Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/13/2001 S (Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies)June 13,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 13,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:07 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D. Pamela S. Mac'Kie James Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, June 13, 2001 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 PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, 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 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. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 June 13, 2001 Request that the Board of County Commissioners consider and endorse the Rural Fringe Area Assessment Conceptual Strategies and direct staff to prepare draft Growth Management Plan Amendments for Resolution of Remedial Actions directed in the Administration Commission Final Order AC-99-02 for the Rural Fringe Assessment Area. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 June 13,2001 June 13, 2001 Item #2 REQUEST THAT THE BCC CONSIDER AND ENDORSE THE RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR RESOLUTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS DIRECTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION FINAL ORDER AC-99-02 FOR THE RURAL FRINGE ASSESSMENT AREA- STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS CONTAINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITH CHANGES - APPROVED COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good morning, everybody. We'll call to order this meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for the rural fringe. We'd ask you to stand with us to give our pledge to the flag, and then we'll get started. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Our chairman is on his way from an early morning appointment, so we're going to just go ahead and get started. And, Board Members, I'll tell you-- it's more directed to me than anybody else, probably -- but staff has asked that we let them present -- they have about an hour, a little more than an hour, of a presentation. And they'd like for us to take notes and ask our questions at the end so that we can get the whole picture, because this is complicated and probably the most important, most challenging thing we have in front of us to do over the next year. So, Mr. Litsinger, you'll get us started? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. As you know, this is a special meeting to request the board of commissioners Page 2 June 13,2001 to consider and endorse the rural fringe area assessment conceptual strategies and direct staff to prepare draft Growth Management Plan amendments for resolution of remedial actions directed in the administration commission final order AC-99-02 for the rural area-- rural fringe assessment area. The first thing I'd like to do is I'd like to introduce some of the folks who have been involved in this process. As I will outline to you shortly, we've had a long and arduous process over the last two years, and we feel we are at a crossroads or a stepping-off point into what we are calling Phase 4 of the process, which is the actual drafting of goals, objectives, and policies and text supported by data and analysis for our final debate and discussion prior to submission to the Department of Community Affairs. I think I would be remiss if I did not recognize Mr. Tom Conrecode, who is the chairman of your Rural Fringe Committee. And any of the other members who may be here, if they would raise their hands or stand, because as of today they have held 36 meetings, which does not count the many hours that have been put in in this process in an effort to find resolution and alternatives that meet all the needs of the very difficult task that we have in front of us. Also, I'd like to introduce, for those of you who do not know him, Mr. Charles Gautier from the Department of Community Affairs as the chief bureau of local planning, is here in a technical advisory capacity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're lucky to have him because he used to be on our staff, so he really knows -- he's not one of those bureaucrats from Tallie who doesn't know what he's talking about down here in Collier. He really does know the area. And that's my last interruption, I promise. MR. LITSINGER: That's fine. Also we have here today-- you'll be hearing from Bob Mulhere, a consultant to staff and the Page 3 June 13,2001 committee and the board, well known to this group here gathered today, of RWA, Incorporated. We also have Miss Nancy Linnan, Esquire, from Carlton Fields, our attorney in this matter; and Jack Sullivan, senior government consultant, also with Carlton Fields in Tallahassee. You will also be hearing from Bill Lorenz, your natural resources director. Let me briefly outline to you why we are here, and the reason we're here is, is that in June '99, as I mentioned, the governor and cabinet issued a final order and directive to the county to undertake an assessment of the rural areas to determine areas where we could address the protection of wetlands, wildlife, habitat, manage stormwater, protect the prime agricultural lands from premature conversion, assess the growth potential of the area, and assess the potential conversion of these rural lands to other uses. At the same time, we need to discourage urban sprawl, direct incompatible land uses away from critical habitat, encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, including but not limited to, public/private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, cjustering, open-space provisions, and mixed-use development. As you all know, the board decided to approach this in two phases appointing two committees, both of the Rural Lands Assessment Committee, which is addressing the rural lands of approximately 200,000 acres, which you will hear from at a later time. Today we're concentrating on the rural fringe, approximately 93,600 acres, which I can identify on the map which is on the visualizer, which is areas A-1 and 2, B-1 through 3, C-1 and 2, and D- 1 and 2. We will be asking you today to do a number of things at the end of this presentation; specifically we will not be asking you to do the following things, and we will not be asking you to give us direction Page 4 June 13,2001 that will result in any of the following actions: We will not be proposing or are we proposing any downzoning; we're not proposing the forced county acquisition of any private lands; we're not proposing any measures which might result in the flooding of anyone's private property; we're not proposing and will not propose prohibition against home building on any parcel of at least one-half acre; we will not propose the discontinuance of land-use activities in place as of June 22nd, 1999. As you will notice on your executive summary, page 2, we have a laundry list of considerations that you will be hearing of in some detail here very shortly, 18 to be specific, which we feel are the key tools and areas of consideration that we're going to ask for your direction today. At the end of our presentation, we will ask for you to give us direction on three specific areas that I've noted on your agenda executive summary, page 3. We will be requesting -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stan, I'm sorry. I had to lie. Is executive summary this bound document? MR. LITSINGER: We did provide executive summaries. I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not at the dais. MR. LITSINGER: It's not at the dais? At any rate, we will be asking that the BCC direct staff to draft goals, policies, and objectives, GOPs, and text, and assemble supporting data and analysis for further joint review by the committee and staff based on staff recommendations contained in the staff findings of the conceptual strategies document, which is being presented to you today. Further, that the committee and staff be directed to continue to work toward consensus on areas where there is a significant divergence and approach issues in the staff findings versus the committee's position on a number of the issues you will hear today. Second, as a result of the analysis that we need to support some of the creative land use techniques that we've proposed to implement Page 5 June 13, 2001 this plan, we will ask that you, the board, approve and direct staff to issue an RFP for an economic consultant to perform a market impact viability study of the preservation incentives needed and feasibility of these incentives to realize the preservation goals as a result of the implementation of an incentive program. You'll have more detail on that later, I promise you. Also, finally, we will be asking that you direct the transportation administrator to conduct an analysis of the transportation impacts that would result from the adoption of the conceptual strategies in the form of Growth Management