I'll call the audit of the Board of County Commission special meeting for October 7th at 1.32. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the agenda. Second. Got a motion and a second. Are there any further discussion to the motion that's on the floor? Are there any citizen comments to the motion that's on the floor? Back to the board. Those in favor of the motion, vote by the sign of aye. Aye. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. Mr. Chumley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ben Chumley with Growth Management. I'm joined at the table today by Steve Hofstetter. And we also have several staff from Environmental Protection also here as they are far more expert on these topics than I am. But this is your third workshop on the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Update. Today the focus is on the general topic of Environmental Protection and Resilience. We're going to focus on four elements primarily, and those are the conservation and open space, stormwater management, a little bit in potable water and sanitary sewer, and energy. The purpose of the workshop is similar to your previous workshops on this. I'm going to provide a very brief, high-level overview of each of the four elements and also review some general conceptual staff recommendations for updates to the plan. And we hope to get direction from the board on those potential updates. And based on your direction at these meetings, staff will then go back and draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that we will bring back to you at later meetings. So, after today's workshop, you have one more workshop scheduled, and that is going to be on October 21st. And we're calling that general topic Community Facilities and Services. That's things like transportation, recreation, solid waste, and community health. We also have on the calendar a December 2nd special workshop with the board, if that is needed. And depending on how these workshops go, we'll make a decision then whether we need that December 2nd workshop. But we will start bringing proposed amendments to the Planning Commission and the board in early 2026. And just as a reminder, I know I say this at all of these, but our obligation under the statute is to transmit any amendments that are necessary for compliance with state statutes by April 1 of next year. Okay, Commissioner Cornell. Yeah, and on the October 21st, can we request from the city the RTS budget for last year and this upcoming budget cycle for the change under the transportation piece? We can just give copies of those. Sure. We can certainly do that. Thanks, Commissioner. Okay, thank you. Okay, so as I said, I'm just going to start with a brief overview of each of the elements. The first one is the conservation and open space element. This is where really most of your environmental protection policies are contained. The overall goal of the conservation element is to conserve, manage, and restore or enhance the natural and human-related resources of the county to ensure long-term environmental quality for the future. The element considers a diverse range of strategies to accomplish that goal, including education, public outreach, regulations, incentives, acquisition, and intergovernmental coordination. One of the key ideas in this element is that Alachua County considers environmental conservation as a priority in its decision-making, and that is reflected throughout the various policies in the element. So the element identifies seven types of natural resource features that are considered to be conservation areas, and those are listed on the left side of the screen. Those are the features that are required to be permanently protected on private or public lands. You recently added champion trees and landmark live oaks to that list just a couple months ago. The element also contains protection standards for various natural resources, which are listed on the right side of the slide. I won't go through them all, but the element does go into some detail about how the county will go about protecting each of these types of natural resources. The element also focuses on what it calls human-related resources, which include things like energy, open space, resources, vegetation management, agriculture and silviculture, wildfire mitigation, and hazardous materials. So there's a lot packed into that. There are numerous policies also throughout the element that encourage low-impact design, or LID, strategies for new development. LID is generally a development design approach that seeks to integrate natural processes into development for the management of stormwater. The conservation and open space element also addresses land conservation. It recognizes the county's land conservation program and other agencies' land conservation programs. There are policies that speak to the management of our conservation lands, as well as policies that emphasize the importance of ecological linkages between conservation lands throughout the county. The element also identifies a greenways master plan, which is something relatively new that was added to the comprehensive plan in 2019, and that basically identifies a framework for integrating bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and conservation resources and open spaces throughout the county. Before we go to the next thing, could I ask a quick question? Under significant geologic features and strategic ecosystems and listed species habitat, when we were discussing the Lee property, I was a little bit concerned that while we, you know, when we were thinking about their proposed development in that area, we had a buffer area around that cave system. But, you know, we all know that that was a particularly karst area, and, you know, a buffer system around a cave system really isn't necessarily effective if you're protecting, you know, what was potentially a listed species, which was, if I recall, some type of cave shrimp that had only been listed in one particular place, which was that cave. So I guess I have a question about, do you feel that under Objective 4.4, we talk about geological resources, do you feel like there's opportunity there to maybe expand the definition of protecting cave structures? And I'm also thinking, of course, and I'm also thinking, of course, about the property out towards Alachua that has got the cave system as well right now. And so is this a chance for us to maybe think more broadly about what protections around that area might look like? Yeah, Mr. Chair, Steve Hofstadter, I think it is the opportunity to do that, to look at what protection opportunities could be included when we know about these cave systems in terms of maybe development design options or avoidance strategies, like we're experiencing with what we're experiencing with what we're doing up in the city, because right now we, like you said, we recognize a buffer. And on that particular example, we did increase in area protection of a five-acre tract around that facility, but that alone may not address water quality impacts that we might experience and other things like that. Yeah, so there is an opportunity there. It seems kind of arbitrary, yeah, at the time, yeah, yeah. So it may take some time for staff. It may not be something we can accomplish by the April 1 deadline, but again, I think that's – I think if we can work through some options and come back to the board on some strategies there. Yeah, I'd appreciate that, because I think it is an opportunity to think about how, you know, development affects larger systems, systems that we, you know, can't see but can have wide-ranging effects. So, all right, thank you. Is everybody else okay with that idea? Yeah, I mean, I think if – I mean, I think we can use this word unique to Alachua County, because that's really what you're talking about. Kind of, yeah, but, yeah. Yeah, well, yeah, it is unique to Alachua County, too, but, yeah, in terms of that particular species. Yeah, oh, that's – so you're talking about species. I'm talking about – I'm talking about the intersection of all of those things, because, you know, cave systems are unique habitats. They often have species that we might not even know exist if we have – The biodiversity, the biodiversity piece. It's part of that, too, but, yeah. And, Mr. Chair, we have some information about car-sensitive areas. We have protection standards in there. So maybe there's a blend between the protection of these systems where we know there's more critical species protection needs than just the general approach of car-sensitive protection. I think that's what you're talking about. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's just sort of an opportunity to look at things a little more broadly to protect full systems rather than just have a buffer system around a cave entrance, for instance. 4.95. Mr. Chair, I'm going to have a quick question. Yeah. If we talk about intergovernmental coordination, is there some place in there that we haven't gotten to yet that talks about interagency coordination? Because there are a lot of different groups who are working, you know, separately and apart from government that I don't know that – you know, for instance, Santa Fe Lake Dwellers or, you know, the Springs Council or, you know, are those agencies that we would actually need to say something not specifically about but interagents or not? Stakehold. Yeah. The latest stakehold. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I mean, we can – I don't know that the element specifically says that now. It's certainly something we can look at adding some language. If it's broad enough that it would include that in terms of intergovernment, that's fine. I just know that there's a lot of activists out there that we can – Similar to how we list the housing agencies that we're working with in the housing element. Yeah. Yeah. The folks that are doing the groundwork that we may not – that's all. You may have got that covered in here somewhere. Okay. Moving on to the – just an overview of the energy element. That was added to the comprehensive plan in 2011. I think we're one of the only counties in the state that has one of those in our comprehensive plan. The overall goal of the energy element is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption, mitigate the effects of rising energy costs, and promote the long-term economic security of the county through energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy production. A lot of what's in this element has fed into your work on the climate action plan and that draft climate action plan document. The comprehensive plan energy element sets some long-term goals for reducing community greenhouse gas emissions through prioritized strategies, and those priorities are energy conservation, energy efficiency, and promoting and investing in renewable energy production. What is built environment? Built environment would be like development and roads, things like that. Things people make versus what nature makes. Gotcha. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Cronin. Yeah, so I like the word – so when this was formed back in 2011, it was to reduce greenhouse gases, but I really like us moving towards a resilient local economy. Using less energy is obviously good business practice as well, and so resiliency for me is a bigger focus for this one. And I think also – and Anna talked about this at one of our meetings, about how the energy requirements with AI and what's happening, that we need to be kind of aware of that and think about some of those policies for potential data centers and other energy uses that may come into our community. Is this only addressed in Section 5.1? I'm sorry. Is the energy element only addressed in Section 5.1? No, there's an energy section in Conservation Open Space, but there's an entire element for – That's what I thought. I was like, this isn't all there is. Yeah, no, that just connects the two together. That just connects the two together. Okay, just making sure. I was like looking at this going, wait a minute, this is more than this. And I think the energy section in the Conservation Element predated the actual energy element. Right, I remembered reading that. Okay, thank you. There we go. And so there are several policy focus areas identified in the energy element, including the built environment, energy-efficient land use – that's our land use patterns within our community, energy-efficient transportation, county government initiatives, renewable energy, solid waste strategies, and public outreach and education. So those are kind of the big headings within the energy element where we have policies that fit underneath each of those. Yeah, we already went through some of this. Yeah. Yeah. And that's a good point. I mean, a lot of what we're talking about in these elements today, I think that the climate action plan is really feeding and relating to a lot of this. The stormwater element is another element we are looking at today, and the goal of that element is to protect natural drainage features and the quality of waters and protect new and existing developments in accordance with adopted levels of service for floodplain management, water quantity, and water quality. This element contains minimum standards for stormwater management for new development. It also contains standards for floodplain management. It addresses the maintenance of county stormwater management facilities. And it contains policies that speak to the protection of natural drainage features, which affect surface water and groundwater quality. And you will find a lot of the low-impact design policies within this element as well. The potable water and sanitary sewer element does relate to the other natural resource protection policies. The goal of this element is to provide adequate, safe, efficient, economical, reliable, and environmentally sound system of potable water supply and sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal to meet the needs of the current and projected Alachua County population. Much of this element is about how the county interacts with GRU and other municipal utilities to ensure that adequate system capacity is available to serve new development. Policies require that new development within the urban cluster must be connected to centralized water and sewer systems, with very limited exceptions. And the policies also prohibit the extension of potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of the urban cluster and into rural areas, also with very limited exception. As you know, much of the unincorporated county is served by private well and septic systems, so there are minimum lot-size policies for the use of well and septic in this element of the comp plan. This element also has policies that promote water conservation and reuse, and that is done primarily through a combination of coordination with GRU, public educational efforts, and irrigation standards and regulations. So that's a very high-level, quick overview of each of these elements. Staff has identified several conceptual recommendations for updates to each of these four elements. With the board's direction, we will go forward and take these conceptual recommendations and translate them into some draft language and bring those back to you at a later meeting. So I'll start with the first bullet. The first recommendation has to do with water quality and specifically enhanced nutrient-reducing septic systems. In 2023, there was new state legislation, which now requires the use of those enhanced septic systems for new development lots that are less than one acre and located within designated BMAP areas, which is Basin Management Action Plan. That's a statewide regulation to help achieve certain water quality targets, so we need to reflect that new legislation in the comprehensive plan as part of this process. But beyond that, as we continue to look for ways to meet our BMAP targets or obligations, septic is one of those focus areas. So we also wanted to bring up the idea of possibly requiring enhanced septic systems in other areas under other circumstances beyond what the state requires. For example, in areas that are on parcels that have conservation resources like wetlands or floodplains or strategic ecosystems, things like that, that would be a relatively significant change, but it could be impactful in terms of water quality benefits and meeting our BMAP targets. It also changes the sort of the financial arguments for expanding to citywide sewer systems for places like Archer and Newberry that are looking at expanding sewer systems. Right now there's a big argument in the city of Archer sort of backtracking on their commitment to doing citywide sewer because of the expected increase in cost. But if there's an expected increase in cost with a sewers, with a septic system, the next time they have to do an upgrade, would that, would that be, you know, are you suggesting that that might be required when they had to do a standard septic tank upgrade or would they be grandfathered in under an old circumstance? Or would that karst environment out there not be part of what you would recommend for a nutrient-reducing system? Or what were you thinking? Under the, well, under the state regulation, so that applies regardless. But that applies to new development lots. I don't believe that applies to upgrades of existing systems. I could be wrong on that. But we could require it. That's my point. Yeah. We could require it. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And then I think it's kind of a change. In a BMAP area, if you're replacing your septic system? Stacey will probably clarify, because it may be different within certain BMAPs. Yeah. Stacey Greco, Electro County Environmental Water Resources. The Silver Springs BMAP, which includes, like, the La Calusa area, Orange Creek, it has language that even modifications and changes to a system would have to upgrade to this type of system if that BMAP gets adopted. Right now, it might be legally challenged. We should know in mid-November. The Santa Fe BMAP does not have that language in it for, or the Orange Creek Basin, for upgrades to existing systems. Right now, it doesn't. But it is something we could consider. Yeah. Right now, it doesn't. But we are looking at, you know, nutrient load reduction. We just heard that yesterday. So that could change, right? I don't see the state changing that in this 2025 version of the BMAP. If it gets adopted and not challenged, it would probably be another five years before the state would consider that. And historically, they've been doing that requirement in areas where more than 20% of the loading is from septic systems, and with the Santa Fe being predominantly agriculture. So I don't see the state doing it in the Santa Fe. It was close to 20, wasn't it? Was it like 17 or something? I don't recall. Okay. Yeah. I want to, I mean, I would, I would like to go kind of with the state. Where the state requires it, we should require it. I don't think we should require it. It's outside of the BMAP, which we don't right now. Increase, like, like, like, like, modifying a septic system that's outside the BMAP. They can use the same standards that they had when they had it. My only issue with that is that the state has been willfully slow. We're just now getting a BMAP for, for certain areas. And so it's, you know, to, to, you know, it's, it's, uh, there's some argument that, that, uh, city of Archer falls into the Silver Springs watershed at some level, but it's not part of their BMAP, you know? So it's, it's like, I don't, I don't know. I'm, I'm just being a devil's advocate here, but, um, and I'm not sure I'm necessarily for it. I just want to have the conversation. I, I feel like it's, you know, we're seeing such increases in nitrate levels and, and all of our water. And this is something that, especially in, you know, most of Elachio County is, is either wetlands or it's karst. So it's, uh, it's, it's something to think about. Mr. Chair, on that point, I would add, um, with Senate bill 180 out there, this may not be something we can do right now, but it may be something that we can at least start to think about. So that's, that's another factor in the discussion. Well, it's, that's true for the whole thing, isn't it? Um, so, I mean, just, and, and along those lines, I mean, if, if the board is interested in us looking at the enhanced systems on, you know, doing something more than the state requires, um, we could propose some policy language in the plan saying something to the effect of that the county will, um, look at various options for, um, meeting our BMAP targets or obligations, uh, including, but not limited to some kind of enhanced septic requirements and other things. I'd be interested in knowing what the water management district thinks about it. Yeah, I would do. And I like the program we had where we provided incentives for people to upgrade. I don't know how successful that was, but that was more of a carrot approach. Yeah, two of them. So, and that's, that's a difficulty, because I'm sure it's not there. Yeah, no, I, I agree. I, I like having the carrot approach, too. I just don't know, especially given in the rural areas, though, so many people with septic tanks are, you know, are, um, not financially able to do anything more than they, than they do already. But, um, that, that also, there's also a huge environmental cost to that. Mr. Chair, we come back with, you know, four or five different options of how that would look. You know, one is, you know, following state, consistent with state, and then kind of going up from there to see what that looks like. You know, when you follow the state, you can, you can ask for state grants and stuff like that, when you go above and beyond the state in this area, it can get really difficult for you, for your taxpayer. What, what, what do you want to, do we have a lot of those? Do we have wetland impacts less than a quarter of an egg? Um, I think I... With all those coming from the board now, right? I can address this one. Okay. Right now, um, no matter what the size we bring them to the board. We've had three or four over the last five or six years where they were really small, and these are residential developments, single family homes, where they've been really tiny. But because we don't have