Loading...
EPTAB Minutes 02/10/1992 Quad Li" ENVaRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARDrick- 7 Minutes of 10 February 1992 Meeting CO -Liz/j- Present: David Addison Gary Beardsley Mike Davis David Land David Maehr Tony Pires Larry Richardson Michael Saadeh Glenn Simpson David Wilkison Absent: Steve Means (excused) Observers: Ilene Barnett, CCNRD; Bill Branan, The Conservancy; Virginia Corkran, LWVCC; Kevin Dugan, CCNRD; Maura Kraus, CCNRD; Bill Lorenz, CCESD; Cathy Owen, NRD; Kim Polen, NRD. 1. Meeting called to order at 4 : 10 P.M. by Chairman Simpson. 2 . Chairman Simpson stated that board members D. Addison and S. Means would be absent; D. Addison later arrived (replacing B. Branan) . (Note: T. Pires, thought to be absent, arrived at 5: 30) . 3 . The minutes of the 27 January 1992 meeting were distributed and approved. 4 . Upon Chairman Simpson's request, G. Beardsley briefly summarized the Habitat Protection subcommittee meeting of 28 January 1992 . The date of the next Habitat Protection subcommittee meeting was not set (the subcommittee will decide the date) . G. Simpson asked the subcommittee to have something for the next EPTAB meeting. Bill Lorenz said staff would have a draft ordinance by the end of the month. NRD staff said they would send out the updated applicant requirements (for the habitat protection ordinance) to the subcommittee members. 5. Upon Chairman Simpson's request, G. Beardsley summarized the results of the Environmental Technical subcommittee's meeting at the Conservancy (no date given) ; D. Addison, G. Beardsley, G. Simpson, & a staff intern were present. He said their task was to look at the "areas of environmental significance" map, in order to determine if there were any NRPA's that hadn't been addressed (e.g. , white areas, N. Golden Gate) . As a result, a few more corridor areas (areas that need to be connected) were added onto this map. Simpson then reviewed the map, and also pointed out areas where work still needed to be done (e.g. , near landfill, white areas) . He was trying to understand how the HPO, NRPA's, & land acquisition (LACQ) all fit together. He said the next step, now that the NRPA's were agreed upon, was to see how these areas overlay property ownership. He also thought a definition was needed for "NRPA" . G. Beardsley reminded EPTAB of the 4 types of NRPAs from the Comp plan (ECBS, WPC, CEC, RUE) . 6. An animated discussion ensued regarding habitat value (size, quality) , systems function, animal use of corridors, food chain level importance (panthers vs. raccoons) , etc. Highlights included the following: - Maehr: no systems (wetlands) function in the estates; concerned with top level predators and habitat quality. - Simpson: 3 major corridors through estates; need to minimize impact to existing vegetation, not just rehydrate system; no clear-cutting. - Land: 1) how much preservation is critical to survival of species in area; maintain sustainable populations vs. save as much as possible; 2) need to weigh costs of preservation (don't want to hurt people financially in process) (e.g. , is it necessary to impose a higher level of regulation in the area adjacent to S.R. 29, in addition to ACSC & County reqs?) - Maehr: make sure the entire estates area is designated NRPA, not just some parts; encourage landowners not to develop last 100 ' of lots; not convinced corridors can be maintained for wildlife; can maintain habitat, but not a functioning system. Chairman Simpson wants NRPA information before the HPO is approved by EPTAB; no deadline was given to the subcommittee. 7. Bill Lorenz reminded EPTAB of GMP mandate for HPO to be in place by 8/92 (NRPA' s not until 1994) . He needs EPTAB to say "these NRPA's deserve protection to preserve a specific function; the degree of restriction, regulation, non-regulation depends upon ability to meet particular protection objectives" . Then NRD Staff will say "this is an NRPA, and these are the standards that will apply to development orders if you are located in an NRPA" . Lorenz said that EPTAB would have to develop findings of fact for BCC, that says from a technical perspective "this is what's here, this is its significance, these are restrictions we believe will meet those objectives" (for HPO & NRPA) . "HPO provides a minimal level of standards" . Recommend to BCC that a certain amount of habitat be put in a preserve area; the kind and location of habitat for the development site is being dictated by the ranking criteria in the HPO. Then, when NRPA's are in place, standards and criteria of NRPA's will either supplement or supersede what the HPO is to do. Think of HPO as 1st minimal criteria step, NRPA later as an overlay. Refer to NRPA concept in HPO: "NRPA will supersede as applicable" . With respect to the HPO: where applicable, what type of land uses, threshold acreages, what % to be set aside as preserve area? Lorenz wants EPTAB consensus on all these issues. 8. D. Land again suggested that the County be subdivided into 4 categories, and that the HPO should be applied only to the Urban area. He suggested for the other 3 areas: Estates - landscape ordinance, 100 ' (optional?) , special programs in key corridor areas (e.g. , fire protection) . Wilderness - corridor/aesthetics ordinance; use ACSC, reinforce LDC re: rural areas stipulations. AG - focus on key corridors. He pointed out the difficulty of trying to make 1 ordinance fit all the County (4 different areas) ; different ordinance for each area? B. Lorenz pointed out that, with exemptions (e.g. , >5 acres, AG) , the HPO could still be applied County-wide (e.g. , urban area projects & estates rezones) . Land pointed out the cumulative effect of exempting parcels <X acres. Simpson pointed out the potential for fire in estates if no rehydration. Land - 1)purchase, 2) incentives, 3)regulation. Beardsley reminded EPTAB of case pending re: "AG estates" Simpson asked about all of the 75 ' (width) lots in the estates; Gary told him that houses were allowed only on parcels >2 . 