Plan amendments and, consequently, Land Development Code in the rural fringe area. With that, if there are no questions, I would like to turn this over to Miss Nancy Linnan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. You stated that none of these will apply to people who own a half an acre of land? MR. LITS1NGER: It's -- as it stands now, you construct a home if you own a half acre of land in an area where you can clear 22,000 square feet, even if it's in a -- what we call a natural resource protection area. The point we're trying to make is we're not trying to abridge any rights that currently exist. (Chairman Carter entered the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if somebody owns 5 acres, they can work with a half an acre of their land; is that what it is? MR. LITSINGER: Depending on the location of the particular property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, again, they asked us to -- it'll make more sense, I think, if we go through the whole presentation, rather than try to pick out little -- I understand the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. He asked us if there was any questions. That's why I asked. Page 6 June 13,2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't give us that opening if you don't want us to -- MR. LITSINGER: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. MS. LINNAN: Commissioner, I'll be responding to that. Good morning. I'm Nancy Linnan, your outside counsel. Before I go forward, I was asked to, I think, refer to Mr. Oliff to talk about speaker slips. MR. OLLIFF: Just a little housekeeping before we get started with the meat of the workshop. If anybody's interested in speaking, we do offer an opportunity, at the conclusion of the presentation and the board's discussion, for public comment. There are some speaker slips, that look like these forms, that are out in the hallway. If anyone's interested in speaking, if you'd just fill one of those out and get it to me, I'll call those, in the order that I receive them, at the end of the workshop. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If someone would bring those forms in, you can fill it out, turn it in. And when the time comes to speak, if you want to waive, you can do that too, but this may be the time you want to get that form up front. And if someone would get them off-- out of the hallway and make sure they get to the audience, I would appreciate it very much. MS. LINNAN: Again, I'm Nancy Linnan. I'm your outside counsel. I know you folks know and have probably heard ad nauseum why we're here, but I suspect a lot of folks in the audience received a notice saying this was going to come up, so I thought I'd go into a little bit of history for them. State law requires that any time you adopt a comprehensive plan amendment, it must be found in compliance with certain state laws and rules. In 1999 an administrative law judge ruled that the Collier Page 7 June 13,2001 County Comprehensive Plan did not adequately protect natural resources such as wetlands, listed species, and habitat as required by state law. And we all get used to throwing phrases around. Let me explain what a listed species is because a lot of folks in the audience are going, "What are you talking about?" It's an endangered critter, a threatened critter, or a species of special concern like a gopher tortoise. I mean, that's all a listed species is. The final decision could not be made by an administrative law judge; it had to go to the governor and cabinet. And when the governor and cabinet sit on land use items, they sit as a board called the Administration Commission. They issued a final order. So when Stan talked about we're here today because of the final order, we're here today because this was the ruling of the governor and cabinet on your Comprehensive Plan amendments. Unlike other cases where counties' comp plan amendments have been found out of compliance, the governor and cabinet in this case did not impose its own amendments. That happens pretty routinely on both cities and counties. Instead, Collier County asked for and got, in an unusual case, a unique ability and opportunity to engage in a very public assessment process for three years. And at the end of those three years, Collier County has got to come up with Comprehensive Plan amendments that fix the shortcomings in its Comprehensive Plan in the natural resource area. And the magic date for the end of the three years is June 22nd, 2002, just a little bit over a year from now. We are two-thirds of the way through the initial process. I'll explain that to you in a minute. And what is that process? Because even in talking to some of you folks and some of the people who think they understand this, they think, "Well, all we have to do is go adopt them, and that's the end of it." And that is not the case, which is why you have to go hire a Page 8 June 13,2001 lawyer to kind of lead you through it. You're having a workshop now. Hopefully at the end of this workshop, you're going to direct the staff to start drafting something, just because the drafting of it takes an awfully long time, several months. You can't put them together in a week or a couple weeks. Then, my understanding is, we're going to hold another workshop in the fringe area. Commissioner Coletta asked that that be done. So this fall we'll take that draft, go back to the fringe area so it's -- makes it easier for people to attend the meeting, hold another workshop with this commission. I suspect there will be changes, a lot of tweaking of the language. Then you go through your standard process, which would take it to the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and then back to this board in this room to transmit those amendments to the Department of Community Affairs. Now, all that means is you're kind of throwing them up, saying, "Guys, we're thinking of adopting this. What do you think? Do you have any concerns before we do that?" They will then comment. And then you will come back probably in late February, March, because of that extra workshop, and you will then adopt what you consider to be the final correct amendments. That is not the end of it at that point, unfortunately. You then send those amendments back to the Department of Community Affairs. They get 45 days to make a final determination in their minds as to whether you have now met the statutes and the rules -- not the final order because you're judged by the statutes and the rules -- and if they find you in compliance or not in compliance, they place a big ad in the newspaper. I'm sure you-all are used to seeing those big ads. And then at that point, if a citizen disagrees with what the department's determination was -- and they often do, and they often Page 9 June 13, 2001 win -- the citizen can challenge those, and you are back in front of an administrative law judge all over again. So you want to get it right. You're going to probably have to go through that process, but you don't want to have to then do it a third time. The final order, and what you're about, the final order told you to address three things -- well, actually, it said that eastern lands could be handled separately from the fringe area, so we're going to -- we're doing that now, split the committees. And the party said we need three years. And it's an unusual period of time, an extraordinarily long period of time to be given in something like this, because in the eastern lands, everybody said, "We don't have the data. It doesn't exist out there." But it did exist in the fringe area, and all agreed that basically the requirement for coming up with new data was not going to fall on the county -- it takes a lot of money to do that -- it was going to fall on the private property owners. And in the eastern lands area, they banded together and got a company to help them assemble that data. That was not the case in the fringe, and everybody thought we had enough to move forward on. The final order said you've got to address three things when you're making your decisions. The first, probably one of the more important ones, direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat. Why? To protect water quality, quantity, the natural regime, protect the listed plant and animal species and their habitat. Number two, protect prime agricultural land. As the staff will tell you, in the fringe area that's not a biggie, because there's not a lot of it. Out in the eastern lands when you deal with that issue, it will become a biggie. And, number three, you've got to assess the growth potential of the area by assisting -- by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands, and this is appropriate where appropriate. So you can't just Page 10 June 13,2001 assess the potential. You've got to look at where it's appropriate, and you've got to avoid pitfalls like urban sprawl, and you've got to avoid pitfalls like an adverse impact on critical habitat for critters. What's