Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/06/2006 EAR March 6, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 6, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Administration Building, County Government Center, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti Donna Caron Russell Tuff Tor Kolflat Paul Midney ( arrived late) ALSO PRESENT: Steve Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director David Weeks, Planning Manager Page 1 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning everyone. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Madam Secretary, would you do the role call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is present. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There has been no written agenda provided, so I'm going to quickly brief the commission on the way I have established an agenda today. We're going to have a presentation, a short presentation by the county attorney on some Sunshine issues concerning the manual he just passed out. Hopefully, that will be less than 30 minutes. I also will be asking the commission to abide by certain rules today as we move forward in the meeting, and I'm explain those after the County Attorney is done. We have some issues to help the court reporter out which we Page 2 March 6, 2006 need to get all on the same consensus so we can move forward on that. And with that, then we'll get into the meeting. We're going to start today with the CCME. That seems to be one of the most important issues involving most of the public, a lot of the public. Then we'll go into the FLU after that. And then from there we'll move into the other items that respond to the public that might be here today, and we'll finally get into the ones that don't require or don't have as much public attendance at the end of the meeting, whether it's today, Wednesday, or Thursday. With that, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm Dave Weigel, the County Attorney. And as some of you are aware, periodically we provide lectures, seminars throughout the county to advisory boards and -- relating to the Sunshine Law, the Public Records Law, the Ethics Law and the ex parte communications. My intent is to cover all major elements of the Sunshine Law, and if there is some time, to talk a little bit further about, very briefly about Public Records Law and a little bit about the ex parte communications which are very important to this board, the Code Enforcement Board, the Board of County Commissioners and the Contractor's Licensing Board. One of the things that I tell everyone is this these laws, the Public Records Law and the Sunshine Law were not enacted to make local government business any easier. But they were enacted to make the local government process available and accessible to the public, and that's particularly true in regard to the Sunshine and the Public Records Law. The idea is that the decision-making process is visible, if desired by persons from the public from start to finish. Additionally, at the outset I'll let you know that the Sunshine Law is to be liberally construed, while exceptions to it are to be narrowly construed. What is the scope of the Sunshine Law? It applies as a right of Page 3 March 6, 2006 access to government recommendatory and other advisory bodies at the state and local levels, primarily local level, and the law is equally applicable to elected and appointed boards, has been applied to any gathering of two or more persons of a committee or a board that may discuss some matter which may foreseeably come before that committee or board. Now, the booklets I've passed out are broken up into four categories. The first is Sunshine Law with some subparts. The second tab is Public Records Law with a few small parts. Third is the ethics aspect of local government work. And the fourth one is the ex-parte communications. If you wish to follow you may. I'm going to be working a bit from what we call the slides or the power point presentation that we have. But, at any rate, the Sunshine Law really boils down to three basic requirements: Meetings of public boards or committees must be open to the public. There must be reasonable notice of the meeting provided ahead of time so that any member of the public that may wish to come has reasonable notice and the ability therefore to attend. The last thing is that minutes of the meeting must be taken or created. Three things, three legged stool. The meeting must be accessible to the public, there must be minutes taken of the meeting and reasonable notice of the meeting must be given ahead of time. What agencies are covered by the Sunshine Law? Well, advisory committees, particularly ones, you might say, that have even final say-so. But advisory committees that make recommendations or committees that, that have final decision making authority. What if there's mere fact-finding by a committee? Typically, we have few committees of permanent duration that are permanent fact- finding committees. But often there are subcommittees that may be created within a committee to go and find some information. Both case law and Attorney General opinion is such that if a subcommittee is formed to go off and obtain information, that Page 4 March 6,2006 subcommittee of one or more persons does not have to follow the Sunshine Law, meaning giving reasonable notice, public access and minutes being taken or he or they, she or they are only asking questions and bringing it back. If you have a team of people that go out they cannot talk to each other about the matters that have foreseeably come before that board or committee. They can ask questions of third parties and both listen, or however many are on the subcommittee can listen to what these answers are. A fact-finding committee or subcommittee is not to be used as a subterfuge to communicate between committee members. And that runs throughout. There are many ways in which committee members could communicate to each other indirectly or directly, and that is no-no under the Government in the Sunshine Law. Does the Sunshine Law apply to staff? Well, no, in the sense that staff are not on the committee. Staff cannot be used as a conduit or a liaison between committee members for polling or other purposes. Does the Sunshine Law apply to members of public boards who also are administrative officers of some kind? Well, that can be problematic. And we've seen this in the health care area here in Collier County where you've got people related to nursing, hospitals, medical, other medical ancillary services and things of that nature that may all come together and be appointed to a committee that has work that also comes up in their daily lives as independent professionals. It has to be looked at very carefully. If that situation ever comes up, we recommend that the county attorney office be consulted early. There are ways to work through it and around it as well as with specific statutory ordinance procedures that can be implemented, and we've done that in the past. What kind of a meeting is subject to the Sunshine Law? Well, how many board members need to be present to have a meeting? Well, you have to have, I think, five of nine to have a quorum here. Page 5 March 6, 2006 However, it only, under the Sunshine Law, takes two members coming together discussing matters that reasonably, foreseeably come before that committee or board that you've got technically a meeting under the Sunshine Law. Two or more members. What is a meeting? Well, it's not merely a physical meeting, but it can be where you've got written correspondence between the members. So you must be very careful about E-mail correspondence or letters or memos or things of that nature. I advise the board constantly, certainly repeatedly, about the fact that if they do, if one must communicate with another committee member or board member that you make sure it just goes one way. Because if the recipient, board or committee member or members, if anyone of them inadvertently or for other reasons purposely responds to you, then you would have a forbidden communication which is considered an illegal meeting under the Sunshine Law. So if one takes upon his or herself the thought to transmit communications in a written format or oral, of course, to another committee member, you do run a risk that someone else may even inadvertently respond to you and it could be problematic. At least some of the commissioners, when they are writing to each other -- to the other commissioners will put in bold or somehow at the bottom of the memo, please do not respond to this memo. Because all that commissioner is wanting to do is just provide some general information for others to know before a meeting. It can be done, therefore. It must be done very cautiously and it's certainly not recommended by the County Attorney. Telephone conversations can be meetings. There was an article in the paper about a year, year and a half ago, in fact, you'll find it within your back-up material under Sunshine Law about the Lee County School Board communicating to each other via cell phones. And that was, that can be problematic. If you have the delegation of authority to a single individual,n Page 6 March 6, 2006 such as the chairman or someone else has delegated the authority to act on behalf of the entire committee, that then, that individual or that subcommittee, however you may create this thing, may take on and continue with all of the power and authority of the committee as a whole and therefore that individual or that subcommittee may in fact have to follow the Sunshine Law. Those three things are: Reasonable notice, public access and minutes being taken. Use of computers. As I've indicated, E-mails or other kinds of transmittals through computers can be problematic. I think you should be very careful about that. And if you ever have any individual questions, of course, please talk to the county attorney office. The use of non-members as liaison between you is inappropriate and illegal under the Sunshine Law. As I mentioned before. What types of discussions are covered by the Sunshine Law? Well, obviously your regularly noticed meetings are meetings under the Sunshine Law. You have it here at a public facility, minutes are being taken, you typically have even a court reporter here, which is great. Do minutes have to be verbatim? No. If you had one of these little sub meetings or small meetings, two or more persons come together and they provided appropriate notice ahead of time, all they have to do is take minutes. They can be rather cursory, just indicate what the meeting was about. By virtue of the fact that verbatim minutes are taken, a public record is created. It also then is part of the public records law requirements. Any two-way communications of your members if the matters happened to be -- the subj ect matter happens to be something that would reasonably, foreseeably come before you. And if you have any special meetings, of course, those are subject to the Sunshine Law as well. What are the consequences if a public board or commission fails to comply with the Sunshine Law? And note what I said: A public Page 7 March 6, 2006 board or commission, it applies to the members as well. Well, there are criminal penalties. There's the potential for removal from office. There's non-criminal infractions and the potential to be liable for attorney fees. I have been asked before, well, let's get a little detail on that, and so I'll give you a very brief detail. In regard to the criminal penalties, a knowing violation of the Sunshine Law, a person who violates knowingly is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. The penalties may be imprisonment up to 60 days and a fine of up to $500. As I mentioned before there can be suspension or removal from office. And of course you serve at essentially the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners here. When it's elected officials, they are subject to suspension or removal by the Governor, and we've seen that occur locally, as well. The non-criminal infraction is another way of enforcement here, and what's more by the inadvertent violation of the Sunshine Law. And that's punishable by a fine of up to $500. And reasonable attorney fees maybe assessed against successfully prosecuted Sunshine Law violators as a committee, a board or members. Attorney fees. That can be significantly more than the fine. As you probably heard under the prior discussions that we've given under the ethics ordinance, the county does have a safety net that we call it, a resolution adopted in 1995 that is a board policy to provide -- to provide potentially the payment for counsel to represent you, or the counsel provided by the County Attorney office. Again, this, I'm not here to talk about ethics ad nauseam today and some of those aspects but there are limitations, and we know from a track record, limitations of what the board will do relative to the providing of counselor the costs of counsel if an individual staff or committee member may be, come into the crosshairs and have a complaint filed against them. One of the things that is very important to know is that Page 8 March 6, 2006 perception's obviously very important as well as the actual technical compliance or non-compliance with any statute to which you must follow. And that is, who wants to be in the crosshairs of being defensive, saying, well, what I did was correct or what I did was technically correct, when in fact perhaps a little ounce of prevention ahead of time could have avoided the question in the first place. And it's possible that complaints are filed -- they don't ask when a complaint is filed if this was filed with malice or if there is any reasoning behind it. A complaint is filed and it's investigated and it must, you know, be run to ground as far as that goes. So again, we must be very careful about how we operate under the Sunshine Law. As I indicated at the beginning the law wasn't created to make your jobs easier, although the county attorney, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes you have put yourself to some degree in a position of potential liability or vulnerability just by entering the government forum in the first place. But, the fact is that we all sincerely appreciate your intentions to get the job done, to fulfill the charge that's been given to you and we want to keep you advised of the law so that you can get there. Another thing that is important to know that in the process of decision-making, and frequently your decision-making comes over a period of time, several meetings -- in the process of decision-making if there is a violation of the Sunshine Law along the way -- (Mr. Midney enters the room.) MR. WEIGEL: By two members or on the floor of the meeting here, something to that respect, if there is a violation, the courts have ruled that any violation makes the whole decision-making process void ab initio, that is it is also to be thrown out and you have to do it over agaIn. So cutting corners, even though it's for the noble cause of gaining more information and being more effective in your individual decision-making process, cutting corners based on participation of Page 9 March 6, 2006 meetings of, as defined by statute as two or more persons coming together discussing matters that foreseeably come before the board, these kinds of things can be a stumbling block even though you are doing it for ostensibly the best purposes possible to come to a meeting and be able to elucidate and assist others in making a decision as well as yourself. You must be very careful like that. Recognizing that the Sunshine Law should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices, the courts have held that action taken in violation of the law is void ab initio. There is one thing I'll mention just in passing, there has been a little bit of case law that indicates that some actions taken in violation of the Sunshine Law have in fact been able to be cured by subsequent action of that board or committee. And that happens, essentially, usually before a complaint has been filed and the investigation is going on. But if there happens to be an anomaly and there is improper notice or it's a little short or things of that nature, the committee -- there have been a couple of court cases where the committee has met again under the full regalia of the Sunshine Law and met those three requirements of notice, access and redone what they did before, and it has been declared, quote, Sunshine bright under the case law. But it's a position you really don't want to be in because it's kind of a defensive position in the first place. Of course you can always contact me, David Weigel, or my Chief Assistant Mike Pettit at any time relative to Sunshine Law questions or any other questions that you have relating to your responsibilities. Now, I've got a few minutes left, perhaps. I would just like to mention that public records are very important, and I can, could go on 20 minutes on a public records symposium but what I'll tell you is every note that you create relative to your job here is a public record, and the short course that we give is to keep them and put them in an expanding file or something. Because when public records requests Page 10 March 6, 2006 are made, and the Public Record Law is no different than the Sunshine Law, it's expansively viewed, liberally constructed, and exemptions are viewed very narrowly. So, chances are most if not all of what you create or receive relative to your committee activities here are public records, and to the extent that your liaison, staff liaison has these things that's a good thing because we have had, we the county attorney office or the county manager's office have had requests in the past for all of the public records that have come -- oh, for instance, relative to the 1977 three-year process of growth management plan amendment that we had to do over again pursuant to the Governor's declaration several years ago. We had committee members that -- committees had long since left, had finished their function. Committee members had gone out back into their private lives, and we had to gather the material. Fortunately, we were able to do that but we learned from that very quickly that the material you keep while you're on the board should be kept segregated so it's accessible, makes it easier for you, takes you out of the spotlight if in fact a broad public records request is made and you the individual can't come up with something. And additionally you can always just turn those in when you leave the committee and turn them over to the staff liaison to that committee and you'll know then that you've fulfilled and done everything you need to do in regard to public records. Here is an interesting thing I'll mention also about ex-parte declarations, which applies to you, the Board of County Commissioners, Contractor's Licensing Board, Code Enforcement board and possibly the PV AC, Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, and that is at the beginning of your meetings or at least during the course of discussion on items you need to talk about what you have learned or information, written material that has come into your presence or conversations you have had relative to the specific item where an ex-parte declaration is required; conditional uses, variances, Page 11 March 6, 2006 PUD, zoning, straight rezone, those kinds of matters. Well, we have had a process in place since 1995 subsequent to a Court case called the Jennings case in 1991 where the ex-parte declarations must be had if you have, receive information outside of committee meetings during the course of the meeting prior to the ultimate decision or vote being taken. Now, why do you have to do these ex-parte declarations? It's because the 1991 Jennings case indicated that when a board or committee that has, particularly has final decision-making authority hears things outside of the committee chambers at a Sunshine-type meeting, that that is per se prejudicial to the petitioner or whoever it was that may have an iron in the fire concerning an interest in the matter that's before the committee or board, that something was given to the commissioners, the committee members outside the meeting and he or she or they have no idea what it is and they should be given, as the court has said, an opportunity to respond or refute. So the 1995 resolution that the county has in place, and it's in your books there, and I provide this to the planning commission as well as the board in the fall of every year after summer recess, indicates that you must in fact make these declarations of written materials that you have and put them in the record as well as indicate in, on the record orally with whom you have spoken. And to the extent that you can recall I would certainly advise you, try to tell a little bit what it was about. Because there is the opportunity for the persons who don't know about these communications, written or oral, to have the opportunity to ask about them further so that they can properly refute or comment. And so to the extent that your disclosures are made early and often it diffuses the issue in regard to ex-parte communications. That's really all I'm going to say right now. One thing I will mention, kind of an interesting anomaly here between ex-parte communications and the Sunshine Law . You do have a fifth Page 12 March 6, 2006 amendment right not to incriminate yourself. Yet, if you spoke with another committee member in regard to matters coming before you which required an ex-parte communication, you would be in a position to incriminate yourself under the Sunshine Law by obeying the ex-parte communications requirement for disclosure. Think about it. Thank you very much. And if you have any questions, please call us at the County Attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, thank you very much. I appreciate that, and hopefully we will make sure we stay out of trouble. MR. WEIGEL: You are a good group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far. Thank you. There is a couple of housekeeping issues I would like to talk about. If you recall a couple of weeks ago the court reporter did not make it to one of our meetings. As a follow-up to that incident the Clerk of Courts talked to the court reporter's office to find out or try to make sure this doesn't happen again. But in doing so he related to me some issues that this board could do better in regards to helping the court reporters out. And so, I would like to ask you all to, throughout today's meeting and any others in the future, but for the next few days they are going to be pretty intense, when you speak, bring the mike close to you. Do not, please, interrupt anybody else or talk over anyone. And please wait to be recognized to speak. I'm going to ask that Commissioner Caron and Commissioner Adelstein help me in regards, I can't look both ways all the time, constantly, and if you two could just watch your sides of the podium and then tap me in case someone needs to speak I would like that they be recognized and then speak in turn. And also the speed of our discussion. We need to speak not too fast, not too slow, because we don't want to take this into two weeks, but enough so that she can accurately take your minutes. If we could Page 13 March 6, 2006 all cooperate that way I'm sure it would be a large help. Another issue that I would like to ask is these meetings today and Wednesday and possibly Thursday will be pretty intense and there are a lot of issues that could lead to a lot of other issues. I would like to remind the board that we're here today to discuss the changes in the EAR amendments not the entire plan. There are issues in the plan that we may be bothered by but if they are not affected by the changes I'd like us to stay focused today and not wander off into tangents and stay on the changes because we have to get through this and there is an awful lot to get through. Then the last thing I would like to do is ask staff how they intend to present the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. I don't know who here is going to make that presentation to the BCC. My concern has arisen out of the way I've seen the EAC recommendations presented to us. The EAC's recommendations by paragraphs were listed. However, staffs preferred method or staffs preferred arrangement of those were first with a footnote for the EAC. I'm telling you now I don't think that's appropriate for this board. If staff disagrees with us you become the footnote, we become the focus. And if there is a problem with that I would sure like to know it so we can have the County Attorney research the issue if need be. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, our intent is to create a separate document probably titled CCPC Recommendations and by each element identify the recommendations of this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This body is the LPA designated to Collier County. And according to the statutes that I have read this body makes the recommendation of approval to the BCC. So I don't know about a supplemental document of our recommendations but I think the document is our recommendations. And if you guys want to Page 14 March 6, 2006 create a supplement for your recommendations that's your prerogative, you are citizens as well. But unless the county attorney tells me I'm wrong I believe that this boards' recommendations get the priority placement as far as the package goes, and if you want to make a supplement for things you disagree with, and I believe that's the process that we should adhere to. And Steve, if this is the wrong information or the wrong advice I certainly would like to know it before the day is over so that we can get this resolved so it goes forward in the right manner. MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Steve Griffin, Assistant County Attorney. I think what you are proposing is reasonable under the rules and under the law as long as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your mike a little closer, Steve. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. As long as it's made the I'm -- as long as it's made clear what staff recommendations are as opposed to what this body's recommendations are, I think that that would suffice. And I understand there is some concern that one is in a footnote and one is in the main body, but as long as it's clear to a reasonable person that is reviewing these recommendations who is recommending what, I think that's the main goal. But what you're saying in terms of yours being the, perhaps cited as the main recommendations and then a separate document that would be staff, as long as they are presented at the same time I don't see any problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any concerns with staff on that process? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think I understand your concern as the discussion has gone on. I believe you are referring specifically to the matter of the watershed management plans where staff and EAC disagreed. Page 15 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I am. MR. WEEKS: And staff has presented to you the staff language and then noted that EAC's recommendation is different. And I believe your point, Mr. Chairman, is as the LP A you believe it appropriate that we reflect this body's recommendations to the board and then in any exceptions to that have a footnote or otherwise have staff notate that off to the side. We have no obj ection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It looks like all of the housekeeping items I have. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One more, Mr. Chairman. I have heard two things today; that the extra meeting if necessary would be Thursday and Wednesday and Friday, and I want to know which one it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, I think you -- what days do you have this room reserved for? I know Wednesday is. MR. WEEKS: Wednesday and then Thursday the 9th from 9:00 to 12:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And by the way, the order in which we're going to start today is the CCME, then we'll be going into the FLU and after that we will try to get into the housing element unless there is number of public here focused on another element of the EAR. We're here to serve the public and I want to make sure that if they wait here all day they can at least get heard to the best of their abilities. Okay. And with that I'll turn the presentation over to staff. CCME would be first. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, for the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. I first want to give a very brief overview of the amendment package as a whole and then we'll move right into the conservation and coastal management element. Page 16 March 6, 2006 Commissioners, as you are aware from prior experience as well as reading the staff report, the Florida statutes require local government to prepare an evaluation and appraisal report, EAR, every seven years. That's when we have to prepare an analysis of our comprehensive plan, look at its shortcomings, its successes. We also look to see what changes have occurred in state law in particular as well as possibly federal law that might have some impact on our local comprehensive plan. And through a public hearing process we ultimately adopt an EAR which identifies the issues with our comprehensive plan and identifies those areas which we believe we need to amend the comprehensive plan to address the issues identified in the EAR. The purpose of today's hearing is discuss those recommended amendments to our comprehensive plan based on the EAR. However, we also have some amendments before you today that are based on the AUIR, the Annual Updated Inventory Report. Ordinarily, amendments to the comprehensive plan based on the AUIR are completely separate, that those occur annually, and in the case of the times when they overlap with an EAR they are usually held at separate hearings. The Department of Community Affairs, the state agency in Tallahassee that oversees comprehensive plans and amendments thereto, has stated their preference that we go ahead and incorporate those AUIR amendments along with these EAR amendments. The Board of County Commissioners has agreed with that approach and therefore we have included those as well in today's packet. As you note, the staff report is rather brief. We've only tried to draw attention to some of the issues that we believe should be stressed to you, brought out to you, your attention for each of the various elements. We've also noted in the staff report where an EAR recommendation is made and yet staff is not proposing an amendment based upon that recommendation, and given a brief explanation of Page 1 7 March 6, 2006 why not. We've done that each element at a time. Also, you've received E-mails from staff, one from Bill Lorenz, the Environmental Services Director, on Saturday, March 4th. You also received one from me on that same day. Mr. Lorenz's was the most detailed. It was identifying the recommendations from the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, from their March 1 st hearing on the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. The EAC discussed the CCME, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, at about three different hearings, maybe four, and their last one being March 1 st. And because of the timing you had already had your packets distributed to you, that's why Mr. Lorenz needed to provide the separate information to you as to what the EAC's recommendations were from March 1st. We also have in addition to that E-mail being sent to you as a courtesy in advance of this meeting; Mr. Lorenz also has a hard copy of those changes. And as we get into the discussion of the CCME we will present those to you in hard copy. The E-mail that I sent you on March 4th was rather short, and as you could see, identified that the EAC had no recommendation, no recommended changes beyond what staff presented of the Immokalee area master plan. And for the housing element they had one minor wordsmithing change, an obvious error on staffs part. And that is noted in that E-mail. Finally, my E-mail of March 4th brought to attention one additional change that is not mentioned anywhere in your packet. And that is a house cleaning change but nonetheless thought it should be brought to your attention. In the rural lands stewardship overlay, Policy 4.4 provides for a retroactive amendment to the future land use map to show any stewardship receiving area that has been approved by the county. That policy specifically provides such a map amendment is not required at the time that the stewardship receiving area is approved but, again, to Page 18 March 6, 2006 occur retroactively during the EAR amendment process. As you are aware, Ave Maria town is the one and only stewardship receiving area that has been approved so far by Collier County, and we're just bringing to your attention that we will make the map amendment to show the location of the Ave Maria town. I would like -- that will conclude my introductory remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that at the conclusion of each element that you take a vote on that element so we can take these and complete them one at a time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, Commissioner Murray had a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said the EAR is a seven year -- every years. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you also now just mentioned that if you are going to do a retroactive for the amendment, could it be that the document would wait several years before it were updated? MR. WEEKS: It could be. That is the way the plan spells it out right now for these stewardship receiving areas. The way it reads is, it requires us with each EAR-based amendment process to identify those additional stewardship receiving areas. I can tell you the staffs preference would be to do it annually, to do it more frequently so there is not a lag of several years where the future land use map is not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you are going to go further than the requirement. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. That is our intent, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had asked that we hear every element and at the end make a recommendation. I'm not sure we'll all be in consensus on every paragraph and every sentence and every word of each page of this element. So I'm not sure we'll be able to do that. We may want to poll as we go forward and then comment to staff Page 19 March 6, 2006 that way. I don't know if that needs to take the form of a vote for each paragraph that we possibly disagree with or each wording or we wait until the end and because one paragraph may not be to the liking of one member, then that member votes it down. And so Steve, is there a way that you care to see this go? MR. GRIFFIN: I think Mr. Weeks was about to say something. If you need more I'll try. MR. WEEKS: My suggestion would be that, as I know you do tend to do yourself, Mr. Chairman, but staff keep notes of the discussion. Because usually it's pretty evident in your discussions on an element as you go through a particular policy or paragraph of area where there is some disagreement. So I would suggest that staff track those as well as any planning commissioners if you choose, and then at the time of taking your vote hopefully we can assist you then in identifying the areas at issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. My main concern is obviously with this document going forward as the LP A's document that we have the exact language incorporated into the document. So I think after you make your recommendation as a staff we need to read that back to make certain that we don't miss anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would appreciate that. And I think that as important as this document is because it will set the pattern for growth in this county for many years, if it takes all day, all week, all month to get the language right I'm willing to stay here and get it done. So we will proceed paragraph by paragraph. And I guess then that's the CCME. And David, are you going to be doing the discussion for the CCME responses and back and forth with staff? MR. WEEKS: In this case we'll ask Bill Lorenz to come up and do that, Mr. Chairman. Page 20 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: As he's approaching I wanted to pass out to you -- well, first let me ask, Mr. Chairman, the E-mail that I sent on March 4th was about half a page. Would you like me to distribute these? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would, for the record, David, only because -- and if you have copies for the audience to those that would like it -- there's been so many reiterations of this entire document and so many versions, I think it would be handy to know which one we're dealing with today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we need to make a motion to bring these into the public record? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can do that in a regular meeting but I'm not sure this is a -- Steve? MR. GRIFFIN: I don't believe you have to do that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And David, for the record, the version of this document that I am reading from today for this meeting is dated in the upper right-hand corner 2/24/06. Is that everything, the same one that staff is reading from -- I mean, the rest of the commission is reading from? MR. WEEKS: That is the staff version, again, as supplemented by Bill Lorenz's E-mail of March 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some recommendations from the EAC provided to us by E-mail. Do you have those in hard copy for distribution before we get going? MR. WEEKS: Yes, we do. I'll distribute those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also have those for members of the audience that would need them? If anybody in the audience is looking for copies of this information, at some point Mr. Lorenz will have to take a -- raise your hand when he's ready to pass them and he'll have to distribute them. Bill, for those members of the public who would like copies of Page 21 March 6, 2006 this document that is being passed out, Bill, would you -- David, would you look into the group and see who could raise their hand right now who would like those. Thank you. Bill, I'm assuming you are going to want to start with Page 1, or at least we would like to start with Page 1. MR. LORENZ: Well, I have a couple of, just some brief, a brief overview a little bit for you. And then however you want me to proceed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't sure David's overview was yours or not. But you're more than welcome to make one. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Thank you. David, we've already talked about the E-mail. Just to let, one point to make is that there is some, probably, fairly number of amendments in the CCME, the conservation and coastal management element, and for some of the -- for some of the commission members just a little bit of a time frame. The Board of County Commissioners adopted amendments, a comprehensive set of amendments to the CCME in June of 2002 regarding the, as a result of the Governor Cabinet's final order that, that in 1999 found us in non-compliance with our conservation elements. We had a series of administrative hearings. The amendments were not effective until July of 2003. And land development code amendments to implement the provision of the GMP were not implemented until February of 2004. So right now we're in mid-March of2006, some two years from the LDRs and we had to put together the information for the EAR report in, at least my draft was in November of2003. So at that particular point we didn't have a lot of history going into the EAR report for the final amendments. The point of it is as we began to implement the programs since the EAR report we have found a number of areas where either because of language clarity or some, I won't say inconsistencies, but some places where it was difficult to apply the sPage 22 March 6, 2006 GMPs we were looking at making some further amendments and in the EAR report we noted that we did not have sufficient data at that particular point to evaluate the implementation of the final order amendments. So you will see some what I would call somewhat substantive changes within the CCME and I'll just briefly highlight those. One of the issues that took a lot of time with the environmental advisory council, the EAC, was the issue of stormwater, and specifically stormwater with regard to total watershed management planning and also stormwater as an allowable use in our preserve areas that we've set aside for native vegetation retention standards -- and we'll work our way through -- but that was one issue. And several other issues that were in there dealt with developing a mechanism to allow for off-site retention of native vegetation as opposed to the strict requirement of native vegetation to be retained on site for all sites, no matter what situations and conditions. So that was, was addressed. The flexibility within creating those preserve areas, also looking at some mechanisms other than a conservation easement for preserve, for ensuring that those preserve areas will be utilized or protected throughout the future. And also some, a change in the environmental impact statement or EIS thresholds that we want to make sure that we're not generating a lot of paperwork from the applicant and for staff to review but actually gathering proper data and information to make wise decisions but to be efficient in that process. Those were five areas that I certainly began to concentrate on in the past year and bring forward to the EAC. A discussion from the EAC recently, especially at their March 1 st meeting, was the -- an example of specificity of the policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Court reporter, I think you need to know his name? Page 23 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for pointing it out to me. MR. LORENZ: One example was a discussion that changed, made fairly substantial changes from your 2/24/06 draft was the nature of specificity in the policies. A good example to think about the growth management plan is the analogy is that it's the Constitution and the land development code -- Constitution is broad direction concepts that we want to adhere to -- that the land development code then becomes the statues or the administrative codes, the implementing ordinances that flush out all of the details of your constitutional document. And so we always go back and forth a little bit on exactly how specific should the policies be in the growth management plan. And as a result of the March 1 st EAC meeting, we all agree that thesome of the language that you have in here got into the specifics much too early and so we backed off of those specifics and made the policies a little bit more general. And again, I'll go through that as we go through each of the individual policies. So that was one item. As David noted, we actually had three environmental advisory council meetings, beginning in January. We also worked with a subcommittee for the, of the EAC and we, I think we had two meetings at the end of 2005 to work through. And I used an extensive E-mail distribution list to try to solicit comments. So that the result that you have here is, I think is worked through a whole lot through your environmental advisory council. There are essentially, I think, one major issue that staff and the environment -- and the EAC really couldn't come to closure with, and it was noted earlier in the meeting, and that is the watershed management plan objective that is 2.1 regarding the timing of when watershed management plans are to be completed. The EAC wanted an earlier completion date of 20 12. Page 24 March 6, 2006 Staff is working on, with the Stormwater Management Department, of which the Stormwater Management Department, I know Gene Calvert, the Director, is here if you need to have any further discussion on that particular objective. But they are looking at more of a 2019 in terms of what their budgeting constraints would be. So that's the recommendation, the moment that staff has for that particular issue. There is another -- stormwater was somewhat of an issue, stormwater and preserves, and that's, that I think is, probably will have some comments from the public. And also I would want to make -- when we got to the point of appropriately in the CCME to note that what we call Section 24 lands in the future land use element under the North Belle Meade overlay district there is a recommendation to evaluate Section 24 with regard to, regarding its land use status. It's currently designated as neutral. We're recommending that it be designated as sending. The actual overlay requirement was for us to evaluate, do a study and evaluate whether it should be sending or not. And so this is part of the recommendation. So it's contained in both elements, the CCME and also the future land use element, of which I'll have a map and some, some tabulated data to show you when we got to that particular point in the process. With that, Mr. Chair, if you would want me simply to go through or go through the document and have questions page by page, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think that you need to go through the document page by page and at the end of each page ask this board for our questions. Before we even start I have two general questions for you, not specific about the enclosures here, but in this CCME, what, how many workshops, sit down meetings and how many gatherings did you have with the stakeholders or people, either side, environmental or business, on these issues? Page 25 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: I recall two subcommittee meetings with the EAC. They had a subcommittee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the general public, a general public workshop where you notified the people that were involved, some of the people that may be sitting here today -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to come in and sit down at a roundtable and discuss the issues you are changing here. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. I had a distribution list and those subcommittee meetings were notified under our regular notification process. And three EAC meetings, I believe it was, I want to say three -- four, David, you are saying four, okay -- which were part of the regular EAC's regular agenda, and I know they had a special meeting in February as well. All of those were noticed, the document changes that we have had is about as large as this in terms of different drafts that I did send out to a series of distribution lists. We also had, we also did bring one portion of the element to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee because you'll note in one of the policies that we talk about satisfying the vegetation retention requirement, through a payment to the Conservation Collier program. So we did get some feedback from them on that one particular policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also, the last question I have is a general one. Your online access to this 2/4/06 version, when did that go online? MR. LORENZ: That I don't know. That I would have to defer to the Compo Planning Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe they could answer that then. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, it was late last week. I can't tell you the specific date.e Page 26 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Late last week. So would it be then less than seven days it's been online open to, available to the public? MR. WEEKS: It might have been earlier in the week. I would say at or less than seven days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lorenz, we can proceed. MR. LORENZ: Page 1 and Page 2 is the introduction section. This was, as I understand from compo planning department, this is an item that is being consistently developed for all of the elements. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, periodically I'll have to really defer to David. The CCME as an element is somewhat of a collaborative effort from a number of departments. I'm somewhat the lead but a lot of the work was done by Comprehensive Planning Staff, of course Environmental Service staff and then other department staff. So if, if -- David may want to touch base on why there is an introduction for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we get our questions answered that's the key here today. With that, is there any questions from the panel on the introduction portion of this document? I have one. What drove the decision to put introductions in since they basically seem to be a reiteration of statues or administrative codes or other elements that are already existing on the books? MR. WEEKS: It was really a matter of consistency. Some elements, most particularly the future land use element since the plan adoption has had an introduction section, rather lengthy one. And we thought it was appropriate that each element have some type of introduction to explain what the element is and why it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- does it do any more for understanding the element, do you feel? Is that the purpose of it being there, is that it drove the way you guys tailored the element? I'm just trying to understand why it was needed. I understand what you just Page 27 March 6, 2006 said but if that's the only reason -- MR. WEEKS: It really is, Mr. Chairman, just an introduction to the reader as to what they are about to see. As you know, the growth management plan is a very technical document, it's a set of regulations, and we believe that having an introduction would be useful to the reader. I can tell you, though in fact it is shown here in the underlying strike-through format and will be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, it is not a requirement, it is not part, it is not a portion of the adopted part of the element. That is, it has no regulatory effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's riddled with references to Florida statues. If additional statutes are conceived or those statutes are amended, how would that affect the comments made in the introduction? MR. WEEKS: We would simply as a housekeeping matter need to update those references. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that have to be done by a GMP amendment? MR. WEEKS: I don't believe so. It's my understanding because it's not adopted that that would not be the case. That could be done administratively. MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry, I wouldn't have a definitive answer to that. The other thing you might want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, is you could put some sort of a statement in here that as of the time that this is submitted to the state these are the versions of the Florida statutes. I mean, there could be some way to just sort of frame the way the statutes existed when they were submitted, when they were sent to the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once this is adopted, could language be added after the statute references, as amended, just so that we haven't got to potentially go through a process to get it changed if Page 28 March 6, 2006 need be? MR. WEEKS: Certainly staff would be willing to do that, Steve, if that's acceptable? As amended or-- MR. GRIFFIN: I don't see any problem with that. MR. WEEKS: -- as may be amended. MR. GRIFFIN: I don't see a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, I think we're into Goal 1. MR. LORENZ: Objective 1.1. I think the substantive issue there is where we talk about including state and federally listed -- your draft says plant and animal species. Two points. One is, further back in the draft under Objective 7.1 we will specifically identify what we mean by federally and state listed animal species, because the plan before was not clear exactly what list we were working off of. That, so there is a little bit of a cross reference there. But I would like to take this opportunity here to bring your attention to issue Number 13 of the handout that you received in the E-mail and then later on this morning where we, where it says delete the proposed references to listed plant species and all other policies. And here is an example where under your 2/24/06 where we say state and federally listed plant and animal species the EAC early on in the process wanted to see some protection measures for listed plant species. And as we were working through the drafts we began to put those, that reference into the various policies wherever it was appropriate. When we came to, as to the March 1 st EAC meeting, and after having certain questions asked of me by various individuals, I couldn't give them a really good answer of exactly how we were going to implement a program for listed plant species so I suggested to the EAC that since, if I couldn't answer those questions at the moment, at least to have some idea that it would be best for us to add a policy that would, which would be Policy 7.1.6, which would give the county some time to create a program and fashion a program that we could meet, tailor it to what we perceive as the needs for protection and Page 29 March 6, 2006 develop a more efficient program. And so the EAC agreed with that recommendation at their March 1 st meeting and therefore we have to clean the document up to get rid of the plant species and all the policies. This is the first location that it appears so that's why I bring this point up. And then of course we have the one policy that's proposed, the 7.1.6, which is different from your 2/24 draft. But that's, would be a good place to discuss that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the court reporter, let the record show that Commissioner Midney showed up at 8:44 and he's here. And he has a question now. So go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, Mark. Could you explain in more detail why plants are being treated different from animals. MR. LORENZ: Well, there is a, there is a different listing process for plants, and the list is very comprehensive and there is not exactly agreement for the different federal and state lists of exactly what is the concern for a particular plant. The other thing is there are no, there are no guidelines, at least that I could get my hand on, to be able to point to in terms of a, one particular plant being, let's say, more threatened than another particular plant, that they are all grouped in one particular list. Secondly, there is no guidelines with regard to exactly how you should handle the plant in terms of relocation, could it be relocated, if it could be relocated what would be the process and procedures to accomplish that. Since I didn't have the answers to those questions, that's why I felt not comfortable to put the policy in as strict as we had had it put in through the, for the 2/24 draft. