Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/19/2002 S (GMP Amendments - Rural Fringe)June 19, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUNE 19, 2002 MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BCC RURAL FRINGE ADOPTION GMP AMENDMENTS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 18, 2002) NAPLES, FLORIDA LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 7:00 p.m., at County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present. ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: JAMES COLETTA DONNA FIALA FREDERICK COYLE THOMAS HENNING JAMES CARTER, PhD. WILLIAM LORENZ, NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR NORMAN FEDERS, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR JOSEPH SCHMITT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 18, 2002 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS,,. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCE EDIN~o ~axa~,~lt~ 'IHERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF 1 June 18, 2002 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA A® COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RURAL FRINGE AREA - APPLICABLE TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,_EXCEPT THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA (ADOPTION HEARING). 3. ADJOURN ~S~O~.N~_C_E~R~_ _I__NG _CHANGES T? THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD ~ so IHE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 7~. 2 June 18, 2002 June 19, 2002 ORDINANCE 2002-32, COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE RURAL FRINGE AREA - APPLICABLE TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, EXCEPT THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES (Whereupon, the meeting was previously adjourned on June 18th and reconvened on June 19th and continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the continuation of the June 14th Rural Fringe Adoption Hearing. And where we left off yesterday, we have heard all the public speakers. We closed the public portion of the -- of the meeting and now we are at the point where we are at deliberation amongst ourselves. We may call different people up to the stand to ask some questions on different issues. Please proceed. MS. LINNAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, members of the public, I'm Nancy Linnan. I'm with the County's outside legal counsel for Growth Management. First of all, Mr. Chairman, if I could make a correction. That was the continuation of the June 18th public hearing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MS. LINNAN: It just felt like it was the 14th. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sure did. MS. LINNAN: And also as a housekeeping measure, we do have a Spanish language interpreter present tonight, Eunice Fernandez, should you care to address Spanish speakers in the audience or should they -- should you call them to the podium and ask them to speak. So someone is available to assist in that effort. Last night, as we -- after you closed the public hearing, you asked that, as Staff, we comment on all the -- the comments that have been made. And so we took all the comments from last evening, talked further to the representative of the 15,000 Coalition about what was submitted because we had not had the opportunity to look through it yesterday evening. Page 2 June 19, 2002 We also discussed all the issues amongst the Staff and in some cases interested parties where we could group those comments by issue. Now, I will tell you it sounds like that was a very deliberative effort. As you can imagine, since we got here, people are grabbing us, handing us pages, whatever. Parts of this are still a work in progress as I speak. So while we feel confident with our recommendations, it may not be as pretty, or as smooth as we would like. I may be calling people to assist in responding to some of the comments. One big issue we heard from a lot of folks yesterday was the data. There is the absence of reliable scientific data to support what we are doing in the Fringe. Some people said the data is bad, some people say it's not up to date, some people say our land is high and dry. Let me speak to the last comment first. We are not just about protecting Wetlands here. It's about Wetlands and listed species habitat. And remember, those are the things in the statute, and those are the things in the final order. Sometimes habitat is Upland. A lot of time it is. A lot of critters don't live in the water. So you are going to have Uplands. A lot of folks have pine trees on their property. And sometimes in my -- the development side of my life, I find out that there is something called hydric pines. They are indicators of Wetlands even though they are pine trees. So just because somebody's property is cleared or even high and dry does not necessarily mean that there is -- it is not critical wildlife habitat for something like that. So I just wanted to -- had to put that out on the record because I think a lot of people expect it's only environmentally sensitive if there are a lot of Wetlands on it. That's not true. Secondly, as to whether you had an obligation to go out and get new data, no, the final order said you didn't have to. That statute says you don't have to. The statute says you have to use the best available data. It doesn't mean you need to spend money to get more. What the Staff did in this case was use the 1987 closing the gaps report. They updated that. They actually digitized it into their GIS system to 1995. In addition, they have added more recent panther telemetry data, hydrologic information, soils information, so there are things that are like 2001 in there. Page 3 June 19,2002 Maybe even 2002 with panther telemetry data. It is the most recent that we could get to. We didn't necessarily look at, in that process, all the tax appraiser's aerials. Sometimes that doesn't tell you anything, but -- but they took into account the best available data. They also did something which is required throughout the process. They reanalyzed the data and as soon as they would update it, they would go back and reanalyze it again. In fact, they have done it as recently as last week. In addition, as you remember, a lot of folks throughout the process said, hey, what you've got there on those maps doesn't reflect reality. It doesn't reflect my property. We offered. You offered in all those cases, well, get us data. Show us what you got. Bring it to us. We will be happy to include that in it. That offer was always out there on the table. Not surprisingly, a lot of folks took us up on it and that data is included. It has been included in the process. Now, some of that we thought supported what they were saying, that they needed to be out of Sending. Some of it didn't. And some of it can change depending on the data that they present. For example, there were a lot of folks in the North Belle Meade area that brought in data on a certain number of sections. The GAPS information was updated in 1995 with the land cover showed there were about 500 acres of Wetland. Well, they brought in jurisdictionals and that's the only way you can really determine the exact boundaries of a Wetland by using the state- mandated methodology to go out and check the soils and check the plants. They did. They had a thousand acres of Wetlands on their property, not the 500 that we thought. Now, in some cases it goes down but that's just an example, and in some cases, it can go up when you get out on the site. We are doing this on a landscape scale, so in some cases, it will be off, but we've never said anything other than bring us your data if you've got it. There were several comments made concerning findings of fact in the interim North Belle litigation. The counsel last night said the information -- the -- the administrative law judge had found that the GAP report was bad -- a bad thing to rely on, number two. And that North Belle Meade was altered. Page 4 June 19, 2002 It's important that we respond to that on the record, because in legal terms, basically their lawyer will say you're bound to that. You can't change that. That was a finding in a judicial proceeding. So I do need to have the County's counsel of record in that case get up and explain that those comments were taken out of context, and with that, I would call on Marty Chumbler. MS. CHUMBLER: Good evening. For the record, I'm Marty Chumbler, outside counsel for the County. I think it's important to keep in mind that in rendering his opinion in that administrative challenge of the interim amendments, the administrative law judge was very precise and very careful in saying that while he thought there was data to support the decision by the County at that time not to make -- not to make North Belle Meade an interim NRPA. The important factor in that consideration was the fact that it was interim and that there was an assessment that was to be taking place during that period, and a moratorium, during which period the County would be assessing the data to determine whether a different designation was appropriate. He specifically mentioned that in his recommended order and he specifically said it was a problem with the challenge to the interim designation was that it was premature, that it was a challenge undertaken before the complete assessment was done. Where we are today is, having completed the assessment, we are now back saying, okay, what after this additional assessment does the data say? I think it's also important to point out that in the recent appellate decision that came out upholding the findings of the administrative law judge, again, the appellate judges noted the importance of the administrative law judge's decision in -- in noting that this was an interim designation, a temporary designation, not a permanent designation, not the designation that was going to occur after there had been a full assessment of the data. So for that reason, ! think we are -- we are not in a situation where we are bound by the finding fact in that recommended order. Any questions? Thank you. MS. LINNAN: As I said, because we expect to see that again from a legal standpoint, we just wanted to kind of put that on the record. However, saying all that, we still continue to get the data. Page 5 June 19, 2002 And, in fact, Mr. Lester provided us within the last hour, and I just to make sure that you understand it's part of the record, two boxes like that(indicating,) and a map series. We look at them as fast we can, looked at them. It's still part of-- if they can submit it by the end of the hearing, it would still be part of the record. You can't take public testimony, but people can submit documents, letters, whatever, so that is part of the record. But being sensitive to that issue and several of the folks who, particularly folks who own smaller properties maybe on the edge, the boundary of the property, we have come up with a policy that we would recommend to you tonight. When we get to the errata sheet, we will explain it. It basically says if you are a land owner that owns -- and Bob can correct me if I mess this up, on the boundary of a Sending Area, you are inside the Sending Area, but you are on a boundary, it directs Staff to contact every one of those property owners within the next year and offer to them the ability to submit data. Staff will review that data, if they choose to submit it, and in a year, Staff will come back to you with a comprehensive plan amendment recommending that there be changes or not on those properties. It will not cost the property owners anything other than going out and getting the data. They will not have to pay the filing fee. Now, we are not recommending that for folks internal, because we don't want to create a lot of holes in the doughnut. That would do away with what we are trying to do here, but on the edges, it's okay. You can take stuff out of the edges sometimes without a problem. You can't when you get internal to that, so it would just be on the edges of the Sending Area. Notice issue. Mrs. Montel, who raised that issue last night said, that a lot of folks hadn't got notice of this. You will note Comprehensive Plan Amendments under the statute only require newspaper notice. That's all the legislature required unless the County, by it's own code requires more. This County does not in that case. However, in this case, because of your concerns and prior commissions, there were two complete mailings to every property owner within the Fringe Areas. Page 6 June 19, 2002 There were two full-page ads at great expense to the County. There was a web page and numerous articles and numerous regular ads and public hearings, so we went further than that. The ROMA issue kept coming up last night. Several people got up. The had property. When you really looked at it, in Golden Gate Estates, they were concerned about themselves or their legacy to their children, those kinds of things. Once again, for purposes of the record, this has nothing to do with a ROMA or with a permitting decision by state or federal agencies. We are not flooding land. We are not buying land. That is the County Soil and Water Conservation Authority, a different elected body. However, I thought it was interesting, the one lady's comment about the estimate of $30,000, she said, to go ahead and develop that property. Again, in my other life I sometimes represent developers. And that doesn't seem like an unusual figure to me to pay if you have high quality Wetlands on your property. And actually, that's probably a pretty small amount for high quality Wetlands. So that may very well be the cost of acquiring off-site Wetlands in order to develop that property. Candidly, someone facing that situation, and I suspect