a bottom threshold, we brought them to you all. You guys ended up supporting staff's recommendation and how to mitigate that impact. But that's a large step for a homeowner to go through, and reviewing how we've approved those, they've been consistent with staff's recommendations on those really small ones. So our thought was to maybe reduce some burden, some challenge to a private homeowner, we could possibly do those administratively, maybe through an update to the board that this is what's happening. But that was one thing to consider was maybe reducing or coming up with an actual threshold of anything below a quarter. How many situations have you had where this is going to have to come before the board and then, okay, well, then I don't want to do it, I don't want to impact it? That's really the benefit of saying any impacts come to the board is it empowers staff as opposed to creating more. Mr. Chair, that's a really hard question to answer because in some regards we never know. Those have, you know, they've decided not to do it because they knew they had to go to the board and maybe they didn't even tell staff, I can only think of one or two scenarios where they backed out under that scenario. So that is a good point. There is an aspect to that that prevents people from wanting to do the impact. But the ones that I'm thinking of, they had to. They had to. I remember the city had one with Iheny. We had one where a property owner had to cross the creek to be able to build on their property. So maybe we can add a caveat that says required to be able to develop so that they're not just. I don't know how y'all feel. I mean, you know, I have for 12 years been able to say to the public that we don't have what we're going to have. I like the fact that they all have to come before the board. And it really has minimized them. If it's a big burden, though, for the owner, and we're going to approve it anyways, I can see why you're recommending this. I just don't know how many that we are going to have. I don't know. I feel like if staff feels like it's a good suggestion, yeah. Mr. Chair, what I'll do then, we'll try to make sure that language is very clear that these are under scenarios where there's no alternative ability to build without the impact. That sounds good. Yeah, I like that. That makes a lot of sense. It's a bit easier. I mean, they might want to really want it before, you know, if they have to go through the steps. First avoided, second minimization. Yeah, hold on. Okay. Yeah, this is good. Okay, so another area we are looking to address in both the comp plan and the code and programmatically is low-impact design or LID. We do have numerous existing policies in the comp plan that call for the use of LID strategies for new development. And in your backup, there's actually a list of all of those that either encourage or require LID in some form. Some of those policies, they encourage LID for new development, but we also have policies that require the use of some LID techniques within sensitive karst areas. So staff is looking into additional ways to implement these existing policies through different codes and programs, including looking at things like incentives or requirements for how do we reduce the overall footprint of development, reducing land clearing, reducing land clearing, and preserving tree canopy, incentives for fertilizer and irrigation-free developments is something we've been talking about, as well as soil amendments, which do help to enhance the soil's ability to absorb and filter water. We talked about that as part of the recent landscaping code update. So some of these things are things we're doing already, and some may require some change to the land development code, potentially. However, we could add a little bit more policy language or clarification that would enable the county to consider these kinds of things when we're looking at new development. Do we have anything that encourages maintaining existing topsoil as opposed to just amending builder soil? Because while that might not make a difference if we're doing a cow field development, if we're doing development in areas where there's been a lot of – it's been forested or it's been not farmland, then there can actually be a pretty healthy topsoil there that, you know, a lot of builders like to just go scrape all that off and dump builder sand on it. And that makes – you know, and so then, of course, you would want to do soil amendment. But I was thinking that we probably should look at – you know, there's something the U.S. Green Building Council spends a good amount of energy on is trying to maintain the topsoil that's already on the site. Yeah, Mr. Chair, one policy is a policy of 4.22 and soils and slopes in the conservation open space. It talks about all development shall occur in a way that land clearing minimizes soil erosion, minimizes removal of native vegetation and trees, strictly limits the removal of damage of the specimen trees and champion trees as well. So there's language in there that I think the challenge for us is possibly looking at that language, but how can we direct that to an updated code policy that moves us in that direction? Because clearly we're not seeing that happening in a lot of development. No, we're not. So there's challenges with – Well, I just thought if we were going to try to incentivize, you know, soil amendments that, you know, that if there is an alternative to maintain a healthy topsoil as opposed to spending the money to amend it, that might make financial sense for a developer. Mr. Chair, that is something we've been looking at when we talk about topsoil requirements is that obviously you would be exempt from that requirement if you're able to retain your soils without impact. In scenarios where there hasn't been impact, like it's a natural area, you just mentioned, you know, if it's already been farmed or impacted or cleared, that may not provide you that benefit. But there is an opportunity there to have language that would – therefore, kind of what we were talking about with the septic and sewer issue, you're moving people to retain that native soils because if they don't, they have to do – they potentially have to do the soil amendment. Because even with an amendment, you still have a whole ecosystem that's already existing that you're affecting. So that was my – okay, thank you. Sorry, I knew too much about some of this stuff. George Cornell? Steve, have you had any discussion with staff about the word preserve versus conserve? Mr. Chair, we've historically in our group talked about preserve versus conserve because they have slightly different meanings. I don't know if I could say a time recently where we sat down and talked about it. But, you know, from – I think in general, from our perspective, preserve means you don't touch. You keep as if. Conserve, you're protecting it, but it often has the potential for a maintenance and management component to it. That's one really quick – I mean, it jumps out at me when I look at it right here, and it also jumps out at me at the goal. Under the goal – conservation open space element, the goal is to conserve, manage, and restore. Should it be to preserve, manage, and restore? And I don't know which one I'm going to need this, but there's a subtle difference under the conservation element by putting preserve in there instead of conserve. And I just – maybe you all can talk about it. Yeah, we'll talk about it because I think conserve tends to have a broader functionality to it, where preserve tends to be the concept of leaving something alone that's already pristine or in good condition, where conserve has an aspect to it that's a little more broad in terms of you want to retain its values, but it may require aspects of management. And I'm sure Andy would jump in on this as well. But we'll talk about it, and we'll maybe look at where we see language. The slide is just going to think about it. Okay. Thanks. Interesting question. I also wanted to point out just related to LID. Within the last year, the board adopted a series of updates to your landscaping code, which did include several measures that could be considered LID in nature. Those include reducing irrigated and fertilized areas, limiting the amount of permanently irrigated turf grass, encouraging alternative ground covers and drought-tolerant turf grass. Soil amendments were encouraged as part of that landscaping code update. Also, LID and green stormwater infrastructure is required for parking areas greater than 40 spaces within developments. A minimum of 75% of new planted trees, shrubs, and ground covers must be native species. And also that code facilitated the use of existing plants within landscaping plans. So there were some LID steps taken as part of that code update that you recently adopted. Do you see creation of meadows as a ground cover as opposed to turf? You know, meadows where you have wildflowers. There's a lot of, like in Kwanda Jha right now, someone's doing a whole big pollinator thing to try to get people to work in their yards to add pollinators and meadows as opposed to just standard turf. Would you consider that a ground cover to do something like that? How would you think of a meadow? I'm just curious. Jared, yeah, I would. It's a herbaceous cover. So, yeah, if your plan was to demonstrate you're retaining a meadow condition, that means without trees. Or creating one. Yeah, then I would consider, we would probably consider that a ground cover strategy. I might like to see some words about that, maybe. Because I do think that's something that more and more people are working towards, and we're, you know, slowly, like, changing our language with respect to things like code enforcement to allow that type of situation to develop. So I feel like maybe some words in there about that would be appropriate. Okay. Other potential recommendations. Strengthening the policies on floodplain. The current policy in the comp plan requires that new building lots have adequate buildable area outside the floodplain. However, the existing policies are not probably as clear as they could be that the preferred option is to avoid the floodplain before undertaking more engineering-type solutions like elevating a building. So we would recommend that we do take a look at those policies and try to clarify them a little bit just to make it clear that avoidance of the floodplain is the preferred option in those instances. So our goal here would be to not have to tear down houses in the future to make stormwater plans. Yes, referably. What a great goal. Also, the next recommendation has to do with the Idlewild, Serenola, and Cross Creek special area plans. Those two areas, both of them have maps in the comprehensive plan that depict things like exceptional upland habitat, tree canopy, and hammock areas. The areas shown on those maps are connected to the land use policies for those areas, and those maps are essentially the original maps that were part of those special area plans. So they're 30 or so-plus years old. They're a little bit out of date. So we are recommending that those maps be updated to better depict the current conditions with regard