your role in all this? I mean, very candidly, it's to try and balance between natural resource protection and the private property rights. I mean, you've got the hardest job of all. It's easy to come up with the data and stuff like that. It's hard to actually decide. But what I'm here to tell you today is you don't have the ability to balance without any limits. What you adopt is subject to another Department of Community Affairs compliance review. They're going to ask whether you have the data and analysis for whatever you do. And even if they say okay, somebody else could, and routinely does, challenge something like that, and they win sometimes. So my job as outside counsel is not to stop those challenges -- I'd be rich or maybe out of a job, who knows, if I could figure out a way to do that -- but mainly to assist you in assuming you're going to get challenged; how do you win. I mean, that's the important thing at this point. And how do you win? If the issue is natural resource protection, you have less discretion in terms of policy, and basically you win if what you do is based on the best available data and analysis. That's a term that's going to be used a lot today. And what is it? If you're talking about natural resources, basically you're talking about scientific biological evidence. And let me give you an example. I'm a lawyer. I like to compromise. I don't like to fight. I like to cut the baby in two a lot. Let's suppose somebody says, "Well, you need to preserve 80 percent of the habitat" and another side says, "No, no. You only need to preserve 40 percent of the habitat." You go, "Why can't we preserve 60? It's better than 40. It gets us halfway there. It sounds pretty good, after all a lot of the county is already in conservation lands. Why can't we do 60?" Page 11 June 13, 2001 The reason you can't do 60 is if somebody can show the best available data and analysis says you need 80 to protect a resource; otherwise it doesn't matter, then you've got to do 80. In other words, you have to ask anybody -- whether it's me or your staff or the audience, if they come up and start throwing numbers around -- what is the basis of that? Okay. So just keep remembering you're -- you do have discretion. You do have the ability to balance. That's your job. But there are certain limitations on that. And, Commissioner, now I'll try and get to some of the questions that I know you've got in your mind, and there are a lot of people here who got notices. We're -- you're going to hear today about some land use totals which the committee and the staff have brought forward. Bob Mulhere, I think, is going to walk through and describe those more in detail. And where the committee and the staff have not yet reached agreement, or maybe there is some disagreement, we're going to ask Tom Conrecode to get up and give the committee's perspective on that. It's important you understand that. My role, very briefly, is to give you a quick overview, without getting into any of the details -- which is kind of hard -- about what the recommendations do and not do. And the most critical thing -- and Stan kind of touched on it very briefly. I'm going to go into a little bit more detail, and maybe it'll relax some of the folks in the audience who have property in these areas, as what they don't do. First of all, nothing we do today or in this process is going to involve areas outside the four that Stan described on the map as being the rural fringe: Area A, Area B, Area C that includes that green blob which is the study area, and Area D. We're not talking about affecting platted lands in north Golden Gate Estates. We are not talking affecting Golden Gate City. We are not talking about affecting the OrangeTree settlement area, if anybody lives out there. Page 12 June 13,2001 And at this point we are not talking about the eastern lands. That's going to come in a series of separate workshops beginning this fall. Different study group, different area. We're only talking about these four areas today. We are not -- I emphasize the not -- recommending downzoning. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Miss Linnan, I think that's an important point, and when we get to public comment, I will limit it today to the rural fringe area because that is the subject in front of us. Thank you. MS. LINNAN: We are not affecting a residential lot of record as of June 22nd, 1999, a parcel or lot of record. The reason that date was picked is that's when the governor and cabinet issued its final order. If you had a lot or parcel as of that date, you still got a lot or parcel as of that date, and you can still put a house on it. So we're not affecting that. We are not affecting any development that's approved and under construction. We are not affecting any approved DRI. It doesn't have to be under construction. In case you wonder why the distinction? Why do the DRIs - the big projects get the break? It's because in 1985 when the legislature was redoing the comprehensive plan statutes, they recognized that if you're a DR/, you've gone through a whole bunch of public process already and a whole bunch of review, and you have vested rights that your development order says you've got without having to start construction at that point. So a DRI does not have to be permitted, does not have to be under construction to have vested rights. And any change you make in the Comprehensive Plan is not going to go back and affect that DR/. Keep that in mind, because I do know I've heard some comments about some DRIs. We are not recommending any takings. We are not recommending any forced sales. And lastly, as Stan said -- and I thought it was kind of wild, but I heard it last night -- we're not Page 13 June 13,2001 recommending flooding of anybody's property. So what are we doing? And this kind of deals with the other side of your question. Why should anybody care if you're not taking anything away from anybody? First of all, we are recommending the reallocation of density to direct incompatible development away from the wetlands, listed species, and their habitat. If you had a lot or a parcel, you still have a lot or parcel. And even in the most sensitive area, which is the green blob up there -- this is what we refer to as the study area -- you can still build a 5,000-square-foot house with driveway and clear for a fire break. Bigger house than I got, a lot bigger house than I've got. Not exactly a tent, but you find in some cases somebody will say, "Well, you can camp on your land or something like that." It's not a taking. You can still build the house that you thought you could build. Now, where is it going to affect somebody? The reality is, is the only place I can think of is if you own a hundred acres in the green area, in the study area, which is the most environmentally sensitive area, as you will hear testimony on later. You have a parcel now. It is not subdivided. Under the recommendations you have in front of you, you would only be allowed to build one house on that parcel. So in that case -- so it's only in that area. Not in Area A, not in Area B, not in Area D. It's just in a portion of the Area C, the green study area. In those cases the parcel you got is the parcel you keep, if I were to put it as simply as I can. And in those cases because of that, while legally I would argue we don't have to go out of our way without being absolutely covered, we don't feel right about that, and the committee didn't feel right about that, had some serious concerns about that. So even under the staff recommendation, we are recommending that we construct a transfer process that works, and we got to prove it works in order to make this whole thing go, to Page 14 June 13,2001 transfer those potential lots that somebody can't plat out of there into another area which is more appropriate for development. And, finally, what staff and the committee are recommending is setting some standards for the native vegetation you can disturb on any particular area, and it's going to depend on the sensitivity of the area. So you're going to have different standards in Area A than you have in Area C, than you have in Area B, or D. And, finally, the staff is recommending that there also be some requirement of preserve open space for lots of reasons. I will let them describe that when they get into it, and I will be available for questions at the end. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. What I'd like to be able to do is, is maybe try to answer three questions in terms of my presentation; certainly the first two questions more so than the third, and Bob's going to answer that. The first question is, where? Where should we -- where should we avoid development? Where are the areas in the rural fringe that we should not have development because of environmental sensitivity? The second question -- and where in the rural fringe should we direct intensive development because it has less environmental sensitivity? So the information I'm going to present to you today is going to try to answer that question of, where in the fringe we have the most sensitivity, and where can we redirect development to? Another question is more quantitative, and that's how much? How much -- how much of the natural resources, how much of the vegetation, how much of the habitat and wetlands should we be trying to preserve? Remember, this is an area that has endangered species. Any diminution of habitat for endangered species threatens the viability of that species. But there is -- so there's some policy recommendations and boundaries that we wanted to provide the Page 15 June 13,2001 board to be able to look at in terms of defining the final numbers. And then what techniques will we use to help us with those questions of where and how much? And to a large degree, Bob Mulhere, then, will talk about -- about those techniques. But if those -- if these three questions, we kind of keep these in mind, this is -- this will be the foundation for a lot of the details of the plan. Let me just go to -- if I can have the -- go to my -- the PowerPoint computer presentation, please. The assessment area that -- that we talked about before is -- is in the rural fringe, and it's this area right in here. And, as Nancy indicated, we're not talking about platted estates. We're not developing standards for the platted estates, which is all of this area here. We are talking about Area A-l, the A area that's in the Corkscrew area along Immokalee Road, which is just south of the CREW lands, which is this natural resource protection area. And we're talking about the North Belle Meade area below the platted estates and then the South Belle Meade area, the CARL NRPA, and then the Area D that we're talking about here. This gives you some sense of the -- the scale and effort within this project. Some more details here in terms of-- of the areas that we're looking at. Again, here is a little bit better scale map. Area A is up in here; B; North Belle Meade, which is C; and then the important part is the study area, which is right about in here -- that was that green area on your future land use map -- and then Area D, which is down around 41. I think the one thing that you need to know is the natural resource protection areas -- and if I slip into acronyms, help me -- but for the audience that's NRPA, so I'll typically refer to those as NRPAs. They represent more than half of-- of the land area in the rural fringe, and that's the CREW NRPA and the Belle Meade NRPA. These areas the board has already identified as NRPAs as a result of Page 16 June 13, 2001 the final order requirement. The final order requirement, again, addresses -- addresses three - - pretty much three things. One thing is -- is prime agricultural areas right here. Now, in the final -- in the rural fringe, we do not have a lot of prime agricultural areas. That's mostly in the eastern lands. In your report Bob has provided some information for you to -- for us to make that finding. That being said, the most important part of what we have to do in the rural fringe is this statement here, "Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat." And we can also do that with a variety of different creative planning techniques. We have to -- we have to make sure that when we allow it, that we discourage urban sprawl. Again, natural resource protection is the primary goal for the final order, but we can -- there are creative land use planning techniques. And I'll wait for Bob to cover those in -- in more detail for you. The committee -- the advisory committee that we worked with spent a lot of time in developing what we call the evaluation, and this is a set of factors that we are using to assess the data within the rural fringe, pull information together. We're using, then, this information to evaluate all of our alternative land use strategies. Some information has turned out to be more important than other information, but this was an effort by the fringe. And what I'm going to try to focus our attention on is with my -- my presentation right here is looking at wetlands and listed species and a little bit of information on water resources. And we do have some information showing existing property ownership, so we can present that to the board. The -- as Nan -- I think as Stan has indicated, we will be looking for a consultant to help us understand a little bit better the economic impacts of some of the alternative strategies that we have for you, to present today, but at the moment Page 17 June 13,2001 they're still alternatives. So we want to be able to develop the economic impacts that factor in this matrix later on. And obviously, then, we have to consider urban sprawl, the effect on the community infrastructure. And the property values will also be part of that. Nancy's indicated that by 9J5, the criteria that we have to do comprehensive plans, we have to use the best available data. It doesn't require the county to go out and generate new data. The best available data -- and, quite frankly, the only data that we had back in the mid-'90s -- was the database that was developed by the South Florida Water Management District that they flew in interpreted aerial photographs in 1994-'95. Remember, this actually happened after our initial Comprehensive Plan. This was before we even had developed the five-year update for the EAR. And when we started this process in June of 1999, that was only four years old. But that's the database that we have. That's the information that South Florida Water Management District has provided in a -- in a computerized format so we can do this type of analysis. What I've reported up in this slide here is that the accuracy is 90 percent accuracy for these general classifications that staff has pretty much developed the information for you. Obviously, we'd love a hundred percent accuracy, but it's 90 percent accuracy. That's the reported accuracy. Another way of thinking about it is that when we start throwing numbers around, we can potentially add a 10 percent range, plus or minus. And I don't want to get into the position where when we start looking at some numbers later on and battling, if you will, numbers, that we start taking defensive positions with a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 percent knowing that we have a starting point of a 10 percent range in our accuracy. So I think that's important from a policy standpoint in making decisions. And, therefore, we talk about policy envelopes, ranges by Page 18 June 13, 2001 which I think it's appropriate to make decisions on, based upon a whole host of factors which, I guess, fortunately for me, maybe unfortunately for you, you're the elected officials to make those decisions with all of that kind of information. But I want to make sure that you understand the integrity of the data. Secondly -- the second item that we're looking at is the -- what's typically referred to as the ""Gaps"" report. This was originally developed by the Florida Freshwater Fish Commission. They initially -- they started the report, they used data that was flown or aerials. Satellite imagery, I should say. That was done in the 1985- '86 time frame, and that's the information that came out through the ""Gaps"" report. Obviously, that information is much older than this '94-'95 South Florida Water Management District data. We used that as a starting point. Staff also modified that database so that when we're looking at strategic habitat conservation areas -- you'll see that in some of the information later on-- we actually took the '94-'95 database. And anyplace we had disturbed areas, we took that out of the "Gaps" report information, and that actually -- we actually pulled about 17 percent of the area that would have been proposed in the "Gaps" report as strategic habitat conservation area. So we've made a modification as best we could to update it with the best available information. But, again, recognize that -- that we're still looking at an underlying accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent in our numbers. Just to give you an idea of-- starting out now in the -- in the fringe area with some of the specific data and, again, for the -- for the public, Area A up in here which is very much -- very much agricultural. It's been cleared for agricultural purposes. Area B down in here, again, just for everybody's -- Area C, and Area D. The biggest point about this -- this slide is with this -- with looking at this information is that 60 percent of the fringe area is in wetlands. So Page 19 June 13, 2001 more than half is in wetlands. Now, that is -- now, when I say "wetlands," I'm talking about wetland land cover. Let me throw a term out, "jurisdictional wetland." Jurisdictional wetland is the regulatory wetland that you define on site when you have your agent -- the federal and state agencies come out and actually do a site visit, real time, real live data, right then and there. Our wetland land cover is approximating what we consider the wetlands in the fringe. These are not jurisdictional wetlands. We can't go out on every property site and define jurisdictional wetlands. This information is used for developing a global perspective of the area, where the trends are, where the large areas of wetland land cover are, and taken together with other information helps us to make our -- our recommendations. And you can also see that -- that roughly 20 percent of the whole fringe is -- is in agricultural. Although I don't have another slide for this, but much of that is in pasture or range. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Most of that is in-- I'm SO1Ty. What did you say? MR. LORENZ: Pasture or range. Let's get looking at the wetland land cover data a little more specifically. Again, the final order -- what did the final order say? Direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Wetlands -- the wetland is in green, and you can see with this map that the first place that we have the most wetlands, certainly visually, is within our NRPAs. This is the CREW NRPA and this is the Belle Meade NRPA, mostly green. In fact, 75 to 76 percent of the wetland land cover in the fringe is in our natural resource protection areas. I think this is a key point when we start asking that question where. Where do we need to direct development away from? Certainly the natural resource protection areas comes out, from Page 20 June 13,2001 looking at the wetland factor, as the areas we definitely want to move intensive land uses away from. Then you -- then the next area where you have the large percentage of wetlands would be in Area C or specifically the study area, which roughly works out to be about 9 percent of the fringe wetlands are within that area. There's two -- another couple other points I want to make on this slide here, is that if we look at the composition of the NRPA, the NRPAs are 87 percent wetlands. They're almost -- 9 out of every 10 acres within the NRPA category is a -- is wetland land cover. The study area that we talked about before is pretty close. And, again, if you start applying a plus or minus 10 percent boundary on those numbers -- I mean, when we start throwing around 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent -- so we're getting pretty much up there. In terms of where the wetlands land cover is within the -- the fringe area, that maps out mostly in terms of the study area and the NRPAs. And, again, just to -- to maybe -- maybe flog it a little bit more, this whole area here when you start looking at wetlands, it's the NRPAs. So I think what we've done so far in identifying the NRPAs is going very well to a comprehensive planning process that helps us to direct intensive land uses away from our wetland -- our most important wetland systems. And also, remember, from a qualitative standpoint, the NRPAs are the areas that have very, very large systems. They're connected. They're not fragmented. So from a functionality standpoint, they're much more important when we're looking at the wetland land cover within the NRPAs and we're looking at wetlands within some other areas that may be isolated, fragmented, etc. So when we come down to a point where we start dealing with wetlands in those other areas, I think you need to have some sense of-- some sense of distinction there between the wetlands in those areas versus the wetlands within the NRPAs. Page 21 June 13,2001 Another -- another factor that we looked at from the evaluation matrix is what we're calling priority wetlands for listed species. These are the -- these are the wetlands that-- that have a-- more listed species concerns associated with them. Again, this is from the"Gaps" report, but again, it's some information that I think together shows -- look at the NRPAs. Almost 80 percent of the -- of the priority wetlands for listed species are in the NRPAs. And, again, the rest of the numbers are -- you know, don't even approach 10 percent. So, again, when -- we're looking at patterns here. We're looking at patterns and trends because that's definitely what you can use this information for. We're saying that the NRPAs are an area that we want to direct land uses away from. Kind of putting that information together for a wetland evaluation factor and taking a look at a couple of different factors that's in the evaluation matrix, again, this -- the data that we gathered for the evaluation matrix is contained in this binder here, and it's a ton of information, tabulated maps and graphs, to try to boil it down into significant findings, what I'm trying to do here. But we did tabulate all this information that we're looking at in the evaluation matrix. Major points here, the NRPA and the study area, again, for wetland considerations are very high. We started looking at Area A and Area D. You know, they're on the low end of the scale. So from a wetland perspective, we're not worried about so much as directing development away from those areas, but then those areas then become areas that we can direct development to, especially development out of the NRPAs and the study area. Area B and C for the wetlands factor evaluation is somewhat in the middle. So now we'll go to a little bit more listed species habitat concerns, and this is the strategic habitat conservation areas identified in the"Gaps" as modified by staff the best we could modify it. As I Page 22 June 13,2001 said earlier, we took about 17 percent of the area off of the"Gaps" report because we could identify those areas clearly as not having any habitat value. So this is -- this is our best available data that we're presenting to you, and these are the areas that have the highest -- the highest value for listed species concern. Remember the final order, direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species, and their habitats. So I think, again, what we are saying here is almost two-thirds of the -- these areas are within the NRPAs. So the NRPAs have done a fairly good job of capturing the areas for -- for identifying where the listed species concerns are. Area C and Area -- and the study area come in at the next highest values. And I'll show a couple other slides to show you maybe the reason why for that. And, again, just let me get back -- because now we're talking about -- we're starting to build the case to see that in this area here, Area C, we're starting to raise to the level of considering that protection mechanisms that -- where they may not be equal to NRPAs, begin to rise to that level. Certainly you can say that in the spectrum, Area C does not have the same characteristics as Area A and D. A little bit more the same, just looking at it. Again, these are biodiversity hot spots where the focal species are. NRPAs have done a good job. Area C and the study area become important areas to have to deal with from-- directing intensive uses away from. Big concern, obviously, in Collier County is the Florida panther. Let me go to the -- that priority habitat first. Priority habitat, Priority 1 and Priority 2 is information is -- that came out of the panther preservation plan back in the early '90s to try to identify where the -- where the important habitats are for panthers. What we do see up in Area A is that we start to run into some Priority 2 habitat in the northern portion that butts up against the CREW NRPA. And Page 23 June 13,2001 then we have some Priority 1 habitat in Area D that's -- that is a little bit south of the Belle Meade NRPA. So even though we were talking about before directing land uses away from -- or into Areas A and B, we need to be a little bit sensitive to these particular sections of Areas A and D. Notice, however, that the North Belle Meade area, Area C and the study area, were not identified in the early '90s as priority panther habitat. In the mid- to late-'90s -- or I should say mid-'90s -- we started to see more panther telemetry points in this particular area of- - the study area's roughly in here, in Area C. And in the report that we have for you -- I don't have it right in front of me -- but we did -- provided some detail on that because there -- there is one or two cats at some points that are in there, then they weren't in there. So it's an area that, from a staff perspective, it doesn't raise to the level as the CREW NRPA and the Belle Meade NRPA, but it provides some habitat, marginal habitat, value to an endangered species. But, again, if we focus on the other components, the other parameters of looking at Area C in terms of its habitat value, its wetland value, etc., etc., even though it may not justify the high level of protection because of one or two panther sightings in there, we still have -- it still provides valuable habitat for gray species. And so from that perspective it's -- it sounds like maybe I'm hedging. It is. It's on the fence. Back in 1999, the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, split