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The Endangered Species Act has been on the books for 30 years. I don't understand why these distinctions are only now coming into play. Page 30 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: As I said, I don't have -- I don't have those -- I can point to recovery plans and guidelines for the panther, for the red-cockaded woodpecker, for gopher tortoises that we can adopt and we can work with but I don't have in my hands for my staff that kind of information for plants. So if I don't have that information, what I would like to be able to do is to give us some, a time frame -- because that's what this policy does, it gives us that time frame to research that issue, determine, answer those questions that you've brought up, and then propose a program at the appropriate point in time. MR. MIDNEY: And is there a time limit? MR. LORENZ: Yes. I believe we put in that the county would evaluate the need for protection of listed plants within one year of the effective date of the amendments. That's on your handout, item Number 12, which would be the redo of Policy 7.1.6. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that means that there would actually, be for specific plant species there would be plans for all of them? MR. LORENZ: Well, I would -- my answer would be we will evaluate that and if that's appropriate we would make that recommendation. And we could have a, we could have a spectrum of recommendations. I don't know what the recommendation will be until after we perform that study. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Page 2. Are there any other questions on Page 2? Bill, you want to just start walking page by page or do you want to discuss each page prior to us questioning you? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think -- Page 3 was for the most part language that was drafted through the comprehensive planning department to do some wordsmithing, put it, update dates to continuation so I don't see, I don't see anything that substantive there unless there are some, quote, unintended consequences of some of the Page 3 1 March 6, 2006 word changes that I would have missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, I have a quite a few questions on that page so we'll be stopping there for a little bit. MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before I go, did any of the commissioners have any questions? The Policy 1.1.1, since we're cleaning it up, it says EAC advises and assists the county environmental services department. Actually, they also affect other departments in the county. I just want to make sure this is not limiting language. The intent of the EAC, I know they involve stormwater management, planning department and others. Do you see a need to broaden that description to make it clearer? MR. LORENZ: There is -- I think that would be good. Actually, there's maybe, there's two schools of thought, and I know David is smiling because we have had this discussion. And it may be worthwhile -- I'm inclined, quite frankly, of not trying to put in individual department names within the plan itself. It's simply the county staff. However, county manager chooses to make organizations and reorganizations, which we have a number of them because we're a growing county and we have to dynamically shift toward what is the priorities. We constantly find ourselves having different department names or different responsibilities. So I think if you make it, quite frankly, my opinion, if you make it a little bit more generic I think that that handles it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. But if you and David had this discussion and it came out this way, what does David not like about the idea? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I would be satisfied if we changed the language, replace the specific department name and if we just put appropriate county agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. Page 32 March 6, 2006 On Policy 1.1.3 county gets into the same issue but I'm going to suggest something. If you are telling, based on that policy, the county will support your department then every policy needs to have a similar statement that each department supported by that element the county will support that department. So I don't think that's really needed. You are a county department, you are county staff. I would suggest that you change the language, Where Collier County shall continue to support the -- and then use the words established environmental policies by maintaining an appropriately administered and professional staff governmental unit capable of developing, et cetera. That gets the department's individual name out of it and it works a little cleaner. Does that work for you guys? MR. LORENZ: Does for me. MR. WEEKS: Could you repeat that again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the word "the", you insert the words: Established environmental policies by maintaining. And then start the word: And appropriately administered. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Policy 1.14. You know, I'm wondering why you had to say that you want to assure adequate and effective coordination between your department and others. Isn't that what the county is supposed to be doing? I mean, do we have to say that for every single department? It seems like a useless policy to me. Somebody just wanted to add words because there was a number they needed to fill, maybe, I don't know. MR. LORENZ: I guess -- this policy of course was a policy that was developed for the 1989 plan, and I guess the, we're keeping it in the '89 plan. But I mean it's -- I certainly see that that is one of the first responsibilities of staff. Certainly that's, I see my responsibility is to make sure my sister departments are knowing what's going on that I may feel that I need to communicate with. Page 33 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's these little ambiguous paragraphs that sometime come into play and erupt into an argument or a basis for a position that seems useless. And I'm just wondering do we need to say this at all. And if we don't and nobody objects, why not just take it out and lighten the load. MR. WEEKS: Bill, would you be satisfied if we actually left the old language, which was very generic in referencing an environmental program as opposed to a specific department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that program? Do you have a resources management defined as -- because it's capitalized. MR. LORENZ: Well, we have a series of environmental programs that we run. It's not under a specific title Environmental Resource Program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but this says if you were to put the original language back in you would coordinate with the resource management program staff. And so do you have a staff that is titled Resource Management Program Staff? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we couldn't use the old language then either. I think it would be as equally inaccurate. I don't know -- again, I don't know why we're wasting effort on a policy that is superfluous and really doesn't say anything. So -- my thought would be to remove it if it's not needed. Any other commissioners? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like maybe it should be removed. Policy 1.15. The first sentences, which are, interestingly, crossed out: Avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and. And then of course then it goes in back to the individual department name again. But if you cross out the first sentence like the first few words: To remove unnecessary duplication of effort, does that mean you are going to Page 34 March 6, 2006 start duplicating efforts? MR. LORENZ: If you turn to Goal 13 there is a whole specific goal talking about duplication of effort. So this policy would merely kind of -- duplicates the Goal 13 policy to some degree. Again, you know, it's language that was from the '89 plan. The duplication of effort is more specifically handled in Goal 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get there I'll take a look at that, then. Where you reference your department, again, would you suggestion follow suit from the previous one that that should say county staff? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you are going to cooperate with private natural resource conservation and management organizations. Well, I'm wondering who. Are they publicly responsible, are they appointed, are they under the Sunshine? What is it that you're -- what are these private natural resource organizations that you are coordinating and in cooperation with? The word private concerns me only because you are a public agency. MR. LORENZ: Right. Well, the way the original plan was, when we look at cooperation with all of the agencies, of course my response is I cooperate with anybody who asks the question and we work through information. But although private, I guess, really if you wanted to say private you probably would also need to have, I guess, non-profit. Probably more so as well if you want to have a comprehensive list. Certain I see those types of organizations other than regional state and federal, the conservation and management organizations certainly would be the Conservancy or Audubon and Corkscrew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only concern I have is if you are going to coordinate and cooperate with them, but there are other agencies or other private organizations that might be more radically inclined that really don't fit in well with Collier County, I don't know Page 35 March 6, 2006 how this paragraph would not require you to coordinate and cooperate with them. I'm just again wondering why do we have such a global comment in here in reference to organizations or positions we don't even know that could possibly come into play and that they would use this paragraph to demand maybe items that we don't want to play into. So I would suggest maybe that you drop the word private. At least. And this -- maybe that would take out the onus on being able to select organizations a little bit more than just private ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approaching it another way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- is it possible to relate shall seek to coordinate and cooperate so as it doesn't -- because I know that we have many statements in the various documents we have that talk about public-private partnerships. So the word private in this context I agree with you does open up some question. But if that helps in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David or Bill, is there LDC implementation language specifically built around this particular policy? Because if there isn't why don't we just drop the policy? MR. LORENZ: I don't recall anything at the moment. MR. WEEKS: I don't either. Mr. Chairman, I don't either. I would like to point out just if we make the decision to delete a policy, as we did a few moments ago, we'll simply need to make sure that we go back to the EAR and see what the EAR report itself said. And then if we're going to delete the policy then we will need to provide some explanation for why. I believe you did a few moments ago, you just felt the policy was not necessary, that it was a given that the county would coordinate amongst itself. But I just wanted to draw that to your attention that if we take that step of deleting we'll need to provide some rationale to the Department of Community Affairs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- whatever we're trying to do Page 36 March 6, 2006 is trying to make this document more effective and if it takes an explanation, so be it. Commissioner Schiffer, you had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And a concern that will actually come up in a later policy. But restricting who in the public you work with I think is kind of a scary thing too. I mean, essentially, couldn't you just work with anybody from the public or do you have to have a -- remember you said a non-profit or -- and then the concept of deciding which non-profit you want to work with and which you don't is spooky to me. MR. LORENZ: I agree. I see, tell my staffwhen anybody calls in and we work with and get them information, you know, that's our responsibility is to provide information to the public. If we're developing policy recommendations such as a growth management plan I want to have the ability to talk to everybody and get good input, so, to bring to the bodies so they can have information to make an appropriate decision so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you just coordinated with the general public wouldn't that be the fair and appropriate way to go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds like a reasonable -- you would strike out the new language that says: Natural resource conservation and management organizations and the word private. So you would say: continue to coordinate and cooperate with the public as well as regional and state and federal environmental agencies. That probably makes it a lot fairer so that no one is singled out as getting a priority with your department, which they shouldn't be. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about we pull out the word coordinate and just leave cooperate. Coordinate makes it sound like they have to work together whereas cooperate means it's less Page 37 March 6, 2006 stringent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So cooperate strike and leave coordinate in, is that what you're saying or just the opposite? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Cooperate in coordinate out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Glad you said that twice. Thank you. Staff understand where we're going with that? Well, Bill, I'm on to the next page. Is there anything you want to highlight on that page to us before we ask questions? MR. LORENZ: Nothing that I have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which page is that, five, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. We haven't got that far yet, Brad. I have two questions on Page 4. Policy 1.1.6. The county shall strive to maintain a conservation program. I would like to know what that means and how it is to be done. MR. LORENZ: I think you could take strive out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm suggesting. If you don't have a definition for the word strive, why do we have it in there. Why don't we just say the county shall maintain a conservation program, which it does. MR. LORENZ: Much better wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 1.1.7. It appears from my reading of that statement that it is the same as 1.1.2, just a little more wordy. Is that accurately said? MR. LORENZ: I would think -- I would conclude to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then, I guess it goes back to if we're cleaning this document up do we need two policies saying the same thing. 1.1.7 actually has a couple other cleanups if that's the one that is preferred, because you use the word periodically revised, which there is no definitions describing what periodically is. And as may be Page 38 March 6, 2006 necessary. Well, it's either necessary or it isn't. So I would suggest you keep 1.1.2 and not go forward with 1.1.7. That may require an explanation, of course. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. I think we need to leave 1.1.7 in there because it deals with reVISIons. And maybe if I can just run some language by you of what it could say maybe it will help on out. This -- have it read: The land development code shall be revised to reflect the adoption of new and! or revised natural resources management and environmental protection standards and criteria. And strike the rest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better than the language that is there, I agree. But if you did that, do you still need Policy 1.1.2? MR. COHEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do? MR. COHEN: And we could add that language that I just read to you to 1.1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But why would you have two policies -- MR. COHEN: And eliminate 1.1.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm getting at. One or the other needs to be eliminated and the language cleaned up if you're going to continue the language you just suggested, which I don't really have a problem with, it's cleaner than what is there. So -- any -- MR. LORENZ: My observation would be is that Policy 1.1.2 as it was re -- is amended from the '89 plan, it's a given that all the implementing regulations that we have, at least from the conservation coastal management element, are in our land development code and that's what -- we have to develop the land development regulations to implement the plan. Page 39 March 6, 2006 I think what 1.1.7 says is that periodically we need to review the land development code to see if it's in sync or could be improved and still be consistent with the growth management plan. And so I think that's the difference between 1.1.2 and 1.1.7. My thought would be is that if -- I prefer to have actually 1.1.7 in place. And I think -- and I'm kind of looking at Randy or David -- is the fact simply stating that the land development code implements the growth management plan, that's implied with all the 9.J.5 criteria and structure of the growth management act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not objecting that you've this policy in here, I'm just saying we have got it in twice, basically. Let's just boil it down to one and clean the document up. MR. LORENZ: Right. And then the as may be necessary is being guided again by that Goal 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to Goal 13 I'll have to -- but anyway, let's get back to where we need to go. Is staff then of the consensus that 1.1.2 can go and 1.1.7 can get cleaned up? MR. COHEN: The direction I'm getting is you would like to merge what is in 1.1.7 into 1.1.2 with the specific language basically being the land -- language that would be added would be: The land development code shall be revised to reflect adoption of new and!or revised natural resource management and environmental protection standards and criteria. And I think it will flow well with 1.1.2 if put at the end of that particular policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Me neither. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it needs to -- I think as may be necessary probably needs to stay in there otherwise it's putting you in a position to have to make changes whether we think it's right for Page 40 March 6, 2006 the county or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hum. Well, if we adopt new or revised natural resource management and environmental protection standards and criteria and if they are adopted, it doesn't matter if it's right for the county or not, we have to implement them. That's why I didn't see the need for may be necessary because basically if you've adopted it it's there you have to do it. This wasn't for ones that were not adopted, it was only for adopted policy. Mr. Schiffer, did you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And in the crossed out language there is a requirement to do this annually. Could as necessary be abused and things take a long time or -- at least annually gives you a set period as -- how is it worded here, as necessary, or may be necessary, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way they were suggesting to change it it wouldn't put a time frame on it, it would just be done. It shall be revised to reflect the new and adopted language, which might help because you may not have language annually . You may not be able to do it annually at the speed in which it takes to do these things. (Commissioner Tuff has left the room.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My fear is that actually the other side. Let's say that the citizens come forth with a policy and it takes them years to finally get it in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it goes through the adoption process I'm wondering if -- at the time it's adopted, I'm sure the BCC is expected to act pretty fast. At least they have in the past. We're only dealing with adopted policies here; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- that's -- maybe the BCC -- certainly I don't want to allude to anything but there could be people that would accept something in the growth management plan knowing that it would take years to get it in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- Brad, I was-- Page 41 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As a strategy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was content with Randy's -- if you have another suggestion to what Randy had indicated as revised language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, what would it be then, can you read it again. (Commissioner Tuff has returned to the room.) MR. COHEN: What I asked to be added to 1.1.2 at the end of that provision was: The land development code shall be revised to reflect the adoption of new and!or revised natural resources management and environmental protection standards and criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the word shall is a mandatory word so-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. But shall as a future tense to it also. MR. COHEN: Well, all our land development code amendments are obviously done in the future. And we've run anywhere from one to, as you may well know, many cycles of land development code amendments, so it happens on a fairly regular basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we say shall within the next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know if they can get the language written, workshops done, public consulted, implementation standards written, put together within a single cycle. That's what I'm concerned about. Some of these are pretty comprehensive, like this plant species. If they adopt a policy to protect plant species, who knows how long it could take to get it vented through the public so that everyone is protected, both the environmental side and the business side. And so I'd hate to see us put a time limit on it that is impractical. That's what I'm concerned about. But at the same time I think if we -- the word shall is pretty enforceful. It says it shall be done. I think the BCC, if they really adopt something or want it, would certainly Page 42 March 6, 2006 advertise staff if they took overly long with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, I mean, what is going to happen to the plan cycle, what's going to -- I mean, what is going to take time? In other words, if we adopt something today in the growth management plan it's going to take certainly more than a cycle to prepare the LDC amendments for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- sometimes I think it would. I really don't want to see, I just don't want to see us put in more documentation in this document that we can't meet, like the watershed management plans, and turn out that this document is telling one thing as it has in numerous instances here that we're changing today that couldn't be met. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. Let it go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one comment. Any time limits can be placed in the LDC at any rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm done with Page 4. Does anybody else have any questions? If not let's move on to Page 5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, up there at the top, and again it goes back to what we talked before, it's describing that this information is shared with local and private environmental management agencies and organizations. Could we replace that one also with the general public since we are a republic. MR. LORENZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Citizen stands high. MR. LORENZ: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, this is where your Objective 2.1 comes into play. And the EAC had recommended a timetable for the watershed management plans of2012. From what I can read it looks like they were going to be prepared then by January of2000. We Page 43 March 6, 2006 apparently didn't hit that date. Now we're saying 2008, which is eight years later. And then we're looking at an implementation of 20 18, actually completed by 2018. We're talking quite a delay from when this plan was originally envisioned the watershed management to be in place. I think for the benefit of the understanding what a watershed management plan is, this board might understand the importance of it to Collier County if you can explain it to us. MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how it's going to affect properties because that would certainly be the biggest concern. MR. LORENZ: What I would like to be able to do also is -- I know Gene Calvert is here. Gene is the Stormwater Director, so I'll kind of start a little bit and then have him bring into it. The -- basically a watershed management plant is a comprehensive look at the water that flows in geographical area. Water flows downhill so it's flowing from upland properties down through various systems, whether they be stormwater systems or natural systems, into some receiving body, let's say Naples Bay. Let's say the watershed that goes into the Naples Bay is, right now is altered from a natural watershed, it's the Golden Gate canal. The Golden Gate canal then drains a majority of north Golden Gate Estates. All of that area then would be considered the watershed for the Naples Bay. Now, within that area if there is anything that is a common denominator here in South Florida with regard to habitats and listed species concerns it's water, because we're a water dominated environment. So that understanding how that water flows, what kind of pollutants it pick ups as it flows over the land, what type of stormwater management systems are in place, is important to get all of the grips on that to understand not only the water quality that Naples Bay would see, but also the flood protection that individual, the Page 44 March 6, 2006 public, people will see as to what you can do within that watershed. In addition there is other environmental benefits that look at if you store that water in place, you get some groundwater recharge. The additional groundwater recharge, it helps water supply wells et cetera, et cetera. So a watershed management plan becomes a comprehensive look as to how water within that particular area is going to be managed for a particular set of objectives. And each particular watershed management area have different situations and circumstances for which you can specify some particular objectives within that watershed. So the watershed management plan is to look at that comprehensive approach, to look at water quality, flood protection, habitat protection, groundwater recharge, that, what those opportunities could be to meet all of those objectives. And so the -- and so when you are looking at watershed management planning you are trying to pull all of that information together. Typically in the past we were looking at anywhere of like $500,000 to $750,000 per watershed to create a comprehensive approach to that activity. And when the '89 plan was adopted we were envisioning the adoption of a stormwater utility. That didn't happen. We, actually, in 1992 established a master plan that had all the watershed basins, they were already prioritized and a dollar amount to accomplish all of that. Since that didn't happen we still have this policy in our growth management plan and now we're trying to get, get to implement it. But of course the time frames to implement it, quite frankly, have simply become a budgetary resource concern. Right now, and Gene maybe can talk a little bit more about this, we were pegging the values of a watershed management plan of 750,000 to a million dollars just looking at some current efforts that are ongoing. Those dollar amounts could be pared down depending upon databases. But the task of Page 45 March 6, 2006 developing of watershed management plan, the lead task is going to be the Stormwater Department. And with that, I'll pitch it to Gene. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before you do that, if I may, are you precluded from having the cooperation of other members of the public, whether they be in organizations that we understood to be conservation groups? Are you precluded to have them as part of your process of development of these, so to offset in some way some of the cost burden that's involved? MR. LORENZ: In terms of participation of, let's say, a stakeholders group participation and weighing in on are we looking at the proper information, are we making the proper conclusions from the information, are we making the recommendations that a full stakeholders group would typically look at, I think you definitely would need to have a stakeholders group input into a watershed management planning process. There be can be, there's obviously lot of data that is out there that's either been generated by the public sector, and in some cases the private sector, that could be utilized in a particular watershed study, pull that information together. So you would definitely be wanting to outreach to all those organizations, gather the data and information they currently have and try to assess it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that -- MR. LORENZ: -- and I would see that embodied in a watershed management plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I understand. But would that in any way mitigate cost? MR. LORENZ: To the degree that some of that data and information may, you don't have to generate it, that would be the, that would be where you would mitigate some costs. You wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel to gathering certain pieces of dated information. But at the moment, the dollars amounts that we're throwing out is Page 46 March 6, 2006 somewhat of a rough cut that I couldn't tell you that we would be reduced 20 percent by it if we did that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I would like to remind you, please be recognized before you speak. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CALVERT: Good morning. For the record, Eugene Calvert with Stormwater Transportation Department. Just a little bit of a lead into where we're at, where we came from in the last few years. As Mr. Lorenz indicated there was a stormwater utility that was envisioned to be established. While it has been established, the funding mechanism, the actual duties of that stormwater utility is still not quite well established. It was about two years ago, in fact, that we actually established some funding for the Stormwater Department. That is in set aside with a .15 mil dedicated funding for capital improvements. The actual administration of that 1.5 mil is being handled by the transportation division, or the Stormwater Management Department. The Stormwater Management Department, of which I am the Director, is a little bit, has been diversified over the years. For a number of years we were part of the public utilities department. Then several years ago we were actually included, some of our maintenance. Today the Stormwater Management Department does not include maintenance of our canals and things of this nature. That effort is done by the road and bridge department. So the Stormwater Management Department, of which I'm the director, currently has under our duties and responsibilities, is, includes the capital improvements for stormwater as well as the valuation for stormwater drainages. That's where I think it was probably inferred, while it does not come right out and say who is going to be responsible for these stormwater watershed master plans, I think it's rather inferred that it's probably this department simply Page 47 March 6, 2006 because there is no other department that might be doing something similar to it. I just wanted to bring that up. Our current department includes five project managers, a total staff of seven people. That includes our secretaries and support staff. So as you can see as we look at our duties and our job duties over the next few years you can see that our staffing levels meet or at least try to meet what our current capital improvement projects are. Right now through our currently proposed AUIR, our five year plan, if you'll look at the funding level, and we have had this discussion previously, of where our funding comes from. Our funding levels for our capital improvements come from a combination of our ad valorem taxes, our .15 mil levy as well as other funding from MSTU s, grants, partnerships with Big Cypress Basin, partnerships with South Florida. Our current program for five year program certainly does not have funding set aside to encompass what is being proposed through this watershed management plan. And that is one of the reasons why we're looking at possibly starting to prioritize items and getting the funding in line. If you were to come up with a, have to come up with all these watershed management plans by year 2008, simply from a staffing and funding level I don't think it's possible without additional funding brought through by the Board of County Commissioners. Not to say that's not a good idea, just that that is a -- it is a bit problematic. So with that in mind I think Mr. Schmitt would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt seems anxious to say something. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator. For the planning commission to understand, essentially we have a bifurcated process in the way the organization is set up in regards to watershed, watershed management and stormwater management. Naturally -- well, let me put it in a bigger perspective. A watershed Page 48 March 6, 2006 management plan is really an evaluation of the entire ecosystem in the watershed, associated also with the water, water treatment, all the other type of activities. Gene's department focuses primarily on stormwater. Now, my engineering department and mainly myself have been involved in well over a year and a half looking at another piece similar but different, again this is the flood insurance rate maps, the updating of the FIRMs and overall study and analysis of five basins, actually almost nine basins in regards to stormwater runoff in relation to how it impacts the creation of new FIRMs, flood insurance rate maps. The other piece of this, again, when you got into the scientific analysis associated with a watershed management plan, it really most likely will probably fall back into the community development arena, either in Bill's shop or in Tom Kuck's shop, don't know. But the fundamental issue here, frankly, it's going to come down to the board, whether the board is going to fund this, because it is going to be expenSIve. Normally, a comprehensive watershed management plan in my federal experience can run probably almost anywhere three quarters to a million dollars per water basin. And that's to do a comprehensive plan. You are looking at a significant expense. And that's the entire issue. Gene talked about the stormwater, what, we had the stormwater what was that, the tax or -- MR. CALVERT: Mil levy, the utilities. MR. SMITH: Stormwater Utility, thank you. And that was really more to address dealing with stormwater, storm runoff. This is much more. So what you are really talking about here is a, is whether the board is going to, policywise, direct staff to explore going down this road and actually funding it. But we're looking at anywhere from three to five to $7 million, even higher, if in fact it's done the way what is intended or what should be done in regards to developing a comprehensive watershed management plan. Page 49 March 6, 2006 One can only relate to what's going on with CERP and what is involved in that. CERP being the comprehensive Everglades restoration project, probably almost 14 years of study right now. And some of those projects, the modeling, all the other hydrology and other things associated with it, it is going to be a comprehensive. So, Bob, you are right, there can be some, there is going to have to be committees formed. There will be -- will this be in a partnership with the state. Should the South Florida Water Management District funds be used. These are policies issues that need to be addressed. So this is a statement in the compo plan, very easy to write the statement, very, very difficult to execute because it's going to involve direction from the board in regards to policy and in regards to funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you Mr. Schmitt. I'm going to ask that the commission hold their thoughts for a moment while we take a 15-minute break for the court reporter. We'll come back here at 10:25. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. Before we go on. Lunchtime, gentlemen. We're going to be going, I bet you we're going to be going all day today. So -- but I was thinking we would break around quarter to 12:00. Does that meet with everybody's approval? Fine. And now, we left off with Mr. Schmitt telling you the status of the monetary problems with the plan. And I would like to know if there are any other comments from staff before we ask questions. MR. LORENZ: No, I don't think so. I think it's a matter of, it's a basic policy issue with regard to funding and prioritization -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- that would move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll defer to the commission first. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Midney can go first, I'll go second. Page 50 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why is this deference to Mr. Midney. I would just like to make a comment rather than a question. We're hearing that there is a lack of funding to make this plan which will result in a huge delay in the cleanup of public waters. My comment is simply that restoration, when you have destroyed fisheries and recreation and habitat it's more expensive than prevention. And we're talking about money, we're talking about dollar value of a study. What's, what is, strikes me is a thought, anyway. Look at the huge difference in the value of new homes in Collier County versus Lee County. I'm thinking that a good part of that, more than a hundred thousand dollars in difference, is that we're much closer to intact natural systems such as Big Cypress, the Everglades, the Ten Thousand islands, the Fakahatchee, and that natural resources are worth a lot of money. And I think that the cost of this study and plan is small in comparison with what we'll save if it will help us to preserve our natural systems. So my comment is that I hope the Collier County commission will see fit to go along with the recommendations of the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Essentially the objective is written to kind of have this done by 2000. And then some of the testimony is we're not, I mean, stormwater is not in control over canals and stuff like this. Is it organized enough now where you could actually get it done or where are we exactly in the process? Everybody is talking about what it would cost but since it's essentially six years late and what you essentially want to do is give us two years to start something that was supposed to start in 2000, where exactly are we on a watershed plan? And remember, a watershed plan is going to be a living document, it doesn't have to be the final perfect document. But where are we right now? MR. LORENZ: I think where we are right now is that the Page 51 March 6, 2006 Stormwater Department right now has a few minor proj ects that they are working on. There is, I know that there is a north, a Belle Meade study that they are working on that they, I should say they in cooperation with the Big Cypress Basin board are working on. I'm not sure that there are any other larger watershed management plans that they are doing. And I'll defer that to Gene. When it comes to, when it comes to organization, I think Joe Schmitt had mentioned that hasn't been exactly determined. Stormwater has a role, obviously. Community Development and Environmental Services would have a role. I see the organize -- I see the way it would unfold is with a policy recommendation from the EAC and from this planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners decides to implement it then they typically will task the county manager to implement their policy direction. The County Manager will then have to decide organizationally who does what by when. And I think that that would have to unfold further. With that maybe Gene can discuss it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just one before you go. The question, it was supposed to be done by 2000, that's -- it couldn't have any stronger policy than we have, right? The way it was worded seemed pretty simple. So it just was never funded in the past. We have no water management plan at all now unless Gene is going to show us one. MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- as I noted earlier, when the '89 plan was developed we were developing a Stormwater Utility. In 1992 a master plan that specified all of the program improvements, that specified the drainage basins, we called them drainage basins at that time, but the watersheds, the prioritization of the watersheds, the development and scheduling of those watershed management plans were all developed. But then the Board of County Commissioners, it was either in Page 52 March 6, 2006 late '92 or early '93, made the policy decision, they cut out the Stormwater Utility. They recommended simply that if you wanted to have a, a basin-by-basin approach you needed to go to the voters within that basin and have a, have a petition of a 50 percent plus one to then, to then have the voters within the watersheds to determine that they wanted to have a study effort and translate into potential proj ect improvements. And of course that, that's where the program was left in '93, '94 time frame. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me ask another question. That's the reasons why we don't have a watershed plan. Do we have problems in the water? Are we causing harm to the watershed? When we review applications we're concerned about it making, meeting the growth management plan. If we don't have a water -- how do we know we're doing stuff right? What's the score card, or the report card on the status of our water systems? MR. LORENZ: The pollution control department does either themselves do the monitoring of the canals and estuarine network or in cooperation with the Big Cypress Basin Board and South Florida Water Management District to generate that data. Data is generated that can be looked at in terms of the water quality within the receiving bodies of water. And ultimately that is your final test of everything that is implemented. In your development approval process, to a large degree we defer to the Stormwater Management District for water, for stormwater permitting in terms of their standards. In the EIS requirement you do have a requirement that if you are affecting, I believe it's more than 5 acres of wetlands you need to do a pre and post pollutant loading analysis for a future project. That's -- and maybe you'd have some discussion, that's a policy that's contained within here as well. So you have those mechanisms that we would say that the county is relying upon right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On a micro scale. Page 53 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Correct. But the watershed management plans bring in a number of other objectives, looks at it more of in an integrated approach. And especially if we're looking at future growth rates, what in the future could happen, that's where a lot of this information comes together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how is, when you are monitoring the canals and the waterways what kind of data are you getting? Is it getting worse, is it getting drastically worse, is it fine or MR. LORENZ: I'll have Ray Smith, who's the Pollution Control Director, they are responsible for the water quality data gathering efforts in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, just as an aside. MR. SMITH: Thanks, Bill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the staff is done and we're done asking questions, I'm going to ask that the public who is here to discuss this particular issue before we come to a consensus to address this as well. MR. SMITH: Thank you. Ray Smith, Director of Pollution Control, for the record. Any time you have a growth in an area with a large, vast water bodies in the area, you do degradation. There are certain areas of the county that degradation don't necessarily become that high of a concern, but there are other areas in which you do have bodies of water locked in specific so there is not appropriate flow patterns, that you have runoff, from streets, et cetera, that do impact water quality. So for me to stand here and say, is there a degradation in our water quality, yes, in some areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what do you see? For example, I can go to websites and see how many turtle eggs year-to-year. How about, how are you doing with water -- I mean, the concern I have is we do have a county that has rapid growth without a Page 54 March 6, 2006 watershed plan. MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't it be better if we had a county with rapid growth with a watershed plan? MR. SMITH: A watershed management plan designed to protect the water quality of Collier County is a definite plus. The cost associated and the planning associated with the timing of that I'm not familiar with, but I cannot argue against not having a watershed management plan in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But actually that question distracted. How we doing? Can you give examples of -- MR. SMITH: We have a contract with the South Florida Water Management District in which we go out to over 50 stations monthly. Within that contract we do trend analysis. The contract requires that after a certain period of time that we do an assessment based on our trend analysis of the water quality here in Collier County. That date is a year from now before we have enough trend analysis. We have done groundwater quality monitoring in the Golden Gate Estates area as a separate proj ect and the water quality in the groundwater seems to be very good. We have done sediment analyses at specific locations within Collier County as a separate study and there are certain areas in which we were coming up high in particular materials, where, for example, petroleum products et cetera. We want to extend that sediment monitoring study the next go-round, which will be coming up this, next year or the following year. But regarding water quality trend analysis in Collier County we are still gathering the data to do an accurate trend analysis to represent an accurate configuration of what the water quality in Collier County IS. We need to have historical data that is good valid data to see a trend in degradation before we make that determination, that's what Page 55 March 6, 2006 I'm saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I was looking for but we just don't have it yet. MR. SMITH: Not yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Objective 2.1, I've noted here that the bottom to last sentence says schedule and priorities shall be coordinated with the federal and state agencies. My interest is in knowing about like south Lee County, if they have a watershed issue. With south Lee County, if they have a watershed that they are proposing that they want to work with. How -- will that, this sentence here cover that for our participation and prioritization? For instance, we wish to prioritize. Let's suppose something that they are doing in south Lee impacts on us significantly, will we take that into consideration for our priorities? MR. LORENZ: Oh, yes, we would. That would be something that we would definitely be coordinating, not only staff to staff but we'd be involved with the South Florida Water Management District. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it would be covered by federal and state agency, is that sufficient in there for language -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to require. You would do that by cooperative, I understand. MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then at the opening sentence it says: Shall begin the process of preparing. I just wondered whether we should delete the process of and just begin preparing. I don't know what beginning the process of would mean. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray, for the record, Randy Cohen. I think initially the beginning part of the process would be the board's policy direction to fund, obviously, watershed management plans. Second to Page 56 March 6, 2006 that, obviously, setting forth a schedule of those watershed management plans in the AUIR. And third, formally adopting them as part of the CIE. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the process you are referring to? MR. COHEN: That would be the process that I would understand that they would have to undertake to get this schedule in place and to move forward with the watershed management plans, yes, sir. MR. LORENZ: And that was some of the feedback that we've given to the EAC as well because we will be talking about getting into a budgeting cycle for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I think we are putting the cart before the horse here. We're talking about making plans in the next two years to do this and now we're talking about we've got to go to this one and to that one. I would think the most important thing we do is make the plan. Once they put it together themselves and bring it before us then we can discuss whether it is ready to be done. But right now we've gone in six different directions; what they are doing over here, why they are not over there, we can get this together over -- let's see if we can actually in the next two years prepare for us a plan that they feel will work for this issue, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here is the problem, is our forefathers, so to speak, wanted the whole management plan done by 2000. What they are asking for today is the ability to plan to make a water management plan by 2008, which I think we're really, we've got to hustle that a little better than that. I don't know where we are in the -- I mean, we're in a budget Page 57 March 6, 2006 cycle, let's say that we -- has the 2007 budget been prepared or -- MR. WEEKS: Let me make a comment. Just process-wise with these plan amendments they are scheduled for adoption in the fall, I believe November, in front of the county commission. These amendments would not go into effect until early '07. MR. LORENZ: At which point you would be preparing your budget for '08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the commission? I have a few. How many basins are you proposing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seven, I think. MR. CALVERT: I could be wrong but I believe there are about seven basins that we were looking at in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what areas of the county do they cover? MR. CALVERT: The way the growth management plan is worded we would be looking at all basins within the county. And so we do have, in fact I would like to mention that we do have a number of drainage basins studies that have been ongoing or are being completed. Now this would be one component of a watershed management plan. As was mentioned we had the Belle Meade that is being completed by South Florida Water Management District. That again would be one component of an entire watershed plan. So we have a number of basins within Collier County as well as things that are ongoing as far as watershed drainage plans right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just went through an extensive rewrite or addressing of the eastern portion of Collier County, basically everything east of Golden Gate Estates, both the rural fringe and the stewardship area. Were the languages that were -- language that was adopted for those areas inclusive of basins so that they are not going to change or are they subj ect to change through watershed Page 58 March 6, 2006 management planning as well? MR. CALVERT: I don't know. MR. LORENZ: Certainly within the rural fringe, and the Belle Meade is within the rural fringe, mixed rural fringe district. I see -- I see that those basins studies, those watershed management plans need to move forward, apriority. And the rural land stewardship area the question was asked me earlier is there a need for watershed management planning there. It's a matter of scope. If we're talking about doing actually the drainage basin improvements that there may need to be a plan that looks at that or at least pulls together information from whoever has developed some data and analysis, whether it's the water management district or whether it was the consortium of property owners that went through the rural land stewardship area. So although we have excluded the rural land stewardship area from a lot of our other policies in the conservation and coastal management area, I'm not knowledgeable enough in terms of watershed management plans to say, yes, we need to exclude them exclusively from that area. You may hear from some folks that may say that but I'm not sure about that. So I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of what data and information is available in that area. If it's sufficient to say, okay, this constitutes our watershed management plan then that's an example of where it was asked earlier, well, could you exclude that from your planning and the county realize some type of savings. So that certainly could be possible but I haven't looked at it to the degree to be able to give you an answer affirmatively on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the approvals that have been going through for the proj ects that are out there, I think David mentioned Ave Maria is the only one that's been approved so far. But you also have Bonita Bay, I think, is producing a new town in the rural fringe. Those two particular areas now that they've gone through the process, Page 59 March 6, 2006 we don't know if they have met what would be intended for the watershed management planning for those areas knowing that some of the planning should have been done by 2000? These have gone through in the last couple of years and were they looked at and scrutinized in the aspect of this issue? MR. LORENZ: Well, as part of the SRA, and I'll defer to compo planning a little bit for the lead on this. As part of the SRA, they're to propose a -- and I want to, for lack of a better term, a public facilities study or analysis of the whole area, and I assume that that was being looked at by the other departments to be sufficient for the planning of those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which other departments? MR. LORENZ: Whether it's stormwater, whether it's transportation, a number of departments would come in review of the SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, did your department look at that particular issue in regards to the SRA? MR. CALVERT: Stormwater did not. Stormwater Department did not because what we are tasked with is to develop capital projects, currently what we are taxed for is to develop capital projects to enhance or improve the stormwater system of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Bill, so far one of the other departments you thought might have looked at it didn't. Transportation I noticed left the room earlier so we won't have an answer from them. But when they come back I'm sure we'll ask them -- I'll remember to ask them this question. MR. COHEN: Mr. Strain, I can tell you that the SRA for Ave Maria was routed to all the departments. As far as the expanse of the review, I can't comment on that at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize it went through all of the departments because we spent a whole day just on that one proj ect alone, so -- in the language that you've included here in regards to this Page 60 March 6, 2006 watershed management plan, the second to the last sentence says in selecting the order of plan completion the county shall give priority to watersheds were the development growth potential is greatest. Is that growth potential referencing existing growth and new growth both or just raw land that has no growth on it but it has the greatest potential of being built and you're going to focus there instead of existing facilities first. MR. LORENZ: I'm thinking that the discussion that the EAC had was those areas that are more rapidly developing was the intent of that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all of Collier County is rapidly developing, unfortunately. Can you give me an example of where you would look versus where you wouldn't. I'm just curious how you're going to apply where the potential is the greatest. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think from a -- certainly from discussion in terms of staff, I know this is where there is a number of things that are going to be coming into setting the prioritization -- but of course the north Golden Gate Estates, especially in the eastern part of it, have, some of our figures have the greatest percentage increase of growth. And I know that we're looking at what's called the East of 951 Study for that, for those areas, and that certainly is an assessment that would benefit a lot by looking at a total watershed management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason-- MR. LORENZ: So that would certainly be an area that I could put at least on the table that I would recommend that be considered a top priority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By getting in there early in areas that have not yet been developed would you more effectively be able to implement the watershed management plan; is that the reason that their potential would be greatest to be moved up in the list? MR. LORENZ: For areas that-- Page 61 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That are not yet developed. MR. LORENZ: That are not yet developed. As I said, from my recollection of the discussion from the EAC meetings was those areas that were developing rapidly because that's the area that is going to be, we need to try to fix those problems as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the sentence continues: And will impact the greatest amount of wetland and least listed species habitat. Well, by impacting, does that mean impacting within the basin or impacting downstream from the basin. How would you look at that? MR. LORENZ: I think it could certainly be both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a Florida statute that references this requirement, just out of curiosity? MR. LORENZ: I'm not familiar with something that specifically references the water management plan, simply 9.1.5 criteria talks about protecting your natural resources and your water resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I would like to move into public comment. And Randy, what I would like to do is, from here on out if you have a sheet from the public to comment on a particular policy that we're getting into, kind of give me a heads up before we come to consensus on that policy so I can get the input as we move along. And with that, let's -- if you could call the witnesses up. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I have four speakers registered to speak on the CCME. The first one is Nicole Ryan, followed by Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like the speakers to know if you could limit your discussion to this policy or objective at this time and we will get into the other ones as we move forward, that way we're not getting out of line. Thank you. MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And if you'll just keep my speaker Page 62 March 6, 2006 slip because I do have comments on other policies. Looking at the Watershed Management Plan Policy, the Conservancy agrees that the timing on this really needs to happen at a much more rapid pace. When we talk about beginning the process by 2008 and finishing in 2018, if you look at what these watershed management plans do it's much more than stormwater. Objective A is appropriate wetlands and associated uplands are going to be conserved. Well, by 2018 I would estimate that a lot of the appropriate wetlands and uplands are going to be developed. So how are we going to make sure that this plan is implemented in a timely manner so that we can look at some areas that should be used for buffers and should be potentially purchased through public dollars. This is a really necessary planning tool. If you talk to the state agencies they will tell you if an applicant comes in, the paperwork is filled out properly and they believe that the project conforms to their criteria, they are going to approve it. It's up to the county to determine if that project is located within an appropriate place. It's something that the county simply has to do. And we're six years overdue. I don't understand why we cannot go for the funding in this budget cycle. I realize that these amendments will not be adopted until November but we have a current GMP amendment that says that this was supposed to have been done by 2000. So it seems like we could go for the funding now because we're six years too late as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down a little bit, the court reporter is having trouble keeping up with you. MS. RYAN: I apologize. And I guess the last thing that I would like to point out, and this references some future policy so we may want to wait on this, but just another reason why these watershed management plans need to be put in place in a timely manner, there are many, many, references to these water management plans later than in the CCME, at least a dozen references. And if I could just point out one if that would be appropriate. Page 63 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. RYAN: In Policy 6.1 it states: Not withstanding the ACSC requirements, this policy shall apply to all non-agricultural development except for single family dwelling units situated on individual lots or parcels that are not located within a watershed management plan conservation area identified in a watershed management plan developed pursuant to the policies supporting Objective 2.1 of this element. I think that's a great policy. Unfortunately, it could be 2018 before we're able to apply it. What happens between now and the watershed management plan implementation? So the EAC had recommended 2012 be that date for all plans being implemented. That may be too late also. It's certainly better than 2018. Perhaps we could shoot for 2010 and get this started now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nicole, I have a question. Do you have any information on the score card for the water quality? MS. RYAN: Goodness, our conservancy estuaries report card. I should have brought some of those along with me. I can bring those back after the lunch hour. I will say that the watersheds where there was the most land in public ownership, in conservation had a much better score for water quality and for wildlife. So having these watersheds protected, having lots of wetland areas protected is beneficial both to wildlife and water quality. And I will bring some of those report cards in for your reference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. My comments are very general with respect to this policy. Page 64 March 6, 2006 I understand the need for the basin management plans but I had questions about where the funding sources, what's really the scope of these. There is an implementation arm of whatever we decide we're going to do with these basin management plan that is going to probably have a direct impact on other elements of the growth management plan and I don't quite understand how all those will come together. And maybe we won't until we jump into studying those basin plans. But they are very significant, they are large scale, they are going to be time-consuming and very expensive, and hopefully we enter this with our eyes open and understand that there are probably some other very significant land use changes that could result from those basin management plans and we support the changes that have been offered by, the change to the later date to roll these out and implement them on a little bit longer time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you support which, the EAC's recommendation or the county staffs -- MR. ARNOLD: The 2018 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you. Next. Who is next, Randy, anybody? MR. COHEN: The next speaker is George Varnadoe, to be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. VARNADOE: Good morning. For the record, George Varnadoe. Couple of general comments and then some specific comments regarding what is going on. From a historical perspective this reminds me of what we did when we first adopted the growth management plan back in -- the new one in '89 where we said by certain dates we are going to NURP As throughout the county. Then we got into the property rights and what it cost to do that. So in the first EAR we made some changes and got rid of that, Page 65 March 6, 2006 whereupon we promptly got sued by the state and the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society for not implementing our compo plan. I have no problem with these watershed management plans where they are needed. I, like Adelstein, think it would be better off to say that by 2008 we're going to see where they are needed, prioritize them, then come back and change your compo plan as to each watershed. Because right now you don't know if -- where they are needed, how urgently they are needed and what they are going to do. And of course, prioritization they say where the growth is more rapid, I would say once you know the results of your monitoring you're going to know where you need watershed management plans, not maybe where growth is most rapid but where you have water quality problems. Now as far as the rural land stewardship area, I do want to talk about that. We went through a three year study. We identified flowway stewardship areas, some 31,100 acres that were going to be protected through the policies of the plan, both the Ocaloacoochie Slough and the Camp Keais Strand, the two primary flowways ways out. We went through the plan, we identified the important habitat. So we have habitat stewardship areas of 40,000 acres that have policies that protect them. Then we went through and said we have water retention areas, which are the natural areas being used now under the permits from the South Florida Water Management District to protect -- excuse me, to store and treat water, another 18,200 acres. So we have done that disk for the rural land stewardship area and this is one are that you can save money, we have the policies in place to protect not only the wetlands and the flowways but also the habitat and the water retention areas. And as far as Mr. Strain's comment, which I thought was a good one, what happened at Ave Maria, Ave Maria is having a double Page 66 March 6, 2006 treatment area, and this is layman's talk, okay, in that we are doing the water quality on site then it's going into these water retention areas that are already permitted for further treatment before it discharges into the Camp Keais Strand. So, yes, at Ave Maria I want to assure you that we have very carefully looked at water quality and meet the requirements. So I would suggest to you that one step at a time, figure out where you need it and then do it. Yes, I have no problem with that, I think that's a great idea. But one area of three years and a half a million dollars we have done that is in the rural land stewardship area, here is one area that we can save the taxpayer dollars. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions? Next speaker, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of Collier Enterprises. I'm not going to repeat what George said regarding rural stewardship lands because we agree with what he just said. Couple of things. In Policy 2.1.4 it says you'll address the following concepts: Appropriate wetlands and associated uplands. And associated uplands appears to be quite a broad term. We really don't know what that may mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you're getting ahead of us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, am I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We asked that we stick to the watershed management plan issue for this discussion. Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's part of the watershed management plan objective, it's 2.1.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't know if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't got to that page yet but I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. Page 67 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Anyway. Again, that's an awfully broad term. And secondly, I think people are a little concerned about water quality issues, and we had a very long presentation at the last EAC meeting from the Water Management District and how they are working with the Conservancy and other groups to address rule changes that will address your water quality issues. So as far as new development goes I don't know that that is necessarily going to be a big issue because they are going to have to address water quality issues for new development. So you may want to follow Mr. Adelstein's and George's advice to identify where your problems are first, put that in your comprehensive plan and then come back later and decide where you are going to spend the money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other public speakers on this issue? MR. COHEN: No, Mr. Chairman, that's the entirety of the speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- go further into our questioning. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, when George described the activities prior to 2008, is that how you see it? In other words, the way it's worded is that you will begin by 2008. He described something nice where you'll have it all the areas studied, you'll isolate what areas you're going to do the water management, the watershed plan on and essentially start at that point in 2008; is that right? MR. LORENZ: I see the 2008 date we would be determining what the schedule of the watershed management planning effort would be. The priorities would be set, we would determine that a particular watershed would be the first priority to be funded and what that funding schedule would be. So I see that as being the effort that would Page 68 March 6, 2006 need to go through for, by 2008. And some of the information, assessing, for instance, although I've got it here if you want to see it on the visualizer. When we prepared the EAR report it was based upon a 2001 DEP study that talks about impaired water bodies. So we do have some potentially -- we do have data from the state that's coming in for looking at where those impaired water bodies are. That information, along with development concerns, along with other types of problems would need to be assessed to create that schedule of priorities. And I see that that -- that's what I see as happening by 2008. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other comment Nicole made that, and she's kind of right, this has been on the books that it's supposed to be done by 2000. Has any money been budgeted over the last couple of years or requested to be budgeted to do this study? MR. LORENZ: No. The only money that was requested at some particular point was during the Stormwater Utility. And then once -- the recommendation was to go through a petition process for watershed by watershed by watershed. That was the last that -- and then we had various reorganizations within the county. That was the last I recall of having any funding requests for it to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially, once we missed the deadline we kind of forgot about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Vaporized. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on this particular objective, as Richard pointed out, this objective continues on Page 6 and the top paragraph on Page 7. It might be efficient to address all of objectives in the policy at one fell swoop so we understand how this is applicable. Does the commission have questions on the other policies that Page 69 March 6, 2006 are part of this objective? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2.1.4? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I too asked the question I noted here, the associated uplands. And if you could just help me to understand what associated uplands would be. MR. LORENZ: Yes. This was a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's pretty broad. MR. LORENZ: Within the content of the EAC discussion they were looking at if, for instance, we needed do have -- it's wetlands with the associated uplands, if there is any need for a particular buffer around the wetlands for protection. I think that's what they were talking about as being associated. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then the other question I have is under "I" where you speak of wetland and estuarine habitat values. I'm trying to understand the context of the word values there. Is that a well understood term appropriate to that? I'm ignorant of it. MR. LORENZ: Probably functions maybe would be a better technical term. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not looking to argue with it, I just don't -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. Again, this was language that was proposed by individuals and accepted by the EAC. Values or functions could, for me could work either way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So as functions you are talking about panther transiting and -- MR. LORENZ: Well, let's say a wetland function would, could be for flood storage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: For protection of homes, you know, upstream, or Page 70 March 6, 2006 it could be for listed species habitat or it could be for ground water recharge. Wetlands would have all of those functions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I just -- if the word values is acceptable to the commission and to yourselves that's fine. If you think a better word fits then maybe that would be good. MR. LORENZ: We can change it to functions if that would be more technically correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I need to go back and start on Objective 2.1 and I have questions about each policy. On 2.1 you are talking about this 2008 deadline and we have been hearing different comments from the public on it. Is one of the things that could be completed by 2008 a determination of where the basin boundaries would lie? MR. LORENZ: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, are the costs that I heard earlier, I think it was 500 to $750,000 per basin, are those costs to prepare the plans or to implement the program? MR. LORENZ: To prepare the plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would start after the process is basically accepted, the process of determining the boundaries, finding a funding for it, establishing funding localities; is that true? MR. LORENZ: Yes. I mean you could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your costs to get to 2008 are pretty mInor. MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I was going. MR. LORENZ: Essentially, I would say staff time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How would you establish the boundaries? Would you involve the public landowners, the stakeholders involved? For example, would you consider the stewardship area as possibly being a completed boundary? Page 71 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: I think that could be part of that process, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this would be an -- the process itself, would that be an implementation language in the LDC? MR. LORENZ: No, I wouldn't see that this policy would be in the LDC except once a watershed management plan were to be completed and maybe its recommendations were to be, let's say, that all site discharge for a particular area should be no more than so much cfs per acre or something like that. Then that could translate in a land development code amendment. But not until that, not until after that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern on some of this is, first of all I know it's a needed issue it's not even a point of discussion as far as I'm concerned. But if we have areas that could save us time and money because they have systems in place that theoretically were designed to meet the intent of a watershed management basin or plan, I don't know why we would want to reinvent the wheel and start all over in those particular areas. And that's, somehow I'm looking for assurance that that's not where we're going with this. That's where the lining of my questioning goes. And before we resolve this I would like to get you to comment on that. As far as Mr. Murray's concern about the reference to associated, I too circled that as apparently some other people have brought that in. If these are the uplands that surround, are the required buffers around wetlands, why wouldn't they be the abutting uplands or the required abutting uplands or something of that nature rather than just associated, because I'm not sure how far you could take associated. It could be Lee County before we stop. And I don't think that could be quite fair. So could we put in some language that is more directed to what your intention is, which is the required abutting buffers to the uplands? Page 72 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: We could have either abutting or adjoining wetlands serving as a buffer for the -- excuse me, adjoining uplands serving as a buffer to the wetlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to see the language more to what you intend. I know that we have some changes in this document, maybe in the FLU, where we took the, substituted the word abutting in because we didn't the other word, so let's not make sure we use the other word again and use the right word here. So that was where I was going with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can we just talk about that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do we want the uplands anyway? I mean, obviously, it's an issue. Even the Supreme Court's dealing with it now. But what is the reason to add that? I mean, obviously, if we have a property next to a wetlands we can't be just draining into it without any control. So what are we gaining with that? MR. LORENZ: Well, certainly from a wetland perspective if you build right up to the wetland you are going to be beginning to impact the wetland. So there is a recognition that there is some type, quote, buffer distance that would be appropriate for it. And I think that was, as I said, that was the recog -- or the intent of this particular language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if you used the buffer then? What if you said appropriate wetlands and buffers are conserved? MR. LORENZ: I think that works from my understanding of the discussion the EAC had with regard to protecting the wetlands through the uplands system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the plan will establish the buffer requirement. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. It may recommend that simply the Page 73 March 6, 2006 current regulatory requirements are sufficient or maybe in certain circumstances it may look at something different. That would be, I think that was the intent of the -- of the language for the plans to evaluate and review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think that's a safer wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I would think his suggestion would be a much safer way to go. Does staff have any problem with that, rest of the commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: So it will now read appropriate wetlands and buffering -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Buffered. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and buffered upland? MR. LORENZ: Or properly serving as a buffer to the wetlands. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to get the language right. Randy asked that we do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that way we can discuss what is an appropriate buffer and that frees up all the other land from being dragged in by mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff settled on the language? I see a nodding of the head. F or the court reporter, there was a nod of the head. On Policy 2.1.5 you are talking about data collection and environmental management and planning. Obviously, it's based on an a watershed management plan that, according to this document, would be 2018. Which does put it in kind of a predicament by that time. Are the costs of this data collection incorporated in part of the costs of the watershed management plan that we previously discussed or is this another series of costs, and if so do we know what those are? MR. LORENZ: I see this, this is a rewording I believe from, that came from the comprehensive planning department. I simply see this as rewording the existing language. I see it as being implemented Page 74 March 6, 2006 simply from a standpoint as we've collect -- we're going to have to collect the data on a watershed management, for each watershed management plan the specific data. But to the degree that we already have data we can display it and we can manipulate it within a basin-by-basin, and that's simply, not to get too detailed, but in a GIS system once we establish the basin boundaries we can always query the data base according to watersheds or basin boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does -- I understand it. It makes sense to me then. Go ahead, Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Bill, you said that you're getting information from DEP. You already have some information. We also already have things like the rural stewardship area. It seems to me that if someone were to just take some time we may be a lot further along in this process than we think we are and that we've just been postponing it for no real reason. If you are getting this information already, somebody just needs to sit down and start compiling it. And that we may be making more out of it than actually needs to be made out of it if somebody would just go through the data that we have and is coming into us on a regular basis. MR. LORENZ: We certainly, that is certainly definitely the case. As we were to develop a watershed management plan we would go through that data collection activity of what currently exists. COMMISSIONER CARON: That doesn't sound to me like a multi-million dollar project. MR. LORENZ: It depends upon the detail, level of detail that you want to get to. If, for instance, when you begin to really hone in on some of the actual water flows across the land surface -- now things have changed, there could be some data that right now is more precise and accurate than it was, let's say, two or three or certainly five years ago that you could be doing that exercise.n Page 75 March 6, 2006 And that would be an exercise that you would have to do as you develop a scope of services for each individual watershed management plan, but indeed a fairly comprehensive exercise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Policy 2.18, I know the AC changed it. They changed, they addressed an issue that I had also been concerned about that is, shall take the lead. But if you take Policy 2.16 and remove the reference to municipalities from that policy and insert them in the first sentence of 2.18 just before the DEP and at the end of the first sentence of 2.18 after the reference to the Corps of Engineers state and other governmental agencies, you have everything covered in one policy and you can drop Policy 2.16 as duplicative, again, as we've seen in other locations in this document. I'm not sure why we couldn't do that unless you guys have a reason why we can't. It certainly simplifies it. And I know you have to make an explanation but that ought to work. MR. LORENZ: That seems to work to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Problems with that with the rest of the commission? MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chair, if I may go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. LORENZ: Maybe it wasn't intentional, but on 2.1.4 just to note that one of the changes that the EAC recommended, 2.1.4B where it says drainage systems do not, current language is unacceptably affect wetland and estuarine ecosystems, the EAC suggested that remove unacceptably affect and replace with the term degrade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I didn't comment on it because I assumed that was something you already did. It sure looked like it was a better move. MR. LORENZ: Okay. I didn't know whether as we go through the effort, since I'm putting this particular sheet whether we need to address each one of these suggested changes in a positive fashion so Page 76 March 6, 2006 we that we would know that you're accepting them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: At this point we should be following 3.04 EAC recommendations because everyone on staffhas agreed. MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Unless we object this is what we should be looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at the end of to day's discussion of this element we can also include the recommendation of the EAC, assuming we either agree or disagree with it depending on if there is any particular items. So that's how I was going to -- but I have been working EAC's recommendations as well. I guess it goes back, then, to settle this objective the language that begins in the first sentence on what the process is in preparing the watershed management plans, and my concern is, is there some language that staff can suggest that can assure us that the areas that already have what are in effect watershed management plans such as the stewardship area with the flowways and that entire effort that we did years ago, and even the rural fringe to whatever extent they may be there are not duplicative in another study that costs the taxpayers more money when it's already been effectively done. I think that's the only lingering concern I have about this objective in regards to how it's worded. Is there some thought on that in regards to the staff as to -- MR. LORENZ: Well, we could certainly add -- I think we could develop some language that would indicate that before letting any contracts or going through the budgeting effort an assessment would be made to determine existing data sources and information that would either substitute for or contribute to a particular watershed hPage 77 March 6, 2006 management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that goes as far as I'm trying to get. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just going to say that as part of the process data previously collected shall be integrated within the watershed program or plan and shall be used. That's what I would do if that's available. And it's whatever resource you have, whether it be conservancy or what have you. MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: We have lots of non-duplicating language in other places here that probably could just be worked into this as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern again is that we've got established areas that may have already met the intention of this future watershed management plan. I'm looking for an assurance that we're not going to go out and make, reinvent the wheel with those areas. And that's all I think the public needs as well. There are large landowners out there, and I'm not necessarily always in favor of landowners, but at the same time I'm not necessarily in favor of being unfair in the process. So that's what I'm trying to get a grasp on. MR. LORENZ: I think there are two issues then. One is capturing data and information into the plans. But the issue of, I think, the chair is making is that we actually evaluate and identify those areas we will, we need to develop the watershed management plans in areas we don't need because of whatever reason -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LORENZ: -- that will be taken off the table. So we can add that. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, can I offer the following language which may help. After the word plans add the language utilizing Page 78 March 6, 2006 where appropriate existing available data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we were going to do that anyway, though, Randy, that's why I don't think that addresses the issue as Bill just stated it. Bill, I think your comment, though, that you would prioritize the need for watershed management basins on those areas that may not have already addressed those issues would help exempt the areas that have. MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Randy, that's kind of where I've been trying to go with this. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, would the data be the same? In other words, the same standards from the past? MR. LORENZ: You would -- I mean, you kind of -- when it's past data you live with what you've got unless you make a decision it that it needs to be upgraded. And that would be part of the evaluation process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is there are areas of the county that are having trouble with stormwater where growth is going to be large. Is there a way we can really make sure, they don't have studies yet, I think that's even more important than -- I mean, I know that was somewhat worded in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. If someone has already gone through the effort to take care of the watershed issues, why do we need to go back in and reinvent the wheel unless there is some legitimate concern to do so. MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I would sure like that to be included in the evaluation of the basins and their prioritization and how and where they're created. Maybe staff could focus on some of that language and before the Page 79 March 6, 2006 day is over come back to us on that. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may engage you, Mr. Chair, you are talking about those that have actually been done, such as the ones referenced earlier. Data that were collected earlier, then it has a matter to do with definition. I certainly agree with you about what you are attempting to obtain. Can the data that is being collected so far, would be the question I guess, can that data be relied upon to support the definition of the watersheds? And it may be necessary to requalify the data. The data that you have are certainly useful, but to requalify it. And I know there are two parts there. I'm showing my support for your statement, certainly, but that thought process is something because it all has to do with your budgetary whether or not you appear to be going again do the same thing. Maybe you could comment on that. MR. LORENZ: I know in the past when we were in the mid-nineties when we were looking as them we were funding certain components of the watershed management plans. We were funding aerial surveys to give us topographic information that would allow us to more accurately define those watershed boundaries because we have such flat topography here that putting a road in or changing a culvert out here may make a difference in terms of your watershed boundary. So, to the degree that the data that we may have puts those boundaries needs to be re-evaluated. That would be incorporated into a scope of services with a watershed management plan to more precisely identify that watershed boundary. So those boundaries would always be somewhat tentative until you complete the watershed planning effort. Now, since the mid-nineties now we have a lot better topographic Page 80 March 6, 2006 control and data with the LIDAR information and that may be simply the best we can have, in which case staff can assess that information and we don't have to go through that exercise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: But those are some of the considerations that go through my mind when you ask that question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like to do if there is no objection from the panel is let staff go through it after lunch, come back and possibly suggest some language to improve that objective. And then we will move on after lunch on those others. Right now I want to move on to Objective 2.2 and keep going until about quarter of 12:00. And 2.2 is on Page 7. Are there any comments on Page 7 from the commission? Bill, the Policy 2.2.5. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Previously you were supposed to identify the Stormwater Management systems that were not meeting stormwater quality standards by '98. Now by 2008 you are simply initiating a process to identify them. That's ten years later from -- you're going from actually identifying them, you lost ten years and now that isn't even ten years because you're just simply initiating a process to identify. Hasn't anybody initiated a process to identify in these past ten or number of years since this policy was implemented originally? MR. LORENZ: Not that I'm aware of. I know this is another policy here that hasn't had a home. I know pollution control I think had originally proposed the language initially. I'm not sure who if they are in the EAR report the ones who are proposing this language or not but I'm not aware of anything that has happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the identification of the systems Page 81 March 6, 2006 -- you are talking about private systems or public systems? MR. LORENZ: Private systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would actually go into private properties and determine if their water management system was functioning lake to lake, outfall to outfall, things like that? Well, that's part of the process you don't know yet. MR. LORENZ: Right. That's not -- as I said I'm kind of -- we're speaking here from perhaps other departments. Certainly from my standpoint, if you are to go in and looking at the stormwater systems you need to make sure that they are built, that they are currently operated as permitted. As many times as stormwater systems -- something is removed or the swales aren't functioning properly -- and I know that there are some exercises that are going on in making inspections of these systems through our engineering department, through the PUD monitoring, so somewhere along the line that information would be captured and brought in to assess this policy. Now, how that gets reorganized I'm not sure but those would be my first thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the previous policy as it was previously written you had a date in which you would identify these water quality standards. That was ten years ago or ten years from in timing. Now you are simply saying you're going to initiate a process to identify. So when will you be actually identifying these facilities? MR. LORENZ: As I said, I've got to have a department. I'm not sure, David, who the department weighted in on this, whether it was pollution control or not with the language or whether compo planning generated this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, and later today we'll need an answer to that because if you can't come up with a time -- if you are only going to initiate a process to identify and it just sits there for another 10 years before you physically identify, I think that's another open-ended problem with the language you are proposing. Page 82 March 6, 2006 And at the end of the first sentence I would -- I'm assuming that when you identify these and you would assess them for their water quality, you're doing so -- MR. LORENZ: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based on the codes in effect at the time of the approval of the proj ect that you are looking at, is that right, or are you looking at them in line with the current standards? Because some projects in this county are quite old, and I'm not sure if you identify an older project as deficient, such as Glen Eagle or someplace like that -- I don't know, I think that's one of the older projects -- say their water management systems wasn't up to par based on today's standards, and you identify it as such, I'm concerned about the implementation or the outcome of that identification. Does that mean that they have to go in and rip out their stormwater management systems, they have to improve them? Because that's a burden that we haven't even discussed yet in regards to this policy. Do you care to comment? MR. LORENZ: My comment would be is that they are looking at the systems to function as when it was permitted. So I would look at it from that standpoint because that's what their permitting requirement IS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the departments then have codes available to them to look at, to go back and see on each, say, 20 years, when a project was designed what the code was at that time that it had to meet and it's meeting that today in regards to the way you would inspect it; is that -- MR. LORENZ: Like I said, I'm not responsible for this particular item, but if I were, I would be creating a process by which I'd be reviewing that stormwater system against its approved set of plans and that -- that's what I would be holding that system to. Now, in the overall context of overall stormwater management Page 83 March 6, 2006 within Collier County that information then helps to determine what kind of substandard systems we have even though they maybe operating according to their approved systems. So that's information, again, that can be useful for some overall watershed management planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm, I have another issue about but Mr. Adelstein is wanting to ask you a question. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know why we can't change this by having read by December 31 st, 2008, Collier County shall have identified stormwater management systems, dah, dah, dah, dah. If it's going to take two years to figure out to get there, let's do it today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's a good suggestion. MR. LORENZ: Randy asked me the question if I were to start now, how many years it would take to do it, and I would guesstimate two years. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then that's what I think we should be doing instead of waiting two more years to start it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something that may help, if you recall in the FEMA suggestions that came forward, Gene brought them here within the last month, one of the items was a yearly inspection of all existing proj ects by the engineer of record stating if they are functioning properly or not. That may help this policy, my understanding of where you are at out there already. And I'm just wondering if that has been looked at as a source of assistance in getting this policy's intention met? MR. LORENZ: Like I said, I can't answer those questions, those are detailed questions beyond -- I'm not sure who developed the policy but certainly if that information is available and that process is already starting then obviously that would be an appropriate accomplishment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to follow up with Mr. Lorenz for a second Joe, please. In the context of your responses, your Page 84 March 6, 2006 answers to all the questions with regard to time, you are talking about it based upon your current authorized staff and funding; is that right? That's how you respond to it; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: I'll answer that because it -- again for the record, Joe Schmitt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: The funding is -- we identify the need based on the policy the board gives us. Some of these, most of what you are talking about now are functions that are funded through the general fund, either Fund 11 or 001. Bill has several sources of funding for various things he does but this again would be a demand somehow based on the general fund. But Mr. Strain is in fact correct, this policy would be dealt with in regards to the flood ordinance we're bringing back later this year to the board. In some aspects we're asking for only annual certification, and it may be biannual, certification to ensure that flood systems as designed when they were actually submitted and approved that they function properly. No, we will not make anybody go back and retrofit something. And if it is or are that happens that will be done through Gene's staff through some sort of funding mechanism. I have no authority to go back and tell somebody that was something approved 20 years ago. That would be some other funding source and through some other revenue source in order to do that. But I think that annual certification or once every two or three years, whatever the board validates as part of our flood ordinance, which is connected with our, our community rating system, CRS, the CRS under the FEMA flood maps and FEMA insurance program. So some of these activities all kind of interrelate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, I was hoping that you would say that, thank you. Staff, do you have any objection to Mr. Adelstein's recommended Page 85 March 6, 2006 language change? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the end of the sentence that he was going to change would you have any objection to adding in effect at the time of approval of a project or a property's system. So that there is assurances that we're not going to go back in and tear apart communities for stormwater management issues unless they are obviously in error and not working properly. MR. LORENZ: I think that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problem with the commission? Let's see if we can move on to Page 8. Questions from the commission on Page 8? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've marked here -- just help me with the pre and post development. What does that relate to in terms of time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What policy are you on, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What policy? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was at 2.3.6. Am I too far? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just wanted to make sure we could follow you, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. My apologies. B, okay? My question really relates to when I hear the word post. How late is post and what does it really mean? MR. LORENZ: I'll give you a little bit of background for this policy. The Corps of Engineers established or developed a Southwest Florida EIS study several years ago in which case was looking at the cumulative impact, cumulative impact of wetland development within Southwest Florida. Page 86 March 6, 2006 As a result of that, of that EIS, EP A required that as part of the EIS study, that cumulative water quality effects or impacts be somehow assessed as a result of the wetland impacts that were being permitted here in Southwest Florida. What translated from that assessment was a methodology, and I'll call it a desktop methodology, which is somewhat of a little bit of a model that would evaluate a project's impact upon water quality, potential water quality impacts. And what we call it is a pre and post assessment, that, based upon themodeling methodology a particular site, let's say you want to develop a hundred acre site, that hundred acre site the way it exists right now would have some kind of nutrient loading -- when I say nutrient loading, nitrogen or phosphorus that is going to run off of that site as a result of the rainfall falling onto it. That's your predevelopment condition. The methodology then goes in and creates a number of particular processes and procedures to say if you are going to put a development on this site that has 20 acres of commercial and 50 acres of residential and 10 acres of industrial and you configure your stormwater system in such a fashion that we would expect a post development runoff rate or nutrient loading rate from that site to have some number which is calculated through that methodology. This is the methodology that the state uses in what's called a water quality certification for the U.S. Corps' 404 permitting process. So the state, although the state hasn't adopted this methodology, it uses the methodology in its function as certifying to the Corps that particular project will not adversely affect water quality. What we did several years ago in our EIS provisions in the land development code was to adopt that pre and post methodology, whatever the accepted methodology is by the agencies, to be part of our environmental impact statement. So that when we in the environmental services department Page 87 March 6, 2006 review a project that has this methodology we have to ensure that the post development loading rates are going to be equal to or less than the predevelopment loading rates, which is tantamount to saying that we expect that that project is not going to adversely impact water quality . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Will you wait until the project is absolutely complete or will you have any interim testing? MR. LORENZ: No, there is no physical water quality testing for this. This is a, as I said a desktop analysis. It's -- it's a -- based upon a series of assumptions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Calculations. MR. LORENZ: And calculations -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got it. MR. LORENZ: -- that the methodology has developed. Now two things. One is the EAC just heard from a South Florida Water Management District representative indicating that the current methodologies that is in use, there have been criticisms of it and it is currently being revised in response to those criticisms. So we expect to see a revised methodology come forward for it, which again, we would accept the revised methodology. Secondly, the EAC, in Item C of Policy 2.3.6, was concerned that the methodology is not specific enough for Collier County such that it's not giving us a true representation of what may be occurring. So Item C is the recommendation to have, I'll call it a study to look at the current methodology or refined methodology, however it comes out, and to determine whether or not there are areas that need to be changed in that methodology and as a result of that particular study would translate into some recommendations either for the methodology or for some other changes to our regulatory requirements. But that's why Item C is in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much.r Page 88 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who has the authority to adopt the software that we use for that -- or does that come through your department, come through this plan, come through-- MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- I'm not sure that -- what we see is we actually see the final paper output and we review it for some assumptions and then the final analysis. We do not have software to do that. It's -- what I I've gathered is it's essentially some excel-type spreadsheets that are being utilized by some of the consultants. I don't know whether there is a proprietary software that's been marketed by the consultant or whether the individual firms are simply taking the methodology and creating their own computational methods for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you've only reviewed the output -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. In some cases, I mean, we've-- once or twice we've picked up an error and we've had them redo it but other than that we're not running a, quote, a side-by-side analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, on your Policy 2.3.6.A, require federal and state permits addressing water quality. Do the feds address water quality? I know South Florida does. MR. LORENZ: Well, if there is an NPDES permit that is required, and typically that's NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, is usually used for surface water projects. Typically that doesn't occur in Collier County when we -- I think, looking at that language we're always looking at federal and state, whatever water quality permitting you need to get from the federal or state agencies we want to make sure that we are capturing both. As a routine matter there's probably not a federal NPDES permit that is required for the stormwater management systems. They are using -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- if there are wetland impacts they are using that Page 89 March 6, 2006 state certification process for judging water quality impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way this reads it says require federal and state permits addressing water quality. You mean to the extent they are required by the federal and state, permits addressing quality should be submitted to Collier County before Collier County issues a final development order -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- isn't that a better way to say it? MR. LORENZ: That would be a good improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the extent required by federal and state permits. That would solve the problem on B. Any project impacting five acres or more, could that be more than five acres just in case we have some five-acre single family -- you know, the five-acre estate lots or something like that. MR. COHEN: Not the way it reads, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? MR. COHEN: That would include parcels that are five acres in SIze. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I'm just saying, could it be greater -- instead of reading impacting five acres or more how about greater than five acres? That way you don't get into a problem with the Estates and any issues that might arise out there. MR. COHEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER CARON: Five acres or greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. No, greater than five acres. I'm trying to say we shouldn't be out there imposing this on five-acre home sites. MR. LORENZ: Now that I'm looking at it too, and I thought we had somewhere in there that it would exempt single family homes from, and I think that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even better. Page 90 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: We definitely would want to have that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way-- MR. LORENZ: -- well, definitely want to have the exempting single family homes because I don't think that the water quality certification is required for single family homes. MR. WEEKS: I would recommend the single family exclusion because some of the Estates lots, it's my recollection, do exceed five acres. Not many but I think there are some, just to be safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I would agree with that language, so -- same problem with the commission. If you'll add that. On C, the second sentence from the bottom, fourth line up, it says policy and for lawn care pesticides. Where did you pull that one from? I mean, there's a lot other things out there besides just that. I would hate to see this being a limiting factor rather -- and I'm just wondering if you have to list that wouldn't you have to list every possibility that you'd be looking for? So why would we want to leave that in there? MR. LORENZ: I'll simply say the EAC was very much focused on lawn care pesticides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I could dump a gallon of turpentine on the ground and no one cares because I don't use it as a lawn care pesticide. I'm just not sure that this is a real good thing to separately state without stating everything or nothing and leave it just that it encompasses everything. I mean -- MR. LORENZ: Well, I guess I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I'm trying to rely -- you know, carry the EAC's focus here. I think it's going to be difficult, quite frankly, and I think we'll have to develop the methodology, is really to come up with all of the complete pesticides. I mean we may have to use some type of surrogate information. And again, this is one of those points where trying to get too detailed in a policy starts locking you in a little bit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think-- Page 91 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: -- because I think they did have concern with pesticides. And mostly what is developing in Collier County is the residential concern and lawn care pesticides, so that was, I think, their focus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that we could leave the implementation of what pesticides, chemicals and other elements you are looking for to the LDC. I'm sure you're going to follow to this in the land development code, aren't you? MR. LORENZ: The study -- creating the study would not be a land development code requirement. If as a result of the study we wanted to make some regulatory changes of course then that would -- that's what would fall under the land development code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know thoughts of the rest of the board but I'm concerned about the intentional appearance of a limitation when we are only listing the lawn care pesticides. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Suppose we had something like and others. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not, it's too -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Too liberal. COMMISSIONER CARON: Everything is listed in B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, everything's listed. Why don't we just put a period after the word policy and just drop it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree, because you can also put lawn care fertilizers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes, which probably have a bigger impact than pesticides. MR. LORENZ: That would be covered in the nutrients. Nitrogen, phosphorous would be the concern about the fertilizers. Just trying to carry the ball for the EAC, I mean, I think there could be some concern for pesticides. If you simply just said pesticides that makes it broad enough to kind of address it. Page 92 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually you should add pesticides to B and take it out ofC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a better point yet. MR. LORENZ: In B the methodology right now, the date that that is collected is -- the methodology can only address those parameters that are listed in B. Because the way the methodology is worked, is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I see. MR. LORENZ: -- there has been a comprehensive data base for these parameters that have established how of a -- let's say, how much copper, how many pounds of copper will come off of a acre of -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So leaving it at pesticides alone is the way to go. MR. LORENZ: Putting it in C focuses our study on seeing if we can come up with some data for pesticides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With this conversation I realized that anything I was going to say is not going to help. So, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The suggestion then from panel is to drop the words and for -- I mean, the words for lawn care and just leave the word pesticides, and pesticides, and that just makes it broader and covers more. Okay? The last thing is the -- the last sentence talks about monitoring shall be presented to the Board of Commissioners. For what? Is there an outcome that you're expecting from the board or is that going to be in implementation language somewhere else or -- so you are going to do all this and present it to the board, is there some outcome that is supposed to happen or is this just informational policy? MR. LORENZ: I think the -- and maybe we need to reword it -- is that the complete results of the assessment, any recommendations, results of the monitoring, any regulatory recommendations would be brought to the Board of County Commissioners for their direction. So Page 93 March 6, 2006 perhaps we need to reword that sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just declare it. Okay, thank you, Bill. And I think right now the way we're going to do is we're going to take lunch. And when we come back from lunch I would like to do two things: Address Policy 2.1 's final recommended language from staff or corrected from staff based on our input so that we can come to a consensus on that. And that would also include the timing of Policy 2.1. And then for those members of the public that obviously realized that this is going to be an all day affair, possibly, if you have something that you cannot wait for the rest of the day and you would like unburden yourself with your problems and concerns after lunch, we will limit you to time as always but we'll let that happen. And that way you are not tied here all afternoon. I know some of you have got to leave. Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, most of the speakers want to talk about Objective 6 and Objective 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, we're going to get to those hopefully before the day is over. But if they have to leave, and I know some do because they spoke to me at break, then we'll have the opportunity to address their --listen to their concerns but probably not get into the meat of the issue until we march into it on the order that we've already started. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think maybe we ought to get to Joe and say -- I think if we're going at this pace we're talking about approximately five days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just see as the day goes by -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just saying -- I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying if we're going to need that much time at this pace we ought to consider looking for the time and the place to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll take a break. We'll Page 94 March 6, 2006 come back at 1: 00. (A lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we left I had mentioned that we're going to come back and finish discussing Policy -- Objective 2.1 with some possible language from staff and then we'll hear from any speaker that has to leave and can't spend the rest of the day in our company can state their causes before they leave. So Bill, let's see what we've got. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. David weeks and I put our heads together at lunch and this is what is on your screen, is to try to boil down the discussion that you all had earlier. And I think that I can manipulate it here, so if we begin to make changes I can reflect the changes on the screen for everybody. The base document here is the E-mail that I sent out to you over the weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way you've worded this it covers more than -- it covers everything, really. I mean, originally we were focusing on the stewardship area but I think by number one you actually cover more than -- you cover any place in the county that may have operated with a current watershed management plan that is viable. And if you learn than those ahead of sometime we haven't got to reinvent the wheel and can possibly utilize those and save some money for the taxpayers if this will go forward. MR. LORENZ: I know there was some work that was done on the Gordon River watershed that possibly could substitute, and the Lely, so we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- we'll look at everything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Page 95 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it. Any other questions for staff -- I mean from the panel? I have two comments I would like to make. In this planning effort is this any duplication of effort that is already put forth the either by South Florida Water Management District, because they use surface water permits and they have them all over the county -- and sheet flow? And also you have Big Cypress Basin that is in charge, I believe their designation is to basin watershed management. So are we duplicating efforts that other government agencies have already got going? MR. LORENZ: The other policies that we talked about cooperating and working with those other agencies, we would certainly be wanting to do that, and to the degree that they are developing some effort we want to cooperate with them and find out what the best utilization of the monetary resources would be in addition to capturing all the data. So I certainly don't want to just to think that this policy simply puts us on a track that we're going to duplicate whatever efforts they are doing. We need to work together with that, especially since the dollar amounts are going to be critical for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number two where it says an assessment of available data, the information that can be used in the development of watershed management plans, could it be an assessment and utilization of available data and information that can be used in the development of a watershed management plan? It's just a simple word but I think that would force us to make sure we use work already completed by other agencies. Now, maybe they haven't done the whole county, maybe that's the reason why Collier County needs to do this, but I think under any circumstances Page 96 March 6, 2006 we ought to be using all of the information that's already collected and not paying for it twice. Does anybody have a problem with that -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- word being added? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You used spellcheck. It's pretty handy isn't it. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was cool. MR. LORENZ: Awkward position here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess then the next item that we need to consider is the date. And I know that we have had 2018 proffered by staff originally. The EAC came back with 2012 and we have had a suggestion from the conservancy to go to 2010. What is the desire and thoughts of this panel? Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would make sense to me if we're attempting to motivate everybody to get this thing going to put it in 2010 and see what the commissioners choose to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like 2000 but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's past dating. Is there any other thoughts from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can't see why we shouldn't do it by 2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, can you comment on that. Is there anything that you see is a -- I mean, obviously the need's necessary. Data will be falling off as it goes. Essentially it's going to be a workable plan in pieces, won't it? Page 97 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: It's a matter of budgetary priorities by the Board of County Commissioners ultimately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But even once it's done it's going to be a living document that we're going to be constantly tweaking and manipulating and studying, so, I mean, it's -- as the thing starts off isn't it going to be useful prior to these deadlines? MR. LORENZ: You mean the item -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The planning of the watersheds. MR. LORENZ: All of the information certainly would be useful. But when we're talking about completion of a plan we're talking about a plan as it's going to translate into potentially regulatory restrictions or recommendations, additional programmatic types of concerns, whether it be additional monitoring or additional study or what have you. So I'm not really -- I see each watershed management plan that is completed is going to -- is going to be somewhat a finite item that is going to be very much a deliverable and it may translate into planning longer terms down the road. But I don't see them so much as what you are calling them as a living document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, couldn't it be such that rather than -- I mean, what this is saying is everything has to be done by 2012. Is it something that could be broken up and going to those areas, because I see, for example, the way things are being built in the Estates. That's important to get real quick. One way to get it real quick is make the whole thing done in 2010. Another way is pieces of it could start coming off. MR. LORENZ: I see more of a watershed management because it integrates a variety of different components. For me a watershed management plan needs to integrate those components together and that is the final document and the prioritization. If it can't be done -- if it cannot be done concurrently the prioritization then is simply picking those areas that we think the plans can give us the greatest benefit -- Page 98 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- in an early completion date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it something that can be done in two years? MR. LORENZ: If you threw the same amount of money in two years than you would over a four year period then the answer is yes and it's a simply a matter of how much money can you allocate in a gIven year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you then hire a bunch of staff who you would then let go at the completion? MR. LORENZ: This would be for the most part consultants. We would have some staff as project managers, some existing staff that would pull together some information and interface with the consultants. But it would be a consultant process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that regard as watershed, and I'm envisioning all of these depressions out there, wouldn't we have to acquire the property? MR. LORENZ: Oh, no, no, no. The watersheds would simply -- we would identify how we best should either plan, regulate and develop within those areas. Now there certainly could be some areas where a particular watershed management plan may say, look, to be able to accomplish -- optimize all your obj ectives there may be 40 or 60 acres in one particular area that you need to set aside for water retention for a regional system. And at that particular point that would be identified as a capital improvement element to acquire the land and develop it. But that would be the extent that I would see that that, quote, be any area in the watershed would then be acquired by the public entities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes it clearer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just my question was you had -- it Page 99 March 6, 2006 was at 2018 and you suggested 2012 and you picked 2012. Was it because you thought the others were unrealistic expectations to go to 2010 or eight or -- MR. LORENZ: Staffs recommendation is 2018. I put this here as 2012, picking up on some earlier conversations that the planning commission had. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right. But they are speaking 2010 and you said 2012 yourself, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. EAC recommended 2012. Bill's and staff still recommend 2018. Conservancy in their discussion recommended 2010. That's the hierarchy. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Gotcha. MR. LORENZ: Yes. And as I said, pure and simple the answer to that is what type of budget allocation could we receive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, another question that comes into play is after this plan is completed, assuming you are going to hire an engineer and someone is going to complete the work and you're going to have all of these new plans with all these new criteria, wouldn't you then have to implement them through GMP policy and then LDC implementation language? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you're talking about something I thought was going to show up on the FLU. The whole land use map is going to have to show where these basins are, I would assume. But regardless, if you have to modify the GMP and then the LDC you're looking at a year or two after the plans are complete before they are really workable. MR. LORENZ: You would certainly have to have an implementation step in terms of the regulatory framework, and that regulatory framework could certainly be in the land development code. And I'll give you an example where it would have to change in the GMP is in the drainage element you have certain offsite discharge Page 100 March 6, 2006 rates that are adopted within the drainage subelement. If those -- if a recommendation were to be that those discharge rates would change then of course you would have to amend the GMP as well. So, yes, it could very easily be both LDC and GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I saw that this got you up out of your chair and up to the front for a reason. I'm assuming you have something to say. MR. SCHMITT: I'm just here to help Bill in case he gets bogged down. Because this is a lot of money here. This is basically an issue of whether we get direction from the board to come back in the budget cycle to budget for this. It's the exact same thing we said this morning, the original plan said fiscal year 2000 and if the board directs and agrees with this they will direct us to also prepare some kind of a plan to implement and that's going to be predicated on whether or not they want to put dollars, because it has to be resourced. And then the discussion is going to be is with whom will it be partners. Some of the thought is that this may be through South Florida Water Management District. Is it the Districts responsibility? The District has already initiated a study in the North Belle Meade area. So it -- I appreciate all of the hard work and hammering the language but it's going to come down to one issue and one issue only, will the board direct staff to fund and allocate the resources to accomplish this task. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Midney did you have a comment? It was Mr. Schiffer. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, has the board -- has there been proposals to do this since 2000? Is the board saying no or is the board just not being presented with budgets to include this? MR. SCHMITT: The board agreed to this during the EAR process. The conservancy as well as the Audubon Society, Nicole and Page 101 March 6, 2006 Brad brought it up as a recommendation. The board concurred, directed staff to include it as part of the EAR, went forward in the EAR in both transmittal and in adoption. And now we're taking that guidance and putting it into the CCME. So to answer your question, yes, the board directed us to include it but that's philosophically. Now as the next piece, similar to the federal government you have authorization and then you have appropriations. This is sort of like authorization. We put it in the policy, now the next piece is it going to be funded, are they going to direct staff to come back during the budget cycle and fund it? Now, the board may say come back during the budget cycle and identify how much you think this is going to cost or the manager will direct me to include it as part of the budget cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next EAR, will that be 2013? MR. SCHMITT: Seven years -- David, what, seven years from-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So 2013 from now, the board will be -- MR. SCHMITT: 2013. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And for that board to be reviewing this thing, when would something like this have to be done. In other words, essentially if we push it to the next EAR it would be have to be done by 2012 anyway. Is that where the 2012 is coming from? MR. SCHMITT: That's I'm not sure. Arbitrary. I don't know why 2012. I think really what's going to happen is if we get directed and we'll identify resources, we'll come back with some kind of a plan on how this will be done and to on -- and to what scope. My former career I was involved in one of these, it was -- it went on for years in the Savannah River. But that got into water resource, water resource allocation. It was -- it was many years of work. Many, Page 102 March 6, 2006 many years. This is probably not going to be that, in that detail but it will be an ecosystem evaluation and it will be water use, water quality. Much of what we're doing today in regards to the modeling for the flood insurance rate maps, that kind of data is going to be available. We've already spent probably close to a 150 to $200,000 just simply doing that modeling. So much of that work is going to be available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: It's just carrying it to the next step. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bill, one last question on your language. Number one, my understanding of that would also not only apply to areas like the stewardship lands, but if Big Cypress has in fact done some watershed management planning for Collier County, number one would then prevent us from having to reduplicate their effort and number two would require us to evaluate it and use it. Is that a correct assessment? MR. LORENZ: Number one would allow us to evaluate whether it's sufficient, their planning work is sufficient to meet the objectives of our watershed management plan. And number two would require us to utilize that data and information as either a part or a portion of the watershed management planning or if -- we don't have to use it, obviously. I mean, if we don't have to do the planning then of course it's a moot point at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who sets and who writes the parameters for the watershed management plan or have they been written already? MR. LORENZ: I think the general outline is listed in Policy 2.1.1 that you have in front of you. Obviously, when we start creating a scope of services we have to flush that out even more. But staff would -- typically staff would simply do that. There is no requirement at the moment to have anybody involved other than Page 103 March 6, 2006 staff in terms of developing that scope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern is that we're not duplicating something that's already done by another agency. And this language is getting close to hopefully recognizing that so -- any other comments from the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a small thing. Why did you cross out January 1st? Are you trying to get an extra couple of days or -- what if you said prior to 2008 so you can get it done? Anyway, small point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Every date counts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is it the contention of this panel that we're going to accept the language now rendered by staff in regards to the changes that are in blue on this? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Except for the 2010 or 2012. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was getting there. So the first part of the blue language is acceptable, right? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Clear guidance. Thank you. Now the date. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody in 2010 mindset? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here is one thing. 2012 would put it completed, and maybe we have to check the date, but completed prior to the next EAR. So we know it's going to be done before that. COMMISSIONER CARON: So will 2010. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2010 will get it-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Prior to as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Give them a little slack. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, the guidance, is it Page 104 March 6, 2006 something that could be done -- so the time frame doesn't affect the quality of the product, the outcome of the product, it's only going to affect the budgeting and the mobilization of more consultants? MR. LORENZ: I think when you are talking about the time frame you're talking about 2012 to 2010. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two years versus four years to build it. MR. LORENZ: Right. I would agree with that. We would just run multiple consultants to do that. If you brought it any closer in then we may have a little bit of problems because then we have to talk about that scope of services and other work to make sure we get the contracts out properly but -- but between 12 and ten I wouldn't say that that's a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the deadlines kind of slipped. The last one really did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the consensus is 2010. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, he also -- I forgot who it was that was stating that you have the -- you need the ability to have time to -- we won't have -- is that enough time to have a history? If this is done by 2012 will they have enough data, historical value or data to make an effective one by 201 O? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The pollution, yes. MR. LORENZ: Whatever data we have we would use as part of the plan and the plan would then assess as to how good that data is, and the recommendations then would -- you'd either be very confident in your recommendations, or maybe you wouldn't be, but you'd still have recommendations based upon the integrity of the data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to the question. All of those in favor of 20 1 0 please raise your hand. (Show of hands.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed to 2010. Page 105 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In favor of2012? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in favor of2012. (Show of hands.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three to six. Six in favor of2010, three in favor of2012. Let's just use it as 2010 at this point. If there is a concern about the budgeting of this matter we would probably as a panel not mind reviewing the budget. MR. COHEN: You are going to have that opportunity with the next AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just saying on beyond the AUIR. Obviously, if there is some help needed there we'd be glad to offer it. Let's move on to Page 8 where we left off. Before we go to Page 8, Randy, has anybody from the public who commented that -- what needs to comment now that can't be here for the rest of the afternoon? MR. COHEN: Rich Yovanovich. In addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like George Varnadoe. Richard, I'm going to let you have some time to get your issues on the table. We're not going to discuss the various objectives and policies until we get to them but at least we'll have the input that you need to provide. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do that. And I will leave -- I have something I'm going to put on the visualizer, talk briefly about and I'll leave it with you all. So when you get to that point if you need to refer that would be great. Again, for the afternoon -- good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I wanted to talk generally first and get into some specifics. I want to thank Bill for meeting with me and Margaret Emblidge ahead of time, so we addressed a lot of our concerns already. And I just wanted to say we support the decision to take listed plants out right now and adopt a policy to see how we'll deal with Page 106 March 6, 2006 them later. We also agree that a lot of the information was just too specific. And that's mainly Policy 6.1.1 where Bill handed out, I believe to you all, summary policies versus the very detailed policies that were originally included in the document. We have some revisions we would like to see made to I think what Bill sent to you. We sent them to Bill first and we didn't have an opportunity to send them out to everybody else due to the short time. We still think there is probably a lot of duplication of efforts in the growth management plan. I'm glad to see that the planning commission has shown concern about making sure that the county is not doing the same things that various state and federal agencies are doing. And I would like to remind the planning commission about Policy 13.1.3 in your documents. And essentially what that policy says is you are not supposed to duplicate the efforts of state and federal agencies. It also says that you're supposed to understand the fiscal implications of the various programs that are being adopted to implement the comprehensive plan. Well, I would caution the planning commission that we should probably understand the fiscal analysis of the requirements being included in the comprehensive plan. And we've talked about some of that today. For instance, the watershed management plans, they have told you it's -- they are talking about 500 to $750,000 an area, and that's quite a lot of money. There is also the discussion about doing, you know, monitoring of water management systems to see if they are actually working and verifying that the Water Management District's criteria are in fact satisfactory criteria. All of that costs money and none of which has really been explained to the planning commission or to -- or will be explained to the Board of County Commissioners just exactly what these programs Page 107 March 6, 2006 will cost and what they will do regarding economic development, CRA programs, what will it actually cost the developer to implement these programs. None of that analysis is actually being done at this time. Yet requirements to do studies and initiate programs are in fact being required through the comprehensive plan. And we think that we should have a better handle on what it's going to cost before we start establishing programs in the comprehensive plan. I would like to focus a little bit of time on the revisions to Policy 6.1.1. And I always put this on wrong. Bill's -- we provided our comments to Bill Friday and he, I think, incorporated the ones he agreed with. I didn't do that. And we think in general that, you know, the additional policies make good sense. Essentially Policy 6.1.1, subparagraph 10 talks about appropriate circumstances when offsite mitigation would be allowed. We think it's a little limiting. Right now it basically says if you are going to do offsite mitigation you have to pay money to the Conservation Collier program. We think that there should be an opportunity for providing mitigation lands, a donation to the Conservation Collier program or another program that may serve the same purposes of the Conservation Collier program. So we tried to expand the opportunities for mitigation there. And also basically they have already determined -- they are determining in the comprehensive plan right now that the only time you would be able to do off site mitigation is for affordable housing. I'm not sure that we want to make that limitation yet in the comprehensive plan. We should do that through the LDC and determine when there may be other circumstances where you would like to allow for offsite mitigation. I don't believe we need to decide today that affordable housing will be the only time we do that. That clearly should be one of the Page 108 March 6, 2006 times we would do that but there may be other projects based on economic development that we might want to allow offsite mitigation. The way we restructured Paragraph 6.1.1, subparagraph ten, we combined the concepts in paragraph 11 for staff. So we thought that was redundant. The next issue was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, by the way, we need to -- I was going to limit each speaker to about five minutes, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've trying to rush to get it through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to remind you. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. It's kind of difficult to address every policy in five minutes but I'm just trying to hit the highlights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're having the same problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The final one that really is a major issue is the -- what we call an exception process versus a variance process And that's basically our new subparagraph 12, staffs Number 13. A variance is a very limiting term as to when it would be appropriate to possibly allow some exceptions to the native vegetation requirements within the comprehensive plan. We believe there an exception program that can be fleshed out in the land development code would make more sense. We don't want to be -- we don't think you should limit yourselves to only hardship. I think there may be additional criteria where you would allow -- where it makes perfect sense to have an exception from the comprehensive plan requirements. And I think we're just -- staff wants to use the word variance, we think exception is a more appropriate term. And we think that the criteria that we've established or set out better reflect a program that should be fleshed out through the land development code process. I'll leave these here for you and if you to make -- if we need to make copies I can or have copies sent over since they are -- we're showing our changes obviously in red versus what I believe Bill has sent to you to look at. But in essence we agree with the need to have these policies in Page 109 March 6, 2006 the comprehensive plan. They were too detailed. We still think in some places they are still a little bit too detailed. Obviously, the details need to come through the land development code. We like a lot of what has been said so far by the planning commission regarding duplication of efforts. Just overall I would say there's less flexibility in the urban area to deal with native vegetation and species issues than exists in other areas of the comprehensive plan. The urban area, there is not a whole lot of it left. There is not a whole lot of ideal wetlands and other areas. And we think that there needs to be more flexibility to address unique circumstances in the urban area just like there is flexibility in other areas in the comprehensive plan. And with that I hopefully can answer any general questions you may have. And if by some unfortunate turn of events for you, all you are still talking about this Wednesday morning I'll be here to answer any comments you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would ask that when we get to these policies in today's, Wednesday's, Thursday's or whatever day's discussion that staff save that paper and put those back on the screen so we can evaluate those at that time. Does that work for you guys? Thank you. Any questions at this time from the panel? None? Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for letting me speak early. MR. COHEN: Next up is George Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. And thank you for letting me out of turn so I can keep my doctor's appointment so that I can be able to talk by Wednesday or Thursday. Three comments or three areas I want to address. Number one, I want to reiterate what Rich said. I didn't have a chance to look at his language but I think trying to take the exceptions to being able to do your, your native vegetation requirement onsite in one location should remain as it is now an exception and not have it into some varianceh Page 110 March 6, 2006 procedure which by in the legal nature has certain specific criteria. Because I think that we are unable to sit here today and decide what all of those exceptions may be or the criteria they're for. Number two, just as a cautionary note. I notice the staff has said in their proposed revised Policy 7.1.6 dealing with plant species that the county shall evaluate the need for the protection of listed plants within one year, yada, yada. The state law, Chapter 581.185 and 186 deals with state protected plant species. It has a commission it sets up, they evaluate and make determinations. Those are made only for the purpose of what plants that you need to have not only the permission of the owner but a permit in order to harvest. In five-point -- the statute says the regulated plant index must be used solely for the purposes specified in 581.185, which is getting a permit for, and may not be used for regulatory purposes by any other agency. Makes it very clear that you cannot simply by reference to that list say we're going to protect these plants and require A, B, C, D. It does go on to say that you can come up with your own list of plant species that are protected and how are you going to protect them. So, unlike the animal species, you cannot simply say by reference we are going to have protection for these plants. So as we go forward we just need to recognize that and be able to come up with our own list and be able to determine why we're protecting them and how we're going to protect them. Last, what I want to talk about is Policy 5.14, and that has to do with mineral extractions and water quality. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but we have a real lack of particularly good quality sand for road building and other construction activities in this county. I recently been retained to work on a project in North Collier County where we have found very, very high quality sand up to depths of 100 feet. That is going to require a deep pit. There are going to be perhaps some dissolved oxygen problems with that pit. And I Page 111 March 6, 2006 want to bring your attention to a Florida statute that deals with that and see if we are not being a little too inflexible in our growth management plan. And I'm going to -- if you'll bear with me I'll just read this one short clip out of -- it's Florida Statute 373.414.6A. The legislature recognizes that some mining activities that may occur in waters of the state must leave a deep pit as part of the reclamation. Such deep pits may not meet the established water quality standard for dissolved oxygen below the surficial layers. Where such mining activities otherwise meet the permitting criteria contained in this section such activities may be eligible for a variance from the established water quality for dissolved oxygen within the lower layers of the reclaiming pit. So it's very, very narrow exception and you have to get a variance from the state DEP. You have to meet all of the other water quality standards. And what it says is that for some of those lower levels you may not be meeting the dissolved oxygen contents. 5.1.4 says that the county is going to routinely monitor for compliance with permit requirements including but not limited to compliance with state water quality standards. Mining activities shall stop if state water quality standards are violated as a result of the mining operation -- mineral extraction operation, excuse me -- activities. Mineral extraction activities shall resume only upon appropriate resolution of the state water quality violation. What I would suggest to you is something at the end of the first sentence where it says compliance with state water quality standards, I would say, comma, unless a variance is contained within the permit. And then everywhere else in there I would say -- I would say instead of using the state water quality standards I would say the permit. Because the permit is going to say you do have to meet all the state water quality standards except for the dissolved oxygen and that's only going to be well below the surficial layers in the deeper part of the pit. Page 112 March 6, 2006 And I would like your consideration of that as you go forward and evaluate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I remember there was a pit that came before us not too long ago that was about 200 feet deep. What have we been doing in the past with that state requirement? MR. VARNADOE: They have to get -- Mr. Midney, they have to get a permit and they have to go through a program of evaluation through a model. And typically in those pits at certain times of the year only you may lack the dissolved oxygen. So I don't know what pit you are talking about, I'm just going from what we have been advised by not only our consultants but also the DEP, excuse me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I remember that we did one on State Road 82 north oflmmokalee that was supposedly some very, very high quality material also and that we permitted it to go that deep. And I'm just confused as to how we permitted it before and now we need to change -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language that we had in here before would only have subjected it to state water quality standards. And it says mining activities shall stop if state water quality standards are violated as a result of the mining operation. And under the statute that Mr. Varnadoe quoted us, it doesn't sound like they would be then in violation of the lower levels of dissolved oxygen because there was an exception in the state statutes for it. So that may be why. And apparently the language that's being referenced by this new policy changes that measurement in some other way it's measured or the way it's determined. MR. VARNADOE: I think if nothing else it creates an ambiguity as to what we're looking at in terms of what the county would be looking at in terms of the standards to apply. And all I'm suggesting to Page 113 March 6, 2006 you if the state permitting agency allows a variance from that one standard then that's what we should be looking at as a county to make sure that all of the standards of the permit are being met with the exception of the one which a variance has been granted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the beginning you wanted us to set up -- remove the word variance use the word exception. Here variance is fine. What is the difference between exception and variance in the legal terms. MR. VARNADOE: Different policy. Variances are typically granted only in rare exceptions where you meet a certain standard. In land use typically though -- and this has nothing to do with this policy here -- but in land use typically it has to be a matter not created by the applicant. When you are talking about a petition -- and we went through it on Mercado, you all remember Mercado, where we could not create the Main Street concept and keep the native vegetation in one area so we actually it in two different areas. That was a situation we created ourselves. So typically under land use law if it's a variance we wouldn't have qualified because we created the necessity for the variance. Where an exception, I think you have a lot more flexibility in the criteria as to allow exceptions if you would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the variance is a different word in the statute than it is in the land development -- MR. VARNADOE: Here it is a variance. In here -- now it's two different things we're playing with, if you would. Here a variance is what you use in the statute, and I would not try to change that, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I've made notes so that when we get to those sections of the policies we can further address your concerns. Page 114 March 6, 2006 MR. VARNADOE: Thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other -- ah, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good afternoon. Bob Mulhere with RW A. I appreciate the opportunity. I'm actually going to stick around for awhile but I'm not sure how far you'll get and I do have to leave around 3 :00 so I'm going to take advantage of your offer to come up and make a few comments. In general I wanted to just make an observation that both the EAC and I think the CCPC, assuming you are moving along in the direction it appears that you are, are taking the right course of action in terms of developing more policy -- and I think the staff as well should be included in that -- of developing really more policy-related language and leaving much of the specific detail to the land development code. I think that made sense and it generally has been the process that, that compo plan policies were intended or the style within which compo plan policies were intended to be written. Specifically, I had the opportunity to take a look at the language that Rich Y ovanovich provided you, that has his language in red. And in general I would concur with most of the recommendation if not all of the recommendation that he has made. They were similar to the comments that I noted also on my little sheet here. And also I think the planning commission addressed a number of things early on prior to Policy 6 -- to Objective 6 that I tend to agree with. And they were really mostly just language changes I think. I did have one issue I wanted to raise, and if I can just find that sheet here. Just give me one second. Here it is right here. There are no changes proposed for Policy 6.15. but as I read through it I think I have to raise an issue that perhaps you might have the opportunity to clarify. I don't know if you have Policy 6.15 -- 6.15 in front of YOU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not in this binder. It is in the other binders -- MR. MULHERE: It's not supposed to be changed but I can just Page 115 March 6, 2006 explain that to you. That's the policy that deals with properties that have been granted approval to clear for agricultural purposes. And there is a restriction on rezoning those properties. It's not that you can't rezone them it's just that if you do rezone them within a certain period of time then you have to recreate the native vegetation as it would have been required at the time that you were approved. And I'm not sure of the exact date, and David, maybe you recall, but the compo plan was changed from ten years to 25 years, which is reflected in this policy. And the LDC was also revised. But that is the intent. And the practice has been to not apply that retroactively. That if you had an ago clearing permit that was issued prior to the date the compo plan was changed you were not then subject to a 25-year prohibition, you were only subject to the ten-year prohibition from converting it that existed prior to the change. Follow me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. MR. MULHERE: And all I think really is it would be relatively easy to make that clear in this policy. I'm concerned that it's not made clear here. Even though there is no change we have an opportunity, I think, to do that. Things change, people change, times change. That was the intent, that's the way it was discussed when it was adopted and that's the way it's been in practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting argument. You know what, you just explained why some clearing occurred a few years back that I couldn't understand why because they hadn't done anything with the property, either ago farmed it or developed it but -- MR. MULHERE: Well, the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were trying to come in ahead of this policy. MR. MULHERE: Probably. The county takes the position that you as the property owner have to demonstrate that you've legally cleared your property through an ago clearing permit. And prior to this' Page 116 March 6, 2006 change that was a ten-year prohibition. It went to 25 in part to -- in part to discourage folks in the rural fringe from converting their lands that were sending lands to ago operations, because under state statutes you can't stop someone from farming their land. So this was intended to discourage folks. Now it wasn't intended to punish further those folks that had legally cleared their land prior to the change. And by the way -- and if someone disagrees with me from the staff, as far as I know in practice they are not applying or attempting to apply the 25-year prohibition to somebody that had legally cleared their property prior to that change. All I'm saying is a couple of, maybe one sentence in here could clear that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe when we get to that policy we just need to find out what staff believes the intention was and make sure the intention is clear regardless to what outcome there is to that. MR. MULHERE: I appreciate that. That's really all of my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, sir. Okay . Was there anybody else at this point Randy? Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm a bit -- Bob Krasowski, for the record. I'm interested in when you might be dealing with the solid waste subelement because I don't think you are doing it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It won't be today, I can assure you of that. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. And I'll try to monitor. Who would I -- call Bill or something, to ask him when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy or David. But it won't be today because we're going to be -- we have the FLU after the CCME and most likely the housing element after that. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, sorry for taking up your time. But I'll come back. You are going to be here Wednesday and Thursday as well. Page 11 7 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wednesday and Thursday morning. MR. KRASOWSKI: And I have been watching on TV and it might go forever, right? Five days, I heard, or something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like the word forever but it might goon. MR. KRASOWSKI: Five days. But okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anyone else, Randy? MR. COHEN: No one else has indicated a desire to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's move on with the standard course of events. Around Page 8 is where we left off, Objective 2.4. And Bill, I just have one question about that. First sentence says Collier County shall continue taking a coordinated and cooperative approach. But the one that was crossed out that says by June 30th, 1998 complete a draft agreement with the DEP. Did we complete the draft agreement that's referenced in the policy that's being struck out? Because if we didn't then how can we -- what's our -- what are we continuing? MR. LORENZ: I can't recall the -- I know that we were working -- we were working with the DEP with a draft agreement at some point. Whether -- and then I've lost track of that. But I believe the staff right now cooperates with DEP, Rookery Bay specifically in terms of development projects, and let's them know that those projects are there and affords the ability for them to discuss items with us. And I think that was the spirit of the change of the policy, from what I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just curious if we had dropped another deadline. Any other questions on Page 8 before we move to Page 9? Onto Page 9. Any questions from the panel? I have one, Bill. Middle of the page your changes, second to last sentence of that paragraph starts therefore Collier County will continue to take all Page 118 March 6, 2006 necessary actions to maintain the highest attainable level of groundwater quality within its aquifer system. I'm concerned about the reference to highest attainable. I mean, distilled water might be a choice of someone's highest attainable. Do we have any knowledge of what that means? MR. LORENZ: Let me -- Ray Smith, Pollution Control Director, is responsible for the policies within the objective or the Goal 3 policies. I'll let Ray speak to that. MR. SMITH: We can change that to state standards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well that would simplify-- MR. SMITH: -- instead of highest attainable, maintain state standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney. MR. SMITH: And if I can just bring you up to the four lines down where it reads federal and state water quality conditions, if I can change that to standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Good call. MR. SMITH: And I'm available for any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you explain what natural conditions there are that impair our water quality. MR. SMITH: For example, iron in groundwater. It exceeds the state standard associated with water quality and groundwater. What we're trying to do is make the state standards meet what exists here in Collier County. I don't want to say we're going to comply with all standards. In the event there's geological -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, that makes sense. Just as long as we comply with the man-made standards. MR. SMITH: You betcha. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one last question in that same Page 119 March 6, 2006 paragraph, the last sentence says further, the county will apply federal and state water quality standards as a means towards achieving this objective. What type of project will you be applying those to? Is there a limitation or is it federal and state water quality standards to every proj ect in the county? MR. SMITH: Any standards that may apply. We don't want to be less stringent than any federal, state standards. And the intent of that was to make sure that was brought forth. Now, if it doesn't read clearly we can make a language change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was curious as to how it would apply, for example, Golden Gate Estates five-acre tracts. Are there any standards that are applicable there in regards to your reviews that this would -- MR. SMITH: No, sir, not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This wouldn't trigger anything new for that area? MR. SMITH: Not to my knowledge, sir. We don't review those, so -- no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all of the questions I have. And I think the panel is accepting staffs recommendations for the changes to the language that we just discussed. Is that -- not -- just heads up. Page 10. Are there any issues on Page 10? The Policy 3.3.2. talks about well monitoring, cones of depression or computer modeling for cones of depression on wells. Is this going to be applicable to, example, like all the new well sites that utilities is requesting from PUDs as they come through the process? MR. SMITH: This is going to be specific to these well fields that are consistent with the land development code 3.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there are just those WI, two, Page 120 March 6, 2006 whatever the well field listings are -- MR. SMITH: Right. And those located within the Tamiami aquifer system, not down into the Hawthorn system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 10? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would those be accessible, those models? MR. SMITH: The models are available within the land development codes, the reference there. And they are updated. And we like to think that they are up to date but there are a couple wells ahead us and we're working on it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to Page 11. Any questions on Page II? Towards the bottom, Objective 4.2, second line, says the wastewater authority will continue to promote conservation of its county's potable water supply, and by April '98 develop -- the struck language says by April 1998 they are supposed to have a comprehensive conservation strategy. Was that accomplished, do you know? Not your department, right? MR. SMITH: Well, they do have a water quality -- or water conservation program, and I'm assuming that that's what they are referencing. Water, no watering on Fridays and then every even or odd addresses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 4.2.2. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we do have a speaker with pertaining to Objective 3 and some of the policies therein if you want to hear that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 3? MR. COHEN: In particular Policy 3.1 and 3.3.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish 4.2.2. while we are on this train of thought and then we'll go bounce back to that. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.c Page 121 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just a cleanup, a housekeeping matter. Policy 4.2.2 is similar but not exact as the policy in the sewer element on Page 8. If you look at Policy 1 or Policy -- well, it used to be 1.4.1 now it's just Policy 1, on Page 8 of the sewer subelement, I believe those two are supposed to be the same. There's been different changes although they read almost identical. From a cleanup viewpoint you may want those to coincide, wouldn't you. MR. SMITH: I can make that note and forward that to the appropriate department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are saying -- they are trying to get to the same goal in two different policies but for some reason the language is just slightly different. MR. SMITH: Right. And just so my notes are correct, what was the policy reference? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the policy referenced in the sewer was on Page 8 of my document. It was Policy 1.4, now it appears to be Policy 1. There's been some cross outs, and because the number four is hard to see how you cross out, I can't tell if it was crossed out or not. MR. SMITH: I'll make that note. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 5.1.2, you are removing it. Why you are removing the whole thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're a page ahead of us, Brad. Let's back up -- and we're still on Page 11. And let's go back to that speaker you have on Item, what is it? MR. COHEN: Policies 3.1 and 3.3.2, Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson, with Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. And I wanted Page 122 March 6, 2006 to talk about Objective 3.1. And after that Policy 3.3.2. The language in Obj ective 3.1 seems to me to be somewhat contradictory. It says that there are water quality conditions that may not be achievable. Yet this same policy objective calls for us to apply those unachievable standards. And it seems to me like we're asking for trouble by putting that in the comprehensive plan. MR. SMITH: Can I speak to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. MR. SMITH: Okay. Bruce, anything regarding to ensure that the appropriate state standards and federal standards are, we have the ability to achieve those as long as we don't have natural impact, affecting those or meeting those standards is fine with me. I don't want any contradiction within the policies, obviously. So if we can focus on those state and federal standards that already exist that are attainable or achievable, I'm fine with that. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean, though, you have got to amend this language, though, to get to that point, because you've already recommended two changes to this. And Bruce, were you aware of the recommended changes to this paragraph already? MR. ANDERSON: Just as I was listening. MR. SMITH: I can work with Bruce and we can come up with some language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only problem is this board is going to have to recognize it because we have to either approve it -- it doesn't go forward without our approval, so we're going to have to weigh in on it after you get -- maybe you could come back in either later today or tomorrow once you have the language worked out. MR. SMITH: I'll be available in just a few minutes. It shouldn't take us that long to work on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you guys can work it out that Page 123 March 6, 2006 would be helpful. Bruce you have another one? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, Policy 3.3.2, where we're going to be mapping the wells, the cones of depression. Now, Mr. Smith had indicated that it was only certain kind of well and it wasn't going to be those that the public works department has been regularly extracting from applicants on zoning petitions. And I think you know what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I brought it up a few minutes ago. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. But it doesn't so limit it here. The wells that public works has been hitting up applicants for, many of them they tell them up front we don't know what we are going to use them for yet, so they could be potable water wells and besides that point I think that this is just too specific to be putting these kinds of maps in the comprehensive plan. What's wrong with the land development code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, you're the staff that has to defend this. MR. SMITH: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your comment. MR. SMITH: Land development code definitely identifies land use regarding the zone one, two, three and four, okay. This is an important aspect of protecting the well fields of Collier County, the drinking water we all live off of, except for only one main potable water source. Based on that it is in my opinion very important that it be -- that it exist in the CCME because of its importance to protect our safety, health and welfare and the public's safety, health and welfare of that drinking water supply. Within the land development code it does exist specific to the standards and protecting the land uses and it does even get into more specifics on specific -- specificity on the type of land use being Page 124 March 6, 2006 applied. Again, let me just sum this up. Protection of your well field and our drinking water supply is vital as the county grows. I believe this statement needs to be in the comprehensive -- or the CCME. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One suggestion. Would you consider-- you have in the second line, it talks about around the county's existing or planned potable water well fields. Is there a reason the words or planned couldn't be struck and still provide the protection that you are asking for? Because that would take out the concern that I have at least, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Anderson has the same one about all these new takings that the utility department is doing every time a project comes through for new well fields -- MR. SMITH: When new wells are put in they go through the land development code amendment process then a new model is presented. By dropping or existing we're going to be addressing that on an annual basis anyway so we can drop it out of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would help. MR. ANDERSON: That and also drop the -- on the second line the and/or potential. That goes hand in hand with your change, I would think, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. If you drop the planned you don't have any other -- you have the actual not the and/or potential. That's a good point. MR. SMITH: Okay, actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what this would do then is protect the actual cones of depression around the county's existing potable water well fields. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does this language have a problem with anybody on the panel? Page 125 March 6, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate you pointing those out. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just a point of emphasis. Under Rule 9.J.5, Florida Administrative Code, we are required to include in the future land use map all existing and planned public potable water wells and wellhead protection areas. And we do have that map in the existing comprehensive plan. And if we were to add public well fields we would have to modify it accordingly. MR. SMITH: It's a state mandate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What are you trying to say, this new language doesn't work? What does that mean? MR. COHEN: What I'm getting at is that the language that is there right now, which calls for mapping the cones of depression and zones of protection within the countywide future land use map is a requirement of Rule 9.J.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if the utility department requires new sites on all the various PUDs and rezones coming through and they don't know what they are going to use them for, which could mean they are going to use them for potable water well fields, then how does that fit in with this plan? Because right -- on those new locations they are building developments that are not addressing any cone of depression because none exists because they are not planned at that point, they are just takings at that point. MR. COHEN: The way I read 9.1.5 is if they were added as a public potable well field we would have to add it to the future land use map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you there, but how does that emphasis of that being a well field with these cones of depression work in regards to the development that's going on above them? What Page 126 March 6, 2006 further restrictions would it mean for the lands above? MR. SMITH: Let me answer it this way. When we're looking at land use restrictions based on the protection zones that the model identifies we are looking at those types of land uses that could be pollutant sources. We're looking at things like businesses that produce large volumes or hold large volumes of hazardous materials. We're looking at -- or generate large volumes of hazardous waste or landfills. But if you're talking residential there is nothing in the land development code that applies to residential. So if you have a residential development, excluding the golf course maintenance facility that may exist at a residential site or any other type of facility like that that may generate a hazardous product or hazardous waste that may impact your groundwater supply, residential communities, and even with their septic tank systems, don't necessarily apply to any of the restrictions identified within 3.06 of the land development code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the rezones that have come through that have had these well sides demanded from them have not been limited to residential. They've been -- well, there's one, there's a large one, I think Benderson, that was one of the ones that came up. That may have a potential Lowes or a big box on it. Lowe's sells the materials that go in these golf course maintenance facilities. So are telling us indirectly then the Lowe's couldn't be after they -- because they give up a well field, a potential well field site on their property. MR. SMITH: Depending on the amount of the volume of hazardous product they maintain. And there is, yes, the potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, maybe the word planned in this case needs to be defined as what's in the county's master plan for well field sites and not those arbitrarily taken from rezones. MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would clear it up. If David or Page 127 March 6, 2006 Randy or somebody could come up with language on that. I think the issue here is where the county's master plan coincides for well field sites, those are the cones or potential cones of depression that we're referencing not the ones that are arbitrarily taken throughout the county that may never be used. MR. COHEN: The concern we have is with the language in Policy 3.1.1 in conjunction with the language that's proposed that it could cause problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a suggestion for the language that could fit in here? Around the county's existing or master planned potable water well fields, something to that effect. Do you know where we're going? MR. COHEN: I have an understanding where you are going but I look at the language in Rule 9.J.5 with respect to well field protection and what's also in Policy 3.1. Let's take a look at it and see if we can come up with something that meets your needs and also be consistent with what's in 9.J.5 as well as Policy 3.1.1. That will take a little time. MR. SMITH: I think compliance is going to be very important in this aspect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll make a note that sometime over the duration of this EAR amendment we're going to go back and revisit this one, then. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Is that all you had? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're on Page 12. Any questions from the committee on Page 12? Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just why are you removing policy 5.1.2? MR. LORENZ: The whole series of -- Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. The whole series of Objective or Goal Page 128 March 6, 2006 5 policies are pretty much the responsibility of the engineering department. And looking for -- I know Barbara is here, she might be able -- from my staff. She might be able to answer some questions. I'm not sure on this one, quite frankly. MR. COHEN: What I can tell you from the EAR, the intent was not to remove the policy, the intent was actually to revise it to refer to the current stormwater management section of the county's road maintenance department. So I don't know why it was stricken through, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean it still should be or should we -- should it be unstricken? MR. COHEN: It should be unstricken and modified accordingly, according to the EAR. MR. LORENZ: Certainly there is no county water management department any more. It used to be the-- MR. COHEN: That's the problem. MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you are going to take Policy 5.1.2 and reinstate it? MR. COHEN: I don't think the intent of the EAR was to remove it, I think it was to modify because of basically there not being a county water management department. As a result it needs to be assigned somewhere within the county's hierarchy with respect to which department. MR. LORENZ: And again, it's something that I'm not responsible for. I think the county engineering department is -- deals with mineral extraction. One of my concerns also I think Randy we need to look at is where it says a water use plan because I'm not sure what a water use plan is, and that means something else we need check on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to get back to us on this Policy 5.1.2 as struck. Is that what you are tasking? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Page 129 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel? Up above on Policy 5.1.1, third line, district and/or subdistricts wherein mineral extraction operations are generally allowed. Well, is there -- are generally, how definable is that? Are they allowed by conditional use, are they allowed under certain criteria? Could we clean that up a little bit. MR. LORENZ: From -- Randy says take out the word generally would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- accomplish that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. The next sentence, mineral extraction activities are generally not allowed within the Immokalee urban area as delineated within the lAMP element of this plan. I don't know why you need that sentence in there. If you have that in there why don't you say they're not allowed in the urban areas, they're not allowed in the coastal high hazard area and other parts of the county as well, so I think that's unnecessary language. MR. LORENZ: I'm deferring to comprehensive planning for the answers here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see. I'm waiting for a comment, gentlemen. MR. LORENZ: While they are looking for that I can certainly respond to -- I think, I believe George Varnadoe had suggested in Policy 5.1.4 some kind of wording that would recognize the state's exemption of the dissolved oxygen standard under certain circumstances. And I think that that would be appropriate, and to the degree that we could come up with language that would address that I think staff would be supportive of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second line of 5.1.4, permit requirements including but not limited -- where it says permit requirements including and maybe after that just insert something that says unless a variance is contained within the permit, which is what he Page 130 March 6, 2006 suggested. So somewhere if you put those added words you would cover that issue if it's appropriate. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here is the -- and the reason I'm asking for these resolutions before we finish with the paragraph, gentlemen, is that according to our code of laws this board has to recommend approval for this process to move forward. We can't recommend approval on something that we don't have the cleaned up language on. So it's important that we continue with these discussions to get to a point where we agree on the language so that you are not putting something forward we haven't approved and thus someone may question it in the future. So at some point, Bill, at 5.1.4 you need to tell us what language you want to insert where so is we can weigh in on it. MR. LORENZ: I think where it seems to make sense where it says compliance with state water quality standards, comma, unless a variance is contained within the permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any -- before the old codes said monitoring is required now we're saying routinely. So we've added routinely? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask that too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does that give us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first sentence of5.1.4. MR. LORENZ: I don't know. I would have to have the engineering staff address that particular question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because routinely, as Brad was saying, and I had circled that too, Brad, it doesn't define anything. Routinely could be once every ten years, every once a month in someone's eyes. Page 131 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're kind of routinely seeing variances for violations of mining operations so maybe that's what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean that you are not going to have an answer to this one, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I would have to defer to either engineering or compo planning unless they want me to make the call. The one thought could be is that we could establish the actual frequency, monitoring frequency and parameters within the land development code regulations because that could be -- there could be some criteria along those lines that -- again, that would be a little too specific here for this policy but certainly appropriate for the LDRs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the question is how you can substitute in -- you're going to substitute some language in for the word routinely that gives some definitiveness to this sentence. MR. WEEKS: We could do that or just delete the word routinely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that would probably be best because, for the record it's about 320 open pits right now in the county. We initiated two years ago and have our monthly out there inspecting to ensure the pits are operated appropriately. Mr. Schiffer, the -- you cite there were variances, those are results of the recent enforcement. You've probably seen three of the 320 or so that -- but I would take out the word -- probably the best leave out routinely. If you wanted to put it in there we would say at minimum annually. But we're out there at least monthly ensuring that the work that they are permitted to do is that they are doing. But I think it's best just to leave monitor and, as Bill said, leave it up to the LDC to define the timeline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in 5.14 we're going to strike the word routinely and we're going to add the language that Bill had noted earlier to the end of the last sentence of that policy. Page 132 March 6, 2006 Staff understanding that now? MR. COHEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Panel have any problems with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up on 5.1.1. I questioned that one sentence. Is that going to be left in or is that going to be taken out? MR. COHEN: Delete it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Right after that you have another sentence; the Collier County land development code shall allow mineral extraction activities in appropriate zoning districts. That's almost -- that shall is mandatory. Aren't there conditions where they might not be allowed? Do we want to be that strong in this document? MR. WEEKS: Well, what this says is, shall allow in the zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Which means the land development code will determine how it's allowed whether it's by right or by conditional use. And in most cases it is by conditional use which means there's a public hearing process, which that ultimately it mayor may not be authorized on a given property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it's allowed -- if you were to use the word shall allow and someone puts through conditional use do they then -- are we obligated to allow them to have a mineral extraction facility because the GMP says shall allow. MR. COHEN: I think it would probably be more appropriate to change the shall to a may, taking way the obligation. And then evaluate it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on that you guys are in Policy 5.1.1, you are going to strike the word generally where it's up in the first sentence. You're going to strike the second sentence and Page 133 March 6, 2006 you're going to change the word shall to may in the third sentence. Is that consistent? MR. COHEN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody in agreement with that? Good. Let's move on to Page 13. I think it's right in the top, Policy 5.1.5. Does anybody have any questions on Page 13? On 5.1.5 you talk about requirements of federal, state, South Florida District and other governmental agency permits. Does that include local approvals from this county? I mean, it says Collier County shall not issue a county permit for such activities until such time as the petitioner has received all other required permits. They do have to meet our requirements as well; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that just intuitive in this statement? Policy 5.2.1 -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- second sentence, Florida Resource Extraction Reclamation Act. I'm wondering, since you did reference that, if they ever amend that act do you need to have the words afterwards as amended. MR. COHEN: That would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Objective 5.3, third line, quantities and location of existing mineable mineral resources. You crossed out the word existing so it reads quantities and location of mineable mineral resources. Is that existing and potential? Is that why you crossed the word existing out? Because it's -- minerals are becoming a problem in Collier County namely in the form of fill. And are we looking at assessing types, quantities and locations of the existing mineable mineral resources or both the existing and the potential? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't that the same thing? Minerals Page 134 March 6, 2006 can't move. They're existing now, they'll always be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's the location that we allow them to be extracted from. That's what I thought the policy was aiming at. I agree, it's not -- with your statement, yes. Who wrote these? MR. WEEKS: The majority of these were written by Glenn Heath. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wondered why you guys are puzzled every time I ask a question. MR. COHEN : Well, this modification was actually required by -- requested by our engineering department. That's why I was looking through the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just that usually you know these a lot better than you seem to be knowing them today. I get answers back quickly and today it's like pulling teeth. And I'm just wondering why. But you just explained why, so -- and he's no longer here, right? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all of these are his problem. Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, they are ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you guys -- Objective 5.3, if you leave the word existing struck does that cover us for locating mineral extractions where needed in the county if we find sources that are vital to this county, because fill is becoming a huge problem in Collier County. I just want to make sure we're not shorting ourselves on ability, that's all. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, we're comfortable with the language as it is with existing being struck through. We think it does read the way you are suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On 5.3.1 the last two lines, you now refer to earth mining operations. For consistency would you want to change those to mineral extractions, mineral extracting operations Page 135 March 6, 2006 or something of that or is earth mining the best term in this particular context? MR. WEEKS: I would agree with the extraction, mineral extraction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problems with the panel? Okay. Page 14, this is the infamous Policy 6.1.1 which the EAC spent a lot of time and literally rewrote. Are there any questions on the -- why don't we just cover the whole policy, and it covers Pages 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and half and 19. And if we could take them in order, are there any questions on Page 14? Any questions on Page 15? I've got a question, Bill, on the number three. It says that -- in underlined added words the type of conservation mechanism, including conservation easements required for specific development may vary based on preserve area size. What other mechanisms are there besides conservation easements? What is it you have in mind here? MR. LORENZ: There could simply be within an SDP, for instance, just the requirements within the SDP saying that that preserve area shall have the following uses within it and the following requirements, as opposed to creating a conservation easement for some very small area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The couple lines above it said it should be a permanent conservation mechanism. And I guess the word permanent ought to be inserted in that underlined section to that it sticks. But a change in an SDP allocation for a preserve area isn't permanent because you simply do an SDP amendment and all of a sudden it goes away. So what kind of permanent conservation mechanism would there be? MR. LORENZ: We would apply this policy to say that you couldn't amend that SDP to remove that protection mechanism from Page 136 March 6, 2006 that preserve area on the SD P. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the future if the codes change and the percentage of set-aside preserves was reduced or the endangered species left and somebody came in with an SDP and said this land is no longer housing an endangered species and the preserve requirements of the LDC have changed and dropped from "x" percentage to "x"percentage, we would like to amend our SDP, wouldn't they be allowed to do it? MR. LORENZ: Under that circumstance they probably would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it's not permanent, that's what I'm getting at. If you guys are intending these to be permanent how do you make them permanent? What action could we put in here that makes it permanent so that it can't be changed? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with environmental services. One of the things that would have to be done in order to facilitate that change to reduce the preserve area in the SDPs, if this language is approved the way it is, if this EAR and GMP language is approved, you'd actually have to come back, since this language is so specific, to identify the preservation requirements, the percentages, the criteria in descending order of what the viable habitat is to be preserved onsite. An SDP is not likely going to be able to be changed to reduce the preserve area if it doesn't comply with this GMP because this language is that specific. So I would not expect in the future that there would be any SDPs that would qualify for that without first coming in and doing a GMP amendment to allow for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the GMP were to change in its requirements, though, couldn't somebody come in and modify their SDP to coincide -- an old SDP to coincide with the new changes? MS. BURGESON: Well, I would expect at that time if we're going to a GMP amendment to allow for that that we could create Page 137 March 6, 2006 language and amend that language of permanent in here to allow for . those changes under those circumstances. But, I mean, we would have to make a change to this anyway in the future so we could, at that time we could look at how to make a change to that permanent status to allow for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you are saying, Barbara, I know the way the system works. I'm not quite sure that you'll get there but it's not -- MS. BURGESON: And I agree that I see on a regular basis requests to vacate permanent conservation easements even and they are -- they are done. They are vacated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we at least in front of the word the type of conservation mechanic insure the type of permanent conservation mechanism so at least the intent is clear. Is that okay with you guys? That okay with the panel? Number four, about the middle of it says facilitate the continued use of the site by listed species. How do you justify -- how do you signify continued? If you drop the word continued and just said the use of the site that mean any bird landing there for a second and flying off is a problem but then how do you determine continued. MS. BURGESON: The intent of putting that in there is so that species that are currently using it -- we're attempting, for instance, if you have fox squirrel on site, that preserve area has to be managed in a specific way to encourage the continued use of fox burrow not just the periodic use. So there is an intent to that language to put that word in there but I'm not sure whether taking it out would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would make it worse. I'm not suggesting taking it out. I'm just wondering if it's the right word as far as definition goes to understand what the intent is. I think you've explained it. I understand it better now. MS. BURGESON: Okay. tPage 138 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions from the panel on Page 16? Item D on Page 16 up on the top, the exceptions to these priorities are noted in seven below, that is struck. Does that mean that you are not agreeing there should be exceptions to those priorities? MS. BURGESON: No, that means that the exceptions were identified in a completely separate goal, which is goal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find it. I thought I read them somewhere else. I just didn't make a note of it in that, didn't go back and make a note of it. MS. BURGESON: It's a combination of goals, I think probably 11, 12 and 13, but it allows for exceptions to the -- to it's -- it's not an exception to native vegetation requirement it's an exception to retained native vegetation. So in cases where you're not able to retain the native vegetation there is an exception or there's an exception to potentially the -- well, we can get into that a little bit later, though, but that's not struck entirely that's just relocated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the EAC it looks like they rewrote-- no, they didn't rewrite five. On number six -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask a five question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the land development code are these criteria set up already? Essentially what we're saying is that we're now allowing to put stormwater into these preserved areas. MS. BURGESON: There is no criteria right now to allow for that; however we have had input from outside counsel that, when you have a wetland preserve on site, when it will benefit that wetland preserve to provide stormwater -- again, pretreated, not utilizing that area as a treatment for the stormwater but when it will be beneficial to the preserve that we are utilizing that ability right now. But as a result of a number of different things including Page 139 March 6, 2006 additional responsibilities and obligations requested by South Florida Water Management District through their permitting process and the cost land and maximizing the sites, we have had more and more requests to be more flexible with stormwater and preserve areas. Without putting this language in here we're not sure that we could make those changes to the GMPs because Paragraph 5A only talks about passive uses not specifically stormwater. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like it. So essentially what you are saying is there will be in the future criteria established -- MS. BURGESON: Yes, there will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to match this, then. MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing with the wetlands. Up on 6.1.1. it says that individual lots situated on -- dwelling units or parcels that are not located within a water management. What's going to happen with parcels that are located? MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry, where are you looking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I jumped back to 6.1.1. I don't know how it's segued from here but there is a line in there that you are adding that are not located within a watershed management -- what would happen, the parcels would then -- would this not apply to anything in there or -- MR. LORENZ: The point of the language that currently exists is that single family homes are not -- are not subject to these vegetation retention requirements. The added language, the added language notes that in the development of a future watershed management plan there may be a recommendation in that plan and any implementation LDRs that single family homes could captured into some type of vegetation retention requirement but only as a result of a development of the watershed management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what that links is lots Page 140 March 6, 2006 and parcels. Okay, I've got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think he's still talking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just offhand, I've been reading about the possibility or somebody wants the possibility of having guest houses in the Estates. What would happen if that were to pass, would that impact on it in any way? Because you would have single family homes, now you'd have another home adjoining within that same lot. MR. LORENZ: Well, right now, no, it would not. The Estates would be excluded from -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's completely out. MR. LORENZ: -- it. However, if a watershed management plan begins to make some recommendation then we have to make some changes that potentially could be the case. I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is pertinent. MR. LORENZ: -- say no to that in the future. But currently, not now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, Item 6 on that page requires a management plan. But if a management plan already exists for a state and federal agency then are you asking for another management plan on top of what state and feds may already have? MR. LORENZ: I'll answer this question Barbara can add to it. Typically, if somebody has a management plan that they develop by the state and incorporate it into our approval documents, whether it's a set of plans and an SDP or what have you, we accept that as long as it meets the land development code requirement. So they don't have to redo anything as long as it has the material that we need to have from the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we enter language in here that Page 141 March 6, 2006 indicates that state and federal management plans consistent with our code or will be acceptable. MR. LORENZ: Sure we can add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way this reads it looks like you want your own separate, very own management plan. I just want to make sure we're not duplicating costs that have been already been addressed at state and federal levels. MR. LORENZ: Right. We would encourage the applicants to submit what they have from the agencies, and as long as they incorporate it into the plan sets we've accepted that. And if we wanted to add that language here to make sure, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be helpful, it would be clarification. Anybody object? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 17, any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask -- 16 why are we killing seven? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one where they are moving the exceptions to a policy later in this document. That dovetails with D up above where I asked why are they removing it, are there no exceptions, and Barbara indicated that further on in the document they placed exceptions in other bullet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To be continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be continued, yes. MR. LORENZ: Kind of embodied in both Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the exceptions that are on the books right now, will they be retained until the LDC criteria is developed for the new exceptions that we discussed further on, because you've crossed them all out right now. But I'm assuming you can't go for a period where nothing is available. MS. BURGESON: From what I understand talking with outside ePage 142 March 6, 2006 counsel is that they felt that we could utilize those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those being? MS. BURGESON: The exceptions that are in the Land Development Code which are -- actually include additional exceptions, they go beyond this. And they were concerned that because it's not in the GMPs that we needed to at least identify that there was an obligation or an ability to have those exceptions identified in the GMP. So putting language in here as we're doing now should allow us to continue to utilize the language that's in the LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: -- cautiously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure there is some release value of for a while. MR. LORENZ: And I may add as well, and this may be -- we may have a little -- a need for some further discussion with the attorney's office but the current plan under parentheses seven talks about exceptions and it has the phrase cannot reasonably accommodate. We think that we possibly, even in the next land development code cycle, we might be able to flush the land development code out a little more in terms of detail, still be consistent with the current GMP and I think we'll also be consistent with any future -- the future language that we proposed here in the EAR as well. So we might be able to even get a jump start on that. But that's some more discussions with the county attorney's office on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on to Page 17. Any questions from the panel? On number nine -- actually number eight, preservation areas should be interconnected within the site and to adjoining offsite preservation areas or wildlife corridors. Not all sites may accommodate that. So I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on maybe where it's practical and to the greatest extent possible type language as I've seen in other parts of the code. Page 143 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: This is where we had noted in some language before for -- let me see -- and I'm going to refer to, let's just say parentheses Paragraph 13, that whether we call it a variance or an exception that we know that certain sites sometimes it's difficult to apply all of these requirements that we have and we have to make certain judgment calls such as you noted. And in the, either the variance or the exception language that we would be proposing is that we would have the ability to vary from some of these, what I'll call as nominal standards, through that process that's outlined in parentheses 13 now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that issue would be addressed when we get further on with -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Paragraph 10 I noticed I had a lot of notes but the EAC corrected the paragraph significantly, which I think their language and recommendations are fine there. Although I do have two concerns. They keep referencing monetary payment to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program. Wasn't that the program established by referendum for taxation, they're using tax dollars to buy land to set aside for open space, basically? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now the program is going to be funded in perpetuity based on policy in the GMP? How does that meet the intent of the taxpayers when they basically had a referendum that established a certain value be funded to the program and no more. So is the government now picking up where the taxpayers left off or how does that -- how does this coincide? I'm not sure why we keep referencing that program or the need for it. MR. LORENZ: I think the reason why we're recognizing that program is because that is a county program and it does have a certain amount of standards that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted through ordinances that we can control and understand the Page 144 March 6, 2006 objectives of the program. I personally don't see any conflict between the program as voted - as voted on by the electorate through the referendum and the ability to take money in donations from other types of efforts. For -- I'll give you an example right now in the land development code if you have a code compliance case there is a requirement that a certain value of whatever vegetation may be destroyed that is a monetary valuing of that, that vegetation. And then that money in the past has gone to, for instance, Rookery Bay. Right now we have two examples where that money now goes into the Conservation Collier because we were managing -- we're acquiring lands or managing the lands and the ordinance for Conservation Collier allows for donations and other revenue streams to come into it. So we thought that this was -- the existing Conservation Collier program was a natural program already set up that mirrors the similar objectives that we have in the growth management plan both for native vegetation retention and listed species protection. That basically essentially this is a payment in lieu of preserving habitat and vegetative communities on site under certain circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You recall if when the referendum was put forth to the voters that it would be a program that would be going on forever? MR. LORENZ: Well, that has been somewhat a point of debate from some stake holders. I wouldn't say forever. The debate was whether the program is capped at $75 million, which was -- the referendum technically stated that the county would be authorized to spend up to $75 million in bonds for borrowing purposes versus having the millage rate to last for ten years. And that is a -- that is a -- that is a discussion that has been ongoing, and the stakeholders are actually coming to the Board of County Commissioners with a new referendum language. Page 145 March 6, 2006 So I -- so at some particular point the Conservation Collier Program could be sunsetted if it doesn't have a funding source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I don't think we ought to be getting into the politics of this particular program since the voters did voice their position with this when it was originally started. Why do we have to reference that program, why don't we just reference a generic element, a publicly funded program or something like that? Why do we have to reference this program by name. Again, we may change and have another program pop up that may be more beneficial to utilize these kind of funds through than this one and by the GMP we would be locked into only this one. So is there a generic way this could be listed rather than go into this political quagmire? MR. LORENZ: I'm familiar with the Conservation Collier program so I understand what our objectives are, how we're processing funds that go through it, selecting lands, managing the properties. And certainly my recommendation would be that for this particular program I would like to be able to see the monies coming into that program because I think the county through the Board of County Commissioners has more control of how that money would be spent and utilized that would come into it. Whereas if we allowed the money to go to any -- a variety of programs, even if they have the same objectives they would be going to state agencies, they would have different objectives and we would lose a little bit of control of it. So my recommendation is we have the county's program, whether it has a different name in the future or not I don't know, we can possibly generalize that. But I would certainly want to have the priority going to the Conservation Collier program. And along those lines as well, and I know that Rich Y ovanovich has noted that in one of his comments that if you want to have donation of land to either Conservation Collier or some other program Page 146 March 6, 2006 -- and again, we're focusing on monetary because when we talk about donation of land Conservation Collier, through its advisory committee will make a choice as to whether they want to accept the land or not and then it begs the question, well, how much will be the funds for the management of the land. F or instance, if a small one-acre parcel, a two-acre -- two or ten, even five or ten-acre parcel was being offered to Conservation Collier and it was in the middle of an area that would not have some public access to and that we cannot manage properly, Conservation Collier may simply say, no, we do not want to accept that donation of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron then the county attorney. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think once these lands have been acquired we have long term management responsibilities to those lands. And having some monetary means to do that is a good thing. So I have no problem with this language, with it going to Conservation Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve? MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I direct your attention to 12, which I think may help clarify a little bit what the thought process was on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve talks about listed plant species. You are talking about 12 -- parentheses 12. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. I'm sorry, 11 rather, which says that if the Conservation Collier program no longer exists, then it would go to another publicly funded land acquisition program for the purchase of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then can that same language be utilized in number ten? MR. GRIFFIN: Ten actually cross references 11, and there was-- I know there was some discussion at one time of combining ten and 11. And I think in fact Mr. Y ovanovich may have said something Page 147 March 6, 2006 about that earlier. But there is a cross reference clearly to 11, which then says if you don't have Conservation Collier and you have something else that replaced it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRIFFIN: -- that's where it would go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. Thank you for clarifying it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're talking about the EAC-numbered comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the EAC one. Right. The last one on number ten in the EAC, Bill, was D, the type of landuse proposed taking the provision of affordable housing into account. This is a conservation and -- it's an environmental element of our GMP. What does that element care whether it's affordable housing or not? Isn't this something more better addressed in the FLU or somewhere -- the housing element or somewhere else? I mean, what difference does it make to this program if the land use is whatever as long as if you are going to -- the alternative to give money is utilized, what do you care what the use is? MR. LORENZ: I think the reaction -- the staff reaction to here, which staff proposed this, was to indicate -- was to realize that perhaps there is a trade-off between native vegetation retention requirements. In this case it's made up through a payment, a cash payment to Conservation Collier, that that trade-off for that environmental condition is for trying to get more qualified affordable housing. So essentially what it does is it creates up a little bit of an incentive program for affordable housing, makes it easier for affordable housing to propose more units because they will have less of a cash payment to Conservation Collier for satisfying the vegetation retention requirements. Now if it's better placed in the housing element and cross referenced here, you know, that may be the case. But the first question Page 148 March 6, 2006 is whether as a matter of policy you would want to see a break in -- a break given to the amount of money that would go into Conservation Collier for a greater number of affordable housing units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand it better, thank you. Now we're still on Page 18. Fred, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, while we're on it. It's an 18 question. You are going to establish how to establish the value in the land development code? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will it be similar to what you've done here or should we wait and see. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think definitely wait and see. That's our starting point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We have enough to do today, move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The top of Page 18 talks about offsite alternatives may be used to satisfy a hundred percent -- and when you have a taking of the land required for a publicly owned right-of-way. So does this mean that if the county demands a right-of-way out of a -- from an applicant any native owned, native retention requirements applicable to that right-of-way have to be paid for by the owner of the property whose right-of-way was taken? MR. LORENZ: We've excluded that from the new language. I think that there is a recognition, and perhaps in the land development regulations when we get to them, something -- that that will be addressed in some way, shape or form but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- it's not part of the policy now as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down on 13, the discussion about -- I know EAC rewrote it and they still used the word variance and there's been this discussion about the exception -- I would like to get thati Page 149 March 6, 2006 worked out as far as where this board's mindset is. Variance is a strong word because it requires a lot of effort, a lot of cost, a lot of time. I'm not sure how that differs too much from an exception because I don't know what the criteria is for an exception. But it's something we certainly should talk about. Where do you see the differences, Bill? MR. LORENZ: When it comes to exceptions versus variance language the attorney's office and ourselves had discussed it, and right now the attorney's office is looking for the use of the word variance. I would make -- I would -- my take on the issue or at least put this in front of you for discussion is, I think there is two types of -- and I'm just going to use the word exceptions here without the legal connotation but there are two things that are going on here. One is there is a recognition that we can't -- we cannot anticipate all of the circumstances that come to us when -- upon reviewing a site in the way we've specified all of the standards. And just recognize that at some particular point we need to be able to apply some common sense to a situation. And rather than have everybody around the table agreeing that we ought to go one way but the GMP or land development code you can't do it, we want to try to avoid those situations and create that mechanism for that to occur. There is a second issue that comes up, and an earlier speaker, I think George Varnadoe mentioned this in terms of Mercado, where he talked about there is not so much something that is in control -- let's say, whether it's in control of the applicant or not in control of the applicant, applicant's control. For instance, there can be a lot of discretion that the applicant is applying in making a recommendation that they want to have a particular package on their site that would violate the nominal criteria that we have in the growth management plan. They could move -- they could reconfigure their site, get essentially the same density intensity of uses on that site but have a different package. Page 150 March 6, 2006 Now when that comes at the discretion of the applicant, the question then comes is how do we establish that in, quote, this exceptional language. At that particular moment it's not a matter of the site constraints, it's a matter of the choice of the applicant. But the choice of the applicant may serve some higher purposes that we have in the growth management plan, whether it could be affordable housing or it could be some smart growth principles or something along those lines. So I think that those -- there are two categories of, quote, exceptions that we want to try to recognize here, certainly from a standpoint of some of the more detailed work, and staff can apply that. But when it comes to some of these higher principles I think those are value judgments that are best made in a public setting. So at least that's just some food for thought for your discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we're talking about variance we're going to have -- we have policies in the GMP, we're going to have regulations in the LDC. Are we talking about variances to the regulations or variances or exceptions, whatever word, to the GMP? MR. LORENZ: I assume that we can have -- we can have, I don't want to call it exceptions to the GMP, I would say that the GMP could establish a process that will define the criteria by which you can modify some of the standards that we have referenced. And that process is what we're trying to outline here. So in that sense as you go through that process you are not in violation of the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're never going to really change the intent of the GMP, we're only going to be able to have altered the methods to obtain compliance with the GMP, which should be available. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the word variance is a Page 151 March 6, 2006 word that's really tied to some serious requests, so it would be nice to have a different word. For example, building codes have a concept of alternate methods that seems to work fine, people can use their judgments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For the record again, Joe Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator. Let me give you some background on where this is -- or where we're going with this. This is -- several months ago I met with my staff. The bottom line with some of these criteria that exist in the code, it is so restrictive that, frankly, staffs hands were tied when we were evaluating some alternative, I'll call them designs, or alternative proposals to deal with either offsite mitigation or whatever. I'll bring up one issue, Kraft Construction proj ect, the headquarters. We got into quite a debate publicly, so it is part of public record. And I explained to the Board of County Commissioners, frankly my hand were tied because it was -- it's in the code, there is criteria in the code, that's what the code says. And when you -- there were things that certainly made sense to us from a practical application standpoint but to approve it, it was problematic. We were prohibited from doing so. So between the county attorney and my environmental staff and I, we sat down and I said to Bill, look at what we can write. That's what you saw and that's what went before the EAC. What we're really looking for here is little more room for my staff to make some judgment calls. The danger is if we have too much room, then people are going to say, wow, there they go, they are out of control and they're paving over the entire county and, you know, the whole issue. And you've heard the arguments. And then likewise, if we're too restrictive. We were trying to apply these mostly in the urban area because, frankly, the rules are pretty definitive in the fringe and in the eastern Page 152 March 6, 2006 Collier County. I mean they are there. In fact probably some of the language in the rural fringe mixed use overlay and the rural fringe or rural land stewardship area is probably more flexible than it is even for applying in the urban area. So the real question to you after all of that introduction is do you want something that is publicly vetted or do you want a -- we could use a deviation process. And then we would have so come back to you certainly in implementation guidance in the LDC that would have criteria for evaluating some kind of a deviation. But the premise is do you want it at a staff level or do you want it publicly vetted. And that's, I think when this went before the county attorney, the county attorney was looking for some kind of a variance process. Now whether that is to the planning commission or to the board, again, we're trying to, this is a tough issue. And I go back again to Kraft Construction. That was storage of water, storage of stormwater and preserves, flat against it in the code, you cannot do it. And this is, again, a dealing with trying to put ten pounds of you know what in a five-pound sack. It happens time and time again. So where do you want the authority to be. If you want the authority to be at the staff level, we can create a deviation process. If you want it to be some kind of public meeting, and it is, then you go through the expense, the advertisement, all of the other type of things under what is deemed a variance. So hopefully that kind of explains how we got to where we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because we have had so many issues in the past of ten pounds trying to go into five pounds, I think it's imperative that it be a public process. I think that the public is entitled to know when something is going to essentially be taken away from them -- MR. SCHMITT: And I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to whatever degree you might Page 153 March 6, 2006 want to consider it taken away from, but something is being taken away and it should done in a public process. MR. SCHMITT: I think Bill just said it's both but it depends on level and the threshold. MR. LORENZ: Yes. In the pre-March 1st EAC meeting we had proposed two levels. One, what we were calling an administrative variance that staff could apply. And the threshold, the criteria thresholds were set out in that scenario where staff could make those judgment calls and call that an administrative variance. If it didn't meet those thresholds it would go through the public process. In your current draft right now we've kept it somewhat flexible. We could still have the ability to have a portion of it, quote, administrative and a portion of it more in the public forum. But I think that's, that's why we simplified the language, made it a little bit more flexible. We can develop the land development code regulations to go either way or maybe split the middle and do both if it makes sense. So I just wanted to say at that those options could be available through the land development regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, Bill, we when we talked before, the intent is in the GMP, that's -- we're not really talking about playing with that, requirements in the LDC which have a . . . vanance prOVISIon anyway. I think what we really need to do is come up with -- and the word deviation I think is a bad word because what you are saying is you're not going to allow somebody not to do something, you are going to have somebody propose an alternate way to achieve the goal of the GMP. So can't we come up with an administrative process. I mean, should it be public, I think it certainly should be posted what people are doing. I don't think we should tie up boards with people that have alternate ways of hitting the intent the GMP. Maybe they could appeal Page 154 March 6, 2006 to a board if they are not getting their decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language that was proposed by the EAC takes the implementation of how this is attained out and moves it to the land development code, which is where it should be. MS. BURGESON: Right. And the language as proposed, number eight on Page 3 of five, which states that a public hearing for a variance maybe granted administratively allows us to do it either through the public hearing process or through an administrative vanance. I just wanted to answer something that was a just asked, in that if you are looking for the ability for input from the public in any manner, if it's an administrative variance there isn't any. If it's an administrative variance staff would -- it wouldn't be advertised, no one would have -- there would be no notice to anyone that it was occurring. We would just review and approve it. So that is an administrative variance process, is purely staff, no other input at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we have had issues in the past with things that have been done administratively. MS. BURGESON: And we clearly feel that there are times when an administrative variance is appropriate. MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me add, the administrative variance is predicated on criteria. So if there is problems in administering an administrative variance it's because the applicant meets the requirements, staff has no authority to say no if there is, let's say, a dimensional, an administrative variance on a dimensional, it's within it, the criteria, or not. If it's not you go through the public process. If it is you get the variance. There is no discretion. Staff -- it's black or white. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, Joe, isn't an administrative variance where you look at it, you have criteria and you decide whether it makes sense. Not -- again, an administrative Page 155 March 6, 2006 variance isn't just an established tolerance it's a lower process where staff can make a decision rather than go into a board. MR. SCHMITT: But most cases administrative variance meets the definitive criteria, says, yes, it meets it, no, it doesn't. If it does, you get the variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all administrative variances if they're within the tolerance described will be approved? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, there is no discretion. I mean, that's -- the rules define the criteria, the request is validated -- evaluated against that criteria and staff approves it. It's not discretionary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the staff had the discretion at that point. MR. SCHMITT: What may be discretionary are maybe some applications and whether or not it should be applied, but then you apply through the zoning director for an official interpretation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we should rename it tolerance and let people work within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve. MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman. Again, Steve Griffin with the County Attorney's office. I think it's kind of an interesting argument, the difference between variance and exception, but the devil's in the details oftentimes with how you go about getting one or the other. I'm -- I think that most people are more comfortable with referring to variance if you are talking about an actual process that you have to follow steps A, B, C, D before you can get something. But I don't see why you couldn't have an exception process that would follow pretty much the same steps. So some of it is a lot of talk about use of words that may not have a lot of difference, just depending on the process that has to be followed to get to that end point. And I will say that I really wasn't involved so much in the discussion about the using variance as opposed to exception or Page 156 March 6, 2006 whatever else you want to call it. But I think typically at least the traditional way of looking at getting something that somehow varies from the requirement is to go through a process called a variance. So that's probably why that was encouraged. We certainly have that existing in our code. But, again, I think in terms of getting an exception, you have a process that you can go through that's basically the same as you would a variance. I'm not certain that the terminology is that important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the EAC, again, addressed this issue, deferred it all to the LDC in the format of a full variance or an administrative variance. And I think the LDC can sort out the priorities for each one. Whether we call it a variance or an exception at this stage I think is not essential versus what is going to come out in the land development code. So I'm content at this point with the EAC's recommendation. I don't know about the rest of the panel. I don't hear any objections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only negative is that a variance really does have the burden of a hardship, where I think some of these things could be an opportunity to try to obtain, not a hardship. And if you use the word variance, you know, all over the place you lose the value of what the word really means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we were to change this to exceptions, the exceptions would probably be limited to what we currently are calling administrative variances. And if that's the case neither one is going to be any harder than the other because the administrative variance process is an application through staff for a very minor change, such as a government agency requiring a different access point than what's originally on your plan or something like that. So I'm not sure that the naming of it is detrimental or different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe Mr. Varnadoe too, he said that in the statutes the word variance means different than in the land development code, so is GMP a statute or a land development Page 157 March 6, 2006 code -- maybe it makes sense-- MR. GRIFFIN: GMP is not a statute and it's not the land development -- it is a creature that is devised because of state law to be used as sort of the plan or the road map for getting to something that is in the code, and that's the LDC. So again, I would be willing to entertain whatever case law or other statutory provisions they are citing to that says the exception is better than a variance. But again, I think it's all according to what you decide and what the BCC decides in the final analysis should be the process for getting this thing, whatever you want to name it. I will say that normally words and phrases used in statutes and rules and other laws have their plain and ordinary meaning, so if exception, which sort of connotes some sort of an automatic thing that you either have or you don't have, is a problem then a different word can be used. But again, I think if you specify what you have to go through in order to get the exception or if you want to define what an exception is in the LDC or elsewhere you could do that to make it equivalent to this variance process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, maybe we can use the concept of alternate method. It works well in building codes. If you replace the word variance with alternate method or plural, in some cases it works and that gets us away from -- because that's really your intent is that somebody could propose an alternate method to do something. From a building code concept the alternative method has to be equal to or greater than the intent of what the -- it's dealing with. So I think it's -- it has a good precedent. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's a positive change, ifit has to be equal to or better than. Then that change in wording -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but alternate method-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- probably is a good -- MR. GRIFFIN: My only recommendation there, Mr. Chairman, Page 158 March 6, 2006 would be to make it clear what you mean by that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I was going anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But all we are putting in here is that we're allowing alternate methods. The LDC is going to make it clear as to how that is done, what that means -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as Steve just indicated, if you're thinking of alternate methods, what are they? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially, what we're writing today is the ability to have alternate methods not what the alternate methods are; isn't that right? The LDC's going to write how you deal with alternate methods. This is just opening the door for the fact that you can now have them. Because what Joe Smith said is really true, that if you have a project that is slightly off the semantics of the code, not even the intent -- I mean, everybody can see what the intent is but the words are the words, then it paralyzes a project. Staff doesn't know what to do, assigners don't know what to do and everything just freezes and time goes by. So this is opening up the door to have something that we could stop and start discussing with an outcome so the project can continue on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the word alternate method then, does anybody have a problem with that? Okay. Let's move forward with that then. By the way, if you are all wondering about a break, the court reporter has indicated that another replacement for her is going to be here soon and that's when the break will be. So if you are getting hungry or thirsty or whatever just hold on a little bit. You guys are having another one of those curious conversations. Is it something we should know about or are we okay? MR. LORENZ: I think it would be good to let David go ahead. I think he's got a good observation. Page 159 March 6, 2006 MR. WEEKS: This sounded like a -- as Mr. Schiffer was stating that the term alternate method would result in the same or greater requirement under the code. That is not what is being proposed here in this language. There might be a circumstance where a lesser amount might be shown. For -- the one example would be in the case of affordable housing. The county, having competing interests might say well, in this case it's appropriate to have lesser native vegetation retention on site for the benefit of getting more affordable housing. So I'm concerned that the term alternate method may not be appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What makes you think that it's appropriate to lessen the environmental standards to get affordable housing? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Wouldn't it be greater to create affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: Yes. But since this is dealing with a regulations of natural resource protection it would be potentially a lesser amount of natural resource being maintained with the trade-off of getting the affordable housing, as an example. I was wondering about the term deviation. I don't want to beat this horse to death but a couple of things about variance. One, at present variance is limited to dimensional standards only, setbacks, the width of a buffer, number of parking spaces et cetera. And secondly, going back to what Mr. Varnadoe had said, you cannot have created -- part of the criteria is that the applicant has not created their own hardship -- and by the way, variance typically is a hardship-based process because you have to demonstrate a land or structure-related hardship as the reason for needing to vary from the code. I'm wondering, Steve, if the term deviation will be acceptable. We have that right now in the land development code for PUDs where you can deviate. Part of that process is providing justification why you Page 160 March 6, 2006 should be able to deviate from the code. I'm thinking similarly here. We have criteria. You would say, here's why I want to deviate from the requirements, I meet such and such a criteria, here is what I will provide in the alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is an already predefined process, too, so that might be a much clearer way to go. MR. GRIFFIN: Again, not to beat a dead horse, but determine that what you want to use is whatever you want to use. And I think it really goes down to what the process is to get to that point, deviation, and I think the plain and ordinary meaning of that wouldn't be a problem. MR. WEEKS: The other thing is, again, gets into specifics. Variances are dealt with by the board of zoning appeals. A deviation would be dealt with by the Board of County Commissioners. If we don't get this resolved soon I'm wondering if we could -- I think staff is very clear on what the planning commission's intent is. Perhaps we just need to take out the word variance, use some generic terminology and let the land development code come up with the specifics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that is where we're trying to head. But the addition of a new terminology called alternate method I think it may have put a different -- for me I thought the intent was simply we're going to come up with some other ways to look at these exceptions. We're not going to call it exceptions, we're not going to call it variance, it's going to be something else. Then Brad or somebody indicated that an alternate method has to be a higher standard than what was already there. That's not what I saw. What I saw was we have problems with conflicting regulations from different agencies that legitimately have to be addressed. And it's a hardship we're putting on a property owner inadvertently. So we need a release valve to have that taken a look at. So I saw the alternate method as whatever array of methods the LDC worked out to, not necessarily being more stringent but being practical.c Page 161 March 6, 2006 N ow until you said that I didn't realize it could be heading in the wrong direction. So I'm concerned about the alternate method definition because it's -- Brad's definition is making it worse not better. And I think there needs to be an exception to the rule occasionally, whether, how that is applied though is the LDC that takes care of that. That's where I was going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you opened up is -- and I never thought that what we had here was a clause that we could lessen the requirement. I thought it was a way, the description Joe described the project that needed an alternate way to meet it, not to not meet it. So if you are saying that we're going to start bringing in different housing types and different land uses that are going to throwaway the requirements of this then certainly that is not on alternate method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about the term special exception. MR. WEEKS: That's a term of art. Some jurisdictions refer to them, as we do here, as a conditional use. It has its own connotation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I still think it's alternative, which has no up or down, is a proper word. The alternative, period. Not better or worse. What we decide or what they decide has to be done by it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is that's not the way Brad and now David indicated it was used to apply. They said it would indicate more stringent. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Explain that to me how it would be more stringent. Alternative means you can do this or that. That's the term alternative. It doesn't say it's stronger this way or that way. You have an option, the alternative is you can do this or the alternative is you can do that. Alternative isn't a negative word -- it's a Page 162 March 6,2006 non-gendered word. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I did is I dragged how it's used in the building code where it means equal to or greater than, what you have to prove to be approved to use an alternate method. I think what you are saying, Lindy, is fine. Just using the word alternate opens up the fact that it's not the same as what's in the code and then we set the criteria in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, does that work for you from an intent viewpoint? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just let this one rest. It's the alternative -- alternate method replaces the word variance in paragraph 13 of 6.1.1. Consensus of the group as agreement? Okay. Are you doing okay, Ms. Court Reporter, because you volunteered to do it this way, so we'll just stick with you. We're on Page 19 and it's getting into more recent writings of the GMP, which is the rural fringe mixed use district. If there is no other questions -- if there are any questions on the continuation of that section on Page 19 and Page 20? MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether you want to see it but I do have the -- on Page 19 under neutral land where we're striking through the sending lands determination, I have some, two slides to show the map of what we're talking about and some of the red-cockaded woodpecker RCW, the types of habitats that would justify that if you are interested in seeing that. If not, that's fine too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have a question on it at this point. Does anybody else? No. I think you are safe, Bill. You might as well be safe when you can be. Are there any members of the public that have asked to speak on any of these items as we've moved along, Randy, that I may have missed? MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have numerous speakers Page 163 March 6, 2006 that want to talk on various aspects of Objective 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like now before we move on to the next one if you could kind of give me a head's up that that's the case then we can get them up here while we're relative to that Issue. Could you call the first number of speakers up and we'll start on that? MR. COHEN: With respect to 6.1.1 Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we're working on policy by policy instead of at the end of the element I have got to ask all of you to be brief, because in general you'd be five minutes and at the end of the element and you'd be done. Now we're getting multiple times on each policy. So please be as brief as you can in your statements. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Quick comment on one that you have of already been past. My name is Bruce Anderson. Five, Policy 5.1.5, I think that that's already in the land development code and I don't know why we need to put it in the comprehensive plan. Moving along to 6.11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go that far, Randy or David, is that already in the LDC? If staff could take a look at it at some point and get back to us. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Ifwe could please turn to Page 16. In Paragraph 1 that's in parentheses, I would propose to strike -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are on a different Page 16. MR. ANDERSON: Sorry. Okay. Policy 6.1.1, paren, one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 15 on ours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. I wanted to request that you make the following modifications to the first sentence in that paragraph number one. And that is strike the word Page 164 March 6, 2006 canopy and then Melaleuca or other. So it would read for the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 75 percent or less coverage of invasive exotic plant species. Let me give you an example of why that makes sense. Let's say that there is an abandoned farm field where the cows have been grazing and there have been some pine trees left there. But that's all that's pretty much left. Under this definition those pine trees, that all becomes native vegetation now because the canopy, the tree canopy is not 75 percent or more Melaleuca-infested. But it ignores what you've got on the ground or not got on the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comments from the members of commission or staff? MS. BURGESON: Yes. That would be a huge change in the intent of the definition of native vegetation. The reason that we chose canopy when we created that language, and we went through that very carefully when staff created this language to get us out of the final order, identifying that you have a canopy of non-natives or exotic vegetation. For instance, in that example where you have pine flatwoods. If you have an understory -- if you have pine flatwoods canopy that's sparse and you have understory of greater than 75 percent Melaleuca, you can remove that Melaleuca or Brazilian pepper or whatever mid-story native vegetation -- or non-native vegetation, excuse me. Once you remove that within a number of -- usually less than five years that area will restore itself naturally to a native system. You also don't have to worry -- hold on a second -- I'm not sure where I was. I lost my train of thought there, I apologize. But it's important that we identify the native vegetation by the canopy. If you have a situation where you don't have a pine canopy but you have a mid-story canopy, then whatever the exotic infestation would be what would be identified to remove the definition. So if you had a scrub oak area and the Brazilian pepper was in that canopy and Page 165 March 6, 2006 that was greater than 75 percent, then removing, that would cause to remove that from the definition of native vegetation. But this has been worked through the system, through the EAC. To make any changes to this now that would be a huge change in the intent of this language. I would recommend at the absolute minimum that this be brought back and worked through, at least through the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for your comments, Barbara. Are there any comments from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure I understand, and you can answer, Mark. The canopy would essentially be the coverage of the branches and everything; is that what it means? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would think that a tree canopy could be a separate type of canopy and use the term tree canopy and not make the same term as a plant canopy. Because there are trees that can happen that way, and basically they are not in a situation where you want to keep them. But in a flower canopy, if that's what you are talking about, then you would be able to continue what you want to do and the tree one you can do what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From what I can see this paragraph number one did not have any changes in it proposed before this commission today. And at this point, without it having to go back through the EAC, I don't -- Bruce, I understand what you had said but I also understand what Barbara said, and if it is this weighty in regards to a environmental issue I would rather have it go back through the process properly before we would hear on it. So I'm not, myself, thinking we should make those changes. Had it been something posed for changes today it would be a different story. But it wasn't proposed that way and I honestly had not studied that paragraph myself. So unless there is any other objections Page 166 March 6, 2006 from the panel or comments I would just like to move on to your next point, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let's turn to the next page. In parentheses number four, wetland or upland areas known to be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts on Page 15 on ours, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What small letter are you going to? MR. ANDERSON: 4A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's on Page 15 in our. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. I want to suggest that the language should be actually being utilized instead of known to be utilized, that's a past tense word. There being demonstration that it is presently being utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comments from the commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says known to be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are saying actually, actually to be utilized? MR. ANDERSON: Or presently being utilized. Simply to indicate -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both of them are present tense. MR. ANDERSON: Present tense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I have is that if you go to an eagle's nest in the summer its not presently being utilized. MS. BURGESON: There is one issue in regards to that is that if a piece of property has been utilized by a listed species, if it was known to be utilized by a listed species and they are not immediately present, there would be a potential for them to come back, if we know that that property has been known utilized by listed species. But the intent of the language and as we have been applying it is current as the opposed to future or past tense. I'm not sure I would be comfortable ruling out Page 167 March 6, 2006 that it should only be current or future tense and not some indication if we know that the property is known to be utilized. If they are not currently on the site but the nests are there and we know that the species utilized it, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to ramp up the discussion-- MR. ANDERSON: What would be a reasonable time limit to put on that, two years, three years known to have been utilized? MS. BURGESON: For instance, for eagles that would be five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was going to ask you, Barbara, how do you define the word known, how do you guys look back and say this is known to be? MS. BURGESON: We would use a combination of the information provided to us by the consultants, staff site visits to know whether or not the species are on site and the indication from agency staff that have expertise and understanding of that, those exact parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long has the word known been in the code currently? MS. BURGESON: I think that's been in there since we created this GMP as a result of the final order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments on this particular issue from the commission? Bruce, I'm going to interrupt you because the court reporter is here to switch out. We're going to take a break for ten minutes and be back at 3:31. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It's -- we're a minute late. I know, everybody likes to be punctual. Mr. Anderson, before you begin, I got to impose on you one more time; and that is simply to find out for the benefit of the court reporter and the members of the commission and everybody else how long we're going to be going Page 168 March 6, 2006 today. So we have 50 pages in the CCME. We're on -- we went back to page 15, though, we're really on page 20. MR. ANDERSON: And I'm -- I'm supposed to confine my remarks to just what you've already covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So let me finish with this issue first. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 5:30. MR. ANDERSON: 5:30 works for me. What works for this commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was going to say seven, but five-thirty's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm fine for whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine for whatever, Mr. Murray. Doesn't matter. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm good till the end. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Do it all night if we have to, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would prefer -- Mr. Kolflat, are you down there or are you hiding behind Brad? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to have to leave at five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe lost two members and we went on after that until, say, seven o'clock, we might get the CCME done today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would really be nice if we could work on, say, seven o'clock or until the CCME is over with, whichever is earliest. Does that work for the Commission? COMMISSIONER VIGILOTTI: Under one condition, they keep the coffee on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll be gone before the next -- the Page 169 March 6, 2006 next break. They go home at five. COMMISSIONER VIGILOTTI: I'll go in earlier and set it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You better hurry because they're going to be cleaning up before that. COMMISSIONER VIGILOTTI: I'll take that responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to tell them. You might want to tell them because they'll be cleaning up after this break. COMMISSIONER VIGILOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, Mark, at this rate, we're going to be around tax time before we get done here. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, you know what-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't think of any faster way though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't either and I would love if you have an idea in that regard to share it with me. If it means, Mark, stop asking questions, then tell me that. But at this point I think it's important that this plan get done as properly as we can possibly do it because it's going to carry this county for the next seven years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just a fact of life. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, honestly, the rest of the -- as we get past these sections, we might see some of the stuff speed up because it's more recent language like the rural fringe in the stewardship area. So with that, Bruce, thank you for your indulgence. If you -- I know we interrupted your discussion. Do you mind just we left off on Item 4. You were talking about changing the word known to actually or presently. I don't know if that seemed to go very far with the other panel members. What's the consensus? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought we'd already gotten that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's leave it as it is. MR. ANDERSON: We're moved beyond that, yeah. Page 170 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess I was concerned with Tyrannosaurus Rex eggs and things like that. I think it was a legitimate point to define it narrow or somewhat anyway. Unless -- I didn't know we finished with that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think does anybody else feel this deserves this -- needs to be discussed any further? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that it's really not -- since it's not a change also, let's leave it the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see a lot of people marching behind your thought there, Russell. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, Tyrannosaurus lives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just move on. Okay, Bruce. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You kill dinosaurs? MR. ANDERSON: Paragraph No.5, immediately under what we just discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 16 of our document. MR. ANDERSON: I would urge you to keep the existing language in the comprehensive plan. As this is written now, it could prevent a boardwalk or a nature trail being placed in a preserve area even though the minimum native vegetation is still retained in there. I don't think we want to do that. Don't we want preserve areas to be accessible to the public? And that same change would need to be made where you have similar language in the rural fringe mixed-use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments from the panel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think Bruce might have something there. Because what -- the way it's worded, somebody could actually deduct across the boardwalk area from the calculation. Bill, do you think that's the case or-- MR. LORENZ: I believe that's how we apply it now. If that's the Page 171 March 6, 2006 intent if -- if you're talking about whatever that area of that footprint of the boardwalk is, is no longer native vegetation. So -- so that needs to be made up some place within the preserve. So the preserve -- so the preserve -- the total acres of the native vegetation needs to be accounted -- you need to account for the loss of that footprint. You can have that use in there. And we agree with that. You can have the use in there, but you just have to make sure that -- that you're not -- you're not destroying native vegetation to put it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you said you'd do -- MR. LORENZ: Typically -- typically you can find an area where it's already been -- been impacted and you won't have to do that. But if you want to put a -- put in there a boardwalk through your preserve area that's going to impact native vegetation, you just have to make sure that there's an allowance for that loss of footprint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are you saying that's how it's calculated now or that's how you want to calculate it? MR. LORENZ: Barbara's telling me that's how -- that's how they do it now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I would say keep it the way it is I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a strong inclination to see it change? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you're doing two-- MR. ANDERSON: Do you mean keep it changed, no change from what's in the plan today or what staff proposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: What's proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave the language as it's presented to us today. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Moving on to -- sure. MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Andy Woodruff with Passarello and Associates. I'm here with Bruce. Page 1 72 March 6, 2006 With regard to that change that was made for the passive recreational uses, I think the issue there is there was some additional language that was put in there with regard to loss of function. And I think that's where some of the confusion arises. It's -- it's not just an acreage that we're trying to make up between what the boardwalk is utilizing on the property. We understand that if you put a boardwalk in the preserve area, that you have to account for that acreage. You can't use your minimum required native vegetation to put that boardwalk in. But I think what's confusing is the loss of function language that's put in there. Somebody might interpret that boardwalk as being a loss of function to that area. MS. BURGESON: The purpose-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Andy, what you could do -- I mean, the language is clear. The criteria identifying what constitutes a loss of function shall be set forth in land development regulation. I would suggest that if you're concerned about that issue, figure out the parameters that concern you and when that implementation language comes into play, include it in the LDC language or bring it forward at that time. I think the intent is clear. And I don't have a problem with the intent, but I think the implementation is what you're trying to express. Barbara, I'm sorry. MS. BURGESON: I was just going to support what you were saying that the loss of function -- we would not consider a boardwalk that has pervious -- the ability for rainfall, for instance, to go through that boardwalk to be a loss of function. But we have had in the past proposals to berm an area and put not even a pervious, but maybe an impervious surface on the top of that and that can bisect or bifurcate a preserve, particularly if it's a wetland; and we don't want to create any loss of function by that type of -- of passive recreational use. Even though that would still function as the same way. Page 173 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this issue? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just keep moving forward. MR. ANDERSON: And the last on what you previously discussed, the last two are paragraph 6. As I understood Bill to explain it, they were wanting -- would not require a listed species plan that was set forth with a, like, state or federal agency in connection with permitting as long as it complied with the code. And that essentially begs the very question. If a permit has been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and it lays out specific requirements, shouldn't that be sufficient without having an unnecessary duplication of regulatory effort by the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- Bruce, that's where I was going with my question. And what I thought Bill had replied was that as long as it's stated on the SDP or the application to the government and it meets our code, then it's consistent. Now, they'd have to meet our code if they're on our -- if it's on our SDP. So I'm not sure what specific concern you have. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay. I mean additional code requirements for that -- for that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Bill, are you aware of anything like that? I don't -- I'm trying to figure out where -- MR. LORENZ: Code requirements. What we require in the code is if you have listed species on site, you need to have a management plan for the listed species. And if that's what you had worked out with the agencies and got the permit, that's essentially our technical assistance. We would simply want to have that plan be reproduced in our -- our planning documents so that that's the county's approval as well. So if we have to go through any compliance -- enforcement or compliance or inspections, we'd have that on the set of plans. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. But you wouldn't impose anything Page 174 March 6, 2006 additional then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter can't see you. MR. LORENZ: No. No. Only what's required. I'm just checking and make sure with Barbara is agreeing with me. MR. ANDERSON: Lastly, I urge you to keep Section 7 and 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There they are. MR. ANDERSON: And the new 8 add "when practical" at the end of that so that there's not an absolute requirement for interconnection at all times without exception, no ifs, ands or buts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I brought the same question up when we got to No.8 or a similar question. Your response I believe was that that would be -- that would be handled through the alternate method. Oh, I hope I didn't use the wrong word, but whatever method we were talking about earlier to come under the -- MR. LORENZ: Paragraph 13 method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph 13 method. Okay. Do you understand that? Basically if No. 8 doesn't have the language that you're suggesting added but it needs to be applied, you'd apply it through the method that will transpire in No. 13. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, the exempt? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. And only because I have to have -- I'm due to have dinner with the vice president this evening, that I'll miss seeing the rest of you perhaps, I would draw your attention to Section 10.3.14,10.5.4, and 12.2 which you would get later to this evening. There are some very significant changes proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What numbers were those, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: 10.3.14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: 10.5.4 and Objective 12.2. Thank you very much. Page 175 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You've got to have your priorities, I guess. MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chair, if I may, we have -- we do have the language that Bruce talked about concerning policy, I think it's 3.32. Did you want to see that now, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. MR. LORENZ: And I'll let Ray Smith detail the changes here for you. MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control Director. Bruce and I had met and I want to make sure that Mr. Strain takes a hard look at 3.1. There was a recommendation you had made. And -- and for some reason I didn't jot it down. I want to make sure that I don't miss that in this recommendation. I -- I believe it was dealing with the highest attainable level of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SMITH: -- of ground water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SMITH: If I could propose and, Bruce, if you could listen to make sure I'm not stepping out of our -- our agreement on the language. The line beginning -- let me see, one, two, three, fourth line down where it begins with "therefore" on the far right, if we could add "therefore considering these natural conditions, Collier County will continue to take all necessary actions to maintain the highest level of ground water quality compliance within its aquifer system" and then drop the last sentence, would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what it says here, but that's what you're proposing it change to? MR. SMITH: That's what I'm proposing in addition because I'm missed the -- the highest attainable level that you were concerned with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you were going to submit in place Page 176 March 6, 2006 of that was simply state standards, actions to maintain the state standards level of ground water quality with its -- MR. SMITH: But then we would fall into the same issue regarding what is state standards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SMITH: -- if you can't meet them all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have a problem with it. MR. SMITH: Do you have a problem with that one? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. MR. SMITH: And the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go further, does the panel-- anybody on the panel have any problems with it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then the consensus of the panel is acknowledged. MR. SMITH: Okay. Very good. And 3.32 we had entered in the language after at least -- and the purpose of this is to notify the public in the event we modify a well field protection area so they are aware that it may -- may potentially impact their property. And it reads, "After at least 15 days publication of the maps, the proposed zones of protection for each such well field before each hearing by the EAC Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners." It's just the focus of publishing it in the newspaper each well field that's remodeled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That was the language we worked on in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems with the -- from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 1 77 March 6, 2006 MR. SMITH: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. And I would just ask you please don't forget the comments that Mr. Y ovanovich made to you regarding 6.11. I reiterate those wholeheartedly and ask that you consider those as well. I'd also point out that -- that No.4 -- paragraph No.4 that you-all declined to change, which is fine, is already in the Land Development Code as I understand it. So I don't know why we would be repeating it in the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. COHEN: The next speaker is Brad Cornell to be followed by Nicole Ryan. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. I have two main points to make. One is a quick one about something you talked about quite a bit ago. That was Objective 2.1. And I just wanted to concur with your new language that you had seen that actually Bill had put up on the visualizer. Except I wanted to advocate that you immediately begin the drafting of these water shed management plans because you already are. The county is already in the process with three other stormwater plans that are in process. One of them was noted, the South Belle Mead, the Parson's study. The EAR report actually notes that those stormwater management plans can be expanded to include all the parameters of a watershed management plan. So you've actually already begun. Why don't you just say immediately -- immediate commencement of -- of writing those plans. So that would be my recommendation on that. That's also reflected in the east of951 study and Naples Bay study. There's -- there's a lot of efforts already under way. So don't wait. Don't have language that refers to 2008 as the commencement. And, by the way, Policy 6.2.3 notes the prioritization of the urban and Page 178 March 6, 2006 estates areas for the first places you need to be doing watershed management plans. And I think you-all already have articulated that the estates in particular is a real -- a real problem on everybody's radar screen that obviously needs to have immediate attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know you're getting ahead of us? MR. CORNELL: That was a reference to 2.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: But now I would like to beg your indulgence in my getting ahead of you because I -- I can't stay until seven o'clock. I actually have to leave very shortly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: But this is still under Goal 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. CORNELL: I had a particular set of three recommendations to make. If you look at Objective 6.2 the -- have you got that? I'm sorry. I don't know exactly what page. It's about 24, 23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 24, yes. MR. CORNELL: Okay, page 24. It includes some added language that requires coordination with the watershed management plan process. I would like to suggest to you that that coordination with watershed management plan -- planning for wetland protection implies that there may be exceptions to always deferring to the wetland protection permitting process of the state and federal agencies especially in the urban and estates areas. And this is something that I think should be recognized in the policies -- three policies that follow. Those policies are 6.2.3,6.2.4, and 6.2.7. All three of those policies deal with the urban and the estates areas. I believe that those policies should have an exception for wetlands that have a federal or state permit issued in -- within them. There should be an exception, and the language that I propose that you insert for 6.2.3 would be at the end of the first paragraph. You would insert where it says "where permits issued by such state Page 179 March 6,2006 and federal - or federal agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within urban and estates designated areas and require mitigation for such impacts, the permitting agencies mitigation requirements shall be deemed to preserve and protect wetlands and their functions" and then add "except for wetlands that are part of a watershed management plan preserve area, period. The county will direct impacts away from such wetlands." I believe that's an important policy facet that was recognized in the EAR report, the final report on the CCME under -- under Objective 6.2. In addition I would also add language that goes "also exotics clearing cannot be the principle means of mitigation." This as a present policy has been for some time that the county does not accept mitigation -- does not accept exotics clearing as the principle means of mitigating wetland destruction. And currently there are state and federal mitigation proposals and programs that do principally feature exotics clearing. So I would say that is contrary to county policies for wetland protection including in the estates and urban areas. So -- and I would transfer that same principle -- that same language to Policy 6.2.4 right after -- let's see -- right after the initial paragraph where it says "issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency, comma, except where wetlands are a part of a watershed management plan preserve area." And use the same language that you just used in 6.2.3. And, again, under 6.2.4 sub 1, you need to put a comma at the end of that one -- excuse me -- the same language there. And, finally, under Policy 6.2.7 where again the reference is to deferral to these jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by applicable jurisdictional agency, comma, except where wetlands are part of a watershed management plan preserve area, et cetera. So you see those three places, actually four if you count two for 6.2.4, where I believe that the county should be reserving protections for -- and -- and the ability to direct impacts away from wetlands that Page 180 March 6, 2006 have been defined in the watershed management planning process as preserve lands. They're important for the functions of those watersheds. Let's say it's Naples Bay or Cocohatchee River or the Golden Gate Estates systems. Those watersheds have been or about to be clarified and studied with wetlands -- part of that process would define wetlands and delineate wetlands for protection. We don't want to defer those protections to the permitting process to the state and federal agencies. That was my main point. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you depart from that podium -- MR. CORNELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The watershed management plans have not been developed. Do you know where these preserve areas are? MR. CORNELL: No. So that would be a problem. That's why you want to prioritize particularly the urban and the estates areas which is in your Policy 6.2.3, a different subparagraph. You want to prioritize and work on those immediately . You don't want to wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm concerned is we don't know how much property or how many homes that's going to -- your suggestion would affect until we know where the preserve areas are. MR. CORNELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: I think we have a good idea because we have wetland soils maps. We have the National Wetland Inventory data. We have a lot of data already. We have the new LIDAR topographical information. Those data give us a really good correlation with what wetlands exist in the estates on a relative basis. So I think we have enough information to withhold permits -- to withhold building permits where -- where there are wetlands that are critical to the protection of watersheds or for flood protection which are all functions2 Page 181 March 6, 2006 of what these watersheds are doing. And -- and to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, we can't do anything in -- in full force until we do this watershed management plans, thus the urgency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we get into the language you suggest adding, I'll ask staff when we get to that point in our discussion what they think of your proposal and we'll go from there. MR. CORNELL: Please do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CORNELL: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does some member of staff understand what Brad was asking? COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you leave your language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other people -- do you have a -- do you have any language you can leave with us? MR. CORNELL: I can. I -- this is -- you know, I've gone to three hearings of the EAC on this. Every time I go I see something new as you look at entire -- an entire element. And you know how that process is. So this is something that I just realized recently. So I haven't written it out yet other than by hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, could you make sure Bill or Barbara understand what you're trying to add so that we can have a further discussion of it when we get to those pages? MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we haven't gotten that far yet in the plan. MR. CORNELL: I understand. And I'm sorry to -- to -- to jump the gun on it. I think it's something important. I will type it out for future use. I know you're going to finish the CCME tonight, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we hope we are. MR. CORNELL: I will get it -- well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Enjoy your time with the vice president. I'm assuming that's where you're running to. Page 182 March 6, 2006 MR. CORNELL: Thank you very much. MR. COHEN: Nicole Ryan to be followed by Wayne Arnold. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The first point that I would like to bring up is on page 16, Subsection 5B. And it discusses for treated stormwater discharge being put into preserve areas. And it states that this treated stormwater can be discharged if it essentially does not result in any adverse impact. And my concern is what exactly is an adverse impact? For example, would adverse impact be stormwater being discharged and the water level rises to the point where the native vegetation dies and then you have to replant with different native vegetation because you've essentially changed that native ecosystem? Perhaps what we want to get to -- because I don't believe that in preserve areas that's what we want to do. My suggestion would be what we want to do is we want to make sure that this treated stormwater, if it is discharged will benefit the wetland system or benefit the native vegetation preserve area. So perhaps the "does not result in any adverse impact" could be changed to "receipt of treated stormwater discharge for such a use including conveyance, treatment and discharged structures benefits the naturally occurring native vegetation." Because, remember, we're going to have to define a lot of this in the LDC. And so how permissive the LDC is going to be on this really is going to be based on what we have in the GMP. So that would be my suggestion there. And also will there be monitoring at these points? How do we know if the treated stormwater is benefiting or adversely impacting a certain preserve area? Another thought on that is when we're looking at an applicant coming in and wanting to discharge this treated stormwater, it seems like adverse impact really puts the burden on the county and county staff to say why this wouldn't be a good idea. Whereas, if the word "benefit" is used, then the applicant would have to discuss why they Page 183 March 6, 2006 believe it would be beneficial. So just some thoughts on that. The second point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go any further, let's go back and resolve it. The language change strikes some existing language and puts in the word "benefits" basically. I know in another part of the text I found where language was changed or talked about adverse impact and it said "does not degrade." Is that equivalent to benefit? MS. RYAN: I think benefit is a stronger word. I guess maybe staff could give the definitions between all of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking for a practical solution that is the best. Bill. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think I understand what the distinction is. I'll kind of look to Nicole and see if I summarize it right. Maybe to give an example, for instance, you could with benefit. If you took a -- if you took a true, let's say, an old remnant wetland system and you're actually using your stormwater system to -- to -- to change -- to move that hydrology, that hydroperiod now to what that wetland experienced in the past, you could then say that that is a true benefit to that wetland system. On the other hand, let's say you have a -- a -- a system -- and I'm going to say that is -- that is really perhaps one of the fringe between a wetland and an upland system. It's in that in between area a little bit. At that particular point if that system is more transitioned to an upland system and now you're putting stormwater into it and you could be -- you could see -- you could start seeing a change in your vegetative communities -- communities, that could have somewhat of an adverse effect from a standpoint of viewing it as an upland system, that may be more of a negative or an adverse impact. So that's how I kind of see the distinction. Now, how you -- now, how you determine what is a benefit or adverse impact I think ultimately comes from the criteria we Page 184 March 6, 2006 developed in the Land Development Code regulations. But certainly if you say benefit, I can certainly see the -- the -- the -- the benefit coming more from a wetland system than -- a true wetland system that's been really altered and you're trying to drive it into a -- into a wetland and function as a wetland. That would definitely be a benefit. Anything else you may argue is not a benefit, would simply be an adverse impact. I don't know, Nicole, if that's -- gives you an example. MS. RYAN: Well, again, you're still-- in the current language it talks about adverse impact. And so if you're saying that a situation where you had a wetlands, slash, upland and it put too much water into it would create an adverse impact, then we're saying the same thing, that there could be a detriment there. I just -- it seems like if we're really going to try to make a preserve -- what a preserve should be in keeping with the vegetation and -- and the soils, perhaps the word "benefit" would be the proper term versus "adverse impact" or "does not degrade." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your comment that staff would have to go -- and the county would end up proving an adverse impact if an applicant insisted they weren't, is that any -- is it a better position to be in having the applicant prove a benefit? I mean, I'm just looking at practical application how the county would have to look at the permit application. MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm looking at creating -- and in fact we've already proposed some Land Development Code regulations and kind of shopping it through some of the stakeholder groups of establishing up front the criteria, but which we will-- we will say either benefits or is an adverse impact to say that land development regulations that are now consistent with the Growth Management Plan that we will simply apply those Land Development Code regulations. That -- that -- that would not require us to have the -- the -- the applicant provide a whole set of data to prove one way or the other whether it's benefit or adverse impact. We will adopt a set of regulations that will be Page 185 March 6, 2006 consistent with the language of the Growth Management Plan and apply those regulations. So that's how I'm envisioning it -- it to occur in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you use the language that's in here in the first place? MR. LORENZ: For -- for the adverse-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: -- adverse impact? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you feel it was the appropriate language when you used it? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: I see it -- I see it as a little bit more -- more neutral to -- to -- to apply and develop some -- some -- some Land Development Code regulations. The -- the other thing is to recognize too and from a policy making standpoint, just -- just recognize that the South Florida Water Management District is in ruling making -- is beginning to start rule making. I'm not sure where in the process they actually are. But they are going to be requiring or at least the proposal is to require an additional 50 percent more volume retention for their -- for their stormwater systems. So it's even going to put more -- even more pressure on the -- the available land footprint now that's going -- that's going to be trying to incorporate the development, the stormwater system and the preserve area as well. So -- so I did make the recommendations that would benefit -- get a little bit more neutral for adverse impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the failure of wetlands due more to lack of supply or too much drainage? MR. LORENZ: I think that right now it's -- it's just simply too much drainage. You could -- you can help try to re-hydrate the wetland -- wetlands a little bit. Ultimately, if you're really trying to do Page 186 March 6, 2006 a wetland restoration proj ect on site, you're going to have to set your -- you're going to have to set your control elevations and -- and -- and -- and try to deal with off-site drainage to bring those water -- water levels up. But to put additional water into a -- into an altered wetland system, I think will provide some benefits. It certainly won't provide any adverse impacts as long as that -- that water has been properly treated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and a lot of drainage problems aren't even on the property? I mean, aren't even on site; correct? I mean, they could be three or four properties down. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. (Multiple speakers.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it seems -- I like the language because it seems like -- remember, this is putting water in. That it really should make sure that it's beneficial to put the water in and-- rather than just keep putting water in to make sure nothing adverse that happens. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. On that, you know, it's a common misconception maybe that, you know, if you have, like, a cypress swamp that they just love water. And, you know, the more water the better. But you have to remember that they're probably going to be putting in this extra stormwater in August and so you could, you know, flood out some of the other plants that were in there. It's not necessarily beneficial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the consensus of the board? Is it replace the words "does not result in any adverse impact" with "benefit?" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think benefit. It actually shows a better attitude. It shows that you're not trying to do something to Page 187 March 6, 2006 harm it. You're trying to do something to benefit it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, I see some heads going both ways. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does benefit actually put the onus back on the developer instead of us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think either one puts it on the developer. They both would have to prove either they're not having an adverse impact or they are having a benefit. Is that -- MR. LORENZ: Well, I think what we -- my preference would be is to adopt a land development regulations through the Land Development Code that would specify what can and cannot be done. And -- and -- and those restrictions, intent of those restrictions will be to benefit the preserve if that's the language that -- that you-all are recommending. And it's -- and it's handled in the Land Development Code. It's handled in the criteria within the Land Development Code, not a separate study that the consultant will have to present to staff. Because that always causes -- for me that -- that causes some of the problems where we have right now. There's not certainty. You don't know what standard to -- to -- to work up against. Certainly you can have maybe a relief valve, but -- but my preference is without some standards, that would be -- would meet the intent of your proposed language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did the EAC do with this issue? MR. LORENZ: They -- they -- they recommended it as -- as you see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a head count. How many in favor of changing the reference to the word -- and using the word "benefit" or "beneficial" in place of the adverse impact language? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. 8 to 1, Russell Tuff -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Staying with the staff. Page 188 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's staying with staffs recommendation. Okay. I understand. Do you have any other points? MS. RYAN: Thank you. Well, just a mention on, I guess, it would be page 18, subparagraph 12. And we're talking about the creation and restoration. A lot of these new policies really deal with what you can and can't do to manipulate native vegetation within preserve areas. And I just wanted to make sure that -- and I guess some of the language has since been changed on No. 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it has. MS. RYAN: But what we don't want to do is to get into a situation where uplands are being converted to some other use for stormwater or for native vegetation creation for wetlands. And so I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't the intent and that's something that isn't going to be allowed through any of the language in the -- the creation or restoration of the vegetation. At some point we may get so far away from what a preserve is because we're manipulating so much that it really is no longer a preserve. So I just wanted to make sure that even though those words weren't in there, that you can't take uplands and replace them with wetlands that -- that that was implied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that the EAC when they -- they entirely rewrote that paragraph and they basically deferred the actions or implementation to the LDC. And that may be a place where you want to carry that forward there. MS. RYAN: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? MS. RYAN: And just in subsection 13 on pages 18 and 19. It's been reworked quite a bit. My concern with this was I liked the idea of -- of variance process, but I also thought that -- and it's the old language, but I'll just bring it up, talk about exceptional circumstances. And I think really the idea of that exceptional circumstance does need Page 189 March 6, 2006 to be defined. I don't think we want this variance to apply to every single project that comes in. And so this idea that it is something that's going to occasional in those exceptional circumstances really should be brought forward. That doesn't really sync with -- with some of the new language, but I just bring that up as a suggestion that we do want to make sure that it's something that is used occasionally, not in every single project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Nicole? MS. RYAN: Well, I do have one thing. The same language and it's jumping ahead to 6.1.25B and I can come back up at that point and bring it up or -- it's the same language that you recommended changing as far as "benefit" replacing" does not adversely impact." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually that 5B for staffs benefit is repeated on page 16 and 21. You may want to strike one of them, then we haven't got to discuss it any further. MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- well, if unfortunately the structure of what we have here is 6.1.2 objective deals with all the rural fringe mixed-use district and 6.1.1 deals with the other areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the way we voted, you need to make 5B on page 21 the same as 5B on page 16. MR. LORENZ: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RYAN: Okay. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Any -- oh, Mr. Arnold. I almost forgot you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. I'm Wayne Arnold. I won't reiterate what you heard Mr. Anderson say. I concurred with many of his comments. I also heard Mr. Y ovanovich earlier and I saw his handout. And I would concur with the revisions to those policies. I was -- I guess I won't try to convince eight of you to change your mind, but one of the comments that I had was supporting paragraph No.5 under Policy 6.1.1 that allowed for use of our Page 190 March 6, 2006 preserves for water management. I think the idea of showing a benefit is much tougher because there are some situations where you can demonstrate that you don't have an adverse impact to discharging either flue and upland for instance or having a pipe system that could be part of a recreated restoration area on your site. To get the water through it, you vegetate over it and you go along in life and don't even know there's a pipe under ground. But I think in certain scenarios demonstrating a no-adverse impact is much easier than proving that you have a benefit. And I think it especially goes to some of our tighter redevelopment sites that we have where -- where we're really fighting over preserve as being more of an aesthetic issue and a landscape issue much more than a larger contiguous preserve area. I won't try to change eight -- eight minds up here, but those were my comments on that item. On page 1 7 under Item 8 I heard Bruce Anderson talk about the interconnection language and talk about when practical or some other phraseology. And -- and I'm told we're going to deal with this later, but it really seemed to me that maybe that goes in conjunction with paragraph 2 where we talk about and try to define contiguous -- large contiguous systems for our preserves, and then maybe this whole idea of interconnections where possible on those sites makes sense. I've been involved in a couple of infill and redevelopment projects where I don't have preserves that are connected on site today, yet I seem to have to have this discussion with staff that there's no way to physically connect these two preservation areas because they aren't today. And I understand that it makes sense where it's absolutely practical to do so. It makes no sense where they're not connected and they're across a 30-acre site or 100-acre site that they're not connected today. And whether my preserve area is 15 percent or 25 percent, there would be no way to get the two to be connected. On item-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go further. Just so you know, the discussion we followed up with Mr. Anderson on this No.8 Page 191 March 6, 2006 was that it's held through the alternate method process that would be developed through the Land Development Code to address those particular concerns so... MR. ARNOLD: And I think that's -- that's fine. And hopefully we can identify those criteria that will better tell us where our preservation areas are going to be. The other item -- and I know Item No. 10's been substantially rewritten by the EAC. And I think many of those changes are good. One thing that I note, it doesn't really offer an opportunity to have either recreation or restoration. It talks about an off-site alternative. But it seems to me that there may be some very viable alternatives to do on-site restoration where we would not want to necessarily just give up on the site and require me to go off site and pay into the Conservation Collier Program or something else. It may even be more costly for a developer to try to make it work on their site, but I would hate to preclude that alternative to do some on-site restoration or recreation. I just thought I would throw that out for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a bad point at all. Bill, do you want to respond to that? MR. LORENZ: Well, under the paragraph 12 we do have the -- the criteria that we're going to establish for restorations. So I think we'll be covering that in a little bit more detail in -- in the Land Development Code. And we can then establish the criteria for when-- when creation or restoration would be appropriate. I think we -- I think we can cover -- I think we can cover that at the Land Development Code. MR. ARNOLD: You don't think it's precluded then. I guess that's just what I'm trying to get on the record that we're not precluded from having that as an alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you only give four reasons why you can have an alternative. Page 192 March 6, 2006 MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one of those isn't for on-site preservation. And I think that's where Wayne's trying to get to. And No. 10 in the EAC language, there's only four alternatives that you could possibly utilize. MR. LORENZ: In the new -- in the new language we're simply saying that all of the primary intent of this policy retain and protect existing native vegetation. There are situations where the application and intention requirements of this policy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down. MR. LORENZ: -- is not possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down. Slow down. This poor girl's got to keep up with you. MR. LORENZ: It's on page 3 of 5 of my e-mail to you this weekend. I'm just reviewing it myself here to make sure. We simply say that within one year of the effective date of these amendments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go again. MR. LORENZ: -- adopt regulations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please, slow down. MR. LORENZ: Got you. So I don't think it -- Wayne, I think -- I think -- I think we can still allow for that to occur when we do the Land Development Code. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Although -- although there's no question policy language talks about -- the primary intent is still to retain and protect existing vegetation. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I just hate -- I would hate to be shut out of that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think that it does need to be added -- if we're going to do it, it does need to be added in 10 because it says the criteria will be based upon the following provision. And Page 193 March 6, 2006 you list four things under 10. I mean, it says it will be based on those four things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bill, if your intent is as you say it is, based on the other policy, it wouldn't hurt to be clear with this policy in that regard so this kind of discussion doesn't happen again in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. MR. LORENZ: I'm -- I'm -- I'm sorry. But I'm looking at 10. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. LORENZ: Okay. I'm talking -- that's -- that's an off-site alternative. That's to be -- that is -- that's not the same. That's not the same alternative for the intent where paragraph 11 is which deals with restoration or recreation on site. So that's -- that's the distinction I'm making. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess even from my perspective, maybe -- maybe what we end up with is a situation where you blended both where maybe you've done some. Instead of just mitigating everything off site, maybe you do want to do some restoration and recreation and get some credit for it. And maybe you also want to make a monetary contribution based on whatever criteria gets established for land donation whatever. I'm just saying I would hate to preclude that as one of the options. And maybe I'm making more out of it than -- than is necessary here. It jumped out to me that it wasn't implied when I read it. MR. LORENZ: I see -- I see it as being accommodated by both 10 and 12 ultimately in the Land Development Code regulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that we could fix it there if it's not as clear here, couldn't we? MR. LORENZ: We wanted to make these as broad as possible, but still have some guiding criteria for the -- for the LDRs. MR. ARNOLD: All right. Then the only other comment that I would make was in response to Mr. Cornell's comments on the Page 194 March 6, 2006 watershed plans. And I just -- not having enough information, not knowing the full scope of what those are going to be, I would hate to start now adding additional criteria to those before we even get one defined. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Any other public speakers, Randy? MR. COHEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off on page 20. We're slowly making our way through this document. We will break, by the way, around 5:30. Any questions on page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, any questions on page 21 ? COMMISSIONER TUFF: You just have adverse impact. Are you staying with adverse impact or are we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're changing this one as well. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6 is the same language on the management plan as was previously discussed on page 16. When I -- my question on that was in a specific preserve area if it's addressed by a management plan that was created for another state or federal agency, you said as long as it's consistent with our code, you can't do that? MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we might -- we just made three pages. How about page 22? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is all new language so it's going faster. Page 23? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a 23? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Page 195 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number 2 it says an EIS is required for all sites. Isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-three, 6.1.8. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Almost the bottom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I better check EAC verse. In other words, No.2 would actually mean everything in the world so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Brad, would you help me find where you are? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bottom of page 23,6.1.8, No.2 -- A2. God bless you. MR. LORENZ: Just may -- may I direct your attention to my e-mail.We.ve--we.ve -- recommending a change that the whole policy take -- take you all of that listing out and -- and -- and simply go with a paragraph statement that you see as double underlined within that yellow highlighted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Up a little louder. I'm not hearing you. MR. LORENZ: Okay. The -- we're proposing -- the EAC and staff is proposing -- it's issued No.9 the changes to Policy 6.1.8 which is to basically delete all -- every -- all of the enumerated list that we have there and -- and -- and propose the more general requirements that will develop thresholds in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- I'm sorry. Mr. Vigilotti, did you -- COMMISSIONER VIGILOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. I'mjust mumbling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 6.1.8 has been completely rewritten in part and struck in other parts by the EAC? Page 196 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I read it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your language -- their language I don't have any questions on. Does anybody have any questions on the EAC's recommendations for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On -- up on top on page 23 we got into a prior discussion about Policy 6.1.5. And I think it was Richard Y ovanovich or somebody brought up the fact that it shouldn't be applied to prior ag clearing and clarify the staffs intention on that. I'd like to get that understood at this meeting now. So maybe staff could -- you had it on the screen at one time earlier. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I'm trying to pull it out here, put it up on the visualizer. Bob Mulhere made -- made the point of noting that particular policy initially in the 1989 plan had a ten-year requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This was the one where they wanted to change to it, but you weren't preparing -- proposing any change. I think the consensus was just to leave it as it is because your -- but the statement it restates your intentions on that which was not to go back and deal -- and treat prior cleared lands under this category. Is that generally where we're going? MR. LORENZ: Right. I think -- I think the point - the point was was when we -- when the plan became effective, we didn't want to capture everything before the plan was effective and apply the full 25 years to -- to those and I -- I agree with that. If we need to -- if we need to put some clarifying language in this policy along those lines, then -- then we certainly can do it. If not, if we simply just apply it the way we've been -- we've been applying it, then that's fine too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your concern was something that hasn't happened then basically what I'm understanding. MS. BURGESON: Also it might help for you to know that any of those permits that were issued prior to the change of that number or that language where we require 25 years now, every permit issued Page 197 March 6, 2006 prior to that has a ten-year limitation in the permit itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: So we have no intention of changing any of those previously approved permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it. We'll just move on. Page 24, any questions from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top No.2 it says, "After inspection of appropriate data and information," do you guys have a better word than appropriate? MR. LORENZ: Oh, that's -- on page 24 that's all -- still all -- that's all struck through. This is for Policy 6.1.8? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, wait. Okay. I'm sorry. I should have flipped over and looked at that. You're right. Thank you, sir. How about let's move to page 25 then. Any questions on 25? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Twenty-five, doesn't that include Brad's -- Brad's point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Brad Cornell's point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did -- I see Bill's looking for something. Did Brad leave his language with you so we can discuss it now that we're to this point? MR. LORENZ: Right. I just haven't had a chance -- I just haven't had a chance to look at it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. LORENZ: -- since he left. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You'll get as much time as we have. MR. LORENZ: Right - -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's why I don't know if it's appropriate to act on that just -- that's a big long sentence and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I'll tell you what, we're going to Page 198 March 6, 2006 have a break at 5:30. Why don't we come back and visit this one at that time and that way you got time during a break to take a look at that language -- (Multiple voices.) MR. LORENZ: That'd be -- that'd be a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2.3 we'll come back to. Twenty-six, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-seven, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving. Twenty-eight, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. Twenty-nine, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to break the monotony here. Sorry, fellows. On page 29 the last paragraph, the struck part says, "Within one year of the adoption of these amendments," then it goes on, "Collier County shall continue to work with federal state agencies. " Did we do -- what have we done in that year? Was everything done that was supposed to have been completed in that year? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically on page 29, the former No.3 now No.4, was addressing the properties -- MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that were critical. MR. LORENZ: -- we had -- we had -- we did not develop any amendments, but we had met with various agency personnel to discuss some type of scheme to evaluate potential wetland systems in North Golden Gate Estates. Eventually came around to having Department of Environmental Protection personnel, who are actually located now Page 199 March 6, 2006 in the development services building who go out and do a jurisdictional assessment for the single-family residences building permits that come in for North Golden Gate Estates. And so we essentially have utilized that process to ensure that we're -- we're appropriately identifying wetland systems on those single-family lots within that -- with that process in -- in -- in mind. That's why we made the change to this saying that we will continue to work with -- with the agencies and -- and -- and go along with our current process. So we didn't -- we didn't feel that we needed to make any regulatory changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the EAC's recommendations, they suggested to delete the proposed references. They listed plant species and all other policies. Does that mean that -- I didn't see this one struck. Does that mean the reference to plant listed species would be struck in this one as well? MR. LORENZ: Yes. I -- I would recommend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 30 any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, No.1 at the Policy 6.4.3, this is the county's environmental management policies regarding the shared ecological community are consistent with those of the neighboring jurisdiction. Which one are they talking about? Lee? Hendry? Dade? Broward? all of them? none of the above? MR. LORENZ: This was a -- a comprehensive planning recommendation. I take it as being -- being all -- all the jurisdictions, but wherever is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know that they're consistent with Dade and Broward? And I'm kind of curious how Dade and Broward have policies consistent to ours based on the way they're destroyed. Of course, we may be heading down that path too so... MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, the language in the -- in the EAR, in essence, stated that the policy that was -- as worded was confusing and that's why it was reworded. Evidently, we have made it more Page 200 March 6, 2006 confusing in some respects. The idea there was to provide additional clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, fellows, if we're not consistent with neighboring jurisdictions in this -- it says we are. I'm just wondering if that's the right way to go or we want to make statements that aren't -- that we don't know to be correct in this document. I guess I have to look to you for suggestions. I would have thought someone would have pulled up the policies from four or five neighboring counties and checked them before we got here today. MS. BURGESON: For the record, again, Barbara Burgeson. We do attend on a monthly basis the interagency meetings at South Florida Water Management District's office. And we do coordinate and comment on all of the permitting processes that they have that are going through their system. So I can say that -- not that we are consistent with all of the adjacent counties and, again, that would just be on the west coast because these interagency meetings are only attended by west coast counties and only on a voluntary basis. So for the most part it's Collier and Lee and from time to time Hendry County, but rarely any -- any other counties. I can't say that we're consistent. I can just say that we do coordinate at those meetings. So I'm not sure that we want to keep the language in the GMP as proposed here because we -- we are not currently doing that. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you know, I've reread the -- the EAR. And what the purpose is of that particular provision was to ensure coordination. I think that parenthetical goes way beyond actually what was in the EAR and it should be stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like your advice. So we're going to strike No.1? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then No.2 would have to be reworded then because such environmental management policies are in compliance with state and federal regulations regarding listed Page 201 March 6, 2006 species. The "such" isn't referring to anything at that point, is it? MR. COHEN: I don't even believe number -- parenthetical No.2 needs to be included as well. I think the intent of the policy is more -- more coordination more than anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then I think we should strike them both. Any obj ections from the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Let's go to page 31. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. On page 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-eight? Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 6.2.4.4 in parentheses "within the Immokalee urban designated area there exists high quality wetland." My question is there are -- which wetlands are you talking about? It says, This area's been identified and is shown on the future land use map of the Immokalee area master plan. That hasn't come out yet, has it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the revisions haven't come out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Are you talking about the plan that was ten years ago? MR. WEEKS: Yes, the -- the existing Immokalee master plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I don't know what wetlands you're talking about. Almost all the wetlands there are connected to that map including the wetlands that go in the slough south of Immokalee. And I would like to know more about which ones are included and which ones are not included. It's upside down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The checkered color is the wetlands, the yellow with the checkered on it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. The checkered one, but there's a whole area that's all -- it's the southwest side of Immokalee. Page 202 March 6, 2006 Are you including that whole area? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Everything where it's -- MR. WEEKS: That's running from Lake Trafford all the way to Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. You like that? I figured we were heading down a slippery slope somewhere. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What areas then are less valuable? You know, you're saying that these have a higher protection than other wetlands. What other wetlands are you talking about? MR. LORENZ: It would be any other wetlands within the Immokalee urban area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because that area that you've shown is practically all the wetlands there are except I guess there are some around the west of the airport and some a little bit north of Immokalee. Is that what you're referring to? MR. WEEKS: I'll agree with Bill. It would be any of the other wetlands which are -- tend to be smaller, and I'd guess you'd call them isolated wetlands as opposed to that slough that you see from running from Lake Trafford. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you specify that so that it is in writing that you're talking about all the contiguous wetlands to the southwest of Immokalee? MR. LORENZ: Yes, we can -- we can specify -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just to clarify that for me. MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page --left off on page 31. The EAC really rewrote Objective 7.1 if I'm not mistaken and 7.16 which seemed to be the two policies on that page. I don't -- I didn't have any questions from the EAC's handout. Did anybody here? Page 203 March 6, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 32? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question to somebody. Number 1 at the top of page 33, Collier County Sheriffs Office will continue to stop vehicles with visible exhaust emissions and issue warnings or tickets to the operators of such vehicles requiring that the vehicles be repaired. Is there something you could consider changing this to that would read, "The Collier County Sheriffs Office will continue to enforce exhaust emission standards"? Because I'm not sure that visible exhaust emissions are a reason to pull someone over and issue a ticket. And I think that's really the jurisdiction of the sheriffs department. I drive a diesel truck, and I'm really concerned about getting stopped when I leave here tonight. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what we were hoping for. MR. LORENZ: That's why the language was put in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe I don't come back, huh? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do you think they'll do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would -- do you have any problem with making that language reference the exhaust emission standards or laws whatever -- MR. LORENZ: I think that's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any objection from the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on page 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 34? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 35? (No response.) Page 204 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, before we go to page 36, there's a gentleman coming to the podium, Randy. Did he have a ticket in to talk or speak? MR. COHEN: He has a ticket but not with any specific items on there so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, can we help you? MR. WOODRUFF: Andy Woodruff, again, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WOODRUFF: I just wanted to be sure that on -- on Objective 7.1 that I know that Bill had already spoken to this I believe at the beginning of the meeting, but I didn't hear it repeated again. The listed species -- the listed plant was being taken out? COMMISSIONER CARON: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was EAC recommendations that -- and when we got to that one, this panel didn't have any objection to so... MR. WOODRUFF: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that does take them all out. MR. WOODRUFF: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question on 10.1.7 the last sentence. The way this reads it seems that if you have an ST overlay -- even if you have a -- if you have a home on a bar -- on a barrier island, for example, you have one of those homes on one of the islands out there, you have to go to the BCC for approval? Is that what you were intending? MS. BURGESON: That's currently the process that's in place right now that ST permits are obligated unless they fall under the -- there's exception -- or exemption criteria in there. If it -- if they don't fall under the exemption criteria, then they do have to go to -- actually to the EAC, the Planning Commission and the board. There is the Page 205 March 6, 2006 ability for that to be staffed administratively issued if they can fall within the criteria that's in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the single-family home excepted from that or is that required of a single-family home? MS. BURGESON: That's right now required of a single-family home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. MS. BURGESON: We've attempted in the past to modify that process and to actually not have to require those. ST permits are the only permits that have to go to all three boards when -- when they're processed. And we requested an amendment to the Land Development Code probably about seven or eight years ago to modify that and simplify that and reduce that to one board or possibly two boards. And we were told to leave it as it was. So it may be time to look to make that change again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to think of the practical sense of a person in a single-family home trying to get through this process for just a single-family home. It makes sense when you're into larger rezones. Does adding an exception for a single- family homesite, is that a problem so that it wouldn't have to go through that -- through this three-board process. MS. BURGESON: Well, that -- again, that -- that can be done in the LDC, I believe. I mean, we've -- we've attempted to simplify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're thinking this -- to make exceptions like that, that's where we would address it, in the LDC instead of here? Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And don't you -- you already have criteria -- MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in the LDC? Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure. (Inaudible conversation.) Page 206 March 6, 2006 MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we do have a speaker on this particular item as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who is that? MR. COHEN: That would be Tony Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't see him. He must be rather short. MR. COHEN: He'll be -- he'll be with you shortly. MR. PIRES: Try to keep it brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's late in the day, Tony. MR. PIRES: Not late enough obviously. We're still pretty sharp. Tony Pires for the record. Thank you very much. My request would be that with regards to the single-family homes in the ST area -- and it sort of ties in later on when we talk about Section 10.3.14 -- with regards to the suggestion later on that all new development proposed on coastal barrier systems be reviewed through the county's existing special treatment zoning overlay and, again, a hearing by the county commission. And I -- maybe I missed it when I was going through land development code, but I was going through all the criteria for, you know, the site -- the reviewed determination -- the development reviewed determination for the ST overlay by itself. I didn't see any chapter in the Land Development Code that addressed that. I saw it for the area of critical state concern ST, but I didn't see it for the ST, per see So I guess, once again, I'm talking specifically about the Keewaydin area but also right now under the ST zoning overlay is proposed in Policy 10.1.7. Anybody with an ST designation I guess would have to come to the county commission. And I guess staff is saying anybody even a single family -- a person desired to build a single-family home or a pole barn in an agricultural area, that ST has to go before the EAC, the Planning Commission and the county commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only -- the only question I have is we've been on this -- I've been on this board a few years now. I haven't had a single-family home come through for an ST. Is that because just Page 207 March 6, 2006 no one's doing it? MS. BURGESON: No. No. It's because most of them do qualify for that administrative processing that staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: -- can -- MR. PIRES: But this would seem to eliminate that administrative processing I guess because they're saying now that you look to the comprehensive plan, CCME for the criteria. And that goes back to later on too in 10.3.14. It says, "Objective 10.3 and its accompanying policy shall serve as criteria for such review." I guess I'm confused. If it's going to be administrative, we need to make clear in the CCME that it's administrative where certain people may qualify and not just say look to the comprehensive plan. It seems to muck it up a bit more in my -- in my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, if you go forward to 10.3.14 on page 38, it says in the second -- second sentence, "Objective 10.3 and its accompanying policies shall serve as a criteria for such review." MR. PIRES: And then again at the end it says, "as determined by the Board of County Commissioners after public hearing." So again it may be either giving the administrative process in the LDC, but they're taking it away by the Growth Management Plan CCME element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to strike the language in that sentence I just read -- MR. LORENZ: Or maybe a -- because looking at it, I'm not sure how much -- how much the language even adds to what currently exists. It may be that we simply just don't -- just -- just don't add any new -- any new language at all. MR. PIRES: Sometimes that's a good thing, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What paragraph are we talking about? MR. LORENZ: 10.1.7. Now, you mentioned 10.3.14 it looks as though -- and I'll kind of look to David to see if this was -- seems as Page 208 March 6, 2006 simply a parallel policy because we have one -- the one we have is un -- undeveloped coastal barriers. The other is developed coastal barriers. So there's parallel language in here. But I would -- I would suggest that we -- that we keep 10.1.7 as the existing language as 10.1.9 because it's been renumbered. And then utilize that same language for 10.3.14. MR. PIRES: When we get to 10.3.14 I'll -- I may have some comments on that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Bill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Bill, what you're saying on 10.1.7, all the underlined and strike -- the underlined would go away and the strike-throughs would reappear? MR. LORENZ: Correct. We just default back to the existing language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would read, "These policies shall serve as criteria for the review of proposed development in this" -- in the ST -- no, that's underlined. In the ST -- MR. LORENZ: But that ST designated lands. COMMISSIONER CARON: ST doesn't mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the cross through-- okay. So that's all that would -- so 10.1.7, in essence, then gets struck in this -- in this -- left as unchanged? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: But, again, the policies aren't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So all you really need to do whether you change that language or not is just direct people to the LDC; correct? MR. GRIFFIN: I think -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think the reference to these policies is the policies above in this -- in this text. MR. LORENZ: And it could well be that on a -- on a coastal Page 209 March 6, 2006 barrier where you have an ST that you'd still want to apply these -- these policies to it. So I think it would be appropriate to have that reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which reference -- to the LDC? MR. LORENZ: No, that these policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. LORENZ: The existing language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Does anybody have any objection to revert 10.1. 7? David? MR. WEEKS: Might I suggest that we -- we simply delete the added sentence but leave the first sentence as it's proposed to be changed. For one thing it corrects the terminology. These lands are not designated ST. Usually we use the term "designation" in reference to future land use map. Special treatment zoning overlay district is the correct terminology. I would suggest just leaving the first sentence as it is presented to you with the recommended changes and simply delete the whole second sentence that was proposed as an addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that says then that Objective 10.1 in these -- and these policies shall serve as criteria for the review of the proposed development within the special treatment zoning overlay district. Now, we're back to these policies. Is it referring to these policies as implemented in the LDC? MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, it says Objective 10.1 which, in fact, this is the subsection of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GRIFFIN: And its accompanying policies is what Mr. Weeks is suggesting which would say that everything -- you read of everything above here to determine what -- what applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What I was more concerned about it where it says, Shall serve as criteria for the review of the proposed development. When the concern is that the land development code has implementing language that really is the criteria for the review of the Page 210 March 6, 2006 proposed development in regards to how it's processed. I think that's where the issue is. MR. LORENZ: Right. We would not -- we would not want to have these policies serve exclusively as criteria, but they should be -- they should be criteria to be considered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, that -- that language is consistent with the EAR. We may want to put a modifier in front of the word "criteria" and Bill may want to help me out with that basically to -- to protect the integrity of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The policy criteria? Something like that, but -- I just want to make sure it doesn't preclude the people falling back to the LDC for understanding what they can and can't do in these areas. Does anybody have any objections with this paragraph 10.1.7 reverting to the language that David has indicated? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which means to strike the second sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, yes. Okay. Further down on that page, Bill, you've got the last line, it says, "Developments that provide public access to beaches, shores or waterways shall be eligible for credit." Shouldn't that be "may be eligible for credit"? MR. LORENZ: This was a comp planning change, but I'm not even sure where we have the actual credits for recreation and open space that's -- that's been developed. But certainly I would think that may would mean that if you follow certain criteria, wherever that criteria is outlined, you may receive it but you not necessarily have to. So I think that would be an appropriate change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 37? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we going to go with "may" .Page 211 March 6, 2006 or "shall"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- well, I thought they -- yeah. Everybody nodded on that end. But on this end, anybody objecting to using the word "may" instead of "shall" there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm a fan of shall. I mean, if someone's going to provide access to the beach through their property, I mean, even if it's a small walkway, I think we should support that. I mean, what kind of criteria would you put on it with the may? You don't have any now. MR. LORENZ: I -- I -- I'd have to look at some other department that -- to flesh it out, the details. I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone comes in with a rezone and volunteers to provide beach access, why would we want to give them impact fee credits if they're volunteering to provide us with something? This would require us to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the goal of this is to encourage people to provide beach access on their private projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't -- I don't think anybody's going to get away with not providing beach access nowadays to be honest with you. MR. LORENZ: Well, I guess all I'm -- my -- my point is that -- is that if you say shall, that kind of makes -- makes it any time they provide -- provide any degree of access and it may not be the kind of access or the amount of access that would generate a particular set of credits. So that seems to me that that was what we want to flesh out. And the may would -- would -- would allow us to flesh it out further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I'll go with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll go with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else objecting to the word "may"? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, may is appropriate. Page 212 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 37? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, on page 37 10.3.4 fourth line, "Only if the establishment of such use would not substantially alter the natural characteristics and natural functions of the undeveloped coastal barrier system." But if you go to the next page on Policy 10.3.12, "substantial alteration of a natural grade of underdeveloped barrier islands through filling or excavation shall be prohibited except" -- so I'm just wondering if these are consistent in the way they're written. In one regard it says that not substantially allowed. Then the other one it seems to say just the opposite. Now, maybe I'm reading them wrong. MR. LORENZ: Well, I read it as long as it is -- as long as it is accepted through an approved dune or beach restoration program, that that would be appropriate. So for instance in our beach re -- renourishment proj ect that we have occurring right now, that proj ect would be allowed to occur because it's part of a -- an approved program. So that's how I'm reading the two together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's because of the word -- because it's an approved public development plan? Is that why? MR. LORENZ: 10.3.4 limits the public expenditures-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- to that -- to that policy language. Ten -- Policy 10.3.12 talks about whether it's public or private. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about if you were paying money to allow beach access, say, to Keewaydin Island, would this run afoul of this ordinance if you were going to be -- you're talking to alter the natural characteristics. Would that be -- that it would disturb nesting birds? MR. LORENZ: I would think so. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, it says that -- I'm trying to get to understand your reasoning on this. If public expenditures can only be Page 213 March 6, 2006 allowed if the establishment of such would not substantially alter the natural system, natural characteristics and natural functions. And on 10.3.12 it says that they are allowed as part of an approved public development plan for one or more of the uses allowed by Policy 10.3.4 above. It just seems contradictory. MR. LORENZ: Well, I guess I'm -- I'm focusing a little bit on the fact that -- that in a -- in a -- in a dune or beach restoration program, you are altering the -- the grades. You are -- that's -- that's the whole point of doing that. So -- but it's part -- but it's part of an approved restoration program. It's not simply doing it because you need to get some additional grade for fill for a -- a footprint of a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you do that ifit substantially altered the natural characteristics and natural functions of the coastal barrier island? MS. BURGESON: I think that you would find that you would not get any permits from the state or from any agencies if you were substantially altering the natural characteristics of grade. The -- and -- and maybe we want to say in here or point to -- any of those beach and dune restoration programs may temporarily substantially alter those as they're going through that process. But the final product of the permit would not be a substantial alteration of the beach or dune system would be an improvement or -- or -- or some -- because the point of those systems or those -- those permits is to -- is to have a final benefit of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's the benefit that's either substantial or nonsubstantial? MS. BURGESON: I think it's -- I mean, I think that's -- as I'm reading it that's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The alteration could be substantial, but it's the benefit that you're weighing whether it's substantial? MS. BURGESON: Or the final-- or the final alteration. MR. LORENZ: Or if you -- or if you say "would not Page 214 March 6, 2006 substantially negatively alter the natural characteristics." Maybe that's the -- maybe the placement of a negative in there or something. Or adversely be -- that -- that concept. Because, again, the -- the approved permitting process would -- would -- you would get an -- you would get an approval because you -- you are providing a benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wouldn't you actually, though, be doing beach renourishrnent on an undeveloped coastal barrier system? All the beach renourishrnent I've seen has always been on the beaches that are developed. MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure of the answer -- answer to that question. Typically they -- they are. Now whether -- whether at some particular point you may have to do something to a -- to an undeveloped barrier with regard to your permitting to ensure that -- that on your developed portion things will work appropriately. In other words, there's -- there's -- some -- some synergism that has to occur in -- in the design and development process. But I'm -- Barbara says she's got an example so I'll let her cover it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: A recent example of this would be -- and I believe it was an ST permit that was issued for a residence on Keewaydin Island where the only way that they can access the property is to -- is -- is to bring equipment in from -- from the -- the gulf side and bring that material over the current dune and then -- in order to do that construction of that single-family home. And then you would obligate them to restore that to a dune -- to a dune -- to do a dune or -- and! or beach restoration after the fact on that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's sensible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else on this. Page 37, 10.3.8, I believe was already addressed by the EAC. That was a big one, but they took care of it. I don't see any -- I think their corrections are noted. Page 215 March 6, 2006 MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we have a speaker on 10.3.8, Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, are you aware of the changes by the EAC? MR. PIRES: Yes, I am. And at first flush I thought they were fine, but I guess I just have some questions. I'm not sure the introduction of the -- of the term "previously undeveloped coastal barrier island," because the terminology -- and the words mean anything. The terminology before was, Undeveloped coastal barrier systems. And that would be -- for example, undeveloped coastal barrier systems would be part of Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, part of Keewaydin. You have developed coastal barrier islands. You have developed coastal barrier systems. For example, the Ritz Carlton is actually a developed coastal barrier -- part of a coastal barrier system only because I know back in '84 when I was in house with Westinghouse, we had to go up to D.C. and show the Department of Interior the aerial photographs of the eight-story construction phase then at the Ritz Carlton and the roads going through it, water and sewer when the Federal Government was calling that an undeveloped coastal barrier system back in 1984. But, regardless I'm not sure what it means by previously undeveloped coastal barrier islands. Does that mean some place -- which do we have? Is it Vanderbilt Beach a previously undeveloped coastal barrier island because it's now developed? I'm wondering what this does. I'm wondering why not leave it as it is? I'm wondering what the rationale is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a better solution if you take the Policy 10.3.8 and use the following words that were struck, development density on undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres or as already allowed for established legal nonconforming parcels of lots of record. Would that clean it up? Page 216 March 6, 2006 MR. PIRES: Or I'm just wondering why the change. I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. PIRES: It's been around since 19 -- January of 1989 when this was first adopted I believe this language has been there. And I think this works fine. Are there any conflicts, Bill, that we've had? MR. LORENZ: No. We were just looking at what the previous staff member had put together and there was no reference of why that's the case. And I agree with you. It doesn't seem to make sense to call it previously. MR. COHEN: The -- the rationale in 10.3.8 was to incorporate the density of the four units per acre. And what I would recommend is that we modify the existing language where it says, Shall not exceed the lowest density provided, to incorporate that four units per acre and just come up with a substitute language. And that way the intent would be, you know, still with what's as -- as -- as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Incorporate the four units per acre? You mean incorporate -- MR. COHEN: Shall not exceed a density of four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. No. (Multiple speakers.) MR. PIRES: The new language. MR. COHEN: Well, I was just referring to the EAR and what it stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Look at the EAC's recommendations, Randy. That's where we're working off of, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Bill, the intent was not to mean all the land on the barrier; correct? The intent it to mean any land that isn't developed yet. Because previous undeveloped describes everything. MR. WEEKS: I can answer. That -- that's correct. That was the intent. In going -- in further answering that, staff erroneously had put the four dwelling units per acre because that's the base density allowed Page 217 March 6, 2006 within the urban area. That was erroneous because all of these barrier islands, un -- undeveloped barrier islands are designated conservation. And they're either zoned conservation or most cases a rural agricultural. So we -- we -- we realize that error. It was also pointed out to us by, I believe, Nicole Ryan. So we made that change as you see that the EAC has endorsed. Excuse me. The other thing about the existing language, it was difficult to implement because there is no minimum density established in the growth management plan. We have maximum densities. Maximum density of one unit per five acres and the conservation or rural -- agricultural rural designation. The base density in the urban areas is four units per acre but no minimum density exists. I think what EAC has put forward is sufficient other than I think the issue that Mr. Pires has raised. And I think that goes back to -- to do we want to use the phrase, "Previously undeveloped coastal barrier islands" or go back to the existing language, "Undeveloped coastal barrier systems." If I'm correct, that's his point. I would have no objection to retaining that old phrase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the old phrase actually serves us better. It's been tried and true and tested for a long time. Anybody have objection to staying with the old phrase? (Multiple voices.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the word system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second. One at a time here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray first then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as long -- are we supporting the one dwelling unit per five acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does the word "system" mean Page 218 March 6, 2006 the same as islands or what is -- what's a barrier system? MR. PIRES: My fuzzy recollection from many years ago is to include like estuaries and bays and islands in the whole -- it's a system. Once again, it's not just a per se island. It's much more complex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, that's Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Thank you. With the fuzzy recollection and short recollection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But would then -- I mean, what would they be calculating to get the acreage? I think we have an ordinance that doesn't allow land below sea level or below mean high water to be counted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- that's just as the LDC allows acreage to be counted. It would apply there as well as anywhere else to be counted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it would be any different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: You're correct that the LDC -- which differs from the future land use element -- but the LDC for density purposes would exclude" entirely influence wetlands and marine wetlands for density calculations. " COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's move on. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I want to go over and make sure we've got this clear then. So for this Policy 10.3.8 the CCPC is endorsing it as recommended by EAC with two changes: Delete the word "previously" and change the word "islands" to "systems"? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. We didn't say anything about previously. Just system. Just changing islands to system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we don't want previously in there. Page 219 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't want previously in there either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The whole country's previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, my understanding was we just take the old language that's been crossed out. "Development density and undeveloped coastal barrier systems shall and plug that into the first line of the EAC recommendation" and then pick up the second and third line. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. How would then -- how would we see Keewaydin Island? Is it developed or an undeveloped coastal barrier island? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some lots are, some lots aren't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with a system, it's not an island we're referring to. We're referring to the system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because the system allows then, yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the word "system" brings in not the whole island, but just each lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course. So it's more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the word "system" is intended to be. You guys tell me. You're the -- MR. WEEKS: I would refer to Bill ifhe disagrees. I would characterize Keewaydin as an undeveloped coastal barrier island or part of a system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I was hoping. I appreciate. MR. WEEKS: Furthermore, I can tell you that it's designated conservation that portion within the county. And, again, it is zoned agricultural and -- and conservation both of which -- all three of which limit density to one unit per five acres or per legal nonconforming lots. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That -- that's what I wanted to Page 220 March 6, 2006 understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consensus is to change the first line of the EAC recommendation to the original language that was in Policy 10.3.8 up to the word shall and leave the second and third line in the EAC recommendation. Okay? Anybody? Everybody understand that? Are we okay? Good. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we're still going to use the four units per -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. 1.5, that's the big thing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 38, I think we'll get there today, get done tonight. Page 38, any questions from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My first issue is Policy 10.3.12. Why has it been struck? MR. COHEN: The EAR provided two recommendations within 10.3.1.2 because of other conflicts with other provisions within the CCME. One was to either strike it or to revise it. I didn't work on this particular policy. It was stricken by Mr. Heath, 10.3.1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Heath, H-e-a-t-h, I believe. He's no longer here. COMMISSIONER CARON: What were the conflicts? MR. COHEN: The conflicts aren't cited in the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because what this would require anything but a single-family house would come back before the various boards for approval; right? MR. WEEKS: This -- this actually was an issue identified in the past for a few different projects where the County Attorneys' Office has advised us we cannot mandate PUD zoning. We can encourage it, but we cannot require it. And that's the reason we deleted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if someone was on a barrier island and they -- which is zoned ag or conservation, if they wanted to Page 221 March 6, 2006 do anything but a single-family dwelling, would they have to seek a zoning change? MR. WEEKS: If the use they're proposing is not allowed in their existing zoning, that ag or conservation then, yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they'd be stuck for both uses and conditional uses in ag or conservation? MR. WEEKS: Right. I'm trying to think of a zoning district. I don't know, maybe the CF, community facility, maybe -- maybe that's a zoning district that would be consistent with conservation designation, therefore, could be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they had the option because of the underlying ag zoning to come forward under a conditional use there, we can't force them by law to go into a PUD format? MR. WEEKS: Right. This issue actually came up recently with the -- well, I'm not sure if it's come before this body yet or not -- a conditional use request on Keewaydin for a let's call it a yacht club or some type of a recreational type use. And they have submitted a conditional use application. And at issue was this very language here. You know, one side is saying this isn't even the right process. They should be filing a PUD. And staffs position was we understand that we cannot legally require PUD zoning and we have an established process in the Land Development Code for conditional use. It's a public hearing process. The same hearing bodies are -- are going to hear this. It's going to go through the same hearing process, therefore, conditional use is the appropriate mechanism. And, again, because we cannot mandate PUD zoning, we need to get rid of this policy. It simply cannot be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any speakers on this matter? I see the -- Tony Pires rising. MR. PIRES: Tony Pires, again, for -- I understand what David's saying and I've heard that discussion before. Just for historical note, this language was in the original January 1989 adopted that I guess Page 222 March 6, 2006 natural resources element was what it was called. And at that time it was part of Policy 11 and Objective 11. And this language has been in existence since that time to my knowledge and has not been changed or revised at all. In fact, there's an interpretation I think in '90 or '91, a staff formal interpretation of that provision with regards to requiring this. I've not seen the case or been cited to the case that the county -- the staff indicates the County Attorneys' Office indicates would preclude the utilization of this provision to require a PUD to be used and anything other than for single family. I have heard the argument made, however, that particularly on the parcel on Keewaydin is that the Land Development Code requires that there be a minimum ten acres to have a PUD. This provision in the CCME requires ten acres. The parcel at issue is less than ten acres. And so, therefore, they're going through the conditional use process. And my suggestion would be is to keep this language. And in the Land Development Code in Section 4.07. 02A, that's where the minimum acreage requirement for PUD districts exist, but there are exemptions. And what I would suggest is leave this language in absent -- you know, I've not seen a formal opinion from the County Attorneys' Office. I've heard that from David or I've heard that from others that they said, we cannot make them go to PUD. I'm not sure when the case came up between '89 and 2006 that said you cannot require a PUD. If it was legally sufficient at the time of adoption -- and I'm sure it was passed upon for legal sufficiency. Unless there's been a case since that time that I'm not aware of, and Randy may be or Steve may be, I would suggest we keep it in there and change the Land Development Code if need be to provide an exception to minimum acreage for development in coastal barriers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before -- one thing that may help on this is I'm not going to put Steve on the spot for the research on this legal Page 223 March 6, 2006 language tonight. MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I would like to defer comments on the reinstatement of 10.3.12 until such time that we meet in the future when the County Attorneys' Office would have enough time. And that would mean, like, Wednesday or Thursday to come back with at least a reading on this as to what they think the legal issues are so that we legally know if we should delete this or not since the basis seems to be the County Attorneys' Office. Okay? Will that work? MR. WEEKS: Further comment that if the opinion is that -- if I'm mistaken in the opinion, then staff would recommend that we change the word "require" to "encourage." We simply see no reason to mandate someone to go through the PUD process, just simply don't see what the benefit is. Any use that's allowed on these properties other than a single-family home either is going to be allowed by -- as a matter of right or is going to be allowed through a conditional use process. Again, that is a public hearing process. The same hearing bodies, EAC, you, Board of County Commissioners, would -- would still weigh in on -- on -- on that petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To do it right we need that legal interpretation, so let's just put this off with one of the ones we're going to deal with on another day. Anything else on page 38? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 39? Oh, Mr. Pires, you're popping up agaIn. MR. PIRES: If I may? MR. COHEN: This supposedly is the last time too; right? MR. PIRES : Yes, except for a public service announcement at the end. Bruce Anderson gave me a sheet on something else. MR. COHEN: I'm just kidding. MR. PIRES: I understand, Randy. Page 224 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. PIRES: It's the -- thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Planning Commission. Policy 10.3.14, we've discussed that earlier. I -- I would suggest hopefully that consistent with what was previously -- provision previously to Policy 10.1.7, I would suggest we delete the third sentence in it's entirety. I think that would be consistent with what was done before. Because, again, it seems like the last line for that calls for a hearing before the county commission. And, secondly, the way it's written it says, All new development proposed on coastal barrier systems. That includes apparently developed and undeveloped will have to go through an ST process. And I'm not sure what new development is. If you have a piece of land that, say, was cleared. They knock down an old hotel and let it sit for two years and they wanted to come in and build a new condominium and it happened to be on the beach and it didn't have any vegetation, but just, you know, weeds and grass that grew in the meantime, would they have to go through that ST process? It doesn't differentiate between developed and undeveloped coastal barrier systems. It just says all new development proposed. So if you have -- where the Ritz Carlton is is a developed coastal barrier system. Where Vanderbilt Beach is I'd say that could be construed as such. So I'm not sure what, again, what this is driving at. If it's driving at, say, we have land out there that's relatively pristine or needs to be protected, go through the ST process. But if we're talking about developing or redeveloping already improved property, I'm not sure why it should go through the ST process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if 10.1.7 addresses the same issues, why is 10.3.14 even exist in here? COMMISSIONER CARON: It wouldn't. (Inaudible.) MR. LORENZ: I think 10 point -- 10 point -- 10.1 or 10.1.7 is associated with Objective 10.1. 10.1 addresses developed coastal barriers. 10.3 addresses undeveloped coastal barriers. In the -- just as a Page 225 March 6, 2006 framework in -- in kind of the pecking order of priorities and being around during the 1989 plan development, there was some additional layering of protective restrictions in the undeveloped coastal barriers. So that's -- that's -- I mean, that's -- that's just the basis for which this whole Goal 10 was -- was -- was established. So I think that there was a recognition that there was an -- there was ST zoning on both developed and undeveloped coastal barrier systems or coastal barrier islands. And there was a recognition certainly in 10.1 that there needed to follow the ST zoning process. I believe that there was -- it looks like there was -- there was -- there was a lack of that. Well, 10.3.13 is crossed out and talks about these policies shall be implemented through the existing ST zoning procedures. So this was just another way of redrafting 10.3.13 for undeveloped coastal barriers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The concern about how extensive this could apply, like, the docks or small functions like that, is that a valid concern? MR. LORENZ: I think it is. I think -- I think within the redrafting of this when it says, "All new on their underdeveloped coastal barriers is" -- that's what it means is all new. And that would be the implication. Now, we have discussed in terms of the EAC, for instance, of bring up the single-family homes. And I know I brought this to the EAC a couple of times with regard to the EIS provisions. And -- and -- and their position is that even for single-family -- single-family homes on undeveloped coastal barriers, in fact, I think you're going to see one that's come -- that will come through. It's a boat dock. And that is going through the ST provisions. And so the undeveloped coastal barrier islands is -- is to be -- to receive a very much a higher level of scrutiny than anyplace else in the county. And that certainly wasn't envisioned in the '89 plan. I think this is carrying that -- that -- that -- that priority through for this plan as well. But -- but that would be -- Page 226 March 6, 2006 but that would be the -- the requirement. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I think -- don't necessarily disagree with the undeveloped coastal barrier and the ST and following that process. We had that discussion earlier I thought, but the word "undeveloped" does not appear in 1 0.3.14. It just says, "All new developed proposed on coastal barrier systems." I think it's the term "undeveloped" was inserted would pick up what Bill was intending. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we all concur and we believe that inserting the word undeveloped in front of coastal would be appropriate. MR. PIRES: And -- and deleting the third sentence, the third long sentence that talks about coming before the county commission. Again, we would use -- the discussion before I think would be consistent, whatever process is in existence now would be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good solution. We deleted that sentence in a prior one for the same reasons. And then if we do insert that undeveloped language as Randy just indicated, that would work. Anybody on the panel have a problem with it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. We'll take a ten-minute break. We'll be back at 5 :28. (Short recess was taken.) MR. COHEN: You have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We left off on page 38. So I think we can move on to page 39. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on page 39? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I have two questions on page -- on Policy 10.4.8. Twice you use the word -- you inserted the word "appropriate" in front of the word "native." Now, before it was just plain native vegetation. For some reason you felt the need to define the word "native" by using the word "appropriate." But I'm not sure Page 227 March 6, 2006 that defined it or maybe confused it more. How is -- is appropriate defined somewhere that provides criteria so someone knows whether they're appropriate or not? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, the word "appropriate" is somewhat ambiguous. I would just recommend removing it from both of the citations where it's present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody objecting to that? No? COMMISSIONER CARON: Was there a reason to do that because it is on seaward of the coastal construction line? I mean, is there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could the -- could the intent of that be -- I mean, you wouldn't want to use something, a native plant that would be inland on the coast. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. LORENZ: Right. That would not be salt tolerant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. LORENZ: I mean, that would be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. That would be foolish but COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wouldn't be appropriate. COMMISSIONER CARON: It might be cheaper and somebody might try to get away with it, you know. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm wondering, if you're going to use the word "appropriate," do you need to identify the criteria that signifies appropriate? Otherwise, how can you use it? It's arbitrary, ambiguous and doesn't give us anything other than what was there. Do we have a requirement in the implementation in the LDC that if you do plant and for dune stabilization, that it be successful? Because if you do, then we can leave it like it is and there's going to be a measure of criteria in which to determine if it worked or not. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Unfortunately, Barbara Burgeson had to leave with a family emergency. But I understand that in the Land Page 228 March 6, 2006 Development -- the Land Development Code we do have some -- some more specific guidelines to follow. And I think is -- is -- if we simply just left -- left appropriate out without defining, I think that's okay. Because we'd certainly when we review it, we certainly wouldn't want to have -- we wouldn't approve a vegetation that's going to be -- not be salt tolerant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: But that would be -- that would be the only reason I would -- how I would define appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further concerns with just striking those two words? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I had a question on this page, not that. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Then go on to your question. That's great. Appropriate then is -- is struck. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- you're removing the coastal control line and changing it to setback. What is the reason for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They changed the name on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did the state change the name of it? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Going -- going all the way back, I think they changed the name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A long time ago. MR. LORENZ: I think it was 1991 just about after this was-- was -- was adopted. And the county used to have -- had adopted the coastal construction setback line. It was the same line as the state in 1974. The state then adopted the CCCL construction line, as I said, in '91. And that coastal construction control line the state adopted is where typically now our CCCL is -- let's just say it's kind of on the Page 229 March 6, 2006 dune line where the active beach stops; while some places where the CCCL, it actually goes all the back into the back bay. So -- so the intent of the county's plan in 1989 was not to address that landward -- that far landward. It was simply to address just right pretty much of the dune line. So that's why we replaced everything for the coastal construction control line with the setback line to make it consistent with our current ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the setback line is a county term ? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Control line is the state's term. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're freeing yourself from the state? MR. LORENZ: We're freeing ourselves from these policies from the state. We have to -- we have to follow the state's construction control line requirements through all the building permits. And -- and, of course, a developer or anyone building on the coast has to go to the state to receive the CCCL. But rather than trying to revise all of our policies, we simply wanted to correct the terminology and bring it in consistent with our current Land Development Code regulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which line is more towards the gulf. MR. LORENZ: The setback line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I got, Bill, on the bottom of page 39, 10.4.10 Item 3, vehicles limit to set up and removal of equipment permitted events in conjunction with permitted concession stands or routine permitted uses of commercial hotels. Routine concerns me because if you ask a hotelier, everything they do is routine. So I think we ought to strike that word and just use or permitted uses of commercial hotels and that doesn't -- Page 230 March 6, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody got a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's good. Because they could routinely take the trash out across the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- see, that also dovetails on page 40. If you got to Policy 10.5.5, at the bottom it talks about the county shall prohibit vehicles on the beach and dunes except for -- and it lists environmental and emergency, but it doesn't list the items that are in 10.4.10. I'm wondering if that's an issue that you need to be concerned about for consistency. MR. LORENZ: Let me just check one thing. I -- I see your point. I think maybe we have to look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Policy 10.4.1 0 those changes -- just to let me -- you know, those changes are now consistent with our current Land Development Code. MR. COHEN: And, Mr. Chairman, the EAR -- the EAR is specifically -- the indication there is that that policy is supposed to be consistent with the vehicle on the beach ordinance that we got passed and in existence. We'll check it for consistency purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm making a list of outstanding issues for us to address on Wednesday so maybe we'll just add that one to the list. MR. LORENZ: And I think perhaps the fix might be that unfortunately this may be either two -- the policies have to be duplicated both places or maybe we just use one versus the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 40? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forty-two. Page 23 1 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's Goal 12, Objective 12.1. What is -- so we're reducing the evacuation times? How is that -- and then it seems like we're going to reduce even further. Is that because we're going to have faster cars or -- MR. LORENZ: I'll have comp planning address at least all the -- everything under Goal 11 and 10 and 12. MR. COHEN: Unfortunately, Mr. Zyvoloski had to go to the vice presidential -- I'm serious -- for EOC purposes. A member of his staff indicated to me that all the EOC policies that you -- that you see present there, they were conferred with and -- and basically that's their language and that's what they feel comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not going to answer our questions, Randy. I'm assuming that anything comes before us, you wouldn't feel comfortable with. So I guess what that means is the questions that we -- are you telling us you can't answer any questions under Objective 12? MR. COHEN: That is correct, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, while we're in momentum here though, I've got some 12. And 12's short. We can go through that in not time. Can we give Randy some stuff that he can meet with them on? I don't think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think they need to be here at this meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. You can't just flip a COIn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wednesday morning we can start by finishing up the CCME and they can be here to answer questions. We're not going to finish it tonight anyway because I -- so far I've got a list of four outstanding items and this will just make another one. Randy, how far after Objective 12.1 on page 42 are you not aware of? Page 232 March 6, 2006 I mean, what -- where do we pick you back up again? MR. COHEN: David indicated that he could address Policy 12.1.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From 12.1.4-- MR. COHEN: At least in part, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from page 45 on we can pick you up; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forty-three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 43 and 44 we won't be able to have questions answered today on this. We'll have to talk to the gentleman on Wednesday morning. Page 44 the same way. And page 45 starting at Policy 12.1.14 David can address. So on page 45 starting with that policy, are there any questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Forty-five? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 45, yes, sir. MR. COHEN: Yeah. With respect to 12.1.1(4), the Board of County Commissioners obviously during this past AUIR addressed what should be considered Category A and Category B public facilities. And hurricane shelters were not to be considered Category A facilities. So that's already been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't adopted a 2007 annual update yet, though, have we? MR. COHEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, they're going re-evaluate or re-study it for that annual update according to this policy; right? MR. COHEN: Well, the direction from the board was to only include in the Category A facilities those items that were subject to concurrency. And I would -- I would imagine that the only other item that will be subj ect to concurrency that will be added would be schools which has to be done by March 1 st, 2008, but we will raise the issue with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it's -- what I'm Page 233 March 6, 2006 reading, though, it's says, "Prior to the adoption of 2007 AUIR." So they won't even discuss it until that AUIR comes in for its review; right? We've got two more years before that happens. So why are we -- I mean, I don't know what you're -- why you're concerned about it at this point, Randy. MR. COHEN: Oh, I'm not concerned. I just know what the board's policy direction was with respect to what should be Category A facilities. I think they have addressed it, but we can leave the policy In. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 46? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the top of page 26, Policy 12.1.16 we have Florida Statutes. I think it's 16 through 3 -- .3180 paren 6. It talks about diminimus impacts on road systems that are failed. And I brought this issue up to this staff a couple of years ago and asked them if we had any studies indicating evacuation routes on a one-way design. And at that point they said none. They didn't have them done. So now I happen to notice in reading this that we're looking for that in this policy. Have -- has -- have we implemented this policy yet as far as staff done anything on it, do you know, or is that a transportation question? MR. COHEN: I think it's -- it's a question that needs to be addressed by transcription and also by EOC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 12.16 will have to be put off until Wednesday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think the rest of this chapter is EOC oriented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, are you in the same situation with that? MR. WEEKS: I don't think I can be of any help here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May I make a statement here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. Page 234 March 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What we're doing here now is by guess and by gosh. We're going to save maybe ten minutes. Why don't you gentlemen just close it up. We'll all be fresh tomorrow morning and get this done. And you'll get it done without worrying about what can we do this and can we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lindy -- Lindy, I just asked him ifhe could do anything and he said, no, he couldn't. So that was going to be my next statement was to close the meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to have a second to do it, you know. Okay. Would the fact that we can't finish today, I want staff to know that on Wednesday morning we're going to start with this element. I would like a response on Sections 5.1.2, 6.2.3,10.3.12, 10.5.5, and all the policies and -- and objectives after 12.1 on Wednesday morning. That will be our starting issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And can I have a question for the attorney for a moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At this time do we want to adjourn this meeting or continue it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be continuing, aren't we? MR. GRIFFIN: You could continue it. I think that would be fine. MR. COHEN: It's been advertised for both dates. MR. GRIFFIN: Right. So -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You could do it either way. MR. GRIFFIN: -- in that case you could -- you could adjourn it with everyone knowing that it's going to be held. You're going to have a Wednesday meeting to go continue your business anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to either adjourn or continue this meeting? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CARON: One moment. Page 235 March 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. Ms. Caron had a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were going to make a motion to adjourn. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: I will do that right after I ask my question. Is it your intention to go from this element to the flue and then did I hear you say to the housing element? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll go to the flue, but we may not go to the housing element, but the flue for sure and maybe transportation or one of the others depending on how long the flue takes us. COMMISSIONER CARON: But just if we announce it perhaps stuff that we need will be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would recommend that we-- after the flue we go back to the beginning of the book and start working with the utilities -- transportation -- it would be capital improvements, then transportation, then your utilities. Is that okay, Randy? Do you -- MR. COHEN: No problem whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I'll make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting's adjourned. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Adjourned -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- you don't need a vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, then why did you make a motion if you don't need a vote? Page 236 March 6, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5 :48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY ELIZABETH BROOKS, RPR, AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 237