to some of the environmental resources within those areas. And we think we can probably do that, mostly from examining aerial maps and things of that nature, but maybe some field verification as well. The next recommendation is to make some general updates to the land conservation section of the element. And mainly here, there's just some references to terminology and program names that are just simply no longer accurate. So we want to make sure all that is up to date based on our current program and current conditions. And then related to land conservation, we have a, I don't want to call it an issue, but a topic that we've come across recently, which is the connection between our land conservation efforts and future land use planning under the comprehensive plan and how we take into account a property's future land use designation when we're considering whether to acquire a property for conservation lands purposes. And sort of a, this is a case study, which is the East Side Activity Center. It does. And we talked a little bit about the East Side Activity Center when we had the land use meeting a month or two ago. So, but just as a reminder, this activity center has been designated in the comprehensive plan for mixed use development since 1994, I believe. The activity center has not developed for that purpose for a whole variety of reasons. One of those is the strategic ecosystem, which covers much of the activity center, particularly the western part of the activity center. And that strategic ecosystem is an important connector piece between Payne's Prairie and some of the conservation areas to the north. And the comprehensive plan policies require that a 300-foot average width corridor be maintained in that western part of the activity center for the purpose of preserving the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem and also as a wildlife corridor. So, obviously, that set-aside requirement would significantly limit the use of those properties on the west side of the activity center for potential development. Alachua County Forever has an opportunity now, I understand it, to acquire four of the parcels in the activity center for conservation purposes. Those are the parcels that are highlighted in orange on the map on the right of the screen. So, we mainly wanted to highlight this issue today to get direction from the board before the county moves forward with potentially acquiring these parcels. And the reason for that is simply because we don't typically see ACF acquisitions that are, you know, within an urban cluster with a future land use designation that's for relatively high-intensity development. A lot of your acquisitions are in rural ag areas where it's, you know, not as much of an issue. Are these seller-generated? Are these sellers generating this inquiry? Andy is nodding yes, so. Yeah, I mean, you know, ideally, we would want to follow the future land use, but when sellers want something different from that, I think it makes sense for us to look at it. Well, if I can just make a comment. There, just to the west there, north of Eastside High School, at the end, there's that blank area there between the neighborhoods where that creek also runs through. That's area that has been designated by the county as, you know, future conservation land. And it's right across from what we have designated on the other map as mixed-use employment, whatever that means exactly, I'm not sure. And so, you know, I'm curious about how we, when we have really small parcels like that with a really high environmental value, how we look at the, about the potential future land use and what that future land use impact might be on adjacent parcels too. So, I just was curious about that. Not that I want to get rid of that as an activity center necessarily, but I think it's something to think about. When I look at connecting the Painsbury to the Morningside Nature Center, that's what they're attempting to do with those orange acquisitions. Right. And connecting it to Noonan's Lake, which is just, that's what that, that whole stream dumps into to the east, yeah. So, I'm in favor of that. The creek system too that would allow wildlife in there. And there's a lot of wildlife there already. It doesn't mean we can't develop around that on the other side, but I think to the west that's in line with the 300 foot requirement. But I think this would be a really interesting, like we talked about, this could be a real opportunity for what development could look like in an activity center to be compatible with areas with high concentration value. I think so. So, and just to add, I mean, I think staff's assessment was that, yes, there's a future land use designation that's for relatively higher intensity uses, but also there are a number of other policies in the comprehensive plan that call for preserving strategic ecosystem and other conservation features. So, just on the whole, there's nothing inconsistent with the comp plan about acquiring these parcels for ACF. Like Mary said, we know that once land is put in the conservation preservation, that the land around it becomes more valuable. Okay. Moving to the potable water and sanitary sewer element recommendations, we have a few here. The first would be to add some language into the overall goal of this element about protection of groundwater and surface water resources. That would just give more prominence to the idea that the policies we have for connection of new development to central water and sewer are directly connected to water quality and quantity issues. So, I think we would want to just maybe add some wording into the goal of that element. The second recommendation, and this is a somewhat technical one, it would be to revisit the GRU level of service standard for potable water that's within this element. That is a concurrency standard that's used by the county for calculating whether there is adequate water system capacity to serve proposed development that comes in. And the numbers, as I understand them, are based on some actual water usage data. So, they do change a little bit over time depending on water conservation efforts and such. And I think we updated that number when we did the last comprehensive plan update. So, we're going to work with GRU to make sure that number is accurate. If a neighborhood like, for instance, the one we're considering that they're building on Noonan's Lake were to do something like commit to no irrigation, which would decrease that gallons per day per capita number, would our numbers change? I mean, I think GRU is looking at that number on a system-wide basis, as I understand it. So, it might have some effect. Well, if we're asking a developer to upgrade an entire water line in order to serve a neighborhood, that would, you know, could have an economic impact on their pro forma to develop a whole neighborhood. And if there was not, if they were committing to not putting in irrigation, then, you know, they would, that could save potentially a lot of money. The third recommendation on this element has to do specifically with policy 2.1.7, and that says that connection to municipal water and sewer systems may be required for properties that are currently on well and septic where there has been evidence of septic system failure or well water contamination and where no technological upgrades could correct the problem. So, the recommendation on this, going back to our enhanced septic discussion, the recommendation would be to add nitrogen reduction mandates that may be identified in a BMAP as another potential basis for requiring conversion to municipal water and sewer, and also to consider advanced treatment septic systems as a potential solution to the problem where connection to city water and sewer may not be feasible. To my knowledge, I don't think the county has ever invoked that policy where we would force anybody to connect to central water and sewer, but adding that would give the county another basis to kind of work with property owners and possibly provide funding from our available sources for septic to sewer conversions. And the final recommendation on that element has to do with policy 6.1.2, and that policy says that biosolids from wastewater treatment facilities shall be disposed of through means such as land application. Staff is recommending adding to that policy the creation of compost or similar processes as a potential method for disposal of biosolids. It wouldn't be a requirement to do that, but it would just be identified as another available option for disposal for wastewater treatment facilities. Are there any permitted biosolids land application sites in Alachua County right now? I didn't think there were. I don't know, honestly. I would have to look that up. I mean, I know there's application of waste from, what do you call them, port-a-potties, but I haven't heard about GRE wastewater biosolids being applied in a number of years. The city of Newberry's wastewater plant, their spray field does receive their biosolids. Their spray fields receive their biosolids? Interesting. That's great. I know there used to be a site in Alachua, too, that was receiving biosolids, but I'm not sure if that one is still there. Well, I'm in favor of compost. That's a good thing. I was just curious because that was, when I was on EPAC, that was a huge point of contention was the spread of biosolids. Okay. And this is my last slide. We do have a few recommended updates to the energy element. In particular, the energy element has some policies that articulate specific goals for energy-related metrics, and I'm sure you're familiar with these from the Climate Action Plan discussions. All of these goals were adopted in 2011 as part of the original energy element in the comprehensive plan. Some of them are now out of date and just need to be updated and possibly re-evaluated to make sure we're actually tracking the correct metrics. The recent Climate Action Plan has looked at a lot of these metrics and others kind of bringing new data and perspective to how we track things related to energy conservation. So, in this case, the comp plan is kind of going to follow the lead of the Climate Action Plan in looking at how we track these metrics and possibly establishing different metrics. The current metrics that are in the energy element are up on this slide. You can see them, the greenhouse gas reduction metric to reduce community-wide GHG emissions by 80 percent from the 2009 level by 2050. That's still valid, but then the intermediate goal by 2020, that's obviously that date is passed, and then you have a short-term goal of 5 percent annual reduction. Have we met any of that? No. No. I don't believe we met the – we did not meet the 2020 goal. Why would we only want to reduce vehicle miles traveled within the urban cluster? Is that because we assume that we would be falling back on public transit and bicycles? I think within the urban cluster, we have a transit system. We have a bicycle pedestrian network. I guess the reason why I'm asking is I've had, as particularly as the UF has pushed their back-to-work, no-home-office thing, and the bus system has gone down, there's been a bigger and bigger problem