on a 4-4 vote for the North Belle Meade for whether it should be a NRPA or not. So it's -- you know, it's kind of in that middle ground, but it's certainly approaching the level of protection for -- that you see in a NRPA. Another important species, and I have to define this, is red cockaded woodpecker habitat, RCW. I think the point -- the major point of RCW habitat in the fringe is we're protecting it very well in the Belle Meade NRPA down here. And this is estimated by pine and Page 24 June 13,2001 mixed pine habitats that are greater than 200-acre parcels, so we're using some information here that we're trying to get a feel for this species because this species is going to be a species of concern that we need to address when we take the information to DCA through the whole process. The big point here is that in Area C and the study area we need to consider concerns of red cockaded woodpeckers. It's dispersed pretty much throughout Area C. And you'll see in your report that we have addressed -- we have addressed some of that -- those issues. Perhaps we haven't gone into as much detail as we need to go into, but that's for the summertime months. Same information, study area, NRPAs when we look at some of our listed species characteristics, they're way up here at the end of the scale, the rest of Area C and Area B, in the middle. Area D and Area A, way down on the end. Remember, the first question we asked, where? Where should we direct land uses away from and to? Just a little bit more information on the North Belle Meade study area to kind of put together-- both species and wetland information together. Again, study area, NRPAs way up here, C and B in the middle, Areas A and D down on the ends. So data analysis tells us that when we develop a comprehensive planning process to protect wetlands and listed species, we want a host of mechanisms that take things away from the NRPAs, away from the study area, away from Area C, and try -- and allow that -- allow the more intensification of development to occur in Areas A and D, as long as they don't get into the priority panther habitats. We do have some information on groundwater resources, and to some degree this is presented here a little bit as a -- as the other side of the argument a little bit in terms of our concerns of-- of where we'd want to move some development to. Page 25 June 13,2001 Let me back up a little bit. This is a -- this is a good slide to show here on the diversity hot spots. One thing that we've noticed -- and this is getting into some detail. But we started looking at the data a little bit more closely. In the northern portion of Area C above the study area, we start to see, if you will, more clearing, less environmental sensitivity. It's up against -- right up against north Golden Gate Estates. So we know as the estates build out, either -- you're going to have a -- a very intense development at that particular point, relatively speaking. And this would be an area that we may want to try to direct development to from Area C, as well. So there's some -- there's a little bit of a -- little bit of a-- more detailed in layers here for Area C, but that would be -- that's the general sense that staff has in terms of kind of a vision for that area. But I have to point out the other side of the coin. This is the groundwater resources, the highest groundwater recharge area, which is in dark green. It's -- when you start looking at C, you start seeing it up in that comer. This is the well field protection zones that we've modeled for the county's well field. This is the county's well field here. It needs to have some updating because I think there's more alignments of wells down in this area. So you can see this area here, it starts the -- the well field protection zone, Zone 4, which is the least restrictive zone but still within the risk management zones for well fields, is in a portion of part of Area C too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the point that while that appears to be an area to which we would want to direct development, since the well field is there, it might not be appropriate to direct development there? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think -- I think the open question is we have to consider those concerns, and there can be mitigative standards or standards that we could pose that would provide for the Page 26 June 13,2001 protection and, as long as we understand that, provide additional retention or less impervious area in some of those zones. Then I think we can craft a -- a vision for that, but I just have to -- I have to give you both sides of the story. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a selective process. You can't just say blanket in this area. You have to take that area, pull it apart, factor in everything else you're telling us here, and say within that, there are certain possibilities that might meet the criteria for future development. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. And it may be that we may want to provide a little bit more detail, more of a planning detail, in that Area C. I know just speaking with Nancy Payton in the past, for instance, she's talking about developing sector plans for the rural fringe. And whereas I wasn't so enthusiastic about doing that in other areas, I think in Area C, that starts to become an area that we need to do a little bit more planning, then we can develop some more creative land use techniques. It is sensitive, but there are some other opportunities to be gained, especially from mixed-use developments that butt up against north Golden Gate Estates, for potential services. So it has that -- it has that opportunity, and I think that would be somewhat of a little bit of a vision that we'd want to try to flesh out a little bit more. We did talk about, in the evaluation matrix, property ownership and distribution. I'm not sure how this -- this doesn't come out too well. Perhaps the Channel 54 folks could focus in on the bulletin board. We have a better map on the bulletin board. The point of the map, though, is -- is when you see it very dark in some of these areas, the darker it is, the more parcels have been subdivided. The point we want to make here is that -- is that there is an awful lot of small parcels within these -- these major areas. And this is area -- this is -- for instance, this is the study area in Area C. Page 27 June 13,2001 Now, on the one hand, if that area were to develop out under that scenario, we're going to fragment that whole area. So it's somewhat of a -- at the same time, we don't want to direct development into the area because of the environmental sensitivity. Some of the schemes -- and Bob will talk about -- a little bit about transfer development rights, the ability to shift density from one area to the other. People can then-- perhaps if we can start developing some incentive programs to reimburse people for their -- their current rights for density, we develop those programs, then what staff would like to be able to say is, gee, if we can make the property whole -- the property owner whole in the marketplace, get value for his property now, move it to some other place in the fringe that's less environmentally sensitive, for me that's a winning strategy because the alternative is these properties would develop out, and that's not going to help us from an environmental perspective. To the degree that people want to still remain there, they're free to. So this is -- I think this is an understanding that we need to have, and certainly something that when we take this information to DCA, they have to understand that -- that the -- that the development pattern that could exist in these areas, already vested, is -- is problematic. Concluding, just the significant findings. We've talked NRPAs and wetland land cover, enlisted species habitat. I mean, that's where -- that's where it is. The comprehensive planning process, certainly at that level we're directing -- you know, we're trying to cover more than 75 percent of the NRPAs -- I mean the wetland considerations and the listed species considerations in our already-defined natural resource protection areas. The study area has similar characteristics, an area that I think we need to have higher protection mechanisms than the other areas in the fringe, such as Areas A and D and possibly B. Page 28 June 13,2001 So the recommendations, then, we want to direct the land uses away from the NRPAs and the study area, and they can go to areas -- certainly they can go to Areas A and D. B is somewhat in the middle. There's some problems with B in terms of fragmentation and all. So although it's not as much as Areas A and D, but it's -- it's still an area that -- that we would certainly think under certain preservation standards, which we'll talk later -- that certainly we can kind of direct development to Area B as well. Intensive land uses in Area C should be directed to the area abutting north Golden Gate Estates. Again, I think there's some opportunity there to be able to shift the development away from the more -- more environmental sensitive areas and the study area and other areas of C, put it into -- put it into an area that's in the northern portion of it, and look at some more of a mixed-use, cjuster development, new town, satellite village, or however the other planning techniques may work better. Again, that's something that we can work on in some more detail, in some more intense planning exercise for Area C. And, again, in Area A and D, where we want to direct the intensive land uses to, we just have to understand that -- that we still need to have some policies that ensure that we don't go into the -- to the priority habitat areas. And with that is finished my presentation, and Bob can then get into -- the third question is, what are the planning techniques that we think are appropriate to try to address the concerns that we see from a natural resource perspective? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Members of the board, any questions for Mr. Lorenz at this point? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to have a number, but I'll wait until after the last presentation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one question. Did I understand -- Page 29 June 13, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala has a question for you, Mr. Lorenz. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did I understand you to say -- this was way back in the beginning. I was -- I'm sorry. I was just writing my questions down. Did you say that there was only one house in the green area -- allowed in the green area? I didn't know if I heard that correctly. MR. LORENZ: No. I believe that the final order requirements, that within a natural resource protection area, was limited to one unit per parcel at the time that it was subdivided in June of 1999. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that wouldn't matter if the parcel was 5 acres or 50 acres. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's our current-- that's our current requirements that were adopted in 1999. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, RWA, Inc. One of the -- briefly, one of the points -- by the way, I'm pretty sure I can complete my presentation in about 20 minutes, so that should be good news. I did want to recognize that one of the hallmarks of the final order is to be public participation, and as you can see, we have a standing room crowd here. So we are doing everything in our power to try to foster public participation, particularly the 36 or so meetings that the committee has had that have been advertised, the Web site which is available to the public 24-7, and public notice for this meeting. Additionally, as was mentioned before, we do intend to have another public meeting in September or the early fall that we will have out in the rural fringe area, probably in one of the schools, as was requested and suggested by Commissioner Coletta. As Bill mentioned, the final order, the order from the state, really requires us to achieve three primary objectives: One, to direct Page 30 June 13, 2001 incompatible land uses away from wetlands to protect the listed species and their habitat; two, to protect prime -- what the final order calls prime or unique agricultural lands; and three, to identify, where appropriate, lands that may be appropriate for other types of development. In the fringe the data shows that with respect to the agricultural - - the prime agricultural protection measures, there is a -- relatively speaking, a fairly small amount of agricultural. In fact, of all agricultural acreage in the county, somewhere around 3 percent is found within the fringe that's intensive agriculture, citrus and row crops. So you should know that the eastern land study really is primarily focusing on the agricultural protection and unique agricultural protection measures. In the fringe, though, there -- as Bill indicated in showing you his data, there are significant natural resource issues, so the fringe study primarily focused on protecting the natural resources and balancing those protection measures with private property rights. And the key word there is "balance." In fact, there were a couple of scary numbers thrown out, and I heard murmuring and comments from the public, the 90 percent figure. 90 percent is the target, the objective, at a minimum, that we have established to protect the existing habitat and vegetation areas in the fringe. But that number is not quite as scary as it seems because, as Bill mentioned but I think bears repeating, a full 50 percent of that 90 percent is already achieved through areas that are currently designated for conservation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say that again. MR. MULHERE: A full 50 percent of that 90 percent is already achieved through areas designated for conservation. They are -- they are or will be publicly owned. They're under an acquisition program. An additional approximately 25 percent can be achieved through the protection measures that we're proposing for the study area. It Page 31 June 13,2001 doesn't matter really whether we call it a NRPA or use some other type of protection measure. As long as we protect it, we'll be up to 75 percent, approximately, of the 90 percent objective. The difference, plus or minus 15 percent, is what this laundry list of tools that we're going to go over briefly in summary format will -- will protect. And I just want to add that in addition to the protection measures, there are opportunities for -- for restoration, driven by incentives and for mitigation, that may bring that number higher than 90 percent; perhaps a hundred percent, perhaps more, depending on the degree to which those incentives are utilized. And I'll get into that in a little bit more detail in just a few minutes. The first tool that is in your report that we discussed is natural resource protection areas. And as you are aware, the county, in the rural areas -- forgetting the one natural resource protection area that exists in the urban area. In the rural areas, the county, on an interim basis, designated several NRPAs. The two that exist within the fringe area are the Belle Meade, which is right here, and the CREW NRPA, which is right here. Area C that we've referred to, C-2 -- part of C-2 that we've referred to as a study area, as you are aware, was not designated an NRPA, but was highlighted in those interim Growth Management Plan amendments for further study. And as Bill went through, and I won't repeat, the data suggests that there is very valuable listed species habitat and also that there's a significant amount of wetlands in that study area. So at this point in time -- and as the staff has pretty much always recommended -- there will be a need to provide for some significant protection measures in that area. Whether we call it an NRPA or we use an overlay designation or some other protection measures, we will refine those over the summer months and bring those back to you. But we wanted you to know that the data does Page 32 June 13,2001 show that there's significant habitat and wetlands in that area, much higher -- approaching the -- the degree to which you find those in the other designated NRPA areas. Moving on, the committee and staff considered, as a means to protect natural resources, an extension or further designation of what's referred to as the area of critical state concern. As you know, a significant -- in excess of 700,000 acres of Collier County is designated area of critical state concern. Neither the committee nor the staff ultimately supported extending the area of critical state concern from its current boundaries. There is one issue that may require some further review relative to the legislation that may allow counties to utilize a funding mechanism, I believe, through an additional one penny tourist tax for acquisition of sensitive lands or expansion of areas of critical state concern. I really don't -- am not very familiar with the details of that. We are going to look at that, and I want you to be aware of the fact that we will examine that as a possibility for additional funding for acquisition of sensitive lands. The third tool is transfer of development rights or TDRs. I know that the board is familiar with the term. TDRs have not worked well in many locations where they have been employed. They have, in fact, not worked very well in Collier County. They've been on -- available for utilization since the 1970s, although with more and more restrictions as time went on. However, both the staff and the committee are confident that if structured properly, the TDR process can work very well to direct intensive uses away from the most sensitive lands, for example the study area. And I'll put a graphic on the visualizer. And for the benefit of the public, basically