the future land use map are the approximate lines . But as you would -- if you have a problem -- if you have a regulatory decision to be made, that you would have to come in and describe those lines using a ground truth map line with habitat boundaries. MR. CARLSON: What about also -- MR. LORENZ: Using a FLUCS Code . MR. CARLSON: What about also confirming some of those lines on the maps with global positioning points that could be confirmed and those numbers logged in for future reference? MR. LORENZ : Mac, you want to -- you might be able to elaborate on that . MR. HATCHER: That can be done, but it ' s still not a legal description and may make it a little tighter. But I don' t think it ' s going to make that much difference. MR. COE: I think the question is, you know, decision is, okay, we're going to do the boundaries like this . Sam Spade in the back of the room says, wait a minute, that doesn't include my property, because mine's right there on the edge. And you haven' t really described where that line is, just drawn on a piece of paper. That 's not a line. If you want to do it on lines like we had before, that ' s not a problem because it ' s already been surveyed in. We 're not talking about surveying in, we're talking about whoever drew these lines got there with a stubby little pen and just went down Page 51 September 1, 1999 the map . Even on aerial photography, when you're talking about a difference of an exact height from the ground, you've got -- you know, you' re off 20, 30, 40, 50 meters, which may make a difference to a landowner, considerable difference. MR. LORENZ : I understand that . MR. COE : So when we make this decision, how is this going to be accomplished so that the landowners know where these lines are? How is that done? I don' t know. MR. LORENZ : Well, that ' s -- the best solution that I have would be to -- these are the approximate lines that we 've put on a more definitive aerial, but then to describe the lines with -- using the FLUCS Codes . And that would require somebody to actually go out on -- in the field and saying that there ' s -- this is a wetland FLUCS Code here, but this is an agricultural farm field here, and that ' s the demarcation of the line . MR. COE: How' s that going to be written up, though, so that the landowners understand this? MR. MULHERE: For the record again, Bob Mulhere . These are very valid questions; however, we have an obligation to have natural resource protection boundaries mapped by September 14th under the Governor' s order. But those are intended to be interim boundaries which can later be revised based on ground-proofing and field verified issues . I recognize that that may have some implications on some property owners in the interim for a period of up to three years, since we need to complete the assessment within three years . But I do not -- I am -- I do not have a solution readily available to resolving that issue other than perhaps agreeing that if someone wishes to commence a land use on a piece of property that is permitted under the assessment but prohibited under the natural resource protection designation, and that there is some question as to whether or not that property is within or without, then we could agree to do a -- you know, a field verification at that point in time during that three-year period. Unfortunately, i don' t think we have any choice -- I know we don' t have any choice but to at least on an interim basis map these areas . And either choice, either way that we go, whether we use section lines and half-section lines, we make some people unhappy because that incorporates some lands that based on the scientific evidence maybe shouldn' t be included, or if we use more of the scientific evidence, then we have difficulty in providing a more certified legal description of the property. MR. SMITH: I had a question. Not relating to the map lines, but another question, if I could. CHAIRMAN HILL: Certainly. MR. SMITH: Once a NRPA is designated, of course we just have some recommendations that we ' ll be making, and then the County Commission would be the final decision-maker on those NRPA' s. And then those, as I understand it, then would be brought up to Tallahassee and either approved or disapproved by the DCA, the NRPA's? MR. LORENZ: September 14th the board will have what' s I think legally called a transmittal hearing. And that will be -- they will agree to the lines and then provide those to DCA through the transmittal hearing. And Marjorie can speak to it after that. MS. STUDENT: There' s a process set out in Chapter 163 which is Page 52 September 1, 1999 the Growth Management Act . And Bill ' s correct, there will be a transmittal hearing, and these are comp. plan amendments, so they will go to DCA for their review and whether or not they're in compliance . And my thinking on that would be that they' re going to look at the order of the Governor and Cabinet to see if they comply with that, because that order is supposed to be drawn, you know, in line with Rule 9J5 and the Growth Management Laws, and that ' s what they would be looking to. And then they will do what they call an ORC Report, objections, recommendations, and comments . And if there ' s any problem, the DCA will let us know through that ORC Report where we need to fix anything, if in fact we need to do that . And then it will be incumbent upon us to do that at the adoption stage. And if there ' s still a problem, I would imagine that we ' ll be back before the Governor and Cabinet, you know, and DCA will explain their side of it and we ' ll explain our side of it . But I certainly hope that it doesn' t go that way and that we -- you know, that what we submit will be satisfactory to the DCA. MR. SMITH: Then my question is that once the DCA accepts these, assuming that they do at some point or another, those then are boundaries or lines that cannot be changed locally? MS . STUDENT: No, they will be changed. Because this is only an interim thing that we ' re doing right now. And so we ' re supposed to map these areas generally. But based upon the three-year assessment, there could be changes . MR. SMITH: But if there were to be changes, those changes could not be made by local decision only? MS . STUDENT: Yes, they can. MR. SMITH: And the DCA need not approve those changes? MS . STUDENT: Yes, they have to. They have oversight . The Governor and Cabinet have oversight on all of this . But the purpose is to do a three-year -- you know, do an assessment of this whole area and come up with -- you know, based on ground truthing and what we find environmentally and everything else on the ground, come up with more refined lines . Then it ' ll go back through that process again. And, you know, DCA will, you know, make their determination as to whether or not it ' s in compliance with the Governor and Cabinet order. And then once that ' s done, jurisdiction should be relinquished by the Governor and Cabinet and it should be over with. But yes, it ' s up to us entirely locally to do this . It ' s not that the Governor and Cabinet told us, you know, exactly where the lines have to be. They told us what we have to map and look for. And then it ' s up for us to determine on the parameters where the lines are. MR. SMITH: Maybe another question or related question is, if there ' s an area, for example, that is not within a NRPA, it would be less controlled, if you will, by the DCA in a sense that there may be some activity that could be conducted. MS. STUDENT: Again, it ' s not controlled, really, by the DCA. It ' s controlled by us . It 's our rule. But DCA has the oversight, and now the Governor and Cabinet do, to make sure that the county adheres to the Growth Management Laws. So it ' s our rule. And we're going to go have to come up with the rule and, you know, draw the rule and then make sure that it is enforced through Page 53 September 1, 1999 appropriate land development regulations and development orders . MR. SMITH: But I don't hear you say that there ' s no distinction. There ' s no difference between -- MS . STUDENT: Yeah, there -- yes, I think theoretically there is supposed to be a distinction in the NRPA of what can be done. At this time, I don' t -- other than what we have in the language of the order from the Governor and Cabinet, but I would envision in the future that it would be things that -- types of land use, density, maybe some clustering standards, maybe some mitigation, out and out preservation standards . These types of things are what I would expect to find in a NRPA. MR. SMITH: I think I understand. It seems to me, though, that there ' s got to be some reason for designating NRPA' s that are then, as I understand it, finally approved by the DCA. MS . STUDENT: There -- MR. SMITH: And if the NRPA designation has been made and approved by the DCA, I would imagine that there is a difference between that area that has been so designated and one that has not, and that in order to make a change from the previously designated NRPA lines to some different lines would require a process that involves ultimately getting approval of the DCA. MS . STUDENT: Any time we do a comp. plan amendment, and it would involve a comp. plan amendment, we have to transmit it to the DCA for their approval . That ' s any comp. plan amendment . So that would be a comp. plan amendment and, you know, they would have to do that . But what we ' re doing right now is, you know, a general thing. And then after -- and it has to be based on scientific data and the Gaps Report and this type of thing. Then it ' s going to be more finely refined. So it ' s a two-step process . And the DCA and the administration commission have oversight, you know, on all of this for the time being. CHAIRMAN HILL: Let ' s keep this legal description question in mind as we proceed. But it looks like maybe South Golden Gate Estates might be a good place to start inasmuch as it ' s fairly regularly defined. Can we proceed and look at that as the first NRPA? Do you have any additional comments, Mr. Lorenz, or no? MR. LORENZ: No. For South Golden Gate Estates, again, we just have to ensure that our future land use map will match up with what you see here on the monitor. CHAIRMAN HILL: Which is the boundary of this revised map? MR. LORENZ: Correct . What I 've got -- what I have on the monitor is what I 've provided you in your letter. I don't know if there ' s any of the public that may want to speak to -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Any questions for Mr. Lorenz from the council? Any public input for South Golden Gate Estates? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier Audubon, and with me is Michael Simonik from The Conservancy. Yes, Brad Cornell with Collier Audubon, but Brad had to leave. We're speaking as a block of three organizations. You had received a letter from us yesterday concerning our proposed boundaries for various NRPA' s. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, just address quickly the overall NRPA' s, because it might expedite some of the public comment. Page 54 September 1, 1999 n CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, would it be possible to restrict your comments to this particular one right now? MS . PAYTON: Actually, we could cover them all right now. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. MS . PAYTON: Yes, we accept Southern Golden Gate Estates ' proposed boundary on the map that ' s on the wall and on the screen. And also, when we wrote our letter we weren' t aware of these new proposed boundaries by the staff . And we received them yesterday afternoon, after we had issued our letter. And we like these boundaries . We feel that these are appropriate boundaries . These are acceptable boundaries for the interim boundaries, the discussion boundaries . And we do have some concerns about Priority I and II panther habitat, but we can bring those forward during the assessment . But we'd like to tell the council at this time, we are endorsing all of the NRPA boundaries as brought forth by the county. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you very much. That indeed was a -- MS . PAYTON: See, I told you it would expedite things . CHAIRMAN HILL: -- nice comment. Any particular specific comments from the public about Southern Golden Gate? MR. SMITH: For the record, I 'd like to reiterate in a summary form some of the input that came from our sub-committee hearing on this . There were some individuals who appeared who are not here today. And I think we have to always bear in mind that while we are here in a -- at a public hearing, it ' s difficult sometimes for the folks that are of -- have some interest in this to show up. I just wanted to make the comment that one individual in particular was an owner of, I think it was, 160 acres . And if this is designated as a NRPA, he will be limited to building one residence on that . And I think we always have to bear in mind the meaning of what it is that we ' re doing. MR. CARLSON: Wasn' t that only until the assessment is over? That density could change. MR. SMITH: It could. CHAIRMAN HILL: As I remember, he left satisfied that it would not affect his current plans, as I remember. Was I wrong? MR. SMITH: I think his primary concern, he and his wife, was that this was going to be only for three years . But I 'm not so sure that he either understood or didn't understand that even though we 're talking a three-year period for the designation -- or the assessment, there ' s no telling how long after that time any restrictions might be in place, so that might be -- that might be -- that might be imposed. So I 'm not too sure that they fully comprehend that . But my main point is, I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that there are many people that are interested that just cannot appear at these hearings. CHAIRMAN HILL: Comments from the council? MR. SANSBURY: Just a question, Mr. Chair. How is it the Southern Golden Gate, the overall area, compared with what we had the August 27th map against the previous map? Do we know how much area is in there? MR. LORENZ: It ' s not the same as what we proposed before, was it not? Page 55 September 1, 1999 MR. McVEY: No, this area is larger to the tune of, what, 13 , 000 , 14 , 000 acres? MR. LORENZ : 15, 096 . One of the things I think that when we originally had put the -- with this hole right here, we had not -- I guess that was not shown as the NRPA boundary. MR. McVEY: That ' s correct . But the big change is the addition of the lands between Southern Golden Gate Estates and U. S . 41 . MR. LORENZ : Right down here. And this matches the 1999 CARL project boundary. MR. SMITH: Could I ask why the hole, which is sometimes called the hole in the doughnut as I 've heard it called, was not included originally and is now, or is it just a -- MR. HATCHER: It was being considered differently because county staff perceived the purchase agreements as being more complete than the hole in the doughnut, but the way things are working out, it ' s really not much different . MR. LORENZ : And really, from a -- I mean, the bottom line is that whole area is simply justified as an NRPA based upon all of the criteria that we ' re using. CHAIRMAN HILL: I assume the boundaries on that map are well described in terms of section and half-sections, the way it ' s drawn? There ' s no legal -- or no question about the identification of that source? MR. HATCHER: I would not say that that ' s the case . The lines, particularly on the southeastern portion, they' re squared off, but they do not follow section and half-section lines . They' re irregular. But the adjacent property is identified as CARL acquisition area for the Fakahatchee Strand, so all of that area is identified as CARL purchase areas . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions or comments? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that what we ' re going to do is to vote individually on each section? CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s what I 'd like to do, yes . MR. JACKSON: I 'd like to move that we vote on accepting the lines for South Golden Gate. MR. COE: I ' ll second that motion. Coe. CHAIRMAN HILL: Been moved and seconded to accept the county' s recommendation on the revised NRPA boundary for South Golden Gate Estates. Discussion? All those in favor, aye? Opposed? (No response . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Let it show unanimous . One down. MR. SANSBURY: Took the easy one first . CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s right, amen. Could we proceed to North Belle Meade -- let me ask Mr. Lorenz. Would it be, I think, probably easier to split those and consider them individually? MR. LORENZ: North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I would think so. CHAIRMAN HILL: Could we go to North Belle Meade? Page 56 I September 1, 1999 MR. LORENZ: North Belle Meade . North Belle Meade is drawn there, if you will . We have run it across section lines up in the north to the east . It ' s bounded by the platted subdivision of Golden Gate Estates . The -- on the south by 75 . On the western section of it, however, it ' s following habitat boundaries . And I believe, Mac, these boundaries -- this is the North Belle Meade right here. The green is wetland coverage, the blue is forested, and the pink is agriculture . MR. SMITH: What is the dark brown in that? MR. HATCHER: That ' s identified as range land, which would be scrub, palmetto prairies or wax myrtle shrub. MR. CARLSON: What are we talking about here? What color? MR. HATCHER: Dark brown. MR. CARLSON: The dark -- this little tiny dark brown? CHAIRMAN HILL: It shows up orange on yours . MR. SANSBURY: It ' s right here . CHAIRMAN HILL: Over here on the northeast -- no, right inside there . MR. SANSBURY: There ' s one right there . MR. SMITH: Is it the same designation for that other brown up toward the upper right? MR. HATCHER: The upper right is red. My choice of colors may not be coming through as well as it should. The red is urban, which indicates existing residences . MR. SMITH: So there are homes built through there . What ' s the name of that community? MR. LORENZ : I don' t think there ' s a community name at this location. MR. SMITH: I know it ' s got a name, but I can' t remember it . But there are -- there ' s quite a few people living there . MR. HATCHER: There ' s a cluster of existing homes . There ' s a gravel road or a dirt road that goes in from the South Estates in two or three areas, as indicated by -- MR. SMITH: Did you say from the South Estates? MR. HATCHER: Correct -- I 'm sorry, North Estates . It ' s not the South Estates, it ' s the North Estates . And quite a few of those sections have been subdivided extensively into five, 10 and 20-acre parcels . MR. SMITH: How many people live there? MR. HATCHER: I don' t know. MR. LORENZ: Remember, the NRPA designation, the difference for inside the boundary and outside the boundary is the land use restriction on earth mining and some other restrictions on essential services, community facilities, things of this nature. It does not preclude an individual to build on a single-family lot that ' s been subdivided prior to June 22nd, 1999 . MR. SMITH: But as I understand it, one of the main reasons for designating NRPA' s is because of the environmental sensitivity of the area. And if an area is populated to any extent, it makes me wonder how sensitive it could be. MR. LORENZ: Well, we would -- what we're really trying to do is we're ultimately trying to direct incompatible land uses from these natural resource protection areas to the degree that you're looking at Page 57 September 1, 1999 a very large area, fairly intact area of natural native habitat . We would not want to see that area, let ' s say inside of it somehow, having a very intensive incompatible land use within the future . It would be incompatible to the whole area as -- it would violate the whole area' s integrity for environmental sensitivity. So that ' s the reason why we think that in this particular area, even though there ' s some small urbanization occurring, that the overall boundary is the proper boundary. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, sir. MR. SANSBURY: The North Belle Meade area, as I look at it, looks a little different . I mean, are there any wildlife passageways under 75 in that area? MR. LORENZ : No. MR. SANSBURY: And on the east we 've got the existing Golden Gate Estates . I just -- it just kind of sticks out that everything else I can see linking in some one way or the other. That one just kind of sits there . And as I thought, the whole idea for the NRPA' s was to establish the links and flow ways and things of that sort . It seems like it ' s fairly isolated up there. MR. LORENZ : Well, certainly establishing links and flow ways are important criteria for our boundary lines . That ' s not the only criteria . I think preserving large intact natural habitat areas is important . This is a very large intact natural area. Actually, from staff ' s perspective, there could be even some discussion of moving further to the west with it . Now, you can see that that light blue is really forested areas . And typically in many times forested that is shown up in the land cover inventory may be hydric pine and could potentially be some degree of wetlands, although we know in this area and the testimony that we had previously with one of the property owners indicated that some of this area has been severely impacted. But identifying areas that are fairly undeveloped, unimpacted natural habitat that are fairly large in extent and don' t have an existing road network through them or facilities we consider as valid criteria for an NRPA. MR. SANSBURY: The presentation was made before the committee by one of the landowners in that area that had three sections of land that were essentially improved -- or cleared for pasture, is that still inside here, or has that been -- the corner that ' s come off that from -- what looks like this little corner has come off of that -- MR. SMITH: That was the -- you' re talking about the CARL acquisition, South Belle Meade. MR. CARLSON: No, I think he ' s talking about the presentation made by Mr. Anderson with the clearing for the grazing. MR. SANSBURY: Do we have aerials on the wall? MR. CARLSON: How does that relate to this boundary? Is that the beige area here? MR. HATCHER: The agricultural area, the pink, was removed. However, inclusion of the wetlands habitat areas to the west of the original boundary included additional land within their holding. So we took a little bit of land from their holdings out of the NRPA, but .-. we added some to their area. CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd like to call Mr. Anderson, if he has any Page 58 September 1, 1999 n comment at this time. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of East Naples Land Company. In this instance the staff giveth and the staff taketh away. The boundary lines may be an improvement over last week' s proposal, but again, with the lack of a legal description, it ' s only a belief we have and nothing more than that . I did have some points I wanted to make . I want to answer your question directly. Do you wish for me to go ahead or staff to go ahead? CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don' t you go ahead and go, if you'd like . MR. ANDERSON: It ' s been over six months since county staff first revealed publicly that negotiations had been ongoing with the Department of Community Affairs over the comprehensive plan challenge, and that those negotiations involved placing this NRPA designation on privately owned lands that were mapped out on the future land use map. From the day the NRPA lands were first publicly disclosed until the hearing before the Governor and Cabinet, the NRPA' s proposed by staff never changed until the end of July or the beginning of August . And it was at that time that the Belle Meade NRPA suddenly crossed Interstate 75 and headed north, climbed over two fences, swam a canal, and dodged four lanes of traffic . Now, staff is correct, that in the settlement agreement this area was identified as a special subdistrict that had many similar restrictions to a NRPA. But there was one very important difference . The property owner still had the right to have one dwelling unit per five gross acres on his property. And unless you have had your land split up into five-acre parcels before the date of the Governor and Cabinet ' s order, by placing this NRPA designation on the lands, the property owner loses that right, perhaps forever. And I say perhaps forever, because once these lines are drawn, they cannot be -- and the state approves them, they cannot be altered without the state ' s approval, nor the restrictions changed. We can talk all we want about how these are interim, but once they' re drawn and the state approves them, we have to get their approval to change them. That ' s one major reason why these NRPA boundaries ought to be drawn narrowly on this first go-around. Now, another major reason that the boundaries should be drawn narrowly at this very beginning stage is to reduce the county' s and the taxpayers ' exposure to taking claims and claims for loss and fair market value under the state ' s Private Property Rights Protection Act . The NRPA designation makes the county especially vulnerable, because only two land uses are allowed out of a list of more than 20 land uses that were allowed before the moratorium became effective. Third major reason to draw the boundaries narrowly at first is because the newest lines have been drawn hastily and without a legal description. Now, I realize that staff has been under a time crunch since the Governor and Cabinet ' s order was entered in late June. But instead of concentrating on providing legal descriptions and justifying the original NRPA' s and those boundaries which they had proposed, which was all that was on the table when the Governor and the Cabinet acted, the NRPA' s have shifted and grown in size, as recently as the last three days. Page 59 September 1, 1999 Haste makes waste . You are not just drawing easily erasable lines on a theoretical map. You' re taking away people ' s property rights . You' re having real impacts on real people . Now, the NRPA boundaries that are on the table today should not be any larger than the NRPA boundaries that staff had proposed before the Governor and the Cabinet acted. For the record, the other specific reasons that my client objects to a NRPA designation on his property in North Belle Meade are, number one, the hydrology of the area was previously altered by canals on all sides and by Alligator Alley. Secondly, ownership in North Belle Meade is split into so many separate parcels that are grandfathered for homesites that there is no assurance that any kind of contiguous conservation area could be preserved by this NRPA designation alone . Third, the North Belle Meade area is surrounded on three sides by estates lands that are platted and vested for development, and on the fourth side, by Interstate 75 and the fence . And unlike other NRPA' s, North Belle Meade is not part of any contiguous wildlife corridor that links with any other NRPA' s. Now, although the latest North Belle Meade NRPA is perhaps an improvement over last week' s version, I would respectfully request that you remove the proposed NRPA designation from North Belle Meade and that instead you carefully consider North Belle Meade area as part of the rural area moratorium assessment that will eventually come before this council, and probably within the next year. I would like to enter into the record the written reports of the environmental consultant and hydrologist for the property owner who have previously testified at your hearings . The hydrologist is here and available to answer questions . I 'm also going to enter into the record my memorandum to the council ' s growth management sub-committee, which I sent out to each of the members . And I thank you very much for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Questions for Mr. Anderson? MR. JACKSON: I have a question for Bill . Could we see a map of what the North Belle Meade area looked like that Mr. Anderson was describing before? I 'd be interested in seeing what you' re talking about . And then what are they talking about in here? MR. LORENZ : I believe what Bruce is showing there as the red boundary was the -- MR. JACKSON: What boundary within that map are you talking about? So we have them both on the same thing. I mean, that 's -- MR. LORENZ: I 'd have to get Mac to -- MR. JACKSON: I know. This is what I don' t understand. What drops off, what comes in? Where are we? Who ' s on first? MR. LORENZ: Let me have Mac explain the difference between the North Belle Meade boundary that we proposed originally and then the current North Belle Meade boundary. MR. HATCHER: The original proposed North Belle Meade boundary was basically a square, three sections by three sections. Started at 1-75 on the south and was bounded to the east by the North Golden Gate Estates. Okay, the boundaries were changed by eliminating the agricultural land use from the northwest corner of the area, and the wetlands that Page 60 September 1, 1999 ^ extended beyond the old boundary to the west were added in. CHAIRMAN HILL: Could you indicate roughly the north-south line and the west, where that would have been? MR. HATCHER: The north line -- the north-south line would be out in the middle of this agricultural polygon in here . MR. DiNUNZIO: So in effect the area is smaller than it was . MR. HATCHER: No, actually I believe it ' s slightly larger. CHAIRMAN HILL: Very slightly. MR. SANSBURY: What is the frontage on 75? Used to be three miles . Do you have any idea what it is now, the three sections? MR. HATCHER: I don't know what the change is, but it ' s probably at least an additional quarter mile. CHAIRMAN HILL: I think we 've been alerted to this in the past, but would you refresh my memory, at least, how -- what happened when the North Belle Meade came into existence as a proposed NRPA? I hear Mr. Anderson saying that at some point in time it was not there . It was not part of the final order identified, was it, as North Belle Meade? MR. LORENZ: Several questions . Let me take the last one first . The final order talks about mapping general areas, and it says Belle Meade, okay? So then now, what does that mean? Does that mean South Belle Meade as the Belle Meade, or does that mean South Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade? Staff previously, in the negotiations with DCA -- through the negotiations we originally had proposed some NRPA' s that did not cover ^ the North Belle Meade at all . In our discussions with the staff, and this is -- this was, let ' s say, six to nine months ago, they wanted to see some degree of protection for the North Belle Meade area because of the fairly large intact natural system that exists . We indicated at that point we did not want to call it an NRPA because an NRPA also had a down zoning from one per five units to one per 40 units per acre. So what we proposed instead to DCA instead was we will call the North Belle Meade, those nine sections of land, as a subdistrict . And we constrained the land uses -- or the land uses that we proposed were the same as an NRPA. The only difference was it retained its one unit per five-acre density, where the NRPA' s were proposed to go to a one unit per 40-acre density. So in name it was not NRPA, in our settlement negotiations . But when you look at the land uses now for the purpose of the final order, they were the same types of land uses that we ' re now calling NRPA. So that ' s why we are now proposing that it receive the name NRPA. CHAIRMAN HILL: Was there an area referred to as Belle Meade at one time; had some sort of definition that included property north of the alley? MR. LORENZ: Well, at one particular point there was a CARL proposal that included areas to the north of the Alley. And not all of that area is a watershed, if you will, that Belle Meade watershed that goes into the Rookery Bay. MR. DiNUNZIO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. MR. DiNUNZIO: If I could ask the members of the board to take a look at the provided panther habitat tracings, the radio telemetry data tracings, as to why Belle Meade became more important as time Page 61 September 1, 1999 went on. If you look at 1994 where we start off at there, there is no -- there is no radio telemetry tracing dot in the northern Belle Meade area. In ' 95, we have one sighting in there . In ' 96, there ' s one sighting. When we get into ' 97, there ' s probably over a dozen radio telemetry hits inside the northern Belle Meade area. When you get into 1998, there ' s a couple of dozen of them. And Panther No. 60 had two kittens in that area and raised them up until she moved farther back to the west . And now -- and so far this year there ' s been about a dozen hits . So if the area is an important enough piece of habitat that the most endangered mammal in North America has decided to make it home, then it deserves -- as a proposed environmental protection agency -- or area, we need to put a little protection on it . That ' s not something that we can casually ignore . And even if we choose to casually ignore it, the Fish and Wildlife Service won' t, under the Endangered Species Act . CHAIRMAN HILL: Are you saying, John, that this seems to you to have become a home habitat, if you wish, rather than just some transitory -- MR. DiNUNZIO: Well, we 've got four, five years running of use and it ' s getting stronger. And as the panther population increases, which it is, the area is going to be, like everything south of the Alley, it ' s all going to become more important, in the general scheme of things to panther protection. And the biologist did the survey, and when I asked him if he had dear and hogs out there, he says yes, there ' s dear and hogs out there . CHAIRMAN HILL: The upper half of this, approximately, then is -- and part of the western part is already platted, right? MR. COE : It ' s platted to the east, too. CHAIRMAN HILL: To the east . Yeah, that ' s Golden Gate Estates . To the west, I 'm not sure of the scale on here . MR. COE: I don' t know. This is what I 'd use here . Because I think this is 951 . MR. DiNUNZIO: Actually, in ' 98 , Panther No. 60 , got up into Golden Gate to the point where it was, let ' s see, up into the 25th Street area, south of White Boulevard. This -- these maps, by the way, I obtained them from the Fish and Wildlife Service Panther Refuge. They have a lot of data on it . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: I don't know whether the Belle Meade -- I just cannot bring North Belle Meade in with this contiguous piece we have down here. This piece is out there like an island. It ' s got -- you know, if anything, it ' s a fringe area, it should be treated like a fringe area, and I don't think it deserves this definition. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I remember looking at the panther trackings and being impressed with trackings that were very, very dense in some of the -- especially in some of the other proposed NRPA' s and being quite sparser. And I also remember a comment from, I think it was, Mr. Lorenz that panther trackings need to be analyzed because it ' s possible for one panther, for example, to make quite a show. I personally have some concerns about the Florida panther, and Page 62 September 1, 1999 I 'm ready to be educated about this if I 'm wrong. But as I understand, the Florida panther is basically, if not exactly the same species as is found in Tennessee, Alabama, Southeastern United States . The difference being that it was cut off from the rest of the panthers because of population growth to the point where its pool genes were weakened. And because of that weakness, the very survival of those panthers who are now in our area is threatened. And in order to avoid them dying out completely, panthers from Tennessee, Alabama are being brought to Florida to mate with these panthers . MR. DiNUNZIO: Sir, I 'd suggest you start reading something about the -- originally the Florida panther lived in the southeastern 14 states . There are no other populations -- known populations of panther anywhere east of the Mississippi and south of Tennessee . The panthers that have been brought into the area are actually Texas cougars . There was one that lived down in the southern Belle Meade area and was shot two years ago by person or persons unknown in an orange grove down there. The panther that lives north of the Alley is Florida Panther No. 60 . It ' s a female. As far as data analyzation goes, they analyzed it to the point where they know she had two kittens and lived in there raising up those kittens during their first year of life, which is the most critical time when the mother needs the most feed to keep them fed. MR. SMITH: Well, I 've seen Florida panthers . I 've seen them up close . I think they' re a beautiful animal . Don' t get me wrong. I think we have to remember our role . As I understand the criteria, we need to be looking especially at areas in these NRPA' s that are connected to other areas so that you have a connectivity so that you have some environmental impact by creating NRPA' s that would be larger than the actual area that you' re designating as a NRPA. The area north of 75, as has been pointed out, is closed in on all sides . As fortunate or unfortunate as we may want that to be, it is the fact that there is to the south of this a very serious barrier. And the same all around. And not only is it an existing barrier, but the barrier is going to get greater as time goes on, because I -- I 'd like to make a point in terms of the residents who live in Golden Gate Estates . As it stands now, Mr. Chairman, the population of Golden Gate Estates is approximately 20 percent of what it will ultimately be. That 20 percent is now found mostly in the areas that are toward the west of Golden Gate Estates . That means that there ' s going to be a much larger population in the rest of the Estates . And I have some comments that I 'd want to make about that at some point, and I ' ll just reserve them. But I want you to take into account, fellow council members, the fact that when we create NRPA' s, we have to be looking at all of the circumstances, including the barriers that are created, whether they be manmade barriers or not. And in this instance, they are all manmade, but they're there. MR. JACKSON: I have a question. I 'm at a loss here. What is the barrier that we have at North Belle going to the right? Golden Gate Estates? MR. SMITH: Golden Gate Estates. Page 63 September 1, 1999 MR. JACKSON: Why is that a barrier? MR. SMITH: Well, there is platted Golden Gate Estates area that extends to Everglades Boulevard and then on out to DeSoto Boulevard. A distance of approximately four, four and a half miles of small one-and-a-half acres to five-acre parcels that are vested and populated, and continuing to be populated at a very rapid rate. MR. JACKSON: And then what is to the west further? I mean -- MR. SMITH: To the west part of it is Golden Gate Estates . Part of it is actually Golden Gate . And -- MR. JACKSON: Okay. MR. DiNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. DiNUNZIO: On the screen right now we 've got the panther telemetry data from 1998 . As you can see by glancing at it, the panther doesn' t seem to mind walking through the southern end of the northern Golden Gate Estates area through DeSoto and Everglades Boulevard, and they are accessing that area from the east border through the area of population, of light population now. And I imagine -- and if you' ll notice the panther tracings and trackings that continue in -- if you' ll turn to the back page where the -- all the trackings are sort of lumped together, the last page of that group of maps, you' ll find that they seem to travel around to a lot of areas . Two of them in the last year have gone from the Big Cypress . They' re up into -- up by Sebring now, and up in Highland County. They started off right here in our backyard. So they do travel . And they' re not that terrified of the r� occasional human in their path. They seem to avoid you very well . The area is crucial for their population' s health. We ' re spending millions and millions of dollars to ensure that these panthers survive . We ought to do our little part to see if we can't help out , too . On the federal level, we spend a lot of money. CHAIRMAN HILL: The map you have on there now raises two questions in my mind. One, suppose this portion of Golden Gate Estates suddenly gets developed at a fairly rapid rate . What ' s going to happen to this panther data density to the west of that main north-south section of Golden Gate Estates? MR. DiNUNZIO: They're going to get pushed someplace else. CHAIRMAN HILL: The big volume is to the east of the Estates . MR. DiNUNZIO: That ' s in the panther refuge to the east of the Estates . That 's the panther -- yes . In fact, the -- the green lines that we have for Camp Keais Strand on our revised boundary, it stair-steps into what is the western boundary of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. CHAIRMAN HILL: But density-wise, it ' s only a very small density of telemeter data west of the Golden Gate Estates . MR. DiNUNZIO: Yes, there wasn't -- it ' s an area that they've moved into in the last five years. If you look back at the 1994 panther tracings, there wasn't one in there at all. This is -- they have taken and moved into that area. And they're starting to -- they're populating a bigger area. Because we have filled up the Big Cypress . There isn't any more available habitat for panther in the Big Cypress. MR. SMITH: How many panthers are there? MR. DiNUNZIO: Well, the official standing is there ' s 50 to 80 . Page 64 September 1, 1999 n Everybody knows there ' s more than that . But it ' s a question of how many of them you figure you can put in the box. Right now it is figured that on federal land, 28 and a half percent of the known panther population deals in federal land. That means that there ' s 72 percent of the land that they exist on is privately owned lands . So obviously the loss of privately owned land would be a major problem for the continued survival . MR. McVEY: Mr. Anderson, do you have a county map showing the Eastern County Land Company proposed boundaries of the NRPA' s handy? I don' t know that I 've got that in my package. MR. ANDERSON: This -- and let me make sure I understand. MR. McVEY: The area shown here is staff ' s recommendation. I 'm looking for your proposed boundary. MR. ANDERSON: My proposed boundary stops at the south line of Interstate 75 . It doesn' t cross the interstate . There would be no North Belle Meade NRPA. MR. McVEY: Are you involved with the other five NRPA' s at all? Or is your only concern the North Belle Meade? MR. ANDERSON: Right now my only concern is the North Belle Meade. Sometimes as new boundaries are drawn, I find that I have clients that become imperiled. CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm going to -- Ms . Leone, she said, lets her fingers do our talking. We need to give her a rest , I think, for a minute or two. Take a couple of minutes . (Brief recess . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: We ' re back in session. Any more comments from staff -- from council? MR. CARLSON: Comments from council? Oh, boy, this is a tough one . But if you go back and read the definition of what a NRPA is and that their purpose is to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and their habitats, with the data we have on just panthers -- and let me tell you, the interstate and the fences and the canals are not barriers for things that fly there . If the county has included this because of its habitat value, which I presume that ' s how this line happened, I think we ' d be doing disservice to this process to just simply ignore this one like it doesn' t really exist, because it certainly qualifies . And again, we can revisit it later, but to just scratch it now at this early stage I think would be a disservice to this process . MR. COE: I agree with you, but my comment would be primarily to staff in this case . Here ' s this property that these people own out here. And we know there ' s panther sightings and tortoises and all of these other things that are out there . We don' t know how many and we ' re going to do this scientific study. But what ' s the difference between that land and just to the east of it, the Golden Gate Estates, where there ' s not very many people living in there where we know a lot of panther go through to get to North Belle Meade? Let ' s say that ' s the panther house over there in North Belle Meade. If the eastern area there of Eastern Golden Gates Estates gets built up, which we think it probably will be sometime during our lifetime, then how the heck is the panther going to get home? And why wasn't that Golden Gate Estates area included into the area that we should consider to make part of the NRPA? MR. McVEY: Go one step further, go east of that to that block Page 65 September 1, 1999 between Camp Keais Strand and South Golden Gates . MR. JACKSON: Yep. MR. COE: That ' s correct . If you connect that whole shebang up, then you have an area of continuous area for full movement of all wildlife and everything that we can look at scientifically to see whether it ' s good, bad, or indifferent . But here we 've taken and we 've singled out and I think for what appears to be a valid reason, North Belle Meade, but I 'm saying, hey, what about the rest of this area here? Why do we just single this guy out and not the whole shebang? Can you answer that? MR. JACKSON: John has an answer up there that he wants to get . MR. DiNUNZIO: Mr. Coe, the last at least quarter of a mile and maybe half-mile, it ' s Avenues 48 -- God, I used to have a brain. I don' t know where I left it . The last two blocks here between Everglades and DeSoto are owned by the same group of people -- person or group of people who have dedicated that area never to be developed. It ' s a thick jungle of oak tree . It ' s really some pretty remote territory. And it goes from south of the Ford test track to the edge of the Fakahatchee -- or the Florida Panther Natural Wildlife Refuge and right on across . And they own that and they have dedicated that to habitat for anything that wants to go through there . So there is a corridor that will never be developed down there close to the Alley. MR. SMITH: Talking about Dr. Gore ' s (phonetic) ? MR. DiNUNZIO: Yeah, that ' s his name . MR. SMITH: That ' s 80 acres . It does not extend to Everglades Boulevard. It ' s on DeSoto. .-. MR. DiNUNZIO: It goes from DeSoto to Everglades . MR. SMITH: No, it doesn' t go to Everglades . It only goes to the canal that separates the sections between Everglades and DeSoto. It is not connected. MR. DiNUNZIO : Trust me, the panthers will find their way through. MR. SMITH: I 'm sure they will . And taking that approach, we should take the City of Naples and turn it into panther country. MR. CARLSON: No, I think there ' s a little habitat problem there, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Obviously. I would also point out that the -- you know, I think there was a question about, you know, in our lifetimes there will be population in Golden Gate Estates . Folks, you need to take a drive out there . It ' s populated. It ' s an urban area. As much as we might not want it to be, it is . And there are people like you, like me, that live in those areas . And the reason that they were not included in the NRPA is because they are living human beings who are entitled to live as they are . And I think we have to bear in mind that when we look at these issues, we have to fit our own approach to these issues on the criteria that ' s been given to us. And Mr. Chairman, if I could, I want to go on for about four, five minutes here if I could. I won' t go beyond that time. And if I do, tell me to stop and I will . CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. MR. SMITH: As I see it, as I 've learned in the short time that I 've been on this board, or this council, there ' s certain criteria to look at when we're looking at NRPA's. One is the regional scale Page 66 September 1, 1999 n wetlands . All of the evidence that I 've heard so far on this North Belle Meade area is that there ' s no regional scale wetlands . There are limited items of wetlands that can be and should be protected in future growth, but not interconnected. Interconnection is one of the key issues . It doesn't happen here . Flow ways . There are canals that have been built all around that area . There ' s no flow way into that area. The NRPA' s, once they' re designated as NRPA' s, are deemed to deserve the highest degree of protection. That means acquisition. That ' s how far we would have to look at if we ' re going to be designating it a NRPA. We have to be thinking that it ' s important enough that we 're willing to spend our tax dollars to acquire it . And if we don't acquire it and designate it as a NRPA, as Mr. Anderson pointed out to us, because of the protections that Florida law allows under Burt Harris and other laws, we would be telling the taxpayers of Collier County that you are going to pay -- I think the assessed value that was shown on one of the reports that I saw here was 100 million. I think that ' s very low. Are we ready to tell the taxpayers to pay that for these NRPA' s? It ' s been discussed that this North Belle Meade area is surrounded, it ' s landlocked. I think that some of the testimony that ' s been previously presented to us talked about Belle Meade as a term extending north of 75 . Dr. Gore is the one who had described Belle Meade for the county back in 1988 . And I have his literature here, if you' re interested in looking at it . Belle Meade is an area that at one time came all the way down from Immokalee Road all the way down south. But that ' s not what we ' re dealing with here . Belle Meade, as we understand the term in terms of an area that needs protection, is south of 75 where it ' s not been surrounded and isolated and where there is some connectivity. North Belle Meade was not considered to be a sensitive enough area to be included in the CARL acquisition project . Why? For the same reasons that I 've described, I 'm sure. We can' t -- we don't have a license, I would say, to throw common sense to the wind here when we ' re dealing with these things . Yes, we have some power, some authority in the sense that we can express what we want the commission to do, but in doing that, we have to remember our role, and that is to look at the designated factors that we have to be studying when we make our recommendations. Once these NRPA designations are made and approved in Tallahassee, they don' t get changed without a lot . And that is not a burden that we place on private owners without good scientific reason. CHAIRMAN HILL: I take it your point, Richard, is you're against including that as a NRPA? MR. SMITH: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I have one final point, and perhaps the one that has not been addressed, and the one I think I feel most passionately about . If you will look at that map -- and I may need to stand up to go do it . I think I will. There are -- there are some better maps that would show -- that would make the point I 'm about to try to make here. But this is all people. These are all people. This goes out to here. People. And it is populated. Take a ride out there and you' ll see what I mean. These people serve as a lot of the people that live in Naples. A lot of them are hard-working individuals who work for Page 67 September 1, 1999 you folks . When they get up in the morning, they travel . How do they '` get to Naples? They travel along Golden Gate Boulevard, bumper to bumper from 6 : 00 in the morning until 8 : 00 in the morning. And then it starts to ease up a little bit . Yes, this is about to be four-laned. That ' s not going to take care of the problem. This is less than 20 percent filled. Most of that 20 percent is over here . This is going to become much, much more populated. What we need to bear in mind is an overall vision of what we ' re dealing with when we are looking at these assessments . There is going to be a need, I would urge you to consider, for building some access from Golden Gate Estates to the urban areas . I 'm going to go up and -- to my seat now and finish up this discussion. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: You know, I think we 've discussed this item quite a bit . I think we need to move on and I 'm prepared to put a motion on the floor. MR. SMITH: I 'd like to finish up here . CHAIRMAN HILL: One quick minute . MR. SMITH: The order that came down from the Governor and the Cabinet says more than what we 've been talking about . It says in part that when we do this overall assessment, we have to assess the growth potential of the area. By assessing -- I 'm reading now from Page 11 of the final order from the Governor and Cabinet . By assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directly incompatible land use -- directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, including but not limited to private public schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocation clustering, open space provisions, and mixed use developments, the assessment shall recognize substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominately rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services . Finally, the point . CHAIRMAN HILL: Quickly, please . MR. SMITH: What we have to bear in mind always is that when we look at these areas, we have to think not only of the environment without the people, because the people are a large part of this particular environment . This area that we happen to be dealing with in North Belle Meade area is one that would be ideal for relieving some of the pressure that we 've imposed on. the Golden Gate Estates area. Remember, Golden Gate Estates has been designated as the one area that in Orangetree where development can occur. If we are concerned with urban sprawl, we have to be thinking about whether or not there' s a need to avoid the consequences of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl, the biggest problem with it is, is that it creates traffic flows that are very difficult to deal with. If we consider the possibility, consider the possibility that this area that we are now wanting to designate as Page 68 September 1, 1999 a NRPA, consider the possibility that this area would be a great wonderful place for us to be having some input and some influence in terms of making it an urban area that would avoid the consequences of urban sprawl . CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Richard. I 'm afraid I 'm going to have to cut you off right there . MR. SMITH: I think I passed my five minutes . MR. LORENZ: In one minute I can answer Mr. Coe ' s question in terms of the rationale that you had proposed to us earlier. What you have on the screen, when we started looking at why the North Belle Meade, first thing we looked at was the listed species . This is that biodiversity hot spot now, where the yellow -- MR. COE : I understand what you want to do. What I don' t understand is east of that, has that been grandfathered in, and why didn' t you consider that? MR. LORENZ : One of the things that we ' re looking at is not only just the listed species and using panthers as a listed species, we also have to look at these large wetland systems . Even if they' re not -- even if they' re not completely connected, one of the things that we have to do is direct incompatible land uses away from wetland systems . You can see on the map here that when we look at the green area on the map, that ' s our wetlands . If you take a look at the way we 've identified most of the NRPA boundaries, we were identifying those large expanses of green areas . So it ' s not just the panthers moving east to west, but it ' s also the large wetland systems that are in an intact and not fragmented nature . North Golden Gate Estates is already intact -- I mean, is already fragmented. There are roads there . So from a wetlands perspective, we don' t want to draw the lines around North Golden Gate Estates as a NRPA. But the North Belle Meade, you can see from this map, is a fairly large intact wetland area . And that was part of the rationale for drawing a line around it and not North Golden Gate Estates . MR. CARLSON: And Mr. Coe, you know there ' s a Ford test track facility with a big chain-link fence around it in there? MR. COE: Been there . MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Sansbury. MR. SANSBURY: I think we should move on. I 'm prepared to make a motion on the floor that the recommendation of this council to the County Commission be that North Belle Meade be removed from the NRPA areas designation. MR. McVEY: I ' ll second that . CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? MR. COE: So the motion is to remove it? CHAIRMAN HILL: To remove it as a NRPA. MS . STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just have to make a comment for the record. You can vote however you wish. But again, the final order says Belle Meade . It does not make a distinction between the north and the South Belle Meade. And I just have to put that on the record. And that ' s all, as legal counsel for the county. CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm not sure I understand your comment . Are you n saying this is part of Belle Meade? MS. STUDENT: I think you can make that argument . Because if we're going to distinguish between the two, it would have just said Page 69 September 1, 1999 South Belle Meade, if that ' s what the intent was . And I think that ' s arguable . I can' t swear to you that that ' s the case, but it ' s an argument . And as legal counsel, I just need to put that ,on the record. CHAIRMAN HILL: My understanding, North Belle Meade was an invention of the county, wasn' t it? There ' s other lands there which were Belle Meade at one time . MR. LORENZ : Well, it ' s an invention of the county staff in the sense that we are definitely proposing the North Belle Meade and the South Belle Meade as an NRPA because of the various environmental criteria that we 've discussed. MR. SANSBURY: The graphic that was utilized and was looked at and was included in the Governor and Cabinet ' s order, it was a graphic, I assume . There was no graphic that said defined areas in any manner. MS . STUDENT: This is how I believe this came about was the DCA as part of all of this made some recommendations to the Governor and the Cabinet that found their way into the final order, and DCA may have had some graphic material . I don't know, maybe Bill can comment on that . MR. LORENZ : I 'm not aware of any. MS . STUDENT : I do know that I 've heard officials of DCA, overheard them say that they consider the North Belle Meade a part of it . That ' s what I overheard one of their attorneys say. So I just have to tell you that as legal counsel to the county, to put it in the record and apprise you of that . You can vote however you wish, but I �. need to put that in the record. MR. SANSBURY: What I 'm hearing is when this order went down and went before the Governor and the Cabinet, or whatever they were sitting as on that particular day, there was a term Camp Keais, there was a term Belle Meade, and there was other terms and we said that ' s where it is going to be . And there was absolutely no physical definition of where those areas were going to be . MS . STUDENT: I really have to say that I think that some of this language -- and I 'd have to go back through my files -- was recommended by the DCA. And I know at some point they had maps that we took to meetings with them. MR. SANSBURY: My question was, was North Belle Meade on the map? MS . STUDENT: I have just -- nothing official, but I overheard the DCA attorneys say they considered North Belle Meade to be a part of that . That wasn' t official, that was just something I had heard. MR. LORENZ: When we negotiated as staff for the final order, there were no maps . There was just a description. Now, I didn't see what went to the Governor and the Cabinet in terms of any other package or support material, but I was not aware of any maps . During the negotiation session for the settlement agreement, early on staff did not have the North Belle Meade covered in that settlement agreement. And DCA staff came back to us and said somehow you're going to have to address North Belle Meade. That was when we created the subdistrict. But that was not for the final order. I just wanted to let you know how that unfolded. But the answer to your question for the final order, no, there was no graphic that I 'm aware o f. CHAIRMAN HILL: Two very, very, very quick public comments. Page 70 September 1, 1999 MR. SIMONIK: Thank you. Michael Simonik, with The Conservancy. I just want to make a correction that Mr. Smith was talking about the CARL acquisition area of Belle Meade . I 'm intimately familiar with it because The Conservancy proposed the CARL Belle Meade area, and it included North Belle Meade back in 1992 . It was taken out and is called Phase II . It is Phase I in South Belle Meade. Phase II is North Bell Meade . We are now going probably back in the next month or so to re-propose North Bell Meade after it was taken out for political reasons, not for environmental sensitivity reasons . It was always considered an environmentally sensitive area. And also, in the North Belle Meade I would like to stand here and speak on behalf of The Conservancy as a landowner in North Belle Meade . And we would like to see our land in North Belle Meade protected under a NRPA. We also have land in the area of this state where the people live, we have land there, and we ' re a landowner there, and we 'd like to see that protected, too. Maybe not as a NRPA, but we 'd like to be able to see that there ' s an area where the panthers can have a corridor to go from, the panther refuge to this North Bell Meade area. So we are landowners there, too. We are a private company that owns lands, so we have rights just as other people do, too . CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Anderson, very quick. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. At no point in time was there a NRPA designation proposed on any maps that Collier County sent back and ^ forth to DCA for North Belle Meade . I was at the Cabinet hearing. I was involved in the negotiations . I reviewed all of the maps . There was never a NRPA designation shown on Belle Meade area north of Interstate 75 . I mean, we can hear -- I overheard people from DCA say that the county did a very poor job of defending its plan, but that doesn' t make it true . Lastly, I would like to point out to you, the 1999 U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service Multi-Species Recovery Plan shows, outlined in red, the areas that they have targeted for panther habitat preservation. Please note for the record that North Belle Meade is not included. It stops right here at 75 . And then much farther to the east, it does link up probably where there ' s a panther crossing under I-75 . Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: There ' s a motion on the floor to remove or not designate North Belle Meade as a NRPA. Is there any other discussion? MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I don't see how we can do it if it ' s not designated. I mean, is it or isn't it? MR. SMITH: I think one of the problems that we ' re having is that the time frames that were given not only to us but probably to the Cabinet and the Governor, you know, you kind of have to shoot from the hip. So they shoot from the hip and they say, okay, we want to make sure that when you're looking at NRPA' s, you look at -- and they name the areas, and Belle Meade is one. And yes, Belle Meade south of 75 is and should be considered as part of our study for NRPA' s. But there hasn' t been anything shown ^ that -- other than some panther tracings that would -- and even those, I think we can say are closed in -- that would allow us, I think, to use the criteria that we need to look at and designate this area to be Page 71 September 1, 1999 a NRPA. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other discussion? MR. JACKSON: Yeah, I need to know, is there actually a designated area other than what we 've got drawn here that ' s called North Belle Meade? MR. SMITH: I can answer that briefly here . If you want to look at this book that I have which is Dr. Gore ' s study that he provided to the county in 1988, and he ' s got Belle Meade, but it goes all the way up to Immokalee Road. MR. JACKSON: So we are talking about everything from Immokalee Road down as Belle Meade? MR. SMITH: You could call that Belle Meade . But I 'm not sure that ' s not what the Governor intended. Because he wouldn' t have included Golden Gates Estates as a part of the area that ' s not to be included. MR. CARLSON: Dr. Jackson, that ' s more like an original watershed connection that no long exists because of the drainage system for Golden Gate Estates . MR. SMITH: Exactly. And North Belle Meade does no longer exist as a part of that system. CHAIRMAN HILL: Question has been called for. Is the motion clear? MR. JACKSON: No . CHAIRMAN HILL : Motion is not to designate the North Belle Meade area as a NRPA. MR. SANSBURY: That would be our recommendation to the commission. In the same manner that we voted unanimously to designate the South Golden Gate area as a -- or Belle Meade area as a NRPA. CHAIRMAN HILL: All those -- remember, this is a negative motion, not to designate it as a NRPA. All these in favor, signify by saying aye . Opposed? MR. DiNUNZIO: Aye . MR. JACKSON: Opposed. MR. COE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN HILL: I want a show of hands, please, in favor of the motion. Remembering, this is a negative motion not to designate it as a NRPA. MR. McVEY: (Indicates . ) MR. SANSBURY: (Indicates. ) MR. CORNELL: (Indicates . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: (Indicates. ) MR. JACKSON: I didn' t know the chairman could vote except on a tie . MR. DiNUNZIO: Whose Robert ' s Rules were that? CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s four. Four for the motion. All those against the motion? MR. JACKSON: (Indicates . ) MR. DiNUNZIO: (Indicates. ) MR. SMITH: (Indicates. ) MR. CARLSON: (Indicates. ) MS. STUDENT: It ' s a tie. CHAIRMAN HILL: Motion fails. Correct me if I 'm wrong, that says that it goes to the Planning Commission and the board in that fashion Page 72 September 1, 1999 MS . STUDENT: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: -- that there was in fact a tie vote . MR. LORENZ: Actually, the rules say that you can't take any positive action unless you have a majority of your membership. So you need to have five votes to pass a motion, which five votes would be the majority of your membership, notwithstanding members present . CHAIRMAN HILL: Right, so it does not pass . MR. LORENZ : So you didn't take any action. Basically -- CHAIRMAN HILL: But I think we can pass that on to the commission as an action by the council, right? MR. SANSBURY: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: When this goes to the commission, will it show that it was, i .e . , passed 9-0, recommended 9-0? MR. LORENZ: We will reflect the vote . MR. SANSBURY: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN HILL: South Belle Meade. Maybe we have solved all of the Belle Meade problems, I don' t know. Is there a major -- Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: As I noted earlier, the South Belle Meade has changed from our prior proposal and is based upon the comments that we received at the public hearing. Although, perhaps maybe at the sub-committee meeting, that perhaps the individual making the comments probably was looking for a smaller boundary. But when we looked at the 1999 CARL report, the project boundary for the South Belle Meade was larger than what our boundary was that we proposed as the initial NRPA. Now, let me show you what the annual report looks like . This was part of your package that I sent you in the letter last week, that -- earlier this week. You can see that this very much squared off along section lines, the Alley being the northern boundary. One mile east of 951 being the western boundary. And then it cuts across some sections and then comes further south. When staff reviewed the boundary, we had some problems with the CARL boundary, and let me just flip to the areas that we had some problems with. I think we 've actually made the boundary a little bit smaller than the CARL acquisition project, and the reason is right through here . Instead of bringing it across the section line, those are agricultural farm fields that are fairly intensively utilized. And because they are on the boundary -- in other words, they are not internal to the project someplace -- we felt that it would be best to again draw that line and exclude those agricultural fields, since they were on the boundary of the project . So along here we came up a little bit further than the CARL project, or reduced the CARL project boundary. Similar in here, I believe we've cut off some of the project boundary. So that was the difference. We 've actually made it smaller in those areas because of recognizing that the agricultural fields are on the boundary of the ' project and not internal to it. CHAIRMAN HILL: If you took land out of the CARL area, subtracted that from your original proposal, does that change the status of that Page 73 September 1, 1999 ground on the acquisition procedure? MR. LORENZ : One of the problems with the -- this Belle Meade CARL project here is there is a major project boundary of which we ' re reflecting through the 1999 CARL report . But there ' s also a recognition that properties within that boundary, they were not willing sellers or theoretically exempt from the acquisition project . So when you' re asking the question what is the acreage within the project or what the current acquisition project is, I don' t have that, because that complicates the numbers . But what we -- again, what we tried to reflect is simply the overall project boundary, which of course when we look at our wetland maps and we look at our listed species maps is very appropriate as to what we ' re proposing as an NRPA, less the areas that we carved out of it because of the agricultural fields that are on its boundary. I 'm not sure I answered your question explicitly, but those were some of the complicating factors with it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any questions for staff? MR. SMITH: I think -- I 'm sure you've mentioned it, but I want to be real sure. The gentleman that was in here, an attorney, I believe, that was concerned because there had been a designation that included areas that shouldn' t have been included, I mean, that ' s been taken out, is that what you' re -- MR. LORENZ : No, I don' t think so. I think the areas that he was talking about are internal in the project, that his client, as I understand, was not a subscriber to the CARL project and, therefore, was exempted from the CARL acquisition team trying to acquire that �. property. MR. SMITH: But if his property continues, then, would this continue to be part of the NRPA? MR. LORENZ : Of the NRPA, that ' s correct . We are including all of the properties within that boundary that you see on your viewer -- your monitor, as part of the NRPA boundary. The reason is, is because all of that area meets a lot of our criteria for large connected wetland systems, habitat protection for listed species . CHAIRMAN HILL: Public comment? MR. WALLS : Yeah, my name' s Jeff Walls . I 'm here representing myself . I 'm a property owner in South Belle Meade. I own 40 acres . And I 'm also the treasurer for Sable Palm Homeowners ' Association, which represents 158 property owners in the South Belle Meade area that has not been put on the acquisition list . It has been put on the landowner request zone . The point being is, is we had workshops years ago when they first started the CARL project . We worked on this countless hours, and the state had agreed not to put us on the acquisition list . We 're on landowner request zone. That means if we want to sell our land, we can send a letter to the state and they will give us an offer. Otherwise, we 're not part of that. And the pieces, the sections are scattered throughout the Belle Meade. Now, we've basically reached another crossroad here where after working as hard as what we did then and then to come back now and we 're basically up against the same thing: No, we don't want to buy your land; you just can't do anything about with it. I think if it wasn't important enough at that time to be put on the CARL acquisition project and the CARL acquisition list, why are we Page 74 September 1, 1999 changing it now and putting us on a NRPA designation? And keep in mind that there are large tracts in the South Belle Meade that are essentially useless because of melaleuca infestation. I mean, there are big, big tracts where it would be -- they're not even an estate that has property now in the CARL acquisition area. The property that they've purchased, they' re making no effort whatsoever to remove any of the exotics at this point or managing the property in any way. So I just don' t see what we ' re going to gain by removing the people that do still live out there . We used to have cattle ranchers out there. And now the state doesn' t allow them. Now that ' s basically being used as a dumping ground and it ' s a totally unmanaged area because we don' t have -- the Division of Forestry does not have the funds, nor do they have the budget or anything else . So I just wanted to say that . And I would like to make note for the record that, you know, I 've talked to Bill before about this, and I 've talked to a lot of people, and they say mapping is too difficult, this is too difficult . But I noticed since -- on the other areas, since it was around the boundary of ag. land, so we can move the boundaries there, we just can' t, I guess, move the boundaries inside . Thank you very much. I appreciate your time . CHAIRMAN HILL: Your last comment, you can' t move the boundaries inside, you' re talking about creating holes in it ; is that what you were saying? MR. WALLS : Yes, sir, just creating holes in it . I mean, from a developmental standpoint, you know, creating holes in it is not really going to, I believe, promote somebody to put a golf course in the middle of it or anything like that . Urban sprawl of any kind. All we want is to have our property rights protected. That ' s all we really want . All of us, we use the property mainly for agricultural and for enjoyment . And by putting a NRPA designation, it ' s just another set of regulations that we have to try to deal with. MR. SMITH: Can I ask you a question, sir? I 'm a little bit confused. There ' s an area that you're talking about, but you' re saying within that area. Or are you talking about the entire South Belle Meade area? MR. WALLS : There ' s pockets there. MR. SMITH: In the entire South Bell Meade? MR. WALLS : Right, there ' s pockets throughout . There ' s different sections throughout the South Belle Meade that are not on the acquisition area. And the state opted to leave those pockets open because of the homeowners . You know, we got together as association and the homeowners, all we said was we don't want to be part of the project . We don't want anything, we just want to be left alone . MR. SMITH: I would just comment to you that our task is a difficult one because we have to be -- when we 're looking at these NRPA' s, we have to be thinking of large interconnected areas. And I would just simply -- I would urge you, no matter what happens here, that you and your homeowners ' association continue to be involved. ^ Because this is going to be an ongoing process . But I sure empathize with you. MR. WALLS: Thank you very much. Page 75 September 1, 1999 CHAIRMAN HILL: Any comments from staff -- from council? Questions? Comments? Action? MR. SANSBURY: I ' ll move it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Sansbury moves that it be accepted and designated as a NRPA. MR. JACKSON: I ' ll second that . Jackson. CHAIRMAN HILL: Seconded by Jackson. Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Carried. MR. SANSBURY: I can' t talk anymore, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s right, you' re muffled. I 'd like, I think, to go to the Okaloacoochee . I believe that ' s the one that Mr. Jones and your group ' s interested in; is that correct? And the Camp Keais . Let ' s go to Okaloacoochee first . MR. LORENZ: Well, the Okaloacoochee Slough is shown up there. Again, the boundaries here reflect the habitat lines and the associated problems in terms of describing them in the field rather than the section lines . Because the comments before were the section lines were cutting through farm fields, were cutting through other areas that wouldn' t be appropriate . So we were able to map the habitat lines based upon the land cover information that we have in the South Florida Water Management District ' s data base . When we map the areas, again our attempt was, in this particular case, certainly the whole connection from north to south to look at connected areas of wetland and upland habitat . Because the wetland and upland habitat connection is very important . We could describe the boundaries outside -- along the outside area, which we looked at habitat features . One of the issues, of course -- and I 'm sure the property owners will discuss it -- is not only did we include the, if you will, more natural wetland flow ways, but we also included in our mapping agricultural reservoirs, which are the stormwater systems that the agricultural operations have to manage their fields . The agricultural -- those agricultural reservoirs are valid wildlife habitats . Some cases they may be -- have a large degree of impact in terms of -- let me start over again. Some cases they may be very much a design bermed location. In other cases they may be taking advantage of some other natural wetland flow ways . However, the staff ' s recommendation is that they be incorporated because of their functioning wildlife habitat . One of the areas that we do have -- we struggled with, and I think is a good point of discussion is, to what degree do we incorporate internally the NRPA boundary? Some of these areas are larger agricultural farm fields . Where we've been trying to be consistent is we 're not trying to make this -- you know, the NRPA look like a Swiss cheese pattern, if you will, where we've carved out some of these areas in the center that may be agricultural farm fields; that on the face of them in and Page 76 September 1, 1999 ' of themselves don' t have a very high degree of habitat or wildlife value. However, in the mosaic is part a connection. And where we ' re looking at, we want to make sure that we don' t put land uses in these area that start to sever the connection. We 've maintained these areas in our proposed boundaries . An example would be, let ' s say, right in here, where we 've got that agricultural area which is the area in pink in the Okaloacoochee Slough. There are some other areas in here as well that you can see that come in. But our assessment at the moment is that they need to be part of that total natural resource protection area. Another issue that I know that comes out in the Okaloacoochee and someplace else, and we as staff is going to have to take a look at it, you can see that this is actually earth mining, a sand pit here. The language in the final order indicates that -- provides a vesting, if you will, if that ' s the proper term, of land uses that are currently permitted. In other words, that earth mining pit we 've excluded from the NRPA designation. What we have to take a look at is that ' s its current operation. It could have a permit that extends its current operation to a larger footprint . And as a matter of consistency, what we would recommend is anyplace that we have that information that a current use is permitted, such as the final order allows, we need to modify that boundary, the NRPA boundary, to go out past that footprint . Because they have a right to develop that ; which would be in violation of the order -- or we 've got an inconsistency with regard to what the order says about what you can do inside and outside a NRPA boundary in our definition. So we would propose that we would just simply take those areas off the map. So that ' s an issue that we 've have to get some information from property owners with. And that would be our intent . CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions for Mr. Lorenz? MR. SMITH: Is this Okaloacoochee area -- I 'm getting -- I 'm trying to figure out where it is east-west . Is this -- this area is west of 29? MR. LORENZ: It ' s basically east of 29 . MR. SMITH: It ' s east of 29 . It stays east of 29 or does it cross 29 at some point? MR. DiNUNZIO: The southern end of it crosses 29 . A little corner of it . CHAIRMAN HILL: The southwest corner is on the other side. MR. SMITH: So basically follows 29, is that -- MR. LORENZ: 29 is here. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any questions? From the public? MR. JONES: For the record, my name is Tom Jones . I 'm representing the Eastern Collier Property Owners, which is a group of agricultural landowners in Eastern Collier County composed of Barron Collier, Collier Enterprise, Consolidated Citrus, Alico, Pacific Tomato Growers and Jack Price. And perhaps to clarify before I get into my comments as far as where the Okaloa is, you might be able to see it better on this aerial Page 77 September 1, 1999 map. �. Generally the Okaloa boundary is this red dashed line that we 've indicated on here . The majority of it is east of Highway 29, but a portion of it then comes back to the west of 29, around these pits here, and then continues to zigzag down here . The NRPA boundaries that the county has delineated thus far and right here, this side to the west is the Camp Keais NRPA boundary. This area to the east is the Okaloa boundary. As a further point of clarification, this red dashed line is also the state designated area of critical state concern that runs from 29 to the Hendry County border, Hendry County line . With respect to the Okaloa NRPA as proposed by the county, I don' t think anybody' s going to be surprised that we are opposed to the boundary being proposed today, as we were opposed to the boundary that was proposed previously by the county. We believe that what we 've identified is the primary flow way of the Okaloa Slough and associated upland habitat . There ' s approximately 1, 200 acres of upland habitat included in our boundary map. We believe that that is a good starting point for a discussion for a generalized NRPA boundary, as described by the Governor and Cabinet . One point to keep in mind, as in the North Belle Meade discussion, there were no maps distributed to define the Okaloa NRPA at the hearing . So again, what we ' re talking about is a generalized boundary and how do we define this generalized boundary for the interim NRPA. We believe the primary flow way is a good area. As I ' ll make similar comments for the Camp Keais area, again, and Mr. Lorenz has made this point several times, where they have permitted uses within the NRPA, they've made a case to delete those permitted uses from within those NRPA boundaries . We have extended permitted agricultural operations that include our farms and our detention systems that are permitted by South Florida contained within the NRPA boundaries . And I think if we have a stipulation that we can delineate permitted areas in some NRPA' s, we would like to have the same consideration. We have points to raise as far as what habitat are we trying to protect, for which listed species . If I could use my point of illustration -- and I ' ll go over to the map to do this, to the aerial map -- this area here was previously not on the county' s NRPA map, and it now has been included in the county' s NRPA map. This is a large permitted detention system that was constructed, I believe, in 1965, 1966, sometime in that area. And my question related specifically to this point : Is this a habitat issue for listed species or is this a protected wetlands system that we're trying to include for the purposes of the mapping? And I think as we 're trying to establish a record on some of these areas in particular, we 'd like to have that question answered. Is this a listed species or is this a wetland system that we ' re trying to delineate inside this permitted detention system? Also, within the Okaloa NRPA and the county in their second proposal, when this draft proposal of the NRPA delineated the majority of the Sunnyland mining operations on the west and east of Highway 29, earlier we had indicated that we'd like to see that mining operation deleted, as well as the Sunnyland Oil Field, which again is a Page 78 September 1, 1999 n permitted use contained within the county' s NRPA boundary. The Sunnyland Oil Field is contained in this Sections 24 and 19 south of Oil Well Road. And we 've delineated on the maps that you've been given with this brown line and then it continued on to the east and included the Sunnyland pits as well . We would still prefer to have the Sunnyland Oil Field again a permitted use deleted from the Okaloa NRPA. In Mr. Lorenz ' s rationale for the delineation of the NRPA boundaries, he made a point that they were trying to identify the areas with the least amount of impact from existing growth and development . Once thing that we tried to do when we put this aerial together was to demonstrate to people who are probably not very familiar at all with the area that we ' re talking about of exactly what ' s out there. And what we 've tried to illustrate with that aerial by including our detention systems is to indicate that this is an intensively utilized area . Some people may have a concept this is a pristine wilderness, but this area has been under continuous agricultural operation for at least 40 to 50 years . We believe that these detention systems in particular are not part of the natural systems, although they certainly provide significant habitat for what ' s out there . And I think we 'd like to raise the question, again, we ' re talking about a generalized boundary that needs to be determined through a science based assessment, that we don' t necessarily need to take data, raw data, points, and start drawing lines around those points until we 've had a determination of how much analysis is going in to delineate these areas . The county has put in a lot of information on the table from Closing the Gaps document, from the U. S . Fish and Wildlife panther study, and my question would be, how much analysis has the county performed on those particular documents? As these lines were delineated on these areas, how much ground truthing went into the determination of which listed species or where? And I think those are the kinds of things we ' d all like to see done . But do it through the assessment and not an interim boundary. The overall NRPA area that we 've delineated for this combined area is approximately 35, 000 acres of 185 , 000 acres . 20 percent of the area the landowners have put on the table and said let ' s start there . The county' s NRPA boundary has almost 50 percent of the assessment and said let ' s start there . I think it ' s important to remind this committee, in particular, we 're the ones that proposed the assessment . We ' re the ones that proposed the moratorium. And we are proposing to work with people to determine what needs to be protected in this area. And we think as a sign of good faith, how about somebody working for us for a change and saying 20 percent of a NRPA boundary is a sufficient starting point? And I ' ll save the rest of my comments for the Camp Keais area. But to close my Okaloa discussion, again we 'd like to see our permitted retentions and our permitted farms delineated from the NRPA; Sunnyland Oil Field delineated from the NRPA. We believe that the primary flow way and associated habitat that we 've identified is ^ sufficient, especially in light of the fact that we have an area of critical state concern designation that lays on top of all of that. I think one point that ' s important to make, we 've heard a lot of Page 79 September 1, 1999 talk about acquisition today. To my knowledge, there is no sanctioned state acquisition map that deals with the area of critical state concern, except for a very small portion of the CREW area. But the area of critical state concern that is east of Highway 29 has not been proposed by any state agencies for acquisition, and I think we need to ask, why not? And I think the answer to that question is because the state designated that as an area of state critical concern in 1974 and 1975, and they believed that that designation has protected that area from future development . And I think we 'd like to see some recognition, not only of the permits but some of these state designation that are already on top of these properties . Thank you. MR. COE: Can I ask you a question? What effect would there be if we took the county' s plan and said no, we ' re going to do it this way? What effect is that going to be? You can' t dirt mine . What else? MR. JONES : I think the biggest effect is that we don' t know where these NRPA boundaries are going to ultimately end up. But more importantly, we don't know what kind of regulations are going to be attached to these NRPA boundaries . And I think when you have somebody drawing lines on these maps and including farm fields and trying to make a case for that being habitat, I 'd like to see that case made for being habitat . I spend nearly all of my time out there, not as much as in the last few weeks, but we have problems dealing with how we ' re defining tomato fields and pepper fields as habitat . There is intensively farmed operations . There is wildlife utilization in these areas . But we don' t know that that necessarily qualifies as designating them habitat for listed species . And I think that ' s what we have to keep in mind. Again, what are the listed species and what are their habitats and how have we defined that habitat through this process . We just don' t believe that we need to start with a boundary that encompasses 90, 000 acres for the starting point . Because we 'd like some recognition that this is private land. We haven' t caused a problem out here. This land is going to be used to satisfy a requirement that Collier County said they would do 10 years ago. This land isn' t owned by Collier County, it ' s not owned by DCA, it ' s not owned by the environmental group. It ' s owned by us . And we believe that a fair starting point is 35, 000 acres in total . It started out as zero. We put 35, 000 acres on the table . No one else has anything on the table but us . We 're negotiating our land and the future of that land. And we put our faith in the assessment that will be done that will determine what needs to be preserved. MR. COE: Is the assessment going to be done on your 35, 000 acres you' re putting up, or is it going to be done on -- MR. JONES : The assessment will be done on all of the eastern Collier County property owners ' property, which is 185, 000 acres, which is everything on this map east of Golden Gate Estates, of which our group owns approximately 165, 000 acres. We 're going to be the solution. And since we 're talking about an interim boundary, we think $35, 000 (sic) of our chips on the table is a pretty good stake in the Page 80 September 1, 1999 game if it ' s going to be on our property. MR. SMITH: You said $35, 00 , I think you meant -- MR. JONES : 35 , 000 acres . CHAIRMAN HILL: What restrictions are imposed on the area of critical state concern as far as land use and development? MR. LORENZ : It ' s fairly strict . It requires a 10 percent -- you can' t improve more than 10 percent of your property or turn it into impervious area. Which if you' re trying to put in, let ' s say, a residential subdivision or industrial commercial center, that ' s going to be fairly restricted. CHAIRMAN HILL: The thought occurs to me, it looks almost as if that whole square area inside the red lines is already designated by the state as critical concern. And it may not -- apparently not quite as restrictive as NRPA would be, but not too far from it , isn't it? MR. JONES : I think in light of the fact that there ' s been an agreed to moratorium on the entire area, I think it ' s about as restrictive as it can be. In light of the fact, again, the state has designated that as an area. And prior to this settlement agreement we certainly weren't involved in any of the discussions . It was between the interveners, DCA and county staff . And there seems to be some hesitancy on some people ' s part to point out that we do have a state designation on that property and that means something. It certainly has meant something to us since 1975 . CHAIRMAN HILL: It certainly looks to me as if it ' s a big step r-• towards accomplishing what we have set out to do or have been mandated to do, and it certainly would ease the problem of legally defining the territory, assuming this red dotted line is in fact the outline of the area of critical state concern. MR. JONES : That outline is the outline of the area of critical state concern. And the point that people have made to me privately, well, if it ' s the area of critical state concern, why don' t we just call it a NRPA? And my comment back to that is, it ' s an area of critical state concern, why call it a NRPA? Are we accomplishing what the state wanted to accomplish during this interim period? And I think if you delineated the primary flow way, recognize the fact that it ' s contained within the area of critical state concern, you have a good starting point for the interim generalized NRPA for the Okaloa Slough. I think it ' s also important to note that the Okaloa is not connected. The connection made for the Okaloa has to go across an improved pasture. So again, just trying to emphasize, we 've had lot of ongoing agricultural operations in this area, and I think that identifying a connected flow way in light of the area of critical state concern is a good -- it ' s a fair place to start . CHAIRMAN HILL: How close does the state ' s definition behind the title area of critical state concern -- how close is that to the language of a NRPA? MR. LORENZ: Well, the area -- CHAIRMAN HILL: What I 'm looking for -- n MR. LORENZ : The area of critical state concern language does not restrict land uses. It provides development criteria for locally permitted land uses . So there' s a difference between restricting a Page 81 September 1, 1999 particular land use versus allowing all land uses . But if you develop, you have to meet these particular criteria. That ' s the difference . MR. JONES : But again, there is a moratorium in place as well . CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm looking for a way to - - common ground here . MR. JONES : I think if a NRPA for the Okaloa was sent to DCA that identified the primary flow way and recognized that there was an area of critical state concern designation, I think we would have an interesting discussion to listen to the state as far as why this is not sufficient to meet the intent of what the Governor and Cabinet ordered. MR. CARLSON: I think they would disagree . MR. JONES : Well, I think we deserve the opportunity to hear them say that . Nobody has recognized the area of critical state concern. It ' s been something that ' s been designated for the last 30 years, almost . And it means something. If it didn' t mean anything, why are we restricted by what we can do in the area? MR. CARLSON: It was very enlightening for me to read the order from the judge, Judge Meale, who was very specific in his ruling to the county to look at the Gaps Program and the panther study to define your NRPA' s. He said look, if you don' t know how to define a NRPA, here ' s what you do . Go get this Gap study and open it up and Closing the Gaps study will define the areas that you need to delineate to protect listed and potentially endangered species and their habitats . I 'm looking at two pages of Closing the Gaps study. It ' s cited like 10 times . And then he goes on to the panther plan and he says boy, if you want to do NRPA' s, just get that panther plan out and do an assessment of that and do your NRPA' s . And those boundaries do not coincide with what remains of the CARL wetlands systems, which is like a pathetic little flow way that existed in an area that was probably 90 percent wetland before it was converted to agriculture and residential development . So I don' t think the flow way map would satisfy the DCA and the Governor and the Cabinet . I think we would get it right back in our face . MR. JONES : I think the flow way map, recognizing there is an area of critical state concern designation on that property, would mean quite a bit to the Governor and Cabinet . I think you made a key point . You said pick up these documents and go do an assessment . And I agree, let ' s pick up the document and do an assessment . I don' t believe what ' s been done so far has been an assessment . MR. CARLSON: We 've got it . I can show you the strategic habitat conservation areas from the Gap. We 've got a map here somewhere. In fact, we 've seen it twice already. It was the one with the blue areas on it . And we 've got Priority I and Priority II panther habitat . And those are the facts of the case, that the judge said there ' s your basis for determining your NRPA' s. Grab those, those are your references, the work has been done. It ' s been done by the Wildlife Commission and the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service. And, you know, if you don't know how to do a NRPA, go get that stuff and come up with some NRPA' s. MR. JONES : I believe the final order that was issued from the Governor and the Cabinet was much less specific, and they asked for generalized boundaries of these areas, and I think that ' s what we 've tried to present. Page 82 September 1, 1999 I think what we 've also said a number of times is that we believe these documents should be looked at and we should do an assessment of those documents, starting with how much ground truthing has been done to support these documents . I think that a lot of things that we run -- and I get frustrated, that we run into and I get frustrated to an extent, there ' s hardly a map drawn in South Florida that doesn' t include our property. And generally these maps are drawn by people looking at raw data far removed from this area making determinations . And what we 're saying is how extensive was this data analyzed before those documents were put together? And indeed, is that data valid today? And we don' t know that . That ' s what they said go do. You guys go figure it out . Here ' s a good starting point . MR. CARLSON: This information that we have on critical habitats and panther priority areas is a result of decades of studies . MR. DiNUNZIO: Old stuff . It ' s not new. MR. CARLSON: Decades of studies . We 've got better information than probably any county you can go into in Florida who needs to do a NRPA. Our information is better. And there ' s volumes of it . And we have it here to work with. And the judge said use it . MR. McVEY: Excuse me, I 'm looking at a letter here signed by Michael Simonik that I guess we got yesterday. On Page 2 , about the middle of that letter, one of the last sentences in there, it says, the NRPA boundaries can be refined as additional data and analysis becomes available . So it leads me to believe that there are some additional studies that need to be made, even though you' re talking about these being on the table for how ever many years it has been. But I tend to agree with the property owners ' association, that more work needs to be done . MR. CARLSON: We 've got three years of analyses of what we have to work with. I don' t think we ' re going to do a whole lot of new original research on where the panthers go. I mean, what ' s ongoing in that study is going to continue to be ongoing. But we ' re going to utilize these basic references that have already been done to make our determinations . And that data is there and the maps are there. And the NRPA boundaries we 're proposing are smaller than the areas that have been identified in these references as important for listed species and their habitats . And that ' s what a NRPA is . And that ' s what our job is to do . And I don' t think a wetland boundary is going to fly. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. MR. SMITH: I 'd like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. The -- first, I think we always have to bear in mind that the order that we 're looking at is not the judge' s -- the hearing officer' s order, but rather what came down from the Governor and Cabinet, which is somewhat different . And I 'm impressed with a situation where landowners up and put -- without being required to do so, they up and put areas up as areas that we can look at that they have identified with scientific analyses as a basis for further study. And that ' s really, I think, as I understand it, the reason for designating something as a NRPA, is that we have a handle on where we want to concentrate our studies . It doesn't mean that we can't study Page 83 September 1, 1999 things outside of it or around it, but it means that that ' s the area that we will say nothing happens in here basically for the time being , without any change that would be necessarily approved by Tallahassee until we complete the study. And by designating an area themselves, I think we should look upon that as something that is unusual and to be -- that ' s commendable . And to take that into account . I mean, if we were starting with zero, would we go up to 33 , 000 acres? MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. CARLSON: We just approved two NRPA' s . And they were big connected areas . If you use -- if we went back and used the same strategy to identify the NRPA boundaries in the South Golden Gate Estates and Belle Meade, you would have kind of like spaghetti strands kind of like going through the area. Because you ' d just be identifying the Corps wetlands flow ways in Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates . And we just approved two areas that have a broader goal than that . And that ' s the spirit of a NRPA. And it ' s not just a wetlands delineation boundary. And I don' t think the DCA and the Governor will accept a wetland boundary. MR. DiNUNZIO: I have a question for Mr. Jones . You said that the landowners are willing to put up how many acres? MR. JONES : 35, 000 out of the assessment area of 185 , 000 . MR. DiNUNZIO: On your paperwork here I was trying to see where it said that, on the little gadgets that you handed me . MR. JONES : I believe if you added the total NRPA area for the Okaloa of the fifteen-nine with the total NRPA area of the Camp Keais of nineteen-seven, you come up with approximately 35, 000 acres . MR. DiNUNZIO: Okay, that ' s both of them added together. Okay, that makes a difference . I was trying to figure -- you' re saying here they wanted 43 , 000 , you ' re telling me they' re giving 35 up. What ' s left? But if you add both areas, then it makes a big difference . MR. JONES : The total acreage for both areas for the county is 90 , 000 . The total acreage for the landowners for both areas is 35 , 000 . MR. SMITH: I had a question. The Sunnyland or oil well fields, I fail to understand why that would even be wanting to be included in a NRPA. MR. HATCHER: The land mine -- the earth mine does not have for all intents and purpose any panther track coverage within the area. It was fairly easy to delineate and remove the oil fields . That ' s not the case . The panthers seem to be utilizing that area. It does not show up on the Water Management District land cover as a separate land cover. We were not aware of the location of the facility. Those uses certainly would be allowed to continue. They're not intensive uses. And I don't think they'd be incompatible with the natural resource protection area designation. MR. CARLSON: Well, I don't think the intent of a natural resource protection area is to include industrial uses . So, you know, I 'm with you on that one. I mean, if this would in any way affect putting another well in that field, then I think that ' s an industrial use and it shouldn't be in the NRPA. MR. SMITH: As I understand the NRPA, again it ' s an area that we Page 84 • September 1, 1999 n would concentrate or where there would be a concentration of effort in terms of study. I think I hear you saying that there ' s -- we don' t anticipate that -- there ' s not going to be anything done with the oil wells, that they' re really not going to be part of any final solutions to the environmental concerns, so why include them? MR. HATCHER: No, that ' s not what I meant . I obviously miscommunicated. What I 'm saying is, from the data that we have, the oil fields do not show up as a separate land use, nor is there a pattern of inactivity by panthers in the area. The panthers continue to use that area, or have used that area in the past . And it looks like a relatively high activity area. It was included for that reason. The activities that have gone on do not preclude utilization by wildlife. If it ' s the choice of this council to remove that area, then we can remove it . MR. CARLSON: Well, let me just amend what I just said, because I 'm not sure what area we ' re talking about . Are we talking about that little oil field along 29 -- MR. DiNUNZIO: Sunnyland, yes . MR. CARLSON: -- or are we talking about the whole Sunnyland trend that goes from Alva to the panther -- to the Big Cypress -- what ' s that, panther -- MR. DiNUNZIO: Refuge . MR. CARLSON: No, no, no . MR. JONES : We ' re talking about Sections 19 and 24 south of Oil Well Road. The county, on their initial NRPA map, pretty well boxed the whole thing in. When they came back, on their revised map they've staggered the line around it . And what we ' re saying is that they would just drop that down to the area of the critical state concern lane . MR. CARLSON: Would you repeat that location, please? MR. JONES : It ' s in Sections 19 and 24 , south of Oil Well Road, right at the big curve . CHAIRMAN HILL: Right here . MR. SANSBURY: Down there? MR. JONES : It ' s in this area right here on the aerial photo. MR. SMITH: Just a point of curiosity, there ' s an Indian reservation right north of there, isn' t there? MR. JONES : The Indian village is right in here . MR. SMITH: And those folks exist as an Indian community in an untraditional way in a sense that they are not -- this isn' t a state reservation or preservation, these are just Indians that have made that their home. MR. JONES : That ' s the independent Seminole nation, and they' re living on land that was provided to them from originally Pacific Land Co. , which then transferred it to Ed English and he ' s provided that property for them to make their homes on. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is it out of the question to go to the state with the area of critical state concern as a basis for an extreme assessment program over and above a NRPA defined interior to that such as the flow way? We 're getting -- we 're going to have another layer on top of a layer of state concern. Now we 've got a NRPA. You know, it seems to me we're duplicating things to a certain degree there, which makes it unnecessarily complicated. Page 85 September 1, 1999 I don' t want to call the whole thing NRPA, but it seemed to me we can combine that area which is already designated as critical and maybe have them change the nature of their critical restriction. MR. LORENZ : The frame of reference that I come from is, during the negotiations for the settlement agreement we initially proposed just the flow ways in that area as an NRPA. And that wasn' t sufficient to DCA. And even when we pointed out to them the additional regulations for the area of critical state concern, these were discussions that we had with DCA staff as county staff was proceeding through the settlement agreement . So based upon that information that I 've -- that I walk away from those months of discussions, it ' s my -- it ' s my assessment that DCA is not going to simply approve the flow ways, despite the area of critical state concern -- with the area of critical state concern regulations on them. And that ' s why when we drew our boundaries for this effort, for -- not only for the March 19th board meeting, but starting out this effort, we expanded our areas -- our areas are more expansive than the property owners . And the rationale is again that -- especially in the northern part of Okaloacoochee -- if I can have the view graph on, please. This is -- the pink area is the Priority I Habitat . When we began mapping our new boundaries with the habitat features , you can see that our overlay with the panther plan, Priority I Habitat, is fairly close . So again, our assessment, staff ' s assessment, is to get something past DCA, based upon our past conversations with them, is that we need to look at listed species concern. Panther of course is a major focal species for us to look at . And hence, that was why -- that was the criteria for which we made our proposal . CHAIRMAN HILL: I just heard for the first time, and pardon me if I missed it in the past, you said that you first went to the state with just the flow ways? That was presented to them as a NRPA and unacceptable? MR. LORENZ : As part of the settlement agreement, when we were negotiating with the state from -- was it, Marjorie, in December of ' 98 through March -- MS . STUDENT: No, it started -- on the environmental matters, it started last August . MR. LORENZ : We prepared a number of maps and we started out, if you will, small . And part of that was a flow way, was on section lines, but it was a smaller area than we currently came up with. Now, that ' s the best I can give you. If you ask me the question, which you did, do you think DCA is going to accept that, I can only tell you -- CHAIRMAN HILL: No, my question was really when you first went to DCA with the Okaloacoochee NRPA, you essentially outlined the flow way? MR. LORENZ: It was mostly wetlands area. CHAIRMAN HILL: Very close to what these people are presenting. Is that close? MR. LORENZ: Closer to the area than, if you will, the more expansive boundary that we currently have. That ' s why from our -- in our going through the process, we arrived at the -- our first Page 86 September 1, 1999 ^ proposal, which you all saw. MR. JONES : If I might perhaps make a comment . I think Bill made a point . I was not aware that any other boundaries were discussed with it . Because he ' s talking about within the context of a settlement agreement . And the people who own this property were not involved in any of these discussions related to the settlement agreement . I think you also have to perhaps understand that what was going on in the settlement agreement, at least my interpretation of what went on, was that the county was the glass and DCA was the hammer. And that DCA felt very confident that Collier County had not lived up to the growth management requirements for some time . By God, they're going to get a pound of flesh, and I think they went in there with whatever the boundaries were, and that was not acceptable for DCA. I think that we have to look at this in view of the context that these are generalized boundaries, and that the Governor and Cabinet said you guys go back to Collier County and do this thing right . I don't -- and I think you can make a strong argument to DCA, re-make the same argument under a different set of circumstances, in light of the fact that the ultimate delineation is going to have to be approved by DCA, the Governor and Cabinet . I don't think we should stand in fear of what DCA may or may not accept at this stage of the process with respect to NRPA' s . I think we 've made a reasonable attempt, and let ' s see what they say. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Jones, can I quote you to the Governor and ^ Cabinet that their goal was not for us to produce good, objective, realistic Natural Resource Protection Areas but actually punish us, and that ' s what we ' re going through here right now is an exercise to come here and give us a hammer? MR. JONES : I believe in the context of the settlement agreement the county was under intense pressure to come a lot closer to DCA' s interpretation of what needed to be done down here than they were -- perhaps Collier County staff thought needed to be done down here . I 'd appreciate it if you're going to quote me for the Governor and Cabinet I would certainly like to be there to defend myself . MR. CARLSON: Collier County was doing nothing. I mean, we agree on that . There was one natural resource protection area, that was Clam Pass . That was it, for the whole county. MS . STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to state that there is a hammer that the Governor and Cabinet have over the county' s head and that ' s loss of revenue sharing and other funds that amount to almost 30 million dollars a year. That ' s quite a hammer, I would say. And not to mention funds for roads, beach renourish and things like that . And I don't think we can just blow this order off . MR. CARLSON: Yes, but my point was that this exercise to produce natural resource protection areas is not just a punishment, it ' s a real thing that you go through if you have a realistic Growth Management Plan to protect the natural resources of your county. And we 're not being forced to do this as punishment, it ' s something we should have done a long time ago. MR. DiNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the county' s layout of the Okaloacoochee Slough. MR. COE: I ' ll second that motion. Coe. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? Page 87 September 1, 1999 MR. SMITH: I 'd like to suggest that we might consider that motion, if there would be a consideration for an amendment to remove the Sunnyland area, and also to indicate our wish that there be some indication shown why the reservoirs are included. Is it because of species or wetland? Because that 's never been determined. MR. DiNUNZIO: I have no desire to amend my motion. MR. COE: I have no desire to amend my second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Further discussion? Is the motion clear, that we recommend a NRPA boundary as proposed in the August 27th draft by the county? MR. LORENZ : Mr. Chairman, before you vote on the motion, we just have a clarification of the question concerning the justification for whether -- why agricultural -- I don' t understand that . MR. DiNUNZIO: It ' s not in the motion. MR. SMITH: That reservoirs had been included in the county' s NRPA' s . MR. DiNUNZIO: It ' s a question. MR. SMITH: And there hadn' t been any, as far as I could understand, any good science reason shown why they were included, whether it was for wetlands or for species protection. MR. HATCHER: The reason that they were included is they show up on the Water Management District land use cover map as wetlands, and additionally, quite a few of them have panther telemetry points in them. Somewhere in the neighborhood of four percent of the panther telemetry points in the northeastern portion of the county are included in the wetland retention areas . Additionally, there are what are identified as bird rookeries from Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission data that are also identified in some of these retention areas . MR. LORENZ : We also have a study by EIFS and the South Florida Water Management District that indicates the wildlife utilization of these areas is important . MR. JACKSON: I don' t believe any of that is germane to the motion. MR. LORENZ : I thought that was part of it . MR. COE: We elected not to amend. MR. LORENZ: My mistake. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other discussion? MR. SMITH: Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, the maps that were provided us by the landowners designate, I believe in orange, is it, the NRPA boundaries that we are now looking to approve. CHAIRMAN HILL: I assume that is a close representation of what the county has presented. MR. LORENZ : Brown. The county' s boundaries are in brown. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right, but I 'm assuming that that ' s -- this would take precedent over -- I 'm not saying this is inaccurate, but this would take precedent over the -- I do have one question relative to that reservoir. Mr. Jones, you've mentioned that one large reservoir. The county line goes through the middle of it; is that correct? Is the middle of that intended to be the boundary? MR. HATCHER: There could be discrepancies between the coordinate system that ' s used that ' s thrown it off, but in most instances that ' s been more accurate than that, more likely. There's simply a Page 88 September 1, 1999 discrepancy in the Water Management District land cover. It ' s certainly not perfect . MR. JONES : One thing with that reservoir in particular. I 'm somewhat familiar with it . You probably have a FLUCS Code delineation that ' s running down that line. A portion of that reservoir is extensive wetlands . The other part of it is quite a bit of uplands . And to clarify, the orange line is the county line on the map that I 've given you. MR. LORENZ : The old line . It ' s the old line . MR. JONES : Everybody' s saying the old line. I missed the question, so -- MR. LORENZ : I believe the brown line is the county' s new -- I 'm going to call it brown. CHAIRMAN HILL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. SANSBURY: Aye . CHAIRMAN HILL: Aye. MR. SANSBURY: I abstain. MR. SMITH: I abstain as well . I don't understand here unless I can have this clarified. MS . STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, you just can't abstain under the Sunshine laws of the State of Florida. You have to have a voting conflict or the appearance of an impropriety. As Mr. Sansbury has, you just cannot abstain. MR. SMITH: I was about to tell you the reason for my abstination (sic) , if I could call it that . I don' t understand yet what lines we ' re talking about . And I know we ' re rushed for time, but this is important for -- I understand that, I see that map . In addition, I 'm looking at another map, and I 'm trying to make heads or tails of the difference between what the landowners are proposing to put on the table and what the county is finally proposing. And the last comment I heard is that the brown lines are what the county is proposing? MR. LORENZ: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: The yellow lines were their original? MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, if I might, if we 're referring to the map that I distributed, the burgundy line is the most recent line that the county has proposed. MR. LORENZ: Let me add that -- MR. McVEY: Now I 'm confused. MR. DiNUNZIO: They made this map so it ' s hard to figure it out . MR. JACKSON: I thought this is what we were voting on. CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s correct . The brown line on this one -- MR. JACKSON: I don't care what the brown line is . Everybody is confused. Let ' s have a clarification of what the vote is . CHAIRMAN HILL: It shouldn't be confusing, because it ' s a fairly honest attempt to reproduce what the county has proposed. MR. JACKSON: There ' s so much confusion of coloration, and if you're color blind, it ' s even worse. CHAIRMAN HILL: Back to the vote. All those in favor, raise your hands, please. MR. CARLSON: (Indicates. ) MR. COB: (Indicates. ) MR. DiNUNZIO: (Indicates. ) Page 89 September 1, 1999 CHAIRMAN HILL: (Indicates . ) MR. CORNELL: (Indicates . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: All in favor, five . Opposed? MR. McVEY: Aye . MR. SMITH: Aye. MR. SANSBURY: I abstain. CHAIRMAN HILL: Two opposed and one abstention. And Mr. Cornell is gone. So it ' s 5-2 , 1-0 . CREW? MR. LORENZ : Did you want to do CREW or Camp Keais? CHAIRMAN HILL: Camp Keais, I 'm sorry. Camp Keais . (Mr. Jackson exits boardroom. ) CHAIRMAN HILL: You are still -- we do have a quorum of six. Is it the council ' s desire to complete this this afternoon? MR. DiNUNZIO: Let ' s keep going. (Brief recess . ) CHAIRMAN HILL: Let ' s reconvene and we ' ll take up the matter of Camp Keais Strand. Bill? MR. LORENZ : I think that all the issues that we 've discussed with the Okaloacoochee are with the same type of issues for Camp Keais . MR. McVEY: In that case, I ' d like to make a motion if I can jump right into it? CHAIRMAN HILL: Could I raise one question before you do, very quick? MR. LORENZ : Yep . CHAIRMAN HILL: You seem to include -- MR. CARLSON: I think somebody wants to talk. CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, I have a question for staff . MR. CARLSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: You seem to include a lot more of the reservoirs, the, I assume, permitted storage areas in the Camp Keais than you did in those neighboring Okaloacoochee . Is there -- that whole string of them on the east central and southwest corner. MR. LORENZ : Yes, I think that ' s a valid -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a -- MR. LORENZ : That ' s a valid observation. CHAIRMAN HILL: -- reason why they were included in some of the others? MR. LORENZ : Again, the agricultural reservoirs, as we stated before, do have wetlands functions . They also have wildlife habitat functions . They're incorporated as -- because of those reasons. CHAIRMAN HILL: Are there questions for staff? Any public -- sorry, Mr. Jones . I have to go through a protocol here. MR. JONES : Well, I hate to miss my chance. I 've been here all day with you-all . And since we did split out Camp Keais again -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you identify yourself for the record? MR. JONES: For the record -- for the record, my name is Tom Jones. I 'm representing the eastern Collier property owners. Page 90 September 1, 1999 As Bill said, a lot of the issues that were raised in the Okaloa, I believe, are also important issues to be raised here . Again, we ' re opposed to the county' s NRPA map that includes agricultural production areas and included our permitted detention systems . And, again, I 'd like to recognize for the -- for the record that these are permitted systems under the State of Florida and we 're still a little bit unsure of why we 're putting another layer of regulation on land that is already permitted and has valid permits in place. I have two or three particular questions I 'd like to raise, if the council would allow me to address these questions to the staff? CHAIRMAN HILL: Certainly. MR. JONES : On this area here, Section 30 in particular, just south of Immokalee Road and immediately west to the bulk in Cypress Strand, which is a strand that ' s bisected by Immokalee Road. Section 30 , I don' t believe was included in the initial county NRPA map, but it is included in this county NRPA map. And if I could have some clarification as to why Section 30 was included? CHAIRMAN HILL: Bill? MR. HATCHER: When we redrew the NRPA lines down the habitat boundaries, we included at this time islands of agriculture. This area was separated out as a peninsula of agriculture in the original proposal, and the habitat lines connected and -- and became an island and was included. MR. JONES : So, essentially, is this then being included as habitat for listed species? MR. HATCHER: It ' s being included in the NRPA. And there ' s no distinction within the NRPA what ' s habitat and -- and what ' s not . MR. JONES : Okay. MR. LORENZ : May I add to that? MR. JONES : Sure . MR. LORENZ : Just what I put up on the view-graph here is the area that he ' s talking about, and this again comes to that issue of how do we -- do we draw around these agricultural areas? This is the area here that we 're speaking of, these ag fields, that when Mac talked about trying to pick up this wetland habitat, when he came around here, just put this ag field in the middle of that NRPA boundary. And I 've -- the alternative is to go this way and exclude these areas or put a -- as I said, that Swiss cheese pattern in there and put a hole around it . MR. JONES : While we are talking about this area, as an example, I 'd also like to make the paint again, as I have in the past, that again we are drawing lines through connected detention systems, and I probably shouldn't say this, but this detention system is connected to a system that runs approximately two miles again back to the east . So, again, we 're drawing lines around property with connected wetland systems, detention systems, and we're still bisecting property. The second question I 'd like to raise again for this area, in the Kathryn Island area, Sections 2, 3 , 10 and 11. Again, previously this large producing agricultural area was not included in the county' s NRPA, and if perhaps I could have an explanation of again why that r area was included in particular? MR. LORENZ: I 'm sorry -- I 'm sorry, Tom. We were looking at something. Page 91 September 1, 1999 MR. JONES : It was the Kathryn Island area of Sections 2, 3 , 10 and 11 . That ' s approximately 500 areas of -- of agricultural fields. MR. HATCHER: Again, that -- that became a peninsula that jutted out in and amongst the habitat that was surrounding it, selected for the NRPA and under the -- the criteria that we chose to work with, we included most of the peninsulas . MR. JONES : One statement that -- that Mr. Lorenz made in referring again to the Kathryn Island area, which is this area here, primarily of Section 7, which previously again was not included, and I believe Mr. Lorenz of staff stated that this area was necessary for a corridor. I 'd like you to recognize there is approximately a mile wide corridor immediately adjacent to that area, but I think more importantly that when Mr. Lorenz was referring to that Kathryn Island production area, he said that the allowable uses, what the staff believed would be allowable uses, in that area would be moderate to low intensive agriculture. And I 'd really like to hear what the definition of moderate to limit it or the moderate to low intensive agriculture is because I don' t believe anywhere in the final order was there any mention of moderate or low agri -- low intensive agricultural uses . I don' t believe it ' s appropriate to start stating that some of -- what some of the appropriate future uses are going to be of these lands, because when you start talking about where we believe what is appropriate is moderate to low intensive uses, you' re starting to get into an area where you' re talking about regulating agriculture, and I ^ don' t believe that was any portion of the final order. And if that corridor area is being delineated and what ' s going to be allowed is only moderate to low intensive agriculture, as stated, we ' re going to have a significant problem when this thing goes up to DCA with that type of intent behind these lines . MR. LORENZ : No. The intent -- and I 'm not sure when -- the context that I said it, the intent is not to require moderate or low agricultural uses within the NRPA' s . The final order is clear. The agricultural uses that are allowed in the NRPA' s, the current -- the current uses and the agricultural uses are not -- are not being prejudged by the NRPA boundary. So, that ' s not -- that ' s certainly not my intent . The -- the question comes, is -- and this is -- and this is still a -- still somewhat problematic is, as we have developed or trying to apply the concepts of connected corridors, connected flow ways linking up with -- with current conservation areas, looking at the quality of the habitats and the necessity of having that mosaic of wetland and upland features, how do we go about drawing a NRPA boundary where you have some agricultural uses and some large areas of agricultural uses which, Tom, I think you're referring to here because it gave us some problems as well . So, again, the -- the idea is we can draw a line to exclude those large agricultural uses and put them in as a -- again, that hole in the Swiss cheese pattern where we can draw a line that would -- that would cut out most of those agricultural uses in addition to some of the other -- other wetland features and other listed species concerns that we have. Page 92 September 1, 1999 So, that was -- that ' s a judgment that we -- we had to make. We incorporated these areas into the -- the NRPA boundary given the fact that the final order does allow for agricultural uses, current uses, current agricultural users . It allows for that . Where the -- where the NRPA boundary -- what the NRPA boundary does is it excludes a higher intensity use, which would be earth mining. And we would want to see a series of -- of earth mines or pits, excavation pits, in -- within these NRPA boundaries . And that ' s -- so, that ' s basically the way we -- we judged or made a -- made a -- made a decision to include these areas within the boundary as opposed to cutting -- carving them out in that Swiss cheese pattern. MR. JONES : Mr. Chair, if I could make one final point? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. JONES : Mr. Lorenz began his presentation and he talked about the change in this map versus the previous habitat -- versus the previous map. He said this line represented a habitat boundary that the county staff had gone into and redrawn. If you would look at the -- the work sheet that was passed out to you, on the Camp Keais area, and you look at the biggest change in areas, if we -- if indeed this represents a habitat boundary line, the biggest acreage that was picked up in Camp Keais was 4 , 000 acres of agricultural land, 1300 acres of detention systems, permitted, and 1100 acres of uplands as well as 1900 acres of -- of again additional wetlands . The biggest pick-up for this habitat boundary map was in agricultural farm fields again. I think if you look at the total numbers for the -- the eight twenty-seven counting NRPA, the largest delineated area is 21, 000 acres of wetlands . The second largest delineated area is agricultural . The third largest delineated area is agricultural retention areas . And I 'd like to reiterate in closing we ' re opposed to the county NRPA map. We would think we would have a much better map if the agricultural areas were delineated out and if our detention systems were also deleted from the county's NRPA map, again recognizing these are permitted systems, and what we 're talking about doing here today is just putting another regulation on top of them, even though it is an interim regulation. Thank you. MR. COE: I 've got a -- I 've got a comment . I was -- while -- while he was talking, I was kind of going through some of the thought process that was on his behalf, and if you' ll look down at the Sections 2 , 3 , 10 and 11 -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Where? MR. COE: -- why do we have to include that? I 'm asking the county on that . Why can't we just leave it out? I mean, there's plenty of corridor in there that runs north and south. MR. CARLSON: Where? CHAIRMAN HILL: It ' s right here. MR. COB: Oh, it 's on this one here. CHAIRMAN HILL: It ' s between seven and eight. MR. COB: Well, I'll get to that one in a minute, but two, three, ten and 11, why do we have to include that? I mean, I know it makes for a nicer line on the -- on the west side, but is it necessary to 93 September 1, 1999 include it? MR. LORENZ: I 'm not sure I know exactly where you are . MR. COE: Well, that ' s close enough for government work right there . MR. LORENZ: Right there. MR. COE: Yeah. Two, three, ten and 11. Now, on your -- I guess your original one of the yellow lines there that come out as -- what color on this? Like nothing. But its orange and yellow on the -- on the map that ' s been provided by the eastern Collier landowners . Why can't we just go back to the original lines there and same thing with like seven, eight and a portion of five and six? What 's the big deal? I mean, you've got the whole Florida Panther National Refuge behind it . You've got the rest of it to the west, to seven of eight . You've got everything north of that . MR. LORENZ : Yeah, but looking -- looking at it, I think that we could from -- that two, three, ten and 11, we could cut into that point . MR. COB: I mean, I 'm not talking about the whole sections but the way you originally drew the lines like half sections and quarter sections . MR. LORENZ : Right . No, I understand. MR. COE : And the -- the other area that -- that I would look at, I guess, is, let ' s see, two, three, ten and 11 . Got that . Seven, eight -- six, seven and eight, and the other one is excluding 30, which is up close to Immokalee Road. I don' t know why we even included 30 . I don' t see anything there. There ' s no lake . There ' s no nothing. See all those lakes look like they're interconnected. Is that true, those lakes to the east of Section 30? MR. JONES : Immokalee Road bisects Section 20 and 29 . MR. COE: Right . MR. JONES : So, there -- there is not a connection there. MR. COB: How about under the road? MR. JONES: But the balance -- no, there is not a connection under the road either. MR. COB: Okay. MR. JONES : That was -- that ' s been blocked off for quite sometime. But section -- the detention system in Section 29 is connected to the one in 31, which is connected. MR. COB: Okay. MR. JONES : That whole boundary is interconnected. MR. COB: Is 30 a farm? Is that an actual farm there, 30, or is it just -- MR. JONES : No. Section 30 is Manatee Fruit Company and they grow gladiolus in there. And -- and if we're to look at some particular areas, you might also look at Section 26 south of Immokalee Road, which is north and east of the -- of the Kathryn Island area. It ' s this area here. MR. COB: Yeah, I see where it is. Why -- why Section 26? MR. JONES: 26 is the -- the old pineapple farm where Libby used to farm. That's an intensively cropped vegetable area in there. Again, it's a big pine -- its used to be a big pine island. Piga 94 September 1, 1999 MR. COE: But you've included that -- you've included half of 26 in your own plan. MR. JONES : No, sir. My line is the green line, and I guarantee you I did not include Section 26 in there. MR. COE: Are all the yellow lines underneath there designating the whole section? MR. JONES : The yellow line was the county' s original NRPA boundary, which excluded -- MR. COE: No. I 'm talking about the real thin yellow line. MR. JONES : The real thin yellow line is the section line. MR. COE: That ' s correct. MR. JONES : Yes . MR. COE: Well, I -- I show 26 dead center in the middle of that MR. CARLSON: A different 26 . CHAIRMAN HILL: A different 26 . MR. COE: Where is your 26? CHAIRMAN HILL: To the east . MR. COE: Okay. I see. MR. JONES: This area is Section 26 and a portion of 23 immediately south of Oil Well Road. MR. COE: Oh, I see where you're talking about . Yeah. County, what ' s your comment on that? MR. HATCHER: Section 26 maps out on the land cover as intensive agriculture and was included in this designation because it was an island, and within habitat, it falls into the same category as the agriculture that you were discussing before on the edge of Golden Gate Estates . Section 30, just south of Immokalee Road, is another area that maps out as primarily agriculture . It was included as an island inside of habitat . The retention areas in -- in -- that extend into Section 29 are identified by the Game and Fish Commission as having rookeries in them at least at some point in time . And so that ' s why they were included as habitat. CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm not sure -- MR. COE: That answers my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm not sure I understand the statement they're included as an agricultural island. I -- I don' t see the justification for that . MR. HATCHER: When we mapped out the habitat areas, when we -- when we had a habitat that surrounded active agriculture, we included it . We included the agriculture within a NRPA and did not create an island in the NRPA. MR. LORENZ: If I can just clarify. This is -- this is the area that I know -- I forget the number, Tom, but this is where we are. This area here is what Mac is calling an agricultural island. For him to come out and pick up this wetland here, and I believe there ' s some rookery concerns along this area, he drew his boundary like this, and then it forced this agricultural area inside of the NRPA. Now, one alternative is to draw a line around this area and then make that a hole and pull that out. And another alternative would be to just draw the line this way and then exclude this from the IRPA boundary. Page 95 September 1, 1999 Saying this is -- and this is the issue that I raised before because it 's more evident -- excuse me -- it ' s more evident in the Camp Keais than it is in the Okaloacoochee although we had similar -- similar areas . But I think the greater degree of pick-up from some of these agricultural farm fields is in the Camp Keais . But -- but those are the -- what I just did was I just outlined some alternatives and that ' s where I would like to have some -- some either further discussion from some of the EAC members as to whether it should have been included or excluded, because certainly we 've discussed it back and forth on staff . MR. CARLSON: Well, your original question, Mr. Coe, was it any big deal and the answer is no, it ' s not a big deal . I mean, we want to minimize the amount of ag land that ' s in there. Those are only in there because it was like a connecting-the-dots exercise here. And anyplace we can identify large blocks of agricultural land that can be removed from NRPA, that ' s fine. That ' s not a big deal . MR. COE: Well, I can see -- I can see up here -- MR. CARLSON: We can do it later. MR. COE: I can see up here at 30, I can see why you surrounded it because of the water and all that kind of business . But, you know, I don't see any huge necessity on the two, three, ten and 11 sections, and I don' t really see a big necessity on seven and eight, because you've got the Florida Panther Refuge right down there . There ' s -- there ' s plenty of movement area of panthers, dogs, cats and whatever else you've got in there . MR. LORENZ: Just Mac and I were talking about those two areas you just mentioned. MR. COE: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: We -- we would agree with that . We could exclude the area -- MR. COE: And I 'd like to make a motion, at least to get this portion out of the way, a motion to take the two, three, 10, 11, a portion of six, seven and eight off the table and out of -- out of the county proposal. Does anybody want to second that? MR. CARLSON: I ' ll second it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Is the motion clear? To eliminate those noted sections or portions of sections? Discussion? MR. SMITH: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I continue to be concerned with -- and I -- I -- I 've got to say that the county staff has worked obviously very, very hard at this and it ' s not their fault that they're given these kinds of time constraints. It 's none of our faults, but that 's what we're faced with. And under those circumstances, to my way of thinking, to err is to err on the side of not including areas as NRPA's unless we have some real good scientific basis for doing so. So, that ' s my comment generally. CHAIRMAN HILL: That's in favor of the motion. MR. SMITH: No. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the motion. I'm in favor of removal if that 's -- if that 's what we're talking about, yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: That's the motion? Mega 96 September 1, 1999 MR. COB: That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN HILL: Any discussion? MR. McVEY: I hate this, but one more time describe that motion again. MR. COB: Well, if you' ll -- if you' ll check your map, the section of -- Sections 2 , 3 , and they' re portions of sections by the way -- two, three, ten and 11, and then if you move just to the east of that, there ' s -- actually it looks like there ' s a portion of 12, seven, eight, 13 and six. That ' s what I 'm proposing taking out of the proposed NRPA. MR. CARLSON: And not those entire sections but go back to the original -- MR. COB: Go back to the original land -- lines . CHAIRMAN HILL: That might be the better way to express the motion. MR. COB: Go back to the original lines -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Go back to the original -- MR. COB: -- in those sections. That ' s what my proposal is. MR. DiNUNZIO: Which original -- which line is the original line in there; the gold line? MR. COB: Yes . MR. DiNUNZIO: Then we 're going back to the gold line? CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s correct . MR. COB: They go in here . MR. DiNUNZIO: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, on the view-graph, just as you were talking about which sections, and we ' re trying to isolate these areas, this is what we have cross-hatched right here is what we would exclude. MR. COB: Fine . I realize it ' s somewhat of a compromise position, but let ' s at least get on so we can finish the problem. CHAIRMAN HILL: Other discussion? Those in favor, aye. MR. COB: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. DiNUNZIO: Aye. MR. McVEY: Aye . CHAIRMAN HILL: Opposed? MR. SMITH: Nay. MR. SANSBURY: For the record, I, Sansbury, abstained. CHAIRMAN HILL: Five-one and one abstention. The discussion on Camp Keais . MR. DiNUNZIO: Well, I move that we accept the rest of the boundary as proposed by the county with the exclusions of the previous motion. MR. CARLSON: I ' ll second it. CHAIRMAN HILL: Second by Carlson. Discussion? MR. SMITH: I -- I apologize. I had misunderstood the -- and it ' s my own fault and I -- I -- I 'm deeply -- my -- I 'd like to change my vote on the initial -- on the -- on the prior motion. I -- I do want to vote in favor of removal of those and I understand now we're voting on the overall project -- or the overall site; correct? PagiF 97 September 1, 1999 CHAIRMAN HILL: That ' s correct . MR. COE: Except that which has been exempt were taken off the table here. CHAIRMAN HILL: I 'm rusty on my Roberts Rules there. I assume there ' s some mechanism whereby we can go back and change that vote to reflect six and one abstention. A motion now before the council to accept the modified county proposal for Camp Keais . Those in favor, aye . MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Aye. MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. DiNUNZIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Opposed? MR. McVEY: Opposed. MR. SMITH: I 'm opposed to that, too. MR. SANSBURY: And one abstention. CHAIRMAN HILL: Four-two and one abstention. MR. LORENZ: I recognize that you -- I believe -- and, Ron, you may check me on this, but I believe you need to have five affirmative votes for an action. CHAIRMAN HILL: This is the same thing that happened previously, but there ' s still -- MR. LORENZ: But we will still reflect the vote -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Right . MR. LORENZ: -- as we bring it to the -- forward to the board. CHAIRMAN HILL: Which is -- which brings up the question, and I guess the council ' s going to have to work on it later. In those two instances, we have not -- we are not recommending any boundary at all. Now, what the implication here is other than an indecision to convince a majority, I would assume that the council in the future can, after some more deliberations, come back and -- and reconsider this but -- okay, crew. MR. SANSBURY: I 'm not sure. I 'd better be. I 'm really not sure. MR. LORENZ: Real quick. I circled two areas that staff has a concern. This area here, we have to make sure that we have not overlapped into the urban boundary, because the final order talks about outside of the urban boundary, so I don't want to get into a situation where we 've got a NRPA that 's inconsistent with the final order. So, in that particular case, we will propose to map within the urban boundary. This location here, this is an area where we mapped habitat, but it -- it comes into the portion of the north estates, which have already been built up. Well, I shouldn't say built up, but certainly been -- roads have been put in and people are living out there. We would just propose that because of the roads that we don't -- we square that boundary off and exclude that estates area. There is another -- somewhere along in here is another invested interest concern where it might have been Florida Rock, I believe, has permits to mine in some of those areas that we mapped as NRPA's. Again, thefinal order indicates that the current uses would -- would be allowed if they have approvals pair= to June 22nd, '91 . and Page 98 September 1, 1999 in that particular case then we will delete -- figure out where those areas are and take them off of the NRPA boundary. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes . MR. SANSBURY: Can I ask Mr. Jones a question? Can I -- I'm not sure about the crew area. Can I vote on the crew area? No, he can answer that because he -- MR. JONES : I believe with what they've delineated on there is either land owned by the Corkscrew Sanctuary or land that has been purchased by -- oh, no. There is a -- there is a problem there. We have the Panther Island Mitigation Bank that ' s been permitted by everybody. MS . SCUDERI : Mr. Sansbury -- MR. SANSBURY: Yes. MS . SCUDERI : -- he can give you information, but you do need to make the decision -- MR. SANSBURY: Yes . MS . SCUDERI : -- and state what that decision is and why the reason is. MR. JONES : For the record, I 'm Tom Jones, Barron Collier Partnership. And Barron Collier does have land in the northwest corner of that crew boundary. It ' s been identified as the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. It ' s also been permitted by everybody. It ' s an ongoing and approved use, and I haven' t really spent any time looking at that . I believe the company also owns another section south of there. So, yes, Barron Collier does have an interest in a number of sections on that crew boundary. MR. SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Jones, and I will recuse myself from discussion on this item also. MR. CARLSON: Were those approvals before June 22nd? MR. JONES : For the record, yes, Mr. Carlson, is intimately familiar with the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, and I hope as this NRPA designation goes forward, it doesn't impede our progress on the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, which I don't know. It ' s an existing use, so it should be able to go forward, but it 's certainly not a defined use under the final order. CHAIRMAN HILL: Council? MR. CARLSON: Comments. CHAIRMAN HILL: Comments, action? MR. CARLSON: Yes. I -- I agree that that southeast corner, that lobe, I know why you drew that and it 's not because it ' s developed. It ' s because it ' s undeveloped. There are very few residents in that part of the estates . And, I mean, that 's the place where the roads grow shut because nobody drives on them, so -- but I think all the estates zoning should be taken out and go around the estate• for sure. And then there ' s another little lobe. If you put your pen on there again and go north. That' s -- that should be in. The next one north, that little thing, that boundary, should be straightened out because that is another residential community with very low density, but nonetheless five-acre tracts, basically the same kind of ming as the estates. I would remove that. CHAIRMAN HILL: Other comments? What's your pleasure? s, ,._.-. September 1, 1999 MR. DiNUNZIO: No public comment on the crew area? MR. CARLSON: I guess we just had them. MR. DiNUNZIO: I make a motion we accept the county' s proposal for the NRPA for the crew area as modified. MR. McVEY: I ' ll second it . CHAIRMAN HILL: Second by McVey. MR. SMITH: Just clarification for the record. We talk about modified. We have some circles drawn here . Are -- and especially the one to the north, that ' s not platted estates, but it is, as Mr. Carlson points out, it 's populated to some degree. Are we talking about a straight line that would simply cut off that appendage? MR. LORENZ : Yes . MR. SMITH: Okay. Just so we know so that -- and then on the south, that -- that -- that other one that jets out, we 're talking there about just deleting that portion that would be on the platted Golden Gate Estates area. MR. LORENZ: Correct . That 's how we would do it . MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: No further discussion, all those in favor, aye. MR. COE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Aye . MR. CARLSON: Aye. MR. DiNUNZIO : Aye. MR. McVEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HILL: Opposed? MR. SMITH: Nay. MR. SANSBURY: One abstention. CHAIRMAN HILL: Five and one abstention. Before you people leave, I want to make a couple of comments. I speak for myself primarily, but I think I echo some of the feelings on the council . This has been a devilishly difficult process to go through. I want to assure you that this council will do everything in its power in the future to make sure that this assessment is a proper and complete and scientific one and hopefully will result in what I'll call proper eventual NRPA boundaries. I know we have not met with the expectations of some of the public. I think we 've made a reasonably good choice as far as environment, both in wetlands and species is concerned. It is a starting point, and I -- I have to emphasize that that ' s really what it is. And I hope this council will have a role in smoothing everything out. So, we thank you for your attention over the past couple of weeks. I'm sure we'll be in touch with you in the future, and I'm sure we'll hear from you, and remember this council is here far one reason and that hopefully is the interest of Collier County. I think the agenda is done. I will pass out one thing for your consideration between now and the next time we meet. Just soma ideas in my own mind that I think we have to look at. Thank you, council. Thank you, everybody, for your -- did I miss someone? With no further ado, I will accept a motion for adjonrnm nt. MR. Y: Move to ad omrr ent, sir. R - lO Yds. - September 1, 1999 , --N MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: I think it 's unanimous, Rose. (Proceedings concluded at 5 : 10 p.m. ) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WILLIAM W. HILL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR n • Wit.. ' .,: - 'ie-'�'- 'w am" r - a."'- ^E ." ti 'fir ' .0„1:':. .moi n � I Item V.A. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13,1999 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planed Unit Development No.PUD-99-14 Petition Name: Livingston Village PUD Applicant/Developer: Marian H.Gerace Wallace L.Lewis,Jr. Engineering Consultant: Swanson&Associates Consulting Engineers,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Collier Environmental Consultants II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 148.98 acre parcel located immediately north of Wyndemere Country Club(Wyndemere PUD)along the future extension of Livingston Road and extends westward to the right-of-way of Interstate I-75. The parcel is located within Section 19, Township 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include a mixture of developed and undeveloped parcels. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Agricultural(Proposed Balmoral PUD) Undeveloped PUD(Whippoorwill Woods) Undeveloped S- PUD(Wyndemere) Developed E- R.O.W. Interstate I-75 Estates Partially Developed W- R.O.W. Future Livingston Road PUD(Grey Oaks) F.P.&L.Easement IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to construct a maximum of 540 single family and multi-family dwelling units at a density of 3.62 units per acre on 148.98 acres of land.The PUD document also allows adult living facilities and nursing homes, guard houses and entrance gates, and any other use comparable in nature with the permitted uses and which the Development Services Director determines to be compatible. The project will be accessed from the future Livingston Road with its primary access located approximately '/z mile north of the existing entry which serves the Wyndemere residential community south of the project. This distance will make this primary access eligible for a full EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-14 Page 2 /'� median cut in the future four-lane roadway and will place this access north of the existing vegetated area. A secondary single lane roadway of minimum width, which will provide ingress only, may be developed through the existing vegetated acreage in the southwest corner of the subject parcel and would be accessible by northbound vehicles. This entry through mature vegetation will set a standard for the enhancement of open space with trees,mid-story and grade vegetation plantings. The single lane road will be designed to allow wetland areas to exchange flows. This exposure will heighten awareness of these habitats by residents and visitors and create a unique gateway and transition experience. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated as Urban Residential on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Residential Land Use Designation is for those areas that are within the Urban Boundary, eligible for rezonings to higher densities, and have access to public facilities and the County's transportation network. The Urban Residential mixed use land use classification allows a mixture of land uses, specifically single family and multi-family development, recreational uses, and limited commercial land uses. The project is eligible for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre as provided by the FLUE Density Rating System. The proposed density for the project is 3.62 units per acre which is less than the maximum density provided by the FLUE, therefore it is consistent with the FLUE Policy 5.1. The project development is compatible and complimentary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. The Livingston Village PUD implements Policy 5.6 of the FLUE in that a minimum of sixty(60)percent of the project will be open space. The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by Collier County. n VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: Because of the size of the site and the amount of wetlands on site, the water management aspects of this project will be reviewed and approved by SFWMD. The County's Water Management Department is attempting a basin-wide approach to the water management of the Whippoorwill area, which is bounded on the west by proposed Livingston Road, on the north by Pine Ridge Road, on the east by I-75, and on the south by Wyndemere. This project will be asked to cooperate with that program and may have to provide easements. The internal water management consists of a series of interconnected lakes which provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. This project abuts the Kensington"drainage ditch". Environmental: Site Description: The project site is currently in agricultural production except for a strip of pine flatwoods along the northern portion of the property and a forested wetland system in the southwest corner of the site. Several areas of fallow agricultural land also occur on the subject property.Native habitats on site include cypress (12.50 acres), pine-cypress-cabbage palm (2.07 acres) and pine flatwoods (8.23 acres). According to the Collier County Soils Map, three soil types are found on the property. These include Holopaw fme sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2), Malabar fme sand (Unit 3), and EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-14 Page 3 Holopaw fine sand(Unit 27).All three soil types are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service office. Elevations on site range from 9.2 feet NGVD in the wetlands in the southwest corner of the site and to 10.9 feet NGVD in the uplands.The proposed control elevation for the project is 10.0 feet NGVD. Wetlands: Jurisdiction wetlands total 14.57 acres out of a total of 148.98 acres or 9.7 percent of the site and include cypress and pine-cypress-cabbage palm communities. In order to offset adverse environmental impacts resulting from development activities in 7.77 acres of wetlands, the development plan provides for the preservation and enhancement of 6.80 acres of wetlands on- site. Wetlands on the project site have been impacted by agricultural activities.The wetlands were used as an agricultural water storage area, thus creating artificial water levels. Some Melaleuca have adventitious rooting a few inches above ground surface.The water table varies from below ground surface to approximately 4-12 inches above ground surface. Elevations of both present and historic water levels will be surveyed and submitted as part of the South Florida Water Management District permit applications. A wetland monitoring and maintenance plan will be required by the South Florida Water Management District for any proposed wetland restoration/preserve. Monitoring of wetland preserves typically consists of baseline, time zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and wetland water levels.The baseline report will document conditions on the project site as they currently exist. The time-zero report will document the conditions immediately following exotic removal. Sampling stations and methodology of data collection will remain the same for all monitoring events. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code,this project is required to preserve a minimum of 6.8 acres(25 percent)of the native vegetation on-site. Current designs call for the preservation of 14.5 acres of wetlands,as shown on the PUD master plan. The minimum size preserve area allowed according to the PUD is 6.8 acres and is graphically depicted on the Livingston Village Preserve Map,found in the EIS. Listed Species: A threatened and endangered species survey of the property was conducted in February 1999. Established transects were oriented north-south and east-west and superimposed on an aerial map of the site. These transects were ground located and walked by compass bearing. Early morning (0730-1000),mid-day(1100-1500),and late-day(1500-1800)time periods were chosen to survey these transects.All possible species of plants and animals listed by state and federal agencies were noted. Several species of plants that are listed by governmental agencies were found on the property during the surveys. None are considered rare. Several species of Tillandsia were found. Each is listed by the state of Florida primarily due to commercial value. Big Cypress fox squirrels are known to use similar habitat to the project to the south and north. Observations were keyed to searching for signs or call of these animals, such as leaf nests in canopy trees or territorial calls. No fox squirrels were observed during this study. However, fox EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD-99-14 Page 4 squirrels are known to be inhabiting neighboring areas. Several chewed pine cones were found, although it was impossible to distinguish whether they were fed upon by gray squirrels or fox squirrels. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-14 "Livingston Village" with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. That the developer commits to complying with the recommendations proposed by the County's Water Management Director as part of any basin-wide approach to water management provided that those recommendations are made prior to the final approval of construction plans. 2. That a SFWMD Surface Water Management Permit for this project be submitted to Collier County concurrent with construction drawing submittal. Environmental: 1. Amend the first paragraph in section 2.12 of the PUD document as follows by deleting the Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Livingston Village PUD. Fill material generated may be stockpiled within areas designated for residential development upon issuance of a Clearing and Filling Permit. approval.The following standards shall apply: 2. Amend section 5.2(A)of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language and deleting the . A. Principal Uses: 1. Passive recreational areas ' . 2. Biking,hiking,nature trails and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures . 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering after appropriate environmental review. 6. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD-99-14 Page 5 PREPARED BY: W. MAIO STAN CHRZANOWS le'.E. DATE se SENIOR ENGINEER /, 9/2 0? STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: i 1 "J ?/,2 9/9 n USAN MURRAY,AICP DATE , CHIEF PLANNER --4,..a. c.-.) :i y,,,,, ,Y! THO E.KUCK,P.E. DAT EN , RING ' V EW MANAGER i1,4:1 9► 9 . 25' 95 RON-LD F. ,AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Livingston Village PUD StaffReport a. P"'• Item V.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13,1999 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No.PUD-99-15 Petition Name: Alexandria PUD Applicant/Developer: Dean Huff,Trustee Engineering Consultant: Swanson&Associates Consulting Engineers,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates,Inc. H. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 19.6 acre parcel located on the east side of future Livingston Road approximately 3,800 feet south of Pine Ridge Road and 2,300 feet west of 1-75 in Section 18,Township 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are primarily undeveloped with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Agricultural Single Family Residence S- Agricultural Undeveloped E- Agricultural Undeveloped W- Agricultural Future Livingston Road R.O.W./ FP&L Transmission Line Easement PUD(Kensington Park) Partially Developed IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to construct a maximum of 72 single family and multi-family dwelling units at a density of 3.67 units per acre on 19.58 acres of land. Access to the site will be provided from the future Livingston Road extension,just north of the Wyndemere PUD. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated as Urban Residential on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Residential Land Use Designation is for those areas that are within the Urban Boundary, eligible for rezonings to higher densities, and have access to public facilities and the County's transportation network.The Urban Residential mixed use land EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD 99-15 Page 2 n use classification allows a mixture of land uses, specifically single family and multi-family development, recreational uses, and limited commercial land uses. The project is eligible for a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre as provided by the FLUE Density Rating System. The proposed density for the project is 3.67 units per acre which is less than the maximum density provided by the FLUE, therefore it is consistent with the FLUE Policy 5.1. The project development is compatible and complimentary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. The Alexandria PUD implements Policy 5.6 of the FLUE in that a minimum of sixty(60)percent of the project will be open space.The project will be served by a complete range of services and utilities as approved by Collier County. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: This project is located within an area which has been identified as a study area for possible consolidation and control of stormwater management. The "Kensington Ditch" is the main outfall for the Whippoorwill area which is north of Wyndemere,east of Livingston Road,west of I-75 and south of Pine Ridge Road. Internal drainage on this project will consist of a lake for water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. Since there are 2.9 acres of SFWMD jurisdictional on site,the project will be reviewed for water management by the SFWMD who have received a copy of this staff report. Environmental: Site Description: Vegetative mapping of the property was conducted using 1"=200' scale aerial photographs and by ground truthing in April 1999.Habitats on the subject property include pine flatwoods(3.9 acres), pine-cypress-Melaleuca (14.9 acres), and disturbed land (0.8 acre). Appendix B in the EIS contains an aerial of the site with FLUCFCS overlay. According to the Collier County Soils Map,the only soil type found on the property is Holopaw fme sand, limestone substratum (Soil Map Unit 2). The description of this soil type is found in Appendix D in the EIS. Holopaw fme sand, limestone substratum is listed as a hydric soil by the Natural Resource Conservation Service office. There were no clear biological indicators noted within the wetland area to determine present seasonal high water levels. Historical high water levels,based on the observed cypress buttresses within the wetland, are at or very near the ground elevation, which is approximately 10.8 feet NGVD. Currently an on-site well monitoring program has been established to help define the level. Planning Development, Inc. has also researched the control elevation for the surrounding development. See Appendix E in the EIS for a copy of the preliminary water management report. Wetlands: A total of 2.9 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property.The single wetland is located in the EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD 99-15 Page 3 northeast corner of the site and is vegetated with a mixture of pine, cypress and Melaleuca. The acreage of the wetland may be modified as a result of the current well monitoring program. Approximately 24 percent or 0.7 acres of the defined wetland will be impacted by the proposed project. The wetland impacts are summarized in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 5 of the EIS. Compensation for wetland impacts will include the preservation and enhancement of the remaining 2.2 acres of wetlands on-site. In addition, 2.6 acres of uplands will be preserved. The upland and wetland preservation areas will be enhanced through the removal of exotics such as Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. As part of the SFWMD permit for the project, the following wetland mitigation monitoring is proposed. Monitoring of the preserved wetland will consist of baseline, time-zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, rainfall, and wetland water levels. The baseline report will document conditions on the project site as they currently exist. The time-zero report will document the conditions immediately following exotic removal. Sampling stations and methodology of data collection will remain the same for the time-zero and annual monitoring events. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code, the project will retain 25 percent(4.85 acres)of the existing native vegetation on-site. Listed Species: n A survey of the property was conducted on April 21, 1999 to identify species listed by the Florida Fish&Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC),Florida Department of Agricultural(FDA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened, endangered, species of special concern,or commercially exploited.The survey included walking meandering transects across the property for a coverage of approximately 50 percent of the site.The results of the survey found no listed wildlife species on-site; however, Big Cypress fox squirrels are known to occur in the general project area. Two listed plant species noted during the survey included inflated wild pine (Tillandsia bablisiana)and common wild pine(Tillandsia fasculata). The wild pines were scattered about the different vegetation communities on-site. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-15 "Alexandria PUD" with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. That Alexandria PUD obtain a Surface Water Management Permit prior to submittal of construction plans for any sitework. 2. That Alexandria PUD commits to agree to participate in any consolidation of the area-wide water management system to an equitable extent to be determined by the County Water Management Director. l"� EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD 99-15 Page 4 Environmental: 1. Amend section 2.2 (A) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language. Regulations for development of Alexandria PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document,PUD-Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code (to the extent they are not inconsistent with the PUD Ordinance) and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements. Where the regulations of this PUD Document fail to provide development standards then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. 2. Amend the first paragraph in section 2.12 of the PUD document as follows by deleting the Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout Alexandria. Fill material generated may be stockpiled within areas designated for residential development upon issuance of a Clearing and Filling Permit. ' -: : : •- • - ••--= :-. '-••. : -- = . •= •- . . . The following standards shall apply: 3. Amend section 4.10 (D) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language. An exotic vegetation removal,monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free)plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. 4. Amend section 4.10 (E) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language and deleting the . Approximately 19 acres of the subject property remain vegetated. The developer shall preserve a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the total vegetated area yielding a minimum preserve area of 4.75 acres.Permitted uses within the preserve area include: 1. Passive recreational areas ' . 2. Biking,hiking,nature trails and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures . 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering after appropriate environmental review. 6. Any other use deemed comparable in nature by the Development Services Director. EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD 99-15 Page 5 PREPARED BY: STAN CHRZANOWSKI,P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER A4it 9/2 3//2 STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: x- //'1 9/9 7 SUSAN MURRAY,AICP DATE CHIEF PLANNER 9/.2,/ 9 - S IAS E.KUCK,P.E. DATE NG EERING REVIEW MANAGER ' CI • Z1 .91 R•NALD F.N O,AI - DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Alexandria PUD StaffReport Item V.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13.1999 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No.PUD-98-15(1) Petition Name: BUCKS RUN PUD Applicant/Developer: William L.Hoover,Trustee Engineering Consultant: Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. Environmental Consultant: Collier Environmental Consultants,Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is 39 acres of vacant land north of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension extending from CR 951 eastward to Davila Street in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: n Surrounding properties are a mix of developed and undeveloped parcels with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- A(Nursery) Developed A Undeveloped S- A Undeveloped E- PUD(Vanderbilt Pines) Under Construction W- A Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes to amend the 39 acre Mauriel PUD that was approved on January 12, 1999 and permitting 156 condominium units at 4 units per acre.The amendment to the PUD proposes the following revisions: 1)Change the PUD name to"Bucks Run PUD".2)Add churches and schools as"Permitted Uses".3)Add the applicable development standards for churches and schools.4)Revise the Master Plan to reflect the more precise data regarding on-site wetlands.Previously,the PUD Master Plan showed approximately 46 percent of the site as Preserve Areas.However,both the Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District approved revised"jurisdictional wetlands"that comprise 13 percent of the site.Hence the revised Master Plan shows that the project will preserve the minimum 25 percent of the on-site native vegetation.Furthermore,the Master Plan provides 9.8 acres of preserve,and n 2 lakes. The storm water managementdesign will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 "BUCKS RUN PUD" /0".\ Page 2 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property lies within the Urban Mixed Use, Urban Residential area as designated on the Future Land Use Map. The Urban Mixed Use,Urban Residential Area designates the subject property as residential making it possible for rezoning action with a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. The development plan has been evaluated for consistency with other applicable elements of the GMP. In particular this plan is responsive to the requirement to preserve 25% of viably functioning native vegetation and 60%of its area in open space. V. STAFF COMMENTS: Water Management: The project site is primarily located within the 951 Canal North Drainage Basin. The eastern portion of the site is located within the Cypress Canal Drainage Basin. The proposed outfall for the project is the CR-951 roadside ditch located at the west property line of the project. The water management system for the project proposes the construction of a perimeter berm with crest elevation set at or above the 25-year, 3-day peak flood stage which is estimated to be elevation 13.8 NGVD. The fmished floor elevations shall be set above the 100-year, 3-day, zero discharge peak stage which is estimated to be elevation 15.0 NGVD.Water quality pretreatment is proposed in the on-site lake system prior to discharge to the wetland preserve areas. The water management system will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this project including but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate of 0.04 cfs/acre; minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations;water quality pre-treatment,and wetland hydrology maintenance. Environmental: The project site has 5.11 acres or 13 %jurisdictional wetlands which the applicant indicates have been adversely impacted by surrounding development.The project proposes to fill or excavate.09 acres of wetlands. Five acres of wetlands and 4.8 acres of upland preserve and perimeter landscape buffer will provide the required twenty five percent native vegetation on site. The property will be preserved and enhanced by removal of nuisance exotic plants and the 5 acre wetland will receive the storm water runoff prior to discharge from the site. The control elevation will prevent discharge of the stormwater unless it reaches a depth of 1.2 feet in the wetlands. The applicant indicates the South Florida Water Management District will require a wetland maintenance and monitoring plan for any proposed wetland restoration. Two soil types have been identified on the subject property. These include (2) Holopaw Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum(Hydric)and(10)Oldsmar Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum. A threatened and endangered species survey was conducted over five days during the months of April and May 1998.An additional 30 hours of field work was conducted in conjunction with the revised Wetland boundaries and jurisdictional agency site visits. All transects were walked at varying times from post-dawn & mid-day to pre-sunset hours. During the survey, no animals considered rare or endangered were identified. Several species of plants (Tillandsia) listed by EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 "BUCKS RUN PUD" Page 3 — governmental agencies were observed on site. Each is listed by the State of Florida primarily due to commercial value. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-98-15 with the following stipulations: Water Management: No additional stipulations. Environmental: 1. Under Section IV, 4.2.A.1. of the PUD Document, remove "including recreational shelters" 2. Revise Section IV, 4.2.A.5. of the PUD document to state that, "Supplemental landscape planting, screening and buffering within the Natural Habitat Preserve Areas, may be approved after Planning Services Environmental Staff review after the ... .. . _ _ -- . _ . All supplemental plantings within the preserve areas shall be 100% indigenous native species and shall meet the minimum planting criteria set forth in CCLDC Section 3.9.5.4.4. 