with parking on campus, and much, much more interest of, you know, hey, is the county thought of having a park-and-ride lot for folks that might want to meet up and carpool and share a parking space and things like that. But I just, you know, think that there might be some opportunity, especially considering we have more and more bedroom communities that are even outside of Alachua County, the people that are commuting in, to think about ways of getting more cars off the road outside of the urban cluster, just as a thought. Okay. Yeah, and on that one, we do have the two transportation-related metrics, the vehicle miles traveled per capita and then the non-automobile mode share. And on those in particular, I think we found that we don't really have great baseline data for tracking those. So part of what we're looking at here is, you know, what baseline data do we have and how reliable is it going forward? So we're looking at all of these metrics, trying to figure out if there's better or different goals that we should be tracking in this case. And that's all I have for you today. Your next workshop on the comp plan will be October 21st at 1.30 in this room. And that workshop is going to be on the topic of community facilities and services. And that includes the transportation element, the recreation element, solid waste, and community health. We're all happy to answer any questions. I had one more question. And under adopted maps, there were some soil maps. How often do we actually rely on the soil maps? Because I know a lot of those, when they're ground truth, haven't been particularly accurate anymore. Mr. Chair, it depends. We do have some aspects where we utilize that as one of the tools. That soils map is our USDA soils map, I believe, from 1985. But it was very well done at the time. And there's not a big need to update that soils map. I don't really want to update a soils map. That would be a whole lot of work. I was just curious how much we rely on the soils map for making decisions. It's a planning tool we use in most situations. But I think there is, like in car-sensitive areas, it is one of a tool we use. But on-site soil assessment is always going to trump what that map says. Okay. I was just curious because I saw it. I was curious. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any public comments? Right here? Yeah. Yes. Right here? Yes. I can see the clock down, Mr. Chair, before I was dining. I'd like your Environmental Protection Department to weigh in on the reality that GRU is claiming they can run their antiquated, dirty, uneconomic power plants indefinitely because, after all, they don't have money to build new plants. They don't have firm availability on the only transmission line in there, and they are in a lot of trouble. So, nowhere in that discussion are they talking about the air pollution implications of taking 1970-era coal plants converted to run on gas and just keep extending the useful lives. There's reliability issues. There's all kinds of issues. In my opinion, GRU needs a bailout. But from the environmental perspective, you have the staff to represent the public in terms of the enormous amount of pollution their activities generate. Not to mention the sewage spills resulting in at most a fine of $150, which occur on a regular basis. No matter who's managing GRU, you're supposed to protect us from the massive environmental consequences of their failings in critical areas that impact our health. I want to remind you that a bona fide agricultural operation and agricultural buildings and structures are not to development. So, it's important that you don't interfere with the 10 types of farms already under State of Florida Best Management Practices. At the High Springs Library, they got a tank from Texas Metal Tanks. But both of you, a 5,000-gallon steel tank, they're collecting water off the gutter instead of pumping it out of the ground. If we're going to let utilities compost, why can't individuals compost? So, I think we have to look at the possibility that maybe people can take advantage of the court cases that give small farmers the rights of large farmers, allow them to build unregulated buildings fully off-grid, collect their water, make sure there's no negative environmental impact. And if they're smart, they'll go into a piece of land that was clear-cut for the pine and put it back to the way it was and get off the tax rolls and get away from GRU and get away from your regulations like I have done and like I will encourage other people to do because it makes good sense economically, it makes good sense environmentally, it makes good sense on every single level because this morass you're creating is making our housing better. Thank you, Chair. My name is Jason Teisinger. I'm here, I want to make a comment on the activity center, the Eastside Activity Center. And I had a conversation with former Commissioner Hutchinson about this and they developed it at the time and I'm not sure if Commissioner Chestnut was on that, but I remember it as well, the intent of the 300-foot buffer was not to usurp actual conservation and acquisition efforts, it was if those parcels along that line were going to be developed at a minimum to keep the buffer there. But always the intent was if the seller, the owners of the property were willing to sell their properties to whatever county program was active at the time, that they would move forward with that and actually do the acquisition. So acquisition within the strategic ecosystem preferred. So I just wanted to thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Well, Mr. Chair. Hi, I've never said that. My name is Mark van Suisbergen. I was really interested in the, I saw the slides actually before coming over. I never do that. It's very interesting what all is in there. But it reminded me of the, is this about like, I guess, floodplain or the concept of floodplain. And then it mentioned soil several times. So over the last, whatever, couple of years, I've been taking pictures of land. I mean, like around apartment complexes and stuff like that. And what I've noticed that there's areas where people don't mow and then you have the grass that is kind of competing for, for space and they're kind of like punching up to each other. And it gets to be like a foot or two tall. And, you know, and then there's the areas where there's mowing going on. And there's actually very little grass. It's very short. You have these little clusters of, of little pods of grass. And then there's typically, there's sand around it. So you have the areas that are not mowed in which you actually have like green stuff is competing, you know, for space. Like I want to be in the ground. And the roots are very long because, you know, they're, the very top is very long. And so the bottom is also very long. And then you have the areas that are mowed, you know, very, very, very often. And they're maintained supposedly. And then, but you have these very short, short things of green and then surrounded by like sand. And sand is actually silica. So that's actually not, not even soil. So what happens is if you keep mowing, you keep mowing because that's part of your, you know, your look or your apartment complex or your bank or, you know, the thing that you're, you're presenting as, you know, the side of the road sides, for example, is that in the end, the, the, the grass is trying really hard to survive. And there's more and more silica because it becomes like yellow because like little, little granular pieces of sand around it. That's not soil. That is not soil. So when it does rain, it's, it's the, it's the unkempt quote unquote, the, the unkempt, unmanaged areas that absorb a whole bunch of rain because the roots are very long. And there's actual soil is actually like life inside the ground there. And then you have managed areas and it's in front of banks. It's in front of sports complexes. It's, it's on the side of the road. All these people doing their best to, you know, and there's even extra dudes that come by like, I don't know what they're called, but anyway, but, and then actually like more than half of that is sand. So when it does rain, that is not absorbing the rain. And I see, I don't know if you take a satellite thing, which you could probably, you know, I took hundreds of pictures over the years and I could show it to you. But if you add all that up, there's acres and acres and acres and acres and acres that actually do not absorb the rain. Form up flood zones. And whereas this one does, this one takes a whole bunch of time and a whole bunch of energy, a whole bunch of labor, a whole bunch of money. And this one does not. So, you know what I mean? It's like, whoa, what are we doing guys? And so from the challenge, I guess that would be as a community, it's like you have thousands and thousands of people doing this because I think it's the right thing to do. But ecologically, this is the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ian Kress. I live in the Gainesville Country Club area. My mom lives in the Idyllwild area. Both her areas in the special area study for Idyllwild, Cernola Forest. One issue I've seen as I drive up and down Wilson Road going in the Gainesville Country Club, there's been a lot of development in the area. I believe with that exception, every single one of the developments, the very first thing they do is go get annexed by the city. So I've been very impressed by the outline of the comprehensive plan. When I've looked at it in the past, it looks very well resourced, very complete. And then they go get annexed by the city and a lot of the standards don't apply anymore. Like an example is, if you drive down Wilson Road going to I-75, right by the Okamek development, there's some condos that are going in right there. It looks like they basically set off a fuel air bomb and destroyed every single tree and every single blade of brass in the entire area and are developing the entire thing. I haven't looked on the map, but undoubtedly it's been annexed into the city to go Okamek as part of the city. I know when I had, when there were discussions about the VA mental health facility that was going there at the corner of Wilson Road and 34th Street, that got annexed by the city. And right in the meeting when, when we were online with the members of the city commission, there was a whole, the whole program about land use and zoning. And right in the meeting, one of the commissioners there said, well, let's just change all the zoning to basically be whatever you want it to be. Um, and so a lot of that got developed, uh, in a way that it probably wouldn't have been in the county. And I'm, I'm, I'm not familiar with how much, how much power the county has or how much influence in what the city has. But that might be one thing to think about is that while everything here looks extremely comprehensive and developed, how much of that translates to in the real world if something just gets annexed. Thank you. Further comments? Back to the board. The question for staff is, is the, um, what environmental parts of our comp plan would stay into effect after annexation? That's a good question. Um, we actually have made efforts, um, since 2018. All wetland regulations are, are now countywide. So those apply within municipalities as well. Um, as, and then in, uh, 2019, we added, uh, natural resource protections that included significant geologic features, um, listed species habitat and strategic ecosystem regulations countywide as well. And that's what passed by the voters. Yeah, that was a border referendum component. That's what I remembered, yeah. So they have to meet, basically the way it's written, it says they have to meet our minimum standards. They could obviously add additional protections that they felt were warranted, but they have to be consistent with our, our standards, which have certain buffer requirements, avoidance requirements. Um, and if there are wetlands within cities where there's proposal for impacts, they have to come in front of the county commission for approval of those impacts as well. Yeah. I thought, I thought I remembered that, but I do know that prior to that, there were a lot of times where annex properties were definitely changed greatly. Yeah. And I, I do want to add too, we have water quality irrigation requirements as well that, that go countywide as well as hazardous material protection. Thank you. And stormwater. Thank you all. And we'll move to our next item, which is the staff presentation on Lakeshore Drive, potential scenic road designation. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Ken McMurray, senior planner and growth management. And I'll be presenting the staff report on Lakeshore Drive, potential county scenic road designation. So the board directed staff on June 3rd to investigate Lakeshore Drive as a candidate for county scenic road designation. And so today I'll be presenting that analysis and the staff recommendation on Lakeshore Drive per the county scenic road ordinance. And asking the board for direction on advertising a public hearing to consider the designation as a county scenic road. So it's a two step process today is presenting the analysis and then the board can choose to notice a public hearing to consider the designation. So here's a map of there's six current designated county scenic roads as shown here. And here's the proposed Lakeshore Drive location on the west side of Newman's Lake. And then zooming up a little bit. The red is Lakeshore Drive. It runs from Hawthorne Road to this is intersects with Southeast 74th Street, which is about a quarter mile south of East University Avenue. So it's within the urban cluster. This outline here is the urban cluster. City of Gainesville is here. I'll just briefly touch on the county scenic road ordinance. It has a number of objectives, such as enjoyment, promoting the enjoyment of public travel, protecting the natural and cultural heritage and public investment in scenic road corridors from activities such as land uses, signs and so on that could impair the integrity of a scenic road, providing safe facilities for leisure, driving, hiking and biking, providing access and protecting the outstanding visual experiences of the county, contributing to the environmental and historical appreciation of the county and attracting visitors and exposing scenic views and vistas. So those are the objectives in the scenic road ordinance. And then a county designated scenic road has a protected area, which is 100 feet on each side of the right of way. And per the ordinance, the board has the power within that protected area to impose restrictions. And the ordinance lists out a number of restrictions that are summarized here, things like setting the speed limits and vehicular classes, which currently this is Lake Shore Drive is a no truck designated county road. The speed limit is 35, mostly with some areas of 30 miles an hour on each end, I believe. And other restrictions, such as prohibiting commercial activity, outdoor advertising signs, tree removal, structures, overhead utilities, those things come with certain exceptions in the ordinance. For example, signs advertising of homes for sale and things like that aren't, of course, prohibited. Tree removal is prohibited, except where it's needed to access a property or where there's a dangerous situation of trees. Structures that, for example, subdivision entry structures and things are allowed. Overhead utilities, there's some technical language about the voltage and the capacity of the utilities, but generally they're allowed to cross through the protected area in an overhead. But the lesser the utility, less than the major lines are required to be undergrounded. And then there's a section on preservative maintenance of scenic qualities. So that's the kinds of restrictions and activities for the protected area of a corridor. And then the ordinance moves into the guidelines for designating a scenic road corridor. Things like the quality of the resources and the visual experience, access between or to recreation areas or points of interest, that it's relatively free of commercial and other development, and that the resources are not damaged beyond recognition and can be easily restored. So with that, I'll move into the staff analysis of this potential for scenic road designation. So there's five different specific criteria that I'll just move through. The first one is the scenic resource significance. And obviously, with Noonan's Lake there, that's the big scenic draw for Lakeshore Drive. And it has excellent views. And it's right alongside it for part of the way of Lakeshore Drive. Maybe a third of it is right directly adjacent to the lake. It has excellent vegetation in Cypress Swamp Forest and Masic Forest. There's the Eastside Greenway strategic ecosystem that's in the area and that's directly adjacent to Lakeshore Drive in a couple of places. As was discussed a little bit earlier, Eastside Greenway strategic ecosystem is mapped in the comprehensive plan. It was in the KBN study. It was ranked above average. So that resource is there. Overall, it's a pleasant lakefront landscape, peaceful area. It has archeological resource significance. The entire Noonan's Lake is the Lake Pithlachaco canoe site, where the ancient Native American canoes were discovered in 2000 in the drought. It's the single largest accumulation of those canoes that have ever been discovered, according to FDACS. So there's that significance. Historically, for the ordinance, it predates the interstate. In Alachua County, aerials show that it's been here since at least 1949, if not earlier. And Noonan's Lake, of course, was named after Daniel Noonan, a historic figure. This battle was probably fought nearby, not on the Lakeshore Drive area that's now Lakeshore Drive, but probably nearby, somewhere around Rochelle, just north of Rochelle, I think. And then as a cultural resource, the ordinance talks about the unspoiled character. And approximately 70% of Lakeshore Drive is currently undeveloped. And of that, about 70% is publicly owned. I understand the county is, I think, in some negotiations with the city about that land. The Palm Point Park area. The amenability for multiple recreational users, and there's quite a current use for bicycling, bank fishing, and of course, Palm Point Park is a 17-acre park that has trails, birdwatching, canoeing, and so on. There's no currently dedicated bike-ped facility, such as a multi-use path, but such a facility could better support those things. There have been, in your packet, you have the letters of support. I think there was 31 letters written in support of a designation for Lakeshore Drive. Didn't receive any opposed to it. Some other specific criteria for designation has to do with the development possibilities and resource vulnerability. The land that's currently undeveloped is designated as either a state residential or there's some low density residential. And, of course, again, there's the Eastside Greenway ecosystem. It's this dark green color. And extensive wetlands and floodplains are there. If development were going to occur, there would be extensive protections in the comprehensive plan for the strategic ecosystem as well as those wetlands and floodplains. So there is quite a bit of protection. So just to point out, this is Magnolia State is a current subdivision here. There's Lakeshore Home Sites. There's smaller lot development here. The Eastwood Preserve proposed subdivision is in this area. Commissioner Alfred. Why do you have the scenic byway ending before you get to Gainesville area rowing? Why doesn't it continue up along the edge of there until that east-west road that comes off of University Avenue? Why does it end there? Why doesn't it go all the way up? Well, this point here, this is where the actual, quote, Lakeshore Drive ends. It intersects with southeast 74th Street here. Is south-west 74th Street the road that comes off of University Avenue? Would you continue straight? Right. Yeah, north-south comes off of University Avenue. If you continued, if you turned right and went north, you'd be on 74th Street. And that's within the Lakeshore Home Sites subdivision, the smaller lot subdivision. Yeah, I'm just trying to understand. Yeah, I'm trying to understand that. It seems like we would just continue, even though it's not Lakeshore Drive, that we would continue to scenic road all the way up to where Gainesville area rowing is. Some issues probably to consider there are just the 100-foot protected area on these smaller lots and how that might present some issues. The lots there are a quarter acre and less, I think, in that subdivision. So they wouldn't be able to rebuild or something? Is that, like, their concern? Because they're already existing. Maybe it's not scenic anymore. Well, it's scenic on the right-hand side, I mean, heading north. It's certainly, I mean, it's certainly within the Board's discretion to designate the portion. Because that's actually a really beautiful spot right there at the end of that road, looking out over the lake. How much farther the subject portion could go? It's a quarter mile to University Avenue. A quarter mile? Would the existing structure be grandfathered in on the setback? The existing, sure. The restrictions would have to do with new. I don't know if we have a zoom in. How long is Lakeshore Drive? It's a little over two miles, about two and a third miles. From this portion, this red portion is two and a third miles. Do you see a problem with that extending? Mr. Chair, not necessarily. I just wanted just to double down on what Ken was saying. You know, you have to consider that, yes, the structures are there. But it would greatly, we don't allow, unless a variance is granted, removal of any tree eight inches or above. So it could even be in a side yard. In some of these lots, it could even be in a backyard. We wouldn't allow a tree removal permit that we would normally allow if it's dedicated as a, or if it's designated as a scenic road because of that buffer protection. So it's just something to keep in mind. They want to put a gazebo or a shed. The answer might be no. Oh, I see. Unless they come forward and have to detail. Get a variance. Variance. Gotcha. Or an opaque fence. That's another thing. Well, I know we've dealt with that on 91st and other places