5 acres. Possible incentives for NRPA areas were suggested: giving additional tax credits to owner if he preserves more than the minimum required; dedication of a permanent conservation easement. D. Addison pointed out that it would be tough selling these ideas to the BCC (lower tax base) . B. Lorenz suggested EPTAB report on incentives, and staff can evaluate. He also told EPTAB that he was working with Bob Blanchard re: EPA proposal to look at economic benefits of environmental preservation in the County. Chairman Simpson directed the subcommittee to continue discussing these concepts. 9. Chairman Simpson then asked Bill Lorenz for a summary of his strategic planning workshop with the BCC 2/10. Lorenz said the BCC doesn't see the LACQ program as a priority this year (CREW possibly) ; BCC directed staff & EPTAB to do no more on this subject. The reaction of EPTAB to this was that they felt LACQ was a component of the overall NRPA program. Lorenz noted that LACQ was not required by the GMP this year, and Staff was behind in other requirements. It was stated that there were groups other than EPTAB working on public education re: LACQ. D. Addison pointed out that the County would lose Rookery Bay (9th on CARL list) if BCC didn't approve of matching funds for P2000. Chairman Simpson said that the bulk of EPTAB's work re: LACQ was finished, except for a few refinements (e.g. , Belle Meade N area) . EPTAB would lend support to other groups working on LACQ. EPTAB members agreed that all of the work they had done for LACQ was not in vain, i.e. , by identifying areas for LACQ, EPTAB had identified NRPA's. D. Land expressed concerns about CREW being a separate referendum (REF) . If CREW was funded out of general revenues, then in ca. 1 year could have REF at 1/4 mil for other purchases. He said EPTAB should 1) move forward, put package together by August on what they felt was important, plus costs, ASAP; and 2) if BCC only wanted to move ahead with 1 item (CREW) , they should do it through general revenues, not a REF. Chairman Simpson noted that Boyd & Kupferberg were going to ask BCC for funding (mechanism unknown) ; he wants them to ask BCC for 2 . 5 million, to be funded once LACQ is passed, to come out of the 10 million proposed to go to CREW. Bill Lorenz said he and Cmsnr. Goodnight had discussed other CREW funding sources (e.g. , surcharge on water rates, ask BCBB to raise millage) . He also told the BCC that the LACQ program was part of the County's comprehensive natural resources protection program (in 1994) . He said that the purchase option might be needed in the HPO, and suggested EPTAB identify all mechanisms for the natural resources protection program (of which LACQ is one strategy) . Bill Lorenz ' major priority is to meet requirements of the GMP (= HPO) , and get in compliance with 3 deadlines. So, first develop the HPO (= minimal level of protection) , County-wide with conditions (exemptions) ; then NRPA's will come in later and supersede HPO. 10. David Land drafted a letter to the BCC and read it to EPTAB: " A comprehensive environmental protection program in County won't be able to be accomplished without purchase of environmentally important lands. This will include lands in all parts of the County, not simply in CREW designated areas. In addition, the identification of such lands are a critical component of developing our NRPA program as required by the Comp plan. Consequently, EPTAB will proceed with its development of appropriate environmental ordinances and programs, including land purchasing issues, which are necessary to protect our natural resources and meet the requirements of the Comp plan. BCC will then determine if, when, and how these ordinances and programs are approved and funded. If, due to a previous commitment, the BCC feels it must fund CREW purchase now (not other purchases) , this should be done through general revenues, not a referendum. However, at the appropriate time, broader general revenue or referendum funding will be required if we are to meet our environmental objectives in the County. 11. A motion was made and seconded, to accept this letter (when finalized) , with the stipulation that this letter be presented and read in a public forum to the BCC. The motion passed 8: 1 (T. Pires opposed) . 12 . Chairman Simpson requested the following: A) that D. Land finalize this letter (item 10. ) ; and B) that G. Beardsley have GOP's of Comp plan relating to LACQ & NRPA's, to back up this letter; and C) that B. Lorenz relay EPTAB's sentiment to the County manager, as well as get this item onto the BCC agenda ASAP (the tentative date requested by EPTAB is 25 February) ; and D) that all EPTAB members be at this BCC meeting. 13 . The next meeting date is set for 24 February at Development Services. 14 . At the close of the meeting: 1) Bill Lorenz announced that the coastal zone plan was going to the CCPC 20 February (workshop) & 5 March (vote) ; he asked EPTAB to review the CZPO criteria; David Land noted that EPTAB had largely ignored this topic. 2) Virginia Corkran submitted articles to Bill Lorenz and Chairman Simpson. 3) Gary Beardsley announced the corridor workshop in Gainesville March 15-17. 15. Meeting adjourned at 6: 05 P.M.