3. Add the following language to Section 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL, of the PUD document, "The PUD Master Plan identifies a 10 ft. landscape buffer to be used towards the 25% required native vegetation preservation. It may be necessary to enhance this buffer. All planting within these areas counted towards preservation shall meet the minimum planting criteria as set forth in Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.9.5.5.4." 4. Add the following language to Section 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL, of the PUD document, "The perimeter berm as located on the PUD Master Plan, shall be entirely outside of all upland and wetland preserve areas." PREPARED BY: 7/0i//J413b �5 STE'` `r'r%`�f� . DAT SENIOR ENGINEER /. .6a.kc J. `6140 9-2e-49 BARBARA S.BURGESON DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST Item V.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13,1999 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use Petition No.CU-99-08 Petition Name: Sabal Palm Golf Course Applicant/Developer: Jassy Real Estate Investments,Inc. Engineering Consultant: RWA,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates,Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 313.6 acre parcel located on the north side of Sabal Palm Road approximately one and half miles east of County Road 951 in Section 24, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are primarily undeveloped with some agricultural actively. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Agricultural Undeveloped S- R.O.W. Sabal Palm Road Agricultural Undeveloped and Actively Farmed E- Agricultural Undeveloped W- Agricultural Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a Conditional Use in order to build an 18-hole golf course and a 10,000 square foot clubhouse on a 313.6± acre site. The golf course will be constructed to include a clubhouse site,maintenance area and driving range(136.7 acres). The remaining 176.9 acres will be preserve areas. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject parcel is designated as Agricultural/Rural on the Future Land Use map of the Growth Management Plan. The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 CU-99-08 Page 2 therefore allowable land uses are of low intensity. A limited selection of land uses other than low density residential and agricultural are permitted. Among those are recreational uses. Therefore, if the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a Conditional Use for a golf course,the petition shall be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The completed application for Sabal Palm Golf Course was received prior to June 22, 1999. It is therefore considered an"existing use"and consistent with the Administration Commission's Final Order. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The proposed water management system consists of a system of swales and underground conduits that will direct all runoff from development areas to a system of interconnected lakes and or water quality treatment areas. Uncontrolled discharges will be prevented by constructing a perimeter berm that contains the rainfall runoff from the development areas. A discharge control structure will be constructed on the south portion of the property as indicated in the conditional use drainage plan. This structure will limit discharge to pre-development rates or to rates specified by Collier County Ordinances or South Florida Water Management District allowable discharge rates criteria. Water quantity impacts to the off site and on site wetlands will be prevented by the construction of the backbone water management system utilizing the current recommended best management practices. Final construction level detail plans will be provided for Collier County Site Development Plan and South Florida Water Management District review. An erosion control plan for construction activities will be provided at the time of South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting and Collier County Site Development plan permitting. The erosion control plan will be proposed in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the preparation of erosion control plans. Environmental: Site Description: Vegetative mapping of the property was conducted by the petitioner by using 1"=200' scale aerial photographs and ground truthing in January 1999. Habitats found on site include pine flatwoods (45.9 acres), hydric pine flatwoods (47.8 acres),pine-cypress(111.3 acres), cypress (26.6 acres), and pasture/cleared areas(82 acres). According to the Collier County Soils Map,the following six soil types are found on the property: Hollowpaw fme sand, limestone substratum (Unit 2), Oldsmar fme sand, limestone substratum (Unit 10), Pineda fme sand, limestone substratum (Unit 14), Boca fme sand (Unit 21), Boca, Riviera,limestone substratum and copeland fme sand, depressional(Unit 25), and Hallandale and Boca fme sand(slough) (Unit 49). Soil Map Units 2, 14, 25, and 49 are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service office. A detailed description of each of these soil types is provided in exhibit D of the EIS. According to the topographic maps provided in the EIS, existing ground elevations on site range from 8.1 feet NGVD on the southeast corner of the site to 10.5 feet NGVD in the uplands on the western half of the property. The seasonal high water level for the property was estimated to be approximately 9.1 feet NGVD. EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 CU-99-08 Page 3 n Wetlands: Approximately 245.3 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the subject property. Jurisdictional wetlands include cypress, pine-cypress, hydric pine flatwoods and pasture/cleared areas. Approximately 83.3 acres of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed and are shown on figure 4 on page 12 of the EIS. Project related impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are proposed to be compensated for by enhancing and preserving 162.0 acres(66 percent)of the wetlands on site. Enhancement will include removal of exotic plant species such as Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. Also proposed is the preservation of 14.9 acres of the native upland habitat on site including upland buffers for wetland preserves,where possible. A monitoring plan will be implemented as part of the SFWMD permit for the project.Monitoring of wetland preserves will include baseline, time-zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and wetland water levels. The baseline report will document conditions on the project site as they currently exist. The time-zero report will document the conditions immediately following exotic removal. Sampling stations and methodology of data collection will remain the same for all monitoring events,including baseline,time-zero,and annual. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code,this project is required to preserve 15 percent of the native vegetation on-site. As proposed the project is preserving approximately 56.4 percent of the total site area, most of which is vegetated with n native habitat. Listed Species: A listed plant and animal species survey was conducted on March 8 and 9, 1999 to determine whether the site was being utilized by state or federally listed species.The initial survey identified a total of two potential red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees on the property. At the request of County staff, five days of additional surveys were conducted from June 28 to July 2, 1999. The additional survey identified the presence of Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), little blue heron(Egretta caerulea), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus). A total of two Big cypress fox squirrels and one nest were identified within the rural open land near Sabal Palm Road. Individual white ibis and little blue herons were observed foraging in the hydric pasture habitats.No RCW's were heard or observed during either survey periods. See exhibit E in the EIS for survey methodologies and results. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Petition No. CU-99-08"Sabal Palm Golf Course" with the following stipulations: Water Management: Water management concerns will be reviewed at time of Site Development Plan Submittal. This project will be permitted by SFWMD. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 CU-99-08 Page 4 Environmental: 1. An appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on site as required by section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. An exotic vegetation removal,monitoring, and maintenance(exotic free)plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 CU-99-08 Page 5 PREPARED BY: ftrAX/ STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II A/Ai/ Vkct STEP E / ' ,P.E. DAT SENIOR ENGINEER REVIEWED BY: 9./7. 9 , F" • -SCHL DATE SENIOR PLANNER THOMAS E.KUCK,P.E. DATE 1 t INEERING REVIEW MANAGER dip ONALD F. 0,A " DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Sabal Palm StaffReport Item V.E. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13,1999 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No.PUD-99-22 Petition Name: Royal Cypress Club PUD Applicant/Developer: James D.Vogel Engineering Consultant: RWA,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates,Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 38.9 acre parcel located on the east side of County Road 951, approximately one and a half mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 11, Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are mostly undeveloped with the following zoning classifications. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- Agricultural Undeveloped S- Agricultural Undeveloped Agricultural with ST overlay Undeveloped E- Agricultural Willow Run Quarry W- R.O.W. County Road 951 PUD Naples National Golf Club IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes a Planned Unit Development with 360 multi-family dwelling units on 38.9 acres. This project is an affordable housing project qualifying for up to 8 units per acre as a density bonus in addition to the permitted 1.5 units per acre, as referenced in Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan(GMP). The gross project density will be 9.25 dwelling units per acre. The PUD proposes the following: 1)A 22.62 acre residential development area, including multi-family units, accessory buildings,model units,utility and maintenance facilities, gatehouse, and child care facilities for residents; 2) 14.50 acres of conservation areas (37% of site) and 1.78 acres of rights-of-ways; 3) Fifteen to twenty- five-foot buffers around wetlands 25-foot-buffers around conservation areas and 20-foot-buffers around a proposed three-acre lake;4)Water distribution,sewage collection and transmission,and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities per County standards; 5) A minimum of sixty (60) percent open space; 6) Multi-family units and accessory structures and uses including carports, garages, and utility buildings; and 6) Recreational uses such as play fields, boat docks, EAC Meeting October 13, 1999 PUD-99-22 Page 2 /"1 and walking paths. The revised Master Plan shows that the project will preserve the minimum 25 percent of the on-site native vegetation. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject parcel is zoned "A-ST," Agricultural with an ST overlay and is located within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is a transitional area providing transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area. This district allows a maximum density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre when approved as a PUD. Affordable housing bonus densities up to 8.0 additional units per acre are allowed in this district. Proposed development in these areas are also fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements,including routing of on-site and appropriate off-site water, and a fair-share cost of necessary improvements to the CR-951 canal/out-fall system. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The proposed water management system consists of a system of swales and underground conduits that will direct all runoff from development areas to a system of interconnected lakes and or water quality treatment areas. Roadways will be designed to the twenty five (25) year three (3) day storm event. Buildings will be designed to the one hundred (100) year three (3) day zero (0) discharge event. Uncontrolled discharges will be prevented by constructing a perimeter berm that contains the rainfall runoff from the development areas. A discharge control structure will be constructed on the southwestern to central portion of the property as indicated in the PUD i"N Conceptual Water Management Plans. The discharge will be directed into the HendersonCreek/CR951 canal which fronts the project adjacent to County Road 951. This structure will limit discharge to pre-development rates or to rates specified by Collier County Ordinances or South Florida Water Management District allowable discharge rates criteria. Water quantity and quality impacts to the off site and on site wetlands and receiving waters will be prevented by the construction of the backbone water management system utilizing the current recommended best management practices. Final construction level detail plans will be provided for Collier County Site Development Plan and South Florida Water Management District review. An erosion control plan for construction activities will be provided at the time of South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource Permitting and Collier County Site Development plan permitting. The erosion control plan will be proposed in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United States. Environmental: Site Description: Vegetation mapping of the property was conducted using 1"=200' scale aerial photographs and ground truthing in November 1998. Native habitats on site include pine flatwoods (12.6 acres), pine-cypress (9.4 acres), cypress (7.8 acres), oak-cabbage palm (0.9 acres), cabbage palm (1.4 acres), and willow pond (5.4 acres). Also on-site are 1.4 acres of elevated road bed within the F.P.&L.easement,located along the east side of the property. Elevations within the project range from lows of 9.0 Feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) within man-made drainage ditches to 12.5 Feet NGVD in the spoil pile created by the construction of County Road 951/Henderson Creek Canal. Natural grades range from 9.0 Feet NGVD to 11.5 Feet NGVD. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-22 Page 3 According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following four soil types are found on the property: Chobee, limestone substratum and Dania mucks depressional (Unit 4), Hallandale fme sand (Unit 11), Pineda fme sand, limestone substratum(Unit 14), and Boca fme sand (Unit 21). Soil Map Units 4 and 14 are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service office. A detailed description of each of these soils type is provided in Exhibit C of the environmental impact statement(EIS). Wetlands: Approximately 14.5 acres of South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the subject property. These include willow pond, cypress and pine-cypress type habitats. The project as proposed will not impact any wetlands on- site. Passive recreational access of the wetlands, such as boardwalks or nature trails, may be constructed as part of the project. The property has a total of 24.4 acres of uplands, the majority of which will be impacted by the project.Where possible,a minimum 15 foot and average 25 foot upland buffer will be maintained around wetland preserves. A monitoring plan will be implemented as part of the SFWMD permit for the project.Monitoring of wetland preserves will include baseline, time-zero, and annual monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and wetland water levels. The baseline report will document conditions on the project site as they currently exist. The time-zero report will document the conditions immediately following exotic removal. Sampling stations and methodology of data collection will remain the same for all monitoring events,including baseline,time-zero,and annual. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code (CCLDC), twenty five percent (25%) of the native vegetation on-site shall be retained. As proposed the project is preserving 14.50 acres(37 percent)of the native vegetation on-site. Listed Species: A total of seven days of observations for listed species was conducted on the property. A listed plant and animal species survey was conducted on January 28 and 29, 1999 and February 1, 1999. Additional listed species observations were also made during vegetation mapping and wetland flagging conducted in November 1998 and January 1999.No listed species were identified on the property.The survey methodology and results are provided in Exhibit D of the EIS. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUD-99-22 "Royal Cypress Club PUD"with the following stipulations: Water Management: 1. A South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management Permit must be obtained prior to submitting for Site Plan Approval. Amend section 4.6(A) of the PUD document accordingly. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-22 Page 4 Environmental: 1. Amend section 4.10(C) of the PUD document as follows by adding the underlined language. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. This plan shall include methods and time schedule for removal of exotic vegetation within conservation/preservation areas. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-22 Page 5 PREPARED BY: • .� STAN CHRZANOWSKI,P.E. DATE SENIOR ENGINEER 11Z/(g‘ 9/2?A STE HEN LENBERGER DAT ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST II REVIEWED BY: 9 -29-” DONALD J. • •Y,AICP DATE PRINCIPAL P I• '4 ER 1.14 9-19- ?? THO I, AS, .KUCK,P.E. DATE ENGINE'RING REV : MANAGER ; q• zc,. , ) RONALD F.NINO,AICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER SL/gdh/c:Royal Cypress Club StaffReport Item V.F. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 13.,1999 NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development PUD-99-19 Petition Name: Harvest for Humanity Applicant/Developer: Harvest for Humanity,Inc. Engineering Consultant: AIM Engineering&Surveying,Inc. Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants,Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is an undeveloped 38.4 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Carson Road and Lake Trafford Road, approximately one miles west of County Road 29 in Section 32,Township 49 South,Range 29 East,in Immokalee,Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties are primarily residential with some commercial actively. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- PUD-Timber Ridge Single Family VR Village Residential S- R.O.W. Lake Trafford Road A-MHO Agriculture/Mobil Homes E- Agricultural Undeveloped PUD-Sanders Pines Residential RSF-4 Residential W- ROW Carson Road C-3 Commercial MH Mobile Homes Agricultural Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed PUD rezoning action is intended to provide for a mixed residential development of 110 residential units. A community activity center is proposed that will allow project residents the opportunity to produce income from an associated blueberry farm and by direct sales of blueberries and blueberry products,to the general public. Certain portions of the plan for housing will feature a traditional neighborhood design, in that garages will be accessed from the rear, and n houses will face one another across a common green space with pedestrian linkages. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-19 Page 2 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property lies within the Immokalee Urbanized area. The Immokalee Area Master Plan further designates the subject property as"high density"residential making it possible for a rezoning action with a density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The gross density is considerably less than is otherwise allowed by the Immolate Area Master Plan. The development plan has been evaluated for consistency with other applicable elements of the GMP. In particular this plan is responsive to the requirement to preserve 25%of viably functioning native vegetation and 60%of its area in open space. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Water Management: The topography of this 38.4 acre site shows that the land slopes to the west-southwest approximately 2 '/2 feet in a quarter mile from EL.35.90 to EL.33.40. The water management plan for this project consists of a lake at the southwest corner to accommodate water quality retention and peak flow attenuation. Runoff will be limited by County Ordinance and will exit at the southwest corner of the lake. The project will be reviewed and permitted by the Development Review and Environmental Services Department. A separate lake excavation permit must be obtained. Environmental: Site Description: The subject property is an undeveloped parcel approximately 35.4 acres in size.Habitats found on site include pine flatwoods, and a xeric oak community. Currently a conservation easement exists over 11.45 acres of the xeric oak habitat which was historically known to have Florida scrub jays and Gopher tortoise. There are prohibitions in the easement which were designed specifically to protect the scrub jays on site and shall be adhered to for this PUD. The conservation easement is a part of the PUD document. According to the Collier County Soils Map,two soil types are found on the property: Immokalee Fine Sand is a nearly level,poorly drained soil typical of flatwoods. Pomello fine Sand is nearly level,moderately well drained soil typical of low lying ridges within flatwoods.Neither soil types are considered wetland in nature. Wetlands: There are no jurisdictional wetlands located on this parcel. Preservation Requirements: In accordance with section 3.9.5.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code,this project is required to preserve 15 percent of the native vegetation on-site. The project as proposed will preserve 11.45 acres (32% of the site), which currently has a conservation easement over it and protects the underlying Florida scrub jay/Gopher tortoise/xeric oak habitat. EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-19 Page 3 Listed Species: A listed plant and animal species survey was conducted by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. to determine which state or federally listed species are utilizing the site. The initial survey noted a population of Gopher tortoise on site (20 active burrows and 10 inactive burrows were identified) and the potential for the site to be used by the Florida scrub jay. At the request of County staff, additional surveys were conducted to better determine the use of the site by scrub jays. According to the consultants work,scrub jays were observed on site within the eastern limits of the xeric oak community. They observed a few individuals at times and on other occasions the sightings were of 4 to 5 individuals. The conservation easement places restrictions over the conservation easement, disallowing all construction within the area and allowing only limited pedestrian usage of the pathways through the scrub habitat. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Use Development Petition No. PUD-99-19 "Harvest for Humanity"with the following stipulations: Water Management: None Environmental: 1. Add the following language to Section 7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL, of the PUD document, "This PUD shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species onsite. A Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental staff for review and approval prior to final Site Plan/Construction Plan approval." 2. Add the following sentence to Section 7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL paragraph A,of the PUD document, " The conservation easement language shall be added to the homeowners document and shall be referenced on the fmal Site Development Plan/ Plat and Construction Plans." 3. Add the following language to Section 7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL, of the PUD document, "The PUD shall be consistent with the Environmental Sections of the Collier County Land Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of fmal development order approval. 4. Delete Section 7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL paragraph B in the PUD document. 5. Delete Section 7.10 ENVIRONMENTAL paragraph C in the PUD document. PREPARED BY: /3Ctit /. `13c�-, z 9-2 9-99 BARBARA S.BURGESON DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST EAC Meeting .October 13, 1999 PUD-99-19 Page 4 dpi ser9g STAN CHRZANOWSKI,P.E DATE SENIOR ENGINEER REVIEWED BY: ?t. 1////1_ / )///99 THO E.KUCK,P.E. DATE EN : RING REVIEW MANAGER ilLtc, 10. 10+ q q RO ALD F.NINO,TAICP DATE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER BSB/gdh/c:Harvest for Humanity Staff Report