where there's a lot of interaction between residents and a scenic road. Right? It's 91st, right? Yes. You're right. So stopping here would avoid that. It would avoid any conflicts with those residents. Yeah. I mean, I see the point. I guess we can't make a scenic road just on one side of the road. Yeah. I guess my field commissioners would be leaving it like this. If those residents want to extend this. Advocate. Advocate and extend it and they can come to us with that. Because then it's eyes wide open as opposed to us notifying you. Hey, by the way, we might be doing this. Yeah, you better put a shed up now real quick. Right, right, right. So I kind of like where staff is right now, but certainly that could be a potential extension. Yeah, yeah. I think that's, I think you're probably right on that. You know. Well, residents could extend it themselves. You know, they will make their own, make their own scenic entrance to that. I just would like to see that. The rest of that particularly on the east side there, you know, protected also. That's just sort of where I was going. But I guess it's protected in other ways, so that's okay. So here's a discussion about the criteria regarding commercial uses and the unscoiled character resources. This is a frontage photograph of down at the near the intersection of Hawthorne Road. There's an existing tree forestry service on three acres that has about 660 feet of frontage. And that's the portion that, in staff recommendation, staff is recommending to exclude that portion because of that use there. Is that part of the request also from? Well, EDA said they've got 815 feet. The staff said 710. Yeah. Right. Mr. Chair, staff doesn't have a particular issue with the Eastwood Preserve request to exclude. Originally, we looked at it and the commercial seemed the most obvious to exclude. And the thinking was that the northeasternmost portion of Eastside Preserve is designated as a 200-foot buffer set aside. And the thinking was that it wouldn't, having that 700 feet would almost cover the entire frontage of the Eastwood Preserve, but not quite. But there's no particular issue with excluding it. And in fact, stormwater is one of the things allowed in that set aside buffer. So there may be some issues with construction and tree removal and so forth. So staff wouldn't have an issue with. So. All right. So I would move staff's recommendation and just change that 710 to 815. I think that gets us where we want to get to. Second. I have a question, too, about. I have one more thing. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. So at the Regional Planning Council meeting, we had the Suwannee River Management District and the St. Johns River Management District give us an overview and a discussion about the outstanding part of water designation. And I know it's a state designation. I wanted to add to the motion that we also direct staff to look at the possibility of getting with the state to explore outstanding part of water designation for Newman's Lake. Good. Yeah. No, that's good. Are we okay with a seconder? I agree with that? If they'll do it, I don't know if it's going to qualify. It might not. I just want to at least say that we've inquired and try to understand what that could mean. And what the standards said. Yeah, I mean, if we could. That then creates additional protections on the properties around the lake if the fact that ever were to be a designation. So I'd love the staff to explore that and bring back to us what they said. And it would also educate us on what the requirements are for an outstanding part of waterway. And that would give us some goals as we look at potential, you know, projects to upgrade water quality. I think it would help all around. I don't know if it's possible, but at least it's worth it. And this, on the business that's right there, is there, is that open to the roadway that we could maybe ask them to plant trees along that corridor there, that we could have trees planted there? I'm sorry, where? I'm sorry, where? The business that the existing commercial use frontage on Southeast Tutherland Road, this one, the lumber company, you know, is it open to the road, the main road like this? That's the frontage from the road, yes. Would it do anything to discourage businesses there or discourage if we could ask them to plant along that roadway? Well, the motion excludes that area from the... I know, but even if it's excluded, you know, that it wouldn't, I just didn't know. Well, we should get Lacey to contact them. That's what I was, that's what I mean. Yeah. You know, that we could say we will, you know, supply the trees that you need there. If you would be willing to do that, it might, you know, even, even if we are still excluding them, it would still help with the entranceway there, because I'm sure the other place is going to have... So part four would be to ask our, you know, to contact that commercial business to see if there's any opportunities for tree planting. If they would be willing or interest, if there's any interest. Any interest in tree planting. Yeah. Okay, yes, absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just, just want to clarify. So the... Okay. Any notice for a public hearing, it will include some general language about the kinds of restrictions that will be considered at the public hearing. It doesn't have to go into a lot of detail to be part of the notice. Mr. Chair, can I clarify that motion? Sure. Commissioner Cornell said four things. Are you counting staff's recommendation, the change in feet, or two different things? Okay. Staff's recommendation, just changing the feet from 710 to 815. Okay. Proceed with the designation of Lakeshore Drive as a county scenic permit. That's the second. That's staff had one and two. Okay. Three was the inquiry about outstanding Florida water for Newton's Lake, and then four would be the direct staff to contact the commercial business to see if there's an opportunity to participate in our tree planting program. Would you consider a number five, which would be a notification to the residents on the north end of Lakeshore Drive where it turns into 74th or whatever, and let them know that this is becoming a scenic road and would they be interested in extending it? Yeah. I don't want to slow this one down as long as this one doesn't wait for five. Yeah. I don't think we would want to wait, but I think that notifying the residents about what's happening in their neighborhood and, you know, not making them feel left out if they don't understand the process. Yeah, so five would. I don't want them to think that we are dissing their part of the road because they might not understand the impact of it becoming a scenic road on their neighborhood, if that makes any sense. Yeah, so five would be to contact the residents on Southeast 74th Street up to Newberry Road or University Avenue to let them know that we're doing the scenic road designation and to ask for their input about extending it at some point in time. Okay. Okay. Five points. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion by the board? If not, are there any citizen comments to the motion that's on the floor about the scenic drive and all that stuff? Good to speak, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to see you all again. I'm Paul Pritchard, the chair of the community group working primarily on the Greenway and that corridor, but I will say we are very supportive of this proposal as individuals. I can't speak as if some action has been taken by the group, but I have not heard one negative expression from individuals during our various meetings. So I would say also to the commission members' questions about the north end, I think that's a very good point. Gar is, of course, a major property owner in that area, and I believe the university owns the land at the turnaround, which I would think would be, but I want to commend the commissioner for his initiative here and let you know all of us who live along the road are more than happy to work with the county to achieve the goals that have been expressed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Clay Swagger. I'm a land planner working with the Eastwood Preserve folks. Thank you. It looks like a win-win opportunity. I appreciate the small modification on our project. I think that it will work out in a nice manner. I know that our project is still under review, but as you've seen, we've been making efforts to try to protect Lakeshore Drive and minimize traffic impacts and other impacts, and that really goes along with what you're referring to here on the scenic road. So thank you for the opportunity to speak, and thank you for the deliberation. Thank you. Any other comments? My name is Andreana Liska, and I have lived on Lakeshore Drive since 1967, so that's a really long time. My parents purchased land there, and I now own the land that my parents purchased. I'm very happy to see that this might happen because it has been a neglected area, although treasured for a long, long time. In fact, just recently GRU came through and butchered the front of my lot to allow access for utilities, and that's not very scenic to go driving down there and see state tree, the sable palm, which has been mutilated and just kind of hanging there. Not that the bronzing thing is happening, too. I don't know if you know about palm bronzing, but it's devastating some of the very scenic. In fact, there was a beautiful palm with two palms and one of them now. But it is a beautiful place, and it deserves attention and preservation. It is very often used when people move to Gainesville just to take them for a drive along and I hope you'll do something for wildlife, otters, eagles, ospreys. I mean, I have seen alligators. You know, everything is living there and needs, you know, it's a wonderful place for people to be able to go and see those things. It's amazing, you know. So thank you for your efforts, and I hope to be able to be here for some more meetings. Does anybody have any questions among you for me? I mean, since I'm a resident over there. Thanks for being here. Okay. Thank you. Any further comments to the motion? If not, we go back to the board. Commissioner Cornell? Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I meant to ask staff about this because EPAC put some time into this. And the second to the last paragraph, they said EPAC also supports maximum restrictions along, EPAC is the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee, along the scenic roads corridor, including dark sky lighting regulations, underground utilities, which was just addressed by Adriana, and restoration, which I think is important, to original state of all trees and vegetation damage by natural causes or accidents. So the underground utilities is a pretty significant item, but the other two, the dark sky lighting and the restoration of vegetation, is that something that we have in other scenic road designations restrictions, or is that something that staff can look at when they bring it back to us? Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if it's in other scenic road designations, but we do. The ordinance, it includes in the potential restrictions, high intensity lighting, which related to dark sky, I know is a specific term. Staff could look at that and what that might entail. But there is some relationship to the ordinance there. And then the ordinance has a maintenance of corridors and scenic quality section that has language about this is for the county engineer to implement this list of maintenance items. Conserving and restoring the high quality of natural resources such as tree canopy, ground cover, and so forth. And then trees and other vegetation damage beyond restoration should be removed and attempts made to replant. So those. So it is covered. Those things. Yeah. I guess what I would say is as we're going to the EAR on the dark sky ordinance stuff, if we can make sure that this road is included. Or maybe that we update our scenic road ordinance to be, you know, compatible with dark sky. I guess. Yeah. I would just ask SAP to look at that when we're updating. I think that would capture there. I remember driving down that road and seeing a plethora of fireflies as a chance. Yeah. That's awesome. Yeah. Okay. And I know that came up with Paul and some of the other meetings with the neighbors. And I know that Mr. Swanger and the development is also looking at ways to mitigate lighting for the development. So I think that's consistent with everything that we've heard. I would like to note that underground utilities in that area being so close to groundwater would probably be a big check. Okay. I think we covered it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Mr. Chair, I have a good question. Do you know how, maybe this is for Steve, do you all know how far we are, how close we are to taking control of that Palm Park, Palm Point Park? Is that still in the works or not? Mr. Chair, Ed Williams, Alachua County Parks. I didn't know whether to mention this or not, but I do want to point out that on this plan, this whole area right here is Palm Point, is the park. That's a little over 100 acres. I know Ken said, he mentioned 17 acres. That's probably just the point part, but we really were hoping to acquire the full parcel so that if we wanted to make some improvements to enhance the experience at the point, because that whole thing is wetlands and you really can't do much over there and we want to maintain the natural quality of that. But on the other portion, on the west side, we'd like to be able to have, you know, sort of an access road and put in some parking and maybe a couple pavilions, some grills and grills and tables and things like that, just kind of minor. But we feel like that could really be an asset where people now, if they want to go to Palm Park, there's about two parking spaces there and then they're parking on the side of the road. So, you know, it would be nice to have that ability on the other side and then maybe have a little crosswalk there that gets you across to the actual point. I had no idea it was that big. It is, it is. And there's wetlands on the, there's wetlands to the east and the right, so the only, you know, the part that we would be looking at would be kind of right in the center of that block right there. How close are we to getting that, or is it something you're trying to purchase it? I don't, I was actually texting while I was sitting there because our director reached out to their director, because, you know, the city voted to start their staff working on it back on August 21st. They're giving it to us because it could sound on the cost of maintaining it. That's what I had thought I had heard giving it to us, but I didn't realize there was that much land involved, so I didn't know if that had changed. Yeah, we just haven't heard back from them yet. Okay, that's exciting. I assume that would turn it over to their legal and then we'll go to our legal and then come back to you guys for acceptance. That's a beautiful spot. We offered to give them 16th Boulevard in exchange. They said no. I found a nice road for a little piece of fun. And what I would say is before we make any plans about park improvements that we do a pretty extensive community engagement. Many of the neighbors that I spoke to actually said that their goal for Palm Park would actually be to make sure there's less than two parking spaces. So, you know, I'm saying that facetiously, but we just want to be really mindful that we don't create a situation that is the opposite of what the neighbors are trying to achieve. So, community engagement, find out what they'd like to see and then move. Understood. Thank you. Chairman, may I speak again? We normally don't, but go ahead. I'm being nice. I want to support the comments that Council Member just made. It's very strong feelings about this area being turned into another Howard Park area type facility, which would be quite contrary to what our perception is of the natural area and the Point Park area. And I would mention, it hasn't been mentioned, but I would hope that there is a very nice piece of property at the end of the road, which is, I believe, owned by the University. I would hope that somehow that could be looked at since it's an appropriate area for more boating facilities or whatever, if there's to be any. Not that I'm advocating that, but I know there has been discussion about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. I think that that's right, but I think with the University, when they took that area on, it was exclusive. I don't know that. Well, there's an area right next to it at the end of the road. I think that's what he's talking about. Okay. There's kind of a road. There's kind of a pull away parking area. There's a little bit of a drop off and it goes out to the water. Yeah, but that's tricky to get to. Mr. Chair, that's owned by the county. That's part of the right of way for East University. Okay, that little part in there. I mean, originally, I think everything just drained that way. It's more of a drainage right away than anything else. Where is it that our kids are fishing? When I was teaching at Westwood, there were a lot of kids that would go on Lake Drive to fish. Is there, was it at Palm Point? Yeah, just south. That's where the kids are. Okay. Okay. Because that's a great spot for kids to fish. Step over the alligator. Yeah. It doesn't matter. They don't care. They just want to catch a fish. All right. So we've had, we have a motion and a second, and we've had public comments on the motion. So we're back to the board. Those in favor of the motion, vote by the sign of aye. Aye. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Okay. All right. So our next item would be any public comment? General public comment? No. Josh Williams, I've inquired several of you over the past two years about any urban service area, urban cluster expansions. Been through this process for a long time of the original comp plan. I guess around 2010 approved 14, 15, or 16 y'all's books. I guess because the two year policy, but I missed the public workshop. Got the email saying comp plan was being changed, but I didn't read through all 67 pages or 36, whichever it was. But I just was curious if there was any possible way to have another public workshop or another public meeting to discuss it. What I've seen is a lot of the same stuff I saw in 2018 when broke down into lots and we want to get affordable housing. Like I hear a lot of talk about, you have to have a glutton of different lot options. We don't have that. I look for land all day, every day, have for 23 years. The last 10 years have been rough. Finding land that's not, you know, within, that's within the urban service area. I'm undergoing two, getting back to somebody's public comment earlier, in the middle of annexing into the city on two different properties right now because county policies don't work. And just think that there's a much broader discussion than what's been had for the urban service area and future development policies. I'll be at every one of these meetings, but specifically as it relates to affordable housing housing, especially, it just, it's completely contrary to everything I see on the ground every day. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I ask you a question? Sure. Are you a, are you a builder? Are you looking for a purchase? Developer, commercial. Is that what you are? I own a commercial real estate company. Okay. I do a lot of developments here around town. Yeah, not, not as much in the counties over the past 10 years, honestly. Um, but I think there's just several things that I think are being missed because the last two times we tried to challenge the urban service area policy, we were throwing about the same lots report. And, uh, I definitely like to bring a spreadsheet to show kind of how that breaks down to affordable housing, having smaller lots and more options as opposed to the urban service area we have to work with right now. So it just doesn't seem very important. Yeah. So Josh, we had, we had that discussion on August 12th. You were out because I was the chair. Right. I would say go back and watch that. And then there may be another opportunity for us to have that discussion with them at a later meeting. Um, yeah, Mr. Chair, if you'd like, Jeff can go through the process from here on out till we get to the point of adoption. So everybody knows. So we have an opportunity. Mr. Chair, and you know, I think to, um, as Ben mentioned, you know, the next phase after these workshops is really for us to formulate the policies given the direction we have received in each of them. And the plan thus far is actually go ahead and take those to Planning Commission and come forward to the County Commission after that with, with a package that you could adopt. Um, given some variance with the conversations we're having around Senate Bill 180, some of those issues we're going to have to look at what we, what package we can come forward with. So that'll be the conversation. Mr. Chair, have we sent out RFPs for the 15th Street project? Um, I mean, we, have we sent that out to, for, for multi-use path? No, no, no. For the development of our 15th Street, uh, property over behind Lincoln. Legacy Park. Legacy Park. Is that what it's called? Legacy Park. Oh, wow. Have we sent anything out yet? No, um, Mr. Chair, from the last meeting we got more direction from the board or concurrence with what we had proposed in that outline and that will be going out, but it has not yet. Okay. So there's opportunities for people from the community who have project ideas to present. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Further citizen comments, general public comments. Are there any citizen, I mean, uh, commissioner comments? No, um, um, I just wanted to bring up- Sure. We're going to be talking about the, um, wild spaces, public places, I think at the next meeting. And, uh, and the, uh, oversight board gave a, had, had some discussions that we had referred to them. So I'll bring that up with regards to, um, paving that road up to a certain amount, less than a quarter of a mile, um, because they, they, uh, the oversight board recommended doing that. Just wanted y'all to know that. Okay. Okay. Nope? I have none? Soap. We are adjourned.