there are a lot out in this area because it contains 97 percent of the Wetlands. You have a lot of Wetlands on these properties and they would be much better off with TDR's. They are going to make a lot more money. They may be windfalls, even under TDR's then going ahead and paying to mitigate because their main use is residential. For one house on five acres, folks aren't going to pay a lot of money to go a head and have to mitigate for Wetlands at those numbers. Millie Haylock, I believe, mentioned the record, that some folks had sent in letters and they were not part of the record and she had been very disappointed by that. Any letters, correspondence, or e-mail received by the County from when we started the transmittal process through tonight, when you make your decision, are part of the record and if somebody sent something in during that period or stood up and said they had concerns, then technically, under the law, they have standing to do a challenge. Page 7 June 19, 2002 So I just want to make sure that is part of the record and that everybody knows that. The Conservancy mentioned a couple of issues. Let me hit on a couple first and then I'm going to turn the definition of agriculture over to Marty because she seems to become our farming expert in the group. We talked about deletion of agriculture as a use, anything other than passive agriculture, grazing. If somebody had availed themselves of the TDR process, as you remember, originally that's what Staff recommended. You folks made a policy decision at the transmittal hearing to allow people to continue agricultural uses on their property, but they couldn't intensify it from what they had. So you all know we ran that by the Department of Community Affairs because we didn't want that to be a problem or surprise at the last minute, and they felt comfortable with that, not crazy about it, but they can live with that. So they were -- they accepted the Board's position on that. What you would choose to do would be a policy decision. An issue came up about providing more incentives for Rural Villages. As you see, we've got people trying to expand to Rural Villages. Mr. Hancock, last night, wanted to go from 2500 acres to -- to 3500 acres and we - - we think we have provided a bonus system within the TDR system to -- to provide sufficient incentive for those Rural Villages. If the issue was we would like to create Rural Villages and put some compact kind of Rural Village Lines around those and nothing outside, candidly, that was never the intent. If the Rural Fringe are people who decide to live one to five outside of that, we don't have a problem with that nor does the Department of Communities. The community is theirs. And with that, I'll let Marty address the definition of agriculture. MS. CHUMBLER: Again, for the record, Marty Chumbler. One of the -- the points raised and a letter that was addressed to Mr. Lorenz today from the Conservancy was the definition of agriculture in the plan. And the reference for Receiving areas is somewhat different than what it is in Sending Areas, although the intent is not that they be different. I think there was pre-existing language then, Receiving Areas pre-existing in the plan. Page 8 June 19, 2002 That reference to agriculture was agricultural uses, such as farming, ranching, forestry and bee-keeping. I think the intent of that is not that -- that it would be confined to those uses, but those are just examples of the types of things that would fall within agriculture, whereas in Sending Areas, the -- it specifically cross-references agriculture as defined in the Right to Farm Act. There is a reason for that. The reason for that reference is as I've spoken to this Board before, the Right to Farm Act doesn't put restrictions on the authority, the statutory authority of this Board to regulate limit, or restrict agricultural regulations. That's why the cross-reference to that statute. The statute itself has a very broad definition of farms and farming operations. It would include all of the things that are listed here, as well as many others, and ancillary buildings and activities to farming. And so we think it's completely appropriate that those references be made. If there is any need for clarification to make sure that you are not -- I think the suggestion by the Conservancy is that you use the more restricted definition for Receiving areas that you do in Sending. It's not the intent. I don't think that's what it says but if there is a need for clarification of that, it can certainly be done in the LDR's. Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Why wouldn't it be done now? MS. CHUMBLER: It -- it could be and if you wanted to, at this point, add agricultural uses such as are defined in Section 823, to be consistent, you might say as -- as referenced in Section 823.14 Florida Statute, you could do that. That would be a possibility today as well. But it would just be a matter of making that cross reference. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you would think that you wouldn't be as restrictive in a Receiving Area. MS. CHUMBLER: And you're not. And the intent is that you are not. What you have in the Receiving area is it's really not a definition at all except to give some examples. What's in Receiving Areas is simply agricultural uses listing the permitted uses, agricultural uses such as -- ant then it gives some examples. That's not really a definition. It just gives some examples. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Page 9 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most Land Development Codes that I've -- I've looked at, they put language in the Land Development Code, not the growth management plan. Am I - MS. CHUMBLER: Well, you've got to have the definitions of some kind in the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the detail - MS. CHUMBLER: The detail would be in the LDR's. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The thing about cross referencing, is there a plus to that or is it just one of those little -- little details that are unnecessary? MS. CHUMBLER: In my opinion, it's a wash. I mean, I don't see that it's -- it can be taken care of in the LD -- in the Land Development Code. If it's your pleasure to do it today, that's fine, but I don't think it's imperative. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no need to complicate it. Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One last follow-up. So you say in- MS. CHUMBLER: I'm sorry. I don't mean to be walking away. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in the Sending Areas, it is more restricted? MS. CHUMBLER: No, it is not. It is not more restrictive. It -- the intent is for them both to be the same in terms of the way agriculture is defined. The scope of agricultural is the same. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't we want to type in that a little bit in the Sending Areas to make sure that it is - MS. CHUMBLER: Sending -- well, you have to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. In the Sending Areas. MS. CHUMBLER: You've got to keep two things in mind, that there are two aspects of the Right to Farm Act. One is your ability to restrict agriculture and agriculture as -- agriculture that is a bona fide farm operation, and that has a specific name to it. I mean, it has specific connotation. So it's not just the definition of agriculture, it's agriculture as a bona fide Page 10 June 19, 2002 agricultural operation for which there are Best Management Processes adopted under the Florida Administrative Code. So there's -- there's layers to it beyond just the definition of agricultural that apply within the Sending Area. I'm not trying to confuse you. The definition of agriculture is not more or less restrictive in Sending or Receiving, but your ability to regulate agriculture. And therefore, the kind of agriculture that's allowed in Sending Areas is further limited by what the Right to Farm Act says is a bona fide farm operation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This -- this is getting confusing. Okay? MS. CHUMBLER: Which is one reason why you may want to deal with it in Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I just need to ask a question, or make a statement and you tell me if it's correct. While the definition of agriculture is the same in either the Sending or the Receiving lands, the degree to which agriculture can be used in Sending Lands is restricted by this Rural Fringe Agreement; is that not true? MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so what we are saying in this agreement is that the agricultural uses which currently exist must be in accordance with the definition of agriculture, but furthermore, we are limiting the intensity of that agriculture in the -- in the Sending Areas, which I think is Commissioner Fiala's concern. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think -- is that a correct statement? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, not -- not absolutely. The -- in the Sending Areas, you've got two things. You've got Sending Areas where no one has exercised -- someone has not exercised their TDR right. And in those areas, the County cannot restrict those agricultural operations which are bona fide agricultural operations and for which there are adopted Best Management Practices. What the County has decided to do as a policy is in those Sending Areas on which someone has decided to sell TDR's, you will allow whatever Page 11 June 19, 2002 agricultural operation which was in effect at the time to continue but not to expand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: Does that -- does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, I think also, if I remember correctly, we're not dealing with very much Ag in this whole Rural Fringe Area. A portion of it compared to everything else is minor. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MS. LINNAN: Okay. Next we come to the 24 issue and that's Mr. Mulhere's - COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could I ask- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you can. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a real quick one. When you were talking about rural village, and maybe my hearing aid was turned off or something, but I didn't hear the affordable housing component that was -- MS. LINNAN: That will come later. We did add that language to the errata sheet. We have the language before you tonight. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. I think you already probably understand this issue pretty well on Section 24, so it ought to be really brief. And again, the Planning Commission's recommendation was to re -- was to change the designation on Section 24 from the transmittal of recommendation which the Board had, which was Sending, with the County doing a Red Cockaded Woodpecker study within the year, to Neutral, but applying the preservation standards of the Sending Area, which are higher than the Neutral. And the Staff supports that recommendation. We would still do the right Red Cockaded Woodpecker survey. I think you heard that the property owner doesn't like that and some other testimony from Nancy Peyton that they want to go back to the original. But we haven't changed our opinion that we believe that adequately addresses the resources that may be out there, and the study will determine that for sure. Page 12 June 19, 2002 And it does put the property owner in a position of being able to utilize those lands in a manner that he thought he could all along. So -- yes? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does it mean, Neutral? Explain what's going through your mind. MR. MULHERE: Neutral Designation was created for lands that, generally speaking, did not rise to the same level of environmental concern as but Sending Designations, and where also though, the higher environmental values that would be associated with those as we designated as Receiving, which have the lowest environmental significance. It's somewhere in between. And for that reason, it was determined that it was best to allow the -- basically the base uses that were permitted in the under -- in the original Ag world district to be retained in the Neutral designation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what you are saying is a quality of a piece of candy, you have high quality, low quality, such as Ag is, and you are saying this is right in the middle? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you know that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I would have to refer to Bill, but it's based on that data source. That data source that we collected that we looked at which showed that, you know, the existence of listed species, the existence of Wetlands, the existence of listed species habitat rose to a certain level, and that level was significantly below that which we would have designated as Sending. But not so low or not nearly as low as the lands that we designated as receiving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the listed species issues, you know, nobody has proven to me that there is listed species on that, and I'll go back to transmittal knowing a little about Section 24, a lot of that land is Neutral already. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's why we are going to do the study. And we'll bring that back to you in a year and the property owners are free to submit any environmental data that they have, too, for your consideration. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's my point, is we don't know what's on that land. MR. MULHERE: Well- Page 13 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're guessing. That's my opinion. MR. MULHERE: I understand. I will add that there was some information that was submitted and that was why that changed. That was submitted by a biologist who was hired by the school district to look at the area and their land in particular. It did show that there was Red Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat on -- in various sections of 24. Now, I'm turning around to look at Bill because I want him, if necessary, to make sure that I am speaking correctly. ! believe I am. And so based on that additional information, the designation was changed on a portion of that to Sending. Now, we recognize that it's an issue and we recognize that there has been some development in that section. There are some cleared lands and there are some farm fields in there, and for that reason, we came to the Board and said, "Look. Our opinion is that it should be Neutral." And therefore, all of the uses that were previously permitted would be applicable, but there would be a slightly higher preservation standard than if we went to Receiving, plus, you wouldn't be bringing in new intensity of uses higher than what already existed on the land. But we also agreed that we could conduct that Red Cockaded Woodpecker survey so that we could bring that information back to the Board and a final decision could be made. That decision could be Receiving, Neutral or Sending based on that -- that comparable data that comes forward from the study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or you might have some areas that you want to retain - MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but the preservation standards I think were -- I would like to have more flexibility in this and what I'm looking at, three sides of that, you have Golden Gate Estates - MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, already plotted. And my recollection out there is this, if anything, it should be Receiving land, but I think that to be fair to everybody is let the landowners submit to the County the study of their lands and keep it Neutral, and the Preservation to stay the same as Receiving Lands. Page 14 June 19, 2002 MR. MULHERE: So I mean, is that designated Neutral and leave the Neutral Preservation Standards and don't use the Sending Preservations Standards, I think? If I'm correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MULHERE: And let them submit environmental data? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MULHERE: And we would still do our Red Cockaded Woodpecker survey as well? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm lost. What are we -- what are we exactly proposing again, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the preservation standards are -- are Sending Preservation Standards instead of Receiving. MR. MULHERE: That's -- that's the issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if there is any question, let's -- let's have flexibility and then when it comes back, then we can put some standards on there that apply to it correctly. MR. MULHERE: And I understand what you are saying. And I think what you are saying, if I repeat it incorrect, let me know. It's that you would prefer to favor the property owners out there with the Neutral Preservation Standards under the Neutral Designation but still conduct the survey and adjust it after that's been done, if necessary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying be fair to everybody, the Red Cockaded Woodpecker and the landowners. MR. MULHERE: I understand. And then to me, that becomes a policy decision for the Board. We kind of suggested that the Staff would report the Planning Commission's recommendation, but obviously I think that's a decision I think you have to make. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the downside of this? I'm trying to see -- I'm trying to weigh this whole thing out. This is a new element that's being put into it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But it's -- I don't think there is a significant downside other than some folks who have been involved in this process aren't going to like that. I don't think there is a significant downside because there is a sixty-percent Preservation Requirement in -- in the Neutral Designation. Page 15 June 19, 2002 If you are concerned, what you might say is, we'll go Neutral, we'll use the Neutral Designation status, but perhaps maybe some things won't happen until that Red Cockaded Woodpecker study is completed and we have a final determination. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're talking about lands that are Neutral at this point in time? They would be Neutral in the program to begin with? MR. MULHERE: Well, you are talking about lands that the Board transmitted as Sending. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we better scrap the whole program if we are going to go there, because now we no longer have a workable arrangement to be able to trade off against the - MR. MULHERE: I'm not following you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm kind of lost. You want to take Sending Areas and turn them into Neutrals? MR. MULHERE: Correct. I'm -- what I'm trying to tell you is what the Planning Commission's recommendation was. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The Planning Commission's recommendation was for Section 24, to change the Board's Transmittal Recommendation, which was for Sending on Section 24 -- most of Section 24 and change it to Neutral, which allowed all the uses that were allowed under the previous zoning or the existing zoning until we make the change -- but would apply the higher Preservation Ratio of Sending Lands which is 80 percent, at least until the Red Cockaded Woodpecker survey is completed. And I -- I can stand here and tell you that I'm sure if you guys ask Bill, he's going to tell you there is Red Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat in Section 24. There is habitat existing there. So it's not a question of if. It's a question of how much and -- and let's do the study and find out. So their -- their recommendation was, go back to Neutral. That didn't limit the uses, but with a higher Preservation Standard. From my perspective, that was a good recommendation. I think the Staff agreed because a higher preservation standard would protect the -- re -- remember that Preservation Standard is of the existing vegetation. It's not 80 percent of, you know, it's of the existing vegetation. So - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. Page 16 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I like that idea of Neutral and 80 percent, and then if-- if, per chance, I realize that they have never seen one on there and Nancy says there is a colony of them. Well, if you go out and you found that the colony has moved and there isn't any and no chance, we can always give them some extra. But to give them only sixty-percent Preservation and find a colony of Red Cockaded Woodpeckers and say, "Sorry. You don't have that after all. Now, we're taking 80." I would much prefer to start off with the 80 and then work back to the 60. I'm just talking about what the Planning Commission said. They said give them 80 and -- right? Neutral and 80? MR. MULHERE: Correct. Well, Neutral and Sending Preservation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Right. That's what I - MR. MULHERE: I mean, I really -- obviously it's a -- you have two sides to the issue. This was to meet some Neutral ground. I guess I can also add to that that perhaps you would ask Nancy or Marty, but I think that certainly that solution puts the County in a better position by restoring the development rights that that landowner had should that landowner not be satisfied with that solution. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in this case here, I would like -- I would like to ask Nancy Peyton to come up and I would like to reference from her. I feel a little bit nervous when we start to amend this at the eleventh hour. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I have the property owners of 24 come up? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure can. It's your option. You'll be able to call another person up or as many as you want. That's correct, Commissioner Henning. MS. PEYTON: Nancy Peyton, Florida Wildlife Federation. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for allowing us to come up and comment on this. Again, I want to emphasize that this was transmitted as Sending because the data and analysis supports it as being Sended -- Sending Land. And there was the agreement that there would be the study during the upcoming year to evaluate whether this is indeed, RCW Habitat, although we heard one of the landowner's representatives say that indeed, that there was RCW Habitat there. Page 17 June 19, 2002 There is at least one colony within Section 24, so we know that there are RCW's there. And we felt that this was a responsible, honest solution to the issue if, indeed, it does have high environmental qualities. The County produced a RCW habitat map which has -- which identifies Section 24. Here is Section 24, and although you can't see it well, there is a red dot to indicate that there is an RCW Colony. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on a golf course, existing golf course that's in there. MS. PEYTON: But they still need habitat to forage and they need habitat to expand. And when we think about doing some development on there, we have to be careful that we protect that contiguous habitat. That was the purpose of the study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PEYTON: And that the habitat would have the highest preservation until that study is completed within the next year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So obviously, it's not -- for the RCW, it's not good for, like, a house, but a golf course, it's okay for the - MS. PEYTON: I don't believe that's on the golf course. I believe that's in a preservation area that was required as part of the golf course. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then it's my mistake. Somebody told me it was a - MS. PEYTON: I can be corrected, but whatever there -- there's a colony there that's using that area. There's been comments that it's disturbed habitat and this is from the property appraiser's -- thank you, website that I just downloaded Section 24 and printed it out, and there is an awful lot of habitat in there. At the Planning Commission meeting, we were willing to go Neutral with that Sending Preservation because it allowed them their use, they got their density, but yet it protected the habitat until the study could be done. And that, again, from our perspective seemed a reasonable and honorable way to deal with the situation. Because we heard that they wanted to build houses, they wanted to have that density, so this allowed them to maintain that density, but yet there was still this consideration to protect this important habitat and allow for the study to take place to evaluate it, and we were willing to accept that. Page 18 June 19, 2002 And the -- the representatives of the property owners, that still wasn't good enough for them, and that was an attempt to -- for middle ground and we are willing to go middle ground, but Neutral -- with Neutral Preservation undermines what was transmitted to the DCA and takes away significant protections for these lands until they can be evaluated. So I urge you that ideally we would like it to remain Sending with Sending Preservation. The fallback position that we would be comfortable with is that it remained Sending Preservation for the duration of the study for evaluation but it went to that Neutral status. And, again, I think that that's a reasonable, responsible and fair position for both sides to resolve this issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I ask you a question? This -- this GAP map that you are showing us, you say that you identify habitat on there. Can you show me on that map what habitat looks like? MS. PEYTON: Well, what I'm showing you is that it's vegetated, potential habitat which backs up this County map, and maybe you want the County Staff person who did this map come up and explain it and how he did it, but there is the dark area that identifies potential RCW habitat that's going to be evaluated during the next year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's not habitat, it's potential habitat. MS. PEYTON: Well, it says potential. We don't know whether it is, and that's one of the reasons for the -- it's -- it's habitat and potentially, there are RCW's out there. And that's the whole point of the study is to go out there and do a better evaluation of ground truthing that has come up through the data and the analysis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And all I -- the only thing I want to do is -- is protection on both sides of it, with flexibility. MS. PEYTON: Well, I thought we got there with Neutral where they got their density and uses, but yet nature still got the Sending Protections that are necessary during the study. So I saw that as protecting nature and also addressing the concerns that were identified by property owners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the only thing that we disagree on is the preservations standards in the interim until -- well, if they want to go out and utilize their property, I'm sure they are going to come in Page 19 June 19, 2002 with a -- a study for the habitat on the property; correct? Is that your understanding? MS. PEYTON: Well, one of the issues that's been ongoing is that this study is -- is not just for occupied habitat, it's for potential habitat. And there has, quite frankly, been some problem with Staff having sympathy for protecting potential habitat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then we all need to move out of Collier County because it all is protected habitat -- potential if you want to consider that. MS. PEYTON: Well, if- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just need to be fair here, Ms. Peyton. MS. PEYTON: But then these lands don't have the protection as to why we went into this whole planning effort to ensure that those RCW's are going to get proper protection. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't agree that the preservation standards, if we change the preservation standards to a Neutral Preservation Standard; that is not fair? MS. PEYTON: No, I don't think it is fair. We transmitted this with -- with data analyses that supported it for that Sending Preservation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I ask a question? MS. PEYTON: And so I don't think it's fair to nature. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask you a question in another way here too, so we got a little bit better perspective of what we are talking about. If we were to implement Commissioner Henning's opinion into this, then we change this by which way? What would be the change that would take place? In other words, if we followed- Ms. PEYTON: It's -- it's changing it from Sending to Neutral and it's reducing the preservation standards. COMMISSIONER CARTER: From 80 to - COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixty. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- sixty. By 20 percent as I would understand it, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then the next question would be, what -- how do we go -- how -- when they do this study, is the study going to reflect Page 20 June 19, 2002 that whole area if they find one small colony of-- of woodpeckers, or will it just encompass that area that it is? I'm not too sure on that. MS. PEYTON: I can't answer that. You need to ask County Staff that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Lorenz, Commissioner Henning did bring up some good questions. (Whereupon, a small break was taken and the meeting continued as follows:) MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. I believe the question was as to what degree we are going to develop an RCW survey for this area. If you recall, in the North Belle Meade agreement, that in the whole North Belle Meade, we will be doing an RCW survey to look at potential habitat. We will also be looking at locations for cavity trees. If they realize there is a potential habitat with regard to RCW's, that -- they look at a pine forest with a fairly clear understory, and that's -- that's what their preferred habitat is. There are also some differences between -- for nesting and foraging. So when we start talking about doing a complete RCW survey for the North Belle Meade, we will focus -- our first attention will be in Section 24, and we will be verifying cavity trees and we will be verifying quality of the -- the pine -- pine forest to determine what it's quality of habitat will be. And that's what will be the nature of the RCW survey. The other thing you have to realize, too, is when we begin trying to develop the protection strategy, again we have got to get back to that landscape scale, we have -- we have to look at that whole area, that whole area in the North Belle Meade. In fact, even -- even a little bit further west has been very important habitat for RCW's in the past in Collier County. And the development has pushed the RCW out of the Urban Area and into these areas now that are in -- in the Rural Fringe. So when we begin to look at our protection strategies, especially the wildlife protection strategies, that's why the North Belle Meade becomes very important for us. Not just because of Wetlands, but because of listed species habitat and RCW's is a very important listed species that we -- we need to be protecting at Page 21 June 19, 2002 that -- at that landscape scale. And that's one of the reasons that a large portion of the whole North Belle Meade is either a NRPA or Sending Area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to do with this data on no potential habitat? MR. LORENZ: We'll have to make the assessment as to how much of the -- the area is going to be -- we are going to be able to sustain the RCW's within the area. There is also the possi -- it's also opportunity for -- for restoration. Because if-- if we begin to -- to try to clear out some of the understory, we can -- we can mitigate or restore some of that habitat as well. So we want to be able to identify that -- that information, begin to determine where are the more important areas within those Sending Lands that will be important for RCW's. Again, there are other types of listed species and concerns within this area as well, but the focus we have on the North Belle Meade Overlay is RCW Habitat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And who's going to do this potential story -- restoring of that? MR. LORENZ: That's a -- we would be looking at areas that -- for potential restoration. Any property owner that would -- would encroach in other RCW habitat in Collier County may have to do restoration. This -- this would be a very important area to try to do restoration or to purchase off-site mitigation for the Upland Habitat, so as we do this survey, we can identify those areas that would be very good for those types of activities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying the landowner has to restore it? Is that what you are saying? MR. LORENZ: No. No. No. We are not saying that the landowner has to restore it. We are saying that there could be some opportunities that these could be very good areas for restoration purposes. So that's -- that's -- I think that's the -- that's another component I would like to see in terms of the survey. But the primary component is to identify Page 22 June 19, 2002 where the potential habitat areas are and what the quality of the habitat will be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had better watch out, Commissioner Coletta, endangered Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, maybe we ought to end this right now and just say forget the whole thing and let's go home. Is that what you would like to do, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. My -- I just feel that there is a balance and maybe I just don't understand what -- what we need to do, and it almost sounds like we are going overboard and stepping on property rights here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Carter and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Henning had requested that the property owner in 24 come to the podium and address that issue? Is that still your desire? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who would you like to call? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cohen. MR. PICKWORTH: I represent Mr. Cohen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. MR. PICKWORTH: I'll -- I'll try to be brief, gentlemen, because as you know, the number of acres involved, this discussion has taken up an incredible amount of time and energy. But I want -- I don't have a visualizer and I don't know how to use them anyway, but I - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They can help you right over there, sir. We really need to put it on the record. MR. PICKWORTH: Can something like this be put up, and I can give you another one just because some of these lines are -- are a little hard to see, and I -- I can give you one up here if you just want to look at it, just because these yellow lines are hard to see from where he is putting it up. Let me -- let me just explain, and for the record, Don Pickworth representing Mr. Cohen. What we did is -- and let me, you know, I don't Page 23 June 19, 2002 know. Maybe -- maybe Mrs. Peyton and I have got an agreement here because she feels that -- that the Planning Commission going to Neutral/Neutral preservation is going too far and an acceptable fallback is what the Planning Commission recommended. Well, my feeling is Neutral with Neutral preservation is just about right, but I guess I wouldn't want to end up with less than the fallback and ! was a little bit upset last night when she said just because we continue to argue the fairness of our position, that they should go back the other way and take it all away. That doesn't seem right to me. Now -- because keep in mind, with regard to this -- we'll call Commissioner Henning's proposal Neutral/Neutral, all right? Neutral designation, Neutral preservation. I think the Planning Commission is Neutral/Sending. Now, the Neutral/Neutral designation can't possibly be going too far, because the school board property right adjacent to us on the north, that's what they all worked out for their agreement, has got the same habitat in it as our property. So how can there be anything wrong with it? The Wildlife Federation is happy with it. They sat there and made an agreement with the Staff for that. We are simply saying do the same thing for us. Why is that unfair? Why should someone come up to the podium and say we should be penalized for making that argument? That's all we're asking for. And -- and -- and what those maps show is that -- and we're not even going this far. You've got hundreds of acres of Receiving Lands that are also prime habitat that can support those birds. They're not even going to go through a study. They're not even going to have to prove that they're worthy of being developed. But we'll do that. We'll have the study done. I just wanted you to see the dichotomy here between similarly situated lands which are being treated in vastly different ways. And we are simply arguing that we want to be treated the same way other people who have the same type of land are being treated. If Neutral/Neutral is good enough for the school board property with the same habitat on it, and by the way, the latest data that's been referred to different times, I have asked Bill Lorenz many, many times for that and he told me that the school board people didn't believe that when they had that meeting. And I believe that's -- that's what you told me. I have asked for that data many times. I haven't seen it. Page 24 June 19, 2002 Now, there is fairly recent Red Cockaded Woodpecker data available for that section and, Commissioner Henning, you are correct. There is a colony or a cavity tree over on the Hide Out Golf Course property. We all know that. That's no secret to anybody. I think that thing was put up on the Board when Larry Byrd's fishing lake came up for approval, so everybody knows that. But I think it's what's been suggested before, if the mere existence of habitat is going to be the standard, then, A, I think we've got to look at an awful lot of the same kind of habitat that's in Receiving Land, because again, why are we differentiating? This isn't to say that if our property develops, I mean, we have to -- we have to comply with the Wildlife Services guidelines and things like that, the same thing that was agreed to when the fishing lake comes through. Nobody is going to go out there and just nuke every tree on the property. I mean, all of those regulations, I think are on the books now. So I guess what I'm saying is, in fact, Neutral/Neutral -- I almost forgot this. There is a little clause in there to give you an idea. Neutral/Neutral for us is not even the same as Neutral/Neutral for the school board because you have a school board Neutral, which basically instead of the normal -- I went through and made a chart of these preservations and the percent made of vegetation on Neutral is 60 percent, but for school property, it's only 30 percent. It's actually less than Receiving. So we are not even asking for that. I mean, we would not even begin to come in here and ask for the 30 percent. We're, you know, we think the 60 percent is fine. So, I guess, with that, you know, I'll -- I'll leave it up to you. I mean, I think it's an equity, it's a balancing argument. I mean, I think the Planning Commission was trying to find a way through this. I think everybody recognizes there is some -- there is some equities here that have to be balanced out and thought about, and with that, I, you know, like I said, I'll come back to where I started. I think Neutral/Neutral is the right thing with -- with the Planning Commission recommendation as the backup and -- and Mrs. Peyton thinks that Sending is the right thing with the Planning Commission recommendation as the backup, so I don't know where that leaves us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. Page 25 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a question about the study and what we do as a result of it. Okay. I think I'm directing this to the Staff. When -- when -- let's suppose we adopt the recommendations of the Staff and the CCPC that places this property in Neutral but retains the Sending Area conservation requirements. And then we conduct a study and the study reveals that there are protected species on that property. What do we do as a result of that study? MR. LORENZ: Well, you could have a -- a -- find yourself recommending that it's Sending, if you will, Sending qualities, because then you would be increasing the preservation standards and you would be decreasing the -- the allowable uses, so that would be -- that would be one result of the study. Certainly, that's why -- that's why we want to take a look at some of the individual detail for not only this section but the rest of the sections in North Belle Meade with regard to RCW's. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- but I think I hear the property owner's representative saying that he knows there is Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat there. There just aren't any living there. So if the study reveals that the habitat, in fact, is suitable for Red Cockaded Woodpeckers, then you are saying that our decision to place the property Neutral now would likely be reversed and it would go back to the Sending Lands. Is that what you are saying? MR. LORENZ: That's a possibility depending upon the quality of the habitat that would be found and the location of the cavities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me ask a question, because I think everybody is going to have to get involved, including Nancy Peyton. The way I'm reading the things on this board, it appears -- we need four votes to pass anything. And I don't think there are four votes to go either way on this. I don't think there are four votes to go to Neutral with Neutral conservation. I don't think there are four votes to go with Neutral and -- and Sending Conservation. So I'm going to make a proposal that hopefully we can get something that will make everybody happy. What -- what happens if we go -- we have a Neutral designation but we blend the conservation. Not 60, not 80, but 70. MR. MULHERE: Bingo. Page 26 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that gets us to the point where we are only arguing about ten acres. And I don't know how that's going to fly with everybody, but we've got tens of thousands of acres we're talking about here. And I don't know to what extent ten acres is going to get -- get -- MR. MULHERE: I think that's a very good suggestion. I did want to clarify, there are a couple of nuances that are important in the discussion. In Sending, it's 80 percent of the native vegetation and 80 percent of the site, site preservations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: In Neutral, it's 60 percent of the preservation not to exceed 40 percent of the site. If you are cutting it in half, directly in half between Sending and Neutral, that would be 70 percent of the vegetation not to exceed 50 percent of the site. That would be cutting that directly in half. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Do -- do that again. MR. MULHERE: Let me give it to you again. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. MR. MULHERE: It's 80 and 80, and 60 and 40. If it's 80 and 60, 70; 60 and 40, 50. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about 70 and 70? MR. MULHERE: And that's -- I think that's the question that I wanted to get to the nuance. If you just go 70 and 70, then they can clear up to 30 percent during this study area and -- and that would preserve 70 percent. That would be- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's on first? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have an agreement here? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it. I'll make a motion we do that, all right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. COHEN: On this study, I've been held up for two years. I want to live out there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know what I would advise you? I would advise you to start building those houses today. MR. COHEN: I can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Page 27 June 19, 2002 MR. MULHERE: You may want to recap that for Nancy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Recap possibly, but, Commissioner Henning, anything else to add to that? I know you didn't have your hand up but you are the one that brought up the issue and we've discussed it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to beat a dead horse, Commissioner Coletta. I want to move on. There are a lot of concerned people here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue. MS. LINNAN: The next issue is the Supplemental Transfer Development Rights. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Again, I think this issue is one of-- of whether or not, based on some value of the property that we should have a variable or supplemental transfer of development rights. I think Tim Hancock raised the issue within a one-mile corridor. Now, our recommendation and Jim Nicholas recommendation was that that would be a little bit premature at this point in time. I think he raised some very good points. I think we do need to take a look at that and I think we do need to commit to take a look at that in an expeditious -- in as quick a time frame as we possible can. I can't imagine that that will happen any sooner than -- than the eight- month time frame at the quickest. The way that we've written it into the plan, we said within one year, but -- but again, we don't feel that it's appropriate to adjust those because that's sort of a universal issue and it will have an impact on the supply and demand. There are some very legitimate issues out there. We -- we always knew that. We always agreed that we would look at this within one year and come back with some recommendations. In fact, we tried to do that administratively but the DCA didn't like that so now we have to do it through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. But at least we can do it as quickly as we possibly can. One of the things that will make that a little bit easier is if, in fact, some of those Transfer Development Rights are consumed. That will lower the number and then we will have the opportunity to increase it without perhaps having a negative impact on the relationship, so we feel we need some time. We think Dr. Nicholas recommended that. We know he recommended that as well and that would be our recommendation on that issue. Page 28 June 19, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Comments? Please proceed. MS. LINNAN: The next issue and I'm sure there is a proper name for it. I refer to it as the Wally Lewis Yavonavich issue that came up last night Commissioner Henning raised. And I believe with the language that is before you tonight, the proposed language, it satisfies the issues, but I did want to put on the record that Commissioner Henning had mentioned, moving the Urban Boundary. I don't recommend we do it now, only because it has not been brought up to date with the Department of Community Affairs, nor have we gotten into fights with them or smoothed the way or whatever. However, when I first looked at this, I looked at those Receiving areas within the Fringe as Urban areas and candidly, suggested that you change the urban lines. The Staff looked at me like I was crazy. They were -- please don't mention doing that in Collier County. So I said, okay, if you want to call it something else, I'd be happy to. But in the future, if you would like to do that, you would not have a problem because you have the data to support doing that if you want to. And you might -- you might consider it in certain areas. Next issue that came up and I think Mr. Hancock raised this, was he had a -- in Area D, a Receiving Area had 5000 acres. Currently there was in the language a proposed rural village of up to 2500 acres. He wanted to raise that to 3500 acres. There was a little history. I would recommend against raising it to 35 now. The reason being is we started when we submitted to the department the 3000 acres. They reduced it to 1500. Mr. Hancock, I believe appeared in -- in front of you, or at least with us at one point, and frankly, pointed out quite rightly that in order to support commercial to have a vibrant Rural Village, you need a lot of rooftops to be able to do it. So we took it back up, got into fights with the Department and took it back up to 2500. My fear is if we take it another thousand, they'll go nuts, and so I would recommend that you leave it where it is right now. Although we would certainly look at it in the future to possibly expand it if there were a need to do SO. Page 29 June 19, 2002 Another issue that I thought we would get to now is the Golden Gate Road issue. That is being fast and furiously negotiated even as we speak, so I'll skip that fill in with something else. I learned a new term last night, TTRV, Travel-trailer Recreation Vehicle issue. I know Mr. Basic testified as to that. We looked into it today just for whatever. It's the only one out there. We would have no objection if someone wanted to add language which said if you have an existing TTRV use within the Receiving area, and you want to expand it into more Receiving area, and you don't expand it to more than one hundred percent, that's allowable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question would be-- would that be -- allow new ones to come in and do the same thing? MS. LINNAN: No. It would have to be immediately adjacent to an existing use. And we have looked and that's the only one out there. And we - - we couldn't think of a reason why not to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any problems on the -- MS. LINNAN: So we'll bring that up and make sure that gets added to the errata sheet. A couple of issues. One was Mr. Vega got up and spoke to Mr. Hussey's concerns. He was the earth mining person, down kind of in the Landfill Road area on the bottom. Frankly, we looked at that for a long time. What he was saying -- forget the monopoly issue and stuff like that, but what he was really saying is, hey, the boundary used to be farther away. And then Mr. Anderson's client came in and you squared it off at the section line. So there was an area of section line going like that(indicating) that used to be an area that came down like that and this is where the earth mine is. There was a determination made to follow the section lines as closely as possible if it were on the edge of a Sending Area. It's clear to everybody. That way it is worded to having to have a survey out in the field. So as part of the North Belle Meade agreement, we agreed to use the section lines which then allow the earth mining operation in that little wedge that had been within that area. Mr. Hussey's property is adjacent to that only below that section line, so he is saying, I want the same thing. Frankly, the only -- we can't figure a way Page 30 June 19, 2002 to resolve -- make him happy tonight, I should say, resolve his issues, but make him happy. But what we did do is remember I told you about the boundary amendment that we were proposing, which would take all property on -- on the boundary, and he's now in there. And we would be looking at his property, asking him to submit data within the next year and coming back to you with a recommendation. It may not be a recommendation that will warm his heart, but there would be a recommendation on it, and that was the best we could do under those circumstances. Finally, this one I really did enjoy. The person who said basically we left too much on the table with DCA. I -- I can assure you that we have been having lots of exciting discussions, including some pushing and shoving on that. And we've gotten a lot more than frankly we thought at the front end that we would be able to get with them. So I assure you that -- that there's nothing in hiding and we have been negotiating. Also, there seemed to be a feeling that you could just take action, present it to the agencies, and then we could negotiate from there. Negotiation is over. This is the Final Adoption. Basically they will make a compliance determination. Now, if they find us not in compliance, we can run and say, we're sorry, we're sorry. Let's work out something, under those circumstances and -- and come up with an agreement that would not send us -- we would not challenge that if they sent us back to the Government and the Cabinet, but really the time for negotiation is over. At this point, they want to see what we're really going to do. And with that, are we close? Do we need to take a break? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. A five-minute break. (Whereupon, a five-minute break was taken and the meeting continued as follows:) MS. LINNAN: There is one last issue that I would like Ms. Chumbler to address, and that was the issue of the roadway Golden Gate Estates concern about the truck traffic from APAC. You raised it in the context of De Soto. We have slightly modified it after talking to the landowner. Page 31 June 19, 2002 I cannot say there is an agreement. I think we are awfully close and we would recommend that you adopt some language after that just so some of you that raised issues before don't think we have forgotten you. We have prepared a new addendum, also, in orange and blue, I noticed. The Staff is very fond of it. And I will go through and talk about what we have added and what we have subtracted. MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah. This last -- last issue -- Marty Chumbler again for the record, relates to the East/West connection. There was some discussion last night about -- in connection with the North Belle Meade area, there being some provision for a East/West connection from Wilson Boulevard to someplace over to County Road 951. ! think there was some discussion about whether that should be at Landfill Road or where that should be, and so this language is an attempt to -- to solve that problem. We have been in discussions all day and this reflects input from Norm Feders. It includes input from Mr. Anderson and his client. It includes input from Brad Cornell and Nancy Peyton. So I think we have kind of hit the range of people that are, at least, most concerned with this issue. What we've tried to do, and if you look at page 81 of your agenda package under transportation, there were a list of other transportation-type improvements in connection with North Belle Meade. This first page would be a new asterisk paragraph on that page under transportation. And it's the one that refers to that new East/West Connection. You can see there are a number of criteria. The idea is that the -- the public, the mine operator, others that may be interested, including Mr. Feders, the Wildlife Federation, the Audobon. The Golden Gate Civic Association would work together to try to determine an appropriate alignment for several alternative alignments for such a connection. There would be an attempt to do that within a one-year period. In the meantime, the mining operation at North Belle Meade could proceed on a more -- on a restricted level. In other words, he would not be able to expand into all the sections that are listed here. He would only be able to expand into a portion of Section 21. At the end of two years, if the Board and the mining operator agree on an appropriate alignment and funding for that, and the Board agrees to an expedited construction schedule, and by the way, it was Mr. Feder's idea that Page 32 June 19, 2002 we add in the expedited construction schedule, then the mining operator would be able to proceed with expanding his mining operations beyond Section 21 into the other sections that are mentioned, already mentioned here. If there is no such determination, at that point, the mining operator could at -- solely at his own expense, build a private haul road for mining operations aside for that bit had already begun on Section 21 would be a conditional use. So in a nutshell, that's -- that's kind of what we have agreed to here. As you can see, we have outlined some of the considerations that would be -- would be looked into. It would be assessed and some of the possible alignments that might be considered. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. A question. The amount of traffic that's going to exist on Golden Gate Boulevard and the roads out in the Estates, how will that compare with past years? MS. CHUMBLER: What we have included within here, if you look at the second page, there is a provision that during that period of time while we are looking at the alignments, that the traffic levels would not exceed average historical levels. So, in other words, they are not going to be able to put a whole lot of more truck traffic out there than they have in the past. It's going to be basically what it has been. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And, Norm, Norm Feders, Director of Transportation is comfortable with this? Maybe he would like to make some comments on this. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, sir, he was. And he said he would answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: ! appreciate you working on this so hard, Mr. Feders. I know the eleventh hour is never a good time to try to lay a road. MR. FEDERS: Exactly. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Mr. Chairman, what I will tell you, and as I've told the parties as we discussed it today, my -- my personal bias would be to look at the Golden Gate master plan to acknowledge that the discussion of any connection to the Landfill Road connection there at 951, where I have both landfill operations and therefore, competing track movement as well as a proximity of Landfill on 951 to the interstate and to Davis in all the departments we have in that area. Page 33 June 19, 2002 As well as the fact I've got a five-year work program that is fully exhausting available revenues to go after capacity expansion. I'm not sure exactly on some of these issues, but with the understanding that in the mining operations, the folks in the Golden Gate Estates are very concerned about additional truck traffic and what it might impose upon them. I tried to work with the language as has been relayed to you, I think, by making sure that if some level of continued operations in the area was allowed, that the average, and we put in there the average historical truck volumes don't increase while this is being studied. The other thing I tried to make clear here in the language, and hopefully it is clear in the language I wanted to put on the record, is my concern that as we look at alternate alignments -- in fact, originally, we didn't have any that would also serve a public purpose as well as a hauls purpose and, in fact, if we do come up with an alignment that does that, at that time, we look at the proportionate share of cars relative to the nature of the public purpose that that alignment provides. Lastly, as was noted, the operator wants the ability that if, in fact, government does not come through at that time, come up with an agreed on alignment, that they have the ability to build their own haul route to continue. And my only caveat there that I want on the record is, again, we would have to agree to that connection and how it connects and its impact on the overall roadway network. But obviously, we wouldn't be against that if they want to build their own haul road, if, in fact, this other effort doesn't succeed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions of Mr. Feder? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this private haul road that we are referring to, is it going to be at County standards? MR. FEDER: I think at that point you would require like you require any driveway to meet that standard. So is the standard for a private roadway and -- and the nature of its operation in hauling trucks, so I don't think there is any requirement. In answer to your question, I would consider it to be yes. It doesn't have to meet arterial standards but it would have to be much like we would regulate any private street, that it function in a safe manner. Page 34 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So if there is going to be any public benefit, it must come up - MR. FEDER: Most definitely. The private haul road. You just asked me if they are going to do it on their own as long as we agree to where and its impact on the system. Obviously, the other part of that, for clarification on the record, if we are looking at an alignment, whatever that might be in the study and evaluate the public purpose, obviously it has to be something more than just 24 feet of asphalt laid out there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Feder(sic,) do you understand what I was looking to do -- I mean, excuse me, Mr. Feder. It's been a long day. I know it has been for you too, sir. MR. FEDER: I don't even want the opportunity to - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I understand. I -- I won't punish you by giving you that opportunity. MR. FEDER: I don't want to do that at all, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, of course, the objective of this whole thing, we got started and I appreciate the very -- the patience of everyone, including the person that is petitioning for these pits, was to be able to assure that we would be able to protect the integrity of Golden Gate Estates, plus, give the public a benefit of another entrance/exit to be able to use. And if we can do that, and I -- I -- I hope that we can hold to the schedule so that we can come up with a road that will benefit the public because it would be a tremendous asset. MR. FEDER: And that's what we have tried to do, basically put in language and hopefully have succeeded. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. There's probably been about 60 hours spent today, man hours, crafting this and I know they have been working on it until the last minute. Is there any other questions of Mr. Feder, our transportation director? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Please, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had mentioned that we don't want any excess trucks on the road that is already there, right? How do you -- how do Page 35 June 19, 2002 you monitor that or control that? MR. FEDER: Basically as you would do anything else. When we have any mining operation, we have a provision. I think it probably would be important to establish what that figure is. The terminology of average historical truck volumes, that probably needs to be defined so that it can be monitored in some manner. You also have the option, if you are agreeing to this, about other issues, like time of operation, hours of operation. I'm sure I'm giving some people a whole bunch of anxiety here, but nonetheless, other things that you do in mining operations that you review and consider. So those are other things you could do to try and- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For a point of reference, we are talking about mine operations will not be exceeding historical average on a four-lane highway that wasn't there in the past, in the past when they were doing this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was talking about a ready-built road. Their own road? My goodness, have at it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but the public good is kind of limited with that. That's a fallback if we just can never get to the point where we are going to do it. Their own private road would mean that our access to it would be limited. MR. FEDER: That's correct, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And so it would serve very little public benefit other than the fact that this operation would continue -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and you wouldn't have the traffic on the main roads. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I was just talking about the main roads where in here it said, you know, the average traffic on the main roads. I wasn't talking about the roads -- MR. FEDER: In the interim operations. I think Commissioner Fiala is talking about the interim operations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. FEDER: We put the wording in that the traffic during that interim time while we are doing the study to evaluate if we can come up with a roadway that serves public purpose, and if not, we could come up with something they could accept as a private haul road. Page 36 June 19, 2002 During that time, we put in that there be no more than the average as you pointed out, Commissioner. The other thing I was saying was you may want to establish that number so you would have the ability to regulate it. And to the Commissioner's question, Commissioner Fiala, in any of those operations, we provide some caveats and then to Code Enforcement if we feel there is a violation, we can monitor it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sure that we -- we have a -- I'm sure some sort of license agreement where we charge by the truckload for what's carried out, and I'm sure they keep accurate records at APAC as to how many trucks leave on any given day with what kind of materials. So it wouldn't be too difficult for them to supply us those records and then we could come up with the -- the average historical average to be able to work with. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this going to hamper our five-year work plan or ten-year work plan? MR. FEDER: What we've written in here is if we can come up with an alternate that is deemed to have public purpose, then proportionately we would have to find a funding source to do it. Obviously, in -- in bringing to the Board an alignment that has public purpose and value and proportionate share, we would have to discuss with the implications on how we can fund it and if it had some implications on the work program and such at that time. Not knowing the alignment, what the proportionate share might be, I -- I can't totally answer. But that is obviously something we need to be very attuned to at the time. It may turn out that we come up with something that has great public purpose that you decide even with existing resources, we make some shift or we find other resources in some manner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I guess that -- that is a concern of mine. MR. FEDER: It's a concern of mine as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And granted, we are not making that decision today. MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions? Would anyone like to -- Mr. Anderson, did you have any loose ends? No comments? Page 37 June 19, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: I think while Mr. Anderson is coming to the podium, if I can just mention there is a typographical error on the second page that I would note for you. We first looked at it and thought we had left out a whole sentence, but it's just the -- on the line that begins, accelerated construction schedule; you see that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I see it. MS. CHUMBLER: Accelerated construction schedule established by the Board and the mining operator, not mining operation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is another one. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. I would be pleased for you to point it out to me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In -- in the middle of the paragraph, the one starting with boulevard - MS. CHUMBLER: The one -- okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boulevard mining operations and, it should an, a-n. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bruce Anderson and I represent East Naples Land Company. Just a clarification. I -- I -- Commissioner Henning, in response to a question that you asked Mr. Feder about, you know, building the private haul road to County standards. That's not something that we have discussed at all. And I -- I can't really agree with that at this point in time. We might later, that we would construct a purely private haul road to very expensive County standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think the better avenue to go on this is just to have a -- a public hearing for conditional use and we can hash that all out, you know, in the meantime when it comes to the public hearing we get public input. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment. What we're asking of the petitioner at this point in time -- it's pretty extraordinary that they have come as far as they have. The private haul road we're talking about is the fallback position if we fail to act. Page 38 June 19, 2002 I'm willing to think that we are going to be pretty reasonable about this, unless there's some -- the benefit just isn't there for us, at which case it would make no difference on the private haul road either. I -- I think that we have come up with a fair and equitable arrangement, and to try to beat this man and his client any farther than we have -- we started the day off yesterday with nothing more then the possible rights to be able to build it. And we were going to have to build it at our own expense, everything had to be in place and they were still going to be able to develop everything they wanted to do in there and end up on Golden Gate Boulevard, without question. Now we put severe limitations on the whole thing and we've got it down to a point that I feel comfortable with it. I think if we take it to the next step and we try to keep going with this forward, to the point where we are going to beat them up farther, we're going to find out that the whole thing is going to crumble around us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. MR. ANDERSON: And I'm not saying that we won't eventually do that. It's just -- it hasn't been discussed and I didn't clear it. But I can tell you that my client said to me tonight, to let you know that we are anxious and willing and ready to go to work with you to get this other road constructed, and the sooner the better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Tonight is a framework to get you where you want to be. You don't work out every little detail in this forum tonight. If you've got the commitment for the framework and all the stake holders are at the table, everybody has something to gain by being at the table. I see everybody at the table. I see everybody agreeing that this is a framework to get us over this hurdle. I think it's time to do it. The other details can be worked out at a later date. And this is how you build consensus, and with the commitment I just heard, all that rock that comes out of the quarries goes to build all our roads. Everybody has a reason to be at the table. So I suggest we work with what's positive and go forward. Page 39 June 19, 2002 MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner, I would -- I would just mention that even if we have to go to the fallback position of a private road, I remember one of the comments that first started all this was a comment from the Civic Association about the truck traffic through Golden Gate Estates. So it may not be the public benefit you are looking for, but there is some public benefit if nothing more than just getting the truck traffic out of that residence - CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, but this goes way before the Golden Gate Civic Association. MS. CHUMBLER: I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is something that I planned to do and wanted to do for a long time and we're doing it. MS. CHUMBLER: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no reason to vote against it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we go. MS. LINNAN: Okay. I thought I would make it clear now what the Staff recommendation consists of. But let me first hand this to the court reporter, which is the document you have been reviewing. Okay. There is in front of you the Staff recommendation in your Adoption Book. It would be that Document as Modified by an Errata and Addenda to the BCC Rural Fringe Adoption GMP Amendments June 18th and 19th. The one you had yesterday only had 18 on it. And let me explain briefly what this document contains. The items which were not in the document yesterday -- and to do that, I need my cheat sheet from yesterday. Wrong cheat sheet. Here we go. Okay. It contains the language on affordable housing that Bob Mulhere read into the record yesterday that Commissioner Fiala was very concerned about. It contains the language on the land swaps with governmental agencies that Commissioner Henning had raised as an issue. Bill Lorenz noted in the language in the book that we had provided you in looking at it today, we had made a mistake in buffering and included language in there that did the opposite of what we were trying to do, so on this errata sheet, it takes out the bad language. It provides that language I told you, about looking at all properties on the boundaries of Sending Areas, contacting the owners, taking their Page 40 June 19, 2002 information and making a recommendation back to you in one year. And it contained language that I put on the record last night, some additional language that needed to be done on the oil extraction related processing to make that a permitted use. It does not contain, but we would recommend that it be added, the language which you just considered on the roadway. And it does not contain, but as I said, if you allow us to paraphrase the language on the travel-trailer RV issue as I paraphrased before, we would put that in formal language and add that to it. So a person that has an existing travel-trailer park in the Receiving Area acquires adjacent land also in the Receiving Area, may expand that use up to the size of that person's original park. And like I say, there is only one on that. And let just check and make sure there is nothing else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Section 24? MS. LINNAN: Oh, Section 24. Excuse me. And that would be the Neutral 70/70. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It becomes the Commissioner Coyle's 70/70. MS. LINNAN: Okay. I just want to check and make sure I've got everything. It does contain one other thing that I forgot to mention to you near and dear to Nancy Peyton and Jim Mudd, and that is the water and sewer language from last night. As you remember, Ms. Peyton indicated a concern about extending water and sewer lines and putting lift stations in conservation areas, NRPA'S, those kinds of things. What we have worked out is language that would make it a conditional use in a NRPA Sending Area, make it a conditional use in an non NRPA Sending Area, except where there are cleared rights of way already in existence. In that case there would be a permitted use in a non NRPA Sending Area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner- MS. LINNAN: Conservation area. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning had a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was thinking about this last night. There are many kinds of-- there's different essential services and I think we Page 41 June 19, 2002 are losing -- possibly losing an opportunity here. The Fish and Game is going to be over a lot of these lands. The Southern Golden Gate Estates and so on and so forth. Just an as example, South Belle Meade, the state's going to have control of it. They are going to have to have -- I'm sure they are going to want a ranger station. You know, conditional use, that's not a problem. It takes 60 days to permit -- get a permit for a conditional use in Collier County. My concern, and the reason I raised this concern is there used to be a fire commissioner -- is if you have a drought condition come up and you need a water source, a drafting well is going to have to be a conditional use, still taking that 60 days to get through that. That land, that natural land could be all burnt up and all the animals and all the critters along with it, and I don't think that's really what we want to do. So what I would like to have, Ms. Peyton, is flexibility and understanding that as long as I'm a commissioner, that I'm not going to allow Mr. Mudd to put water/sewer lines into the areas that we can't avoid it. If we don't have flexibility, we are going to lose some opportunities here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. What is it about the language that bothers you? I'm not sure I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That conditional uses -- you know, Commissioner, I really didn't have time to read this. I -- I got this this evening. MS. LINNAN: Commissioner, I just raised an issue, maybe, perhaps to help you out. I just asked the Staff, what if you added except where it's essential to the public health, safety and welfare as an emergency situation, not just in the public health, safety and welfare, but essential to, which we would limit it to an emergency kind of situation, and Staff has advised me that language might be present now, so that's why they are checking. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. LINNAN: To just -- MR. MULHERE: Commissioner, there's a couple of-- we didn't go over these in great detail so it's understandable. There are actually a couple of provisions in the plan that go directly towards the issue that you are raising. Page 42 June 19, 2002 One, we've agreed that with the essential services that aren't identi -- clearly identified as permitted uses, that within one year Collier County would review the essential uses currently allowed in the Land Development Code, and will define those uses intended to be conditionally permitted in Sending Lands and also permanent in Sending Lands through that process. So we've committed within a year to go in and look at all of those, come back and amend that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to make sure, has Nancy Peyton and Brad Comell been consulted on this? MS. LINNAN: I talked to both of them. I would have to have Ms. Peyton speak, but at least earlier this evening, she indicated, as that policy has been revised, she felt not terribly uncomfortable with it. MS. PEYTON: Nancy Peyton, Florida Wildlife Federation. As you recall, I'm the one that's been talking about this for an extended period of time. And the only clarification that I need, and I thought it was going to be in the language, that when it refers to already cleared portions of existing rights or ways -- rights of way or easements, it's as of the adoption date. MS. LINNAN: We would read the language that way. We believe that is the proper way to read that language. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. PEYTON: Okay. As long as it's on the record and that's clear, then fine with me. MS. LINNAN: And Commissioner, are you comfortable with that year review or would you like that essential language in there before then? That was my only remaining question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That should catch it as long as- MS. LINNAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, I think that's a good clause to have there to cover the issue you raised, sir. MS. LINNAN: Okay. We certainly don't have a problem recommending that that clause be added and we'll make sure that happens. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's an excellent idea. Page 43 June 19, 2002 MS. LINNAN: So I think with that, you have the Staff recommendations before you. If you have any questions, obviously, we would be happy to answer or if you have any other issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Commissioner Coyle has got a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a very brief question. I would like to understand the -- the -- I believe that Staff mentioned earlier there was some discussion yesterday about the possibility of increasing the -- the number of TDR density in certain areas. Have you had a chance to evaluate that and can you tell us what you think the overall impact of that would be? MR. MULHERE: I may defer to Stan. He actually talked directly with Dr. Nicholas, but I -- I don't think we've had the chance to fully evaluate and - - and that's why our recommendation is -- we understand. I think there is a desire on the Board's part from what I -- what I gleamed so far, to try to do this expeditiously as possible, and I certainly have heard that from several folks out here. We are committed to doing that. Staff is committed to doing that. We would like to, I think, receive the appropriate expert assistance in trying to develop a plan that does adequately, but universally or globally address that issue as opposed to one section, or one five-section area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that evaluation, of course, would include some sort of an assessment as to what an increase in density would do with respect to the demand. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say that you had the affordable housing component in here? MS. LINNAN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just see it? MR. MULHERE: Sure. I got to find it. MS. LINNAN: While he is finding that, let me point out that there was one change to the errata sheet that I need to make, to really make good on our promise to look at all those boundary lands. Page 44 June 19, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Here it is. It's on page four. I'm sorry. Sometimes you can't find the forest for the trees. It's right in front of me. Middle of the page, Item C, under Rural Villages, the language in red, which is the language that I read to you or close to the language I read to you yesterday reads, within one year of the effective date of these Rural Fringe Amendments, the County will amend the Land Development Codes to establish the following: A definition of work force housing, because I think that we need to have that to know what would qualify, min -- and we don't have that currently. We know what affordable by statutory is but we don't have the definition of affordable work force housing, so we do need to do that. Minimum qualifications for the above referenced density bonus, because we do have a density bonus here if you provide for work force housing for affordable housing in a village. And then the third part is, in a minimum percent of the allowable density that shall meet the definition of work force affordable housing within a Rural Village. I think that was your comment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's alright. MR. MULHERE: And I apologize that we didn't bring that up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay. MS. LINNAN: And the language I needed to amend to make good on our promise to look at those Downward Properties is at the very bottom of page three. There is an amendment of the future land use element. At the very bottom under 8 a.) Remember last night we talked about limiting that adjustment to 40 acres. We decided that we don't need to limit that to 40 acres, so we would delete (a) and reletter those other conditions. If it's 50 acres or 80 acres, whatever is appropriate, we'll take a look at it. So we would -- we would propose and recommend that that language be deleted, the (a). COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just generally, before we make a motion, I would like to struggle through that with the help of legal counsel and this Board so that it's all inclusive. Page 45 June 19, 2002 Now, before I make that motion, if it would be the pleasure of the Chair, are we still doing Attachment A or has that been modified through the errata, which I suspect it has, and how should I incorporate or not incorporate? MS. LINNAN: It would be the resolution -- Attachment A would consist of the language in the book as amended by the errata sheet that we have just explained on the record, and -- and the road language. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The language in the book and attached errata? MS. LINNAN: Right. Let me just check. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one more question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir. MS. LINNAN: That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course. All the questions you want, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. On stamped page 14 of the -- the adopted book, number nine, Staffs responsibility policy, 6.2.8 it's Supportive Wildlife Protection. Let me start -- I moved my finger. I'm sorry, just number nine. It's providing adequate staffing to implement the provision of Wetlands and wildlife protection policies. What -- is that -- have we identified what kind of staffing we are going to need? MS. LINNAN: I'm going to have to ask the natural resources director to respond to that. I'm not so sure there is any magic number. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to hold your motion just for a little bit- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: --- Commissioner Carter? Thank you. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. Not specifically all -- all of the requirements within your budget proposal for next year. There is an expanded position that's going to be within the environmental review section. We definitely know that we need to have at least that position for the next budget year to take us through the Land Development Regulations Code Development and the additional requirements. Page 46 June 19, 2002 Within the next year, as we develop the Land Development Code Amendments, we'll have to identify -- we'll evaluate and identify additional staff that may be needed within next year's budget planning process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's still under the discretion of the Board to do that? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. We would still be presenting that to you through the budgetary - COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do we need a full-time staff to implement this policy? Is this more government? MR. LORENZ: Absolutely. I would -- it -- to say that we would not need additional staff to implement some of these policies in terms of the review that we're -- we're looking at for the Wildlife Policies, some of the Wetland Policies in the Rural Fringe, I think you are looking at some additional bodies. You're not looking at a half a dozen, but for next year's budget, we are looking for at least one, and then we'll have to make another evaluation as we go through -- through another fiscal year. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator for Community Development Environment Services. Tomorrow we are going to talk about the budget. I'll be talking in detail and overview as to where -- how we are going to move people within the organization. And as we transition this fiscal year, we're beginning to take this and adapt it so we can begin to develop the Land Development Code and then we'll -- briefly can talk about through fiscal year '04 and in anticipation of spaces we are going to need them for implementation. I guess the bottom line, this plan is going to cost some money to implement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the question is, are we going to hire somebody full-time? MR. SCHMITT: That will be your discretion. I'm going to make a proposal tomorrow. I'm going to talk about two spaces in the third quarter of the upcoming fiscal year in comp planning and a space in natural resources, but I'm also doing some internal reorganization as well and I can describe that tomorrow at the budget hearings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'm all done. Page 47 June 19, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, I do have a couple of questions. Just, I want to make sure, do we still have that provision in here, the additional TDR provisions? MS. LINNAN: That's what I was about to step forward and speak to. There is -- the language is in there. You had raised a question about that provision and I was just going to bring it to your attention because anytime anybody that mentioned an issue, at least we want to put it on the table so you'll be aware of it. That language is in there, and it has been suggested that language be added to that to say, the County shall consider and evaluate the funding operations and sources of revenue for such a TDR bank as part of the FY04 budget review process. Sources of funds to consider included, but are not limited to general fund revenues and federal, state grants and loans. The primary objective of a TDR Bank is to make funds available to support the TDR Program by offering initial minimal purchase prices of TDR's. That came out of the report by the consultant. The other language is in there. The language I just read to you is not in there. As part of these considerations, projections for an annual budget for administrations for the TDR Program which would include the projected cost of funding appropriation for the FY04 Purchase of Residential Development Rights. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. And the thought process on this before you get all excited, Commissioner Henning, is that -- it's simple. Put your money where your mouth is, or at least make the commitment that you are going be there if the time comes. By establishing ourselves as being interested in the market, the idea is to get the price of these TDR's up to the point that they are going to compensate the residents that are going to be selling them out there in the rural area, to be able to make it to a point that it's affordable for them to do this and be able to continue on with their life and make them whole. By doing nothing more than discard this process, we are going to start the process off so it's going to be able to move faster. We're talking about the financial year '04 to give this consideration. Page 48 June 19, 2002 When we come back at that point in time, I would recommend that we look, and I'm not saying we do it now and I don't want a commitment on this Board at this time, but $25,000 per unit. And I think we are going to find out when we get to financial year '04 and we get ready to do this, the -- the price is already going to be taking shape and it's going to climb to that level or possibly even higher. But we need to be there and be prepared to back the citizens of this County in this venture. The ones that are going to be in the Sending Area need to have the assurance that their County government is going to be there for them to do the right thing when the time comes. But what that right thing is at this point in time, I don't know, but we are going to be there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we adopting that today? MR. MULHERE: The recommendation is -- is not to specify any specific amount. It simply an indication that you will consider funding -- I can read it again, but there is no specific amount in it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And - MR. MULHERE: It's considered an '04 funding to jump start the TDR Program, which was the same language we proposed to you last -- yesterday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's what I see, ladies and gentlemen, how it's going to read in the Naples Daily News, Commissioners Commit to the General Fund for Development in -- in the Eastern Lands by Using Taxpayers Money. And I think it has to -- should be a process of let the market drive the price and I think that's where it should start. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The word is consider. MR. MULHERE: Yes, the word is consider. We are not suggesting that you -- you don't have to take any action. It's just that you are going to consider it and -- and, by the way, we were planning on bringing back the full range of options for you in any case. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I mean, we were going to bring back the full range of options, the bank, quasi judicial agency, a private agency, funding, no funding. I think it's only appropriate that we give you the whole -- full recommendation when we come back relative to that, but this would be a part of it. Page 49 June 19, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand Commissioner Henning's concern, but that's an opportunity if that issue is related in that manner where a guest commentary addresses that for what it is versus what it's perceived to be. I think it's our opportunity to communicate. I don't consider the communication over tonight. I think we have to continue to work this through a policy process over the next year. This is a framework again. Because we owe it -- I agree with Commissioner Coletta, we owe it, and Commissioner Coyle said it well last night, we owe it to property owners. We are protecting property rights to the best of our abilities in this situation. It's going back to framework again. And I -- that's what I'm hearing. Want to go for it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick clarification if you don't mind before we take the final vote. I want to make sure we've got everything included. Now, you -- you said -- you said we're going to have everything in the book plus everything on this errata sheet. MS. LINNAN: As I explained it, because there were some changes to that errata sheet as I explained it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. And then the roadway- MS. LINNAN: The roadway - COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- TTRV Section 24. MS. LINNAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. LINNAN: And unless there are some strong feelings, those lines I read as an addition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I'm all set. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I'll take a stab. I make a motion that the Board adopt the attached GMP Amendments addressing the requirements of the Final Order for Unincorporated Collier County, less the Eastern Lands portion of the assessment area for which separate amendments are prepared subject to the specific recommendations identified in the Attachment A outlined in the book. And the errata statements, plus the additions of the Travel-trailer section, the Road Agreement Section 24 - the 70/70 Agreement and forward these amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for the review and compliance determination. Page 50 June 19, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we catch it all? Has somebody been paying attention to this? MS. LINNAN: I would just like to clarify two things. When we talked about the errata sheet, it was the errata sheet as explained on the record by me tonight. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will correct that. The errata sheet as explained on the record this meeting -- June. MS. LINNAN: That's fine. And the second clarification is did that include the language I read under the heading of additional TDR provisions that dealt with the consideration of options, funding options. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, ma'am. Including the TDR options recommended under funding considerations. MS. LINNAN: Then we've got it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We got that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be happy to second that. So we have a motion by Commissioner Carter, a second by myself, Commissioner Coletta. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to zero. Before we go, any closing comments from Staff?. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.) Page 51 June 19, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time 9:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAI~_, S C6~E~---~'?"~ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWI~41~,.?3BROCK . ........ ,.., ~,~ . ~,,..CLERK =,~".7' .......... ',~:C,~ .-~t~St aS ~ lne'se'm~utes approved by the Board on As presented ~ or as coxected Page 52