what we are talking about is taking the density that a landowner is permitted to by right and allowing the landowner to sell or transfer those dwelling units to another area that we Page 33 June 13, 2001 designate as being of lesser ecological value and more appropriate for development. Quite simply, that's how the process works. The key ingredient here, though, is to show that that is truly a marketable process. And while we probably fancy ourselves as experts on a number of things, we recommend strongly to the board that staff be directed to bring in a qualified economist over the summer months to assist us in developing that process, the specifics of that process, and primarily to investigate and tell us how we can ensure that that process will be marketable, that people will utilize it. Otherwise, it will not work. And there are two implications of that not working: One, we will not direct those more intensive incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive lands; and two, we will not be provided a legitimate mechanism for those property owners to recoup some lost value that they -- that they may experience as a result of the restrictions that we put in place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're not going to let that happen. MR. MULHERE: Correct. The fourth tool is buffers from what 9J5 refers to as natural reservations, what may be more appropriate to call conservation areas and/or NRPAs in the case of Collier County. And both staff and the committee agree that buffers are appropriate. There's some discussion as to the exact dimension that those buffers should be. Frankly, I have absolute confidence that we will be able to resolve those dimensional issues, 300, 350,400 feet, whatever the case may be. I do want you to know that the staff and the committee both agree that a property owner would be allowed to place their required preservation area -- in fact, directed to place their required preservation area so as to achieve those buffers. So it would minimally impact the property owner and also provide protection measures. Page 34 June 13,2001 The next tool is cjustering, and all of the board members are very familiar with this term. For the public, cjustering is -- is a tool that would allow a property owner in an appropriate -- in an area determined to be appropriate for development to take the total number of, say, residential dwelling units that are permitted in that property and be able to put those residential dwelling units in a smaller portion of the property, smaller lot sizes, bringing them together to achieve a compact development and thereby allowing a property owner to reasonably protect the most valuable environmental lands on their property but not causing that person, in doing so, to lose density or to lose value. It also makes sense from an economy of scale perspective, when providing services within one of these residential developments, that they be closer together instead of spread out. The impacts are certainly ecologically more beneficial, but they're also economically more beneficial. Cjustering really is a key strategy here, and cjustering helps to ensure that your transfer of development rights process is something that will work well as well. So it's really a very key strategy, and it's related to many of the other elements and tools that we're going to be discussing here. Density blending is a term that may be somewhat new to you. Density blending would apply to relatively few areas as the policy is constructed at this point in time within the fringe, but there are some areas within the fringe where a property owner, particularly down in D and up in the northern part of the fringe, where property owners own significant amounts of land in both the urban and rural areas, so their property straddles the urban boundary. The key component of density blending, which would allow that property owner to take the total density that they have in that project and locate it either within the rural area or the urban area, but only in a case where that placement or that location of those dwelling units is Page 35 June 13,2001 designed so as to protect the best environmental quality lands on the site. So, again, the key component to -- and by the way, staff and the committee support this concept. It is an opportunity to -- you know, really, let's face it. The urban boundary, I know it's a lightning rod, but it is an imaginary line. And when you look at a particular project, if the best environmental lands are located in the urban area, then what we ought to be doing is protecting the best environmental lands. To do that, and only to do that, we would allow density blending. And, again, the density blending would be tied to cjustering. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bob, isn't there a couple of examples already? Heritage Green and Naples Grande, aren't those a couple of possibilities? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Naples Grande, I think, is an excellent example. It's a project down in the D area or close to the D area, down in this area here, which is comprised of several sections of land -- and Robert Duane is in attendance today and represents the property owner and may wish to speak on that as part of the public comment period. But the best environmental land in that project is located in the urban area while the rural lands are cleared, formerly agricultural lands. And really our current structure does not promote the protection of that -- does not allow the property owner to promote and to protect the best lands, which are located in the urban area, by locating his density and his intensity out of there and into the impacted lands in the rural area. So that's density blending. There are specifics that are contained in your report, and those will require further refinement. I think it's important to say that all of these elements are going to be refined further as we begin to draft actual Comprehensive Plan language over the summer, into early fall. The next tool is -- as Bill alluded to, is we refer to it as Page 36 June 13,2001 subdistricts. And we are recommending and the committee supports the creation of subdistricts. They already exist. There they are, A, B, C, and D. And the data shows that the resources, the habitat, and the degree to which those areas are altered vary from district to district. And so we are proposing that we create, within our Comprehensive Plan, subdistricts. We won't call them A, B, C, and D. As the report indicates, we would use appropriate geographic references. And there would be varying protection standards based on what exists out there according to the best available data. The next tool is site preservation and native retention -- vegetation -- native vegetation retention standards. And this is an area where there is currently some disagreement between the committee and the staff; however, we are confident that we can minimize that disagreement over the summer months and into the fall. The staff is -- supports the utilization of a twofold approach, frankly, which would require a property owner to analyze a site preservation standard and a native preservation standard and to preserve whichever of the two is greater. Part of the reason that we recommend that is that for areas that may be denuded of vegetation, a site preservation standard will allow for restoration. We're not talking about replanting. We are talking about removing exotics and allowing nature to take its course over time, although some property owners may choose to revegetate for market purposes. The other aspect of that is that this county has always felt that an open space element is an appropriate quality of life issue, an aesthetic issue. And, in fact, as you know, in the urban area for the projects over a certain size we require a minimum of 25 percent open space. Since this is really a transitional area between the urban and the true rural agricultural area -- thus the term rural fringe -- there should be a higher -- and the staff feels there should be a higher percentage of Page 37 June 13,2001 open space or of preservation in this area to truly effectuate a transitional area between the urban and rural lands. I have a graphic here, if I can zoom in and make it visible for -- this graphic depicts the differences between the committee proposal and the staff proposal. I recognize that may be a little bit hard to see. I hope the board can see it on the screen. As I said, the staff proposal, which is on the right, employees two methods to determine what will be preserved on the site, both vegetation and an overall site preservation. The committee recommendation at this point is solely to have a vegetation retention standard, and the percentages are for you there. Again, I repeat that we're confident that we can resolve these matters, but I've also, I think, explained to you the rationale behind the staff recommendation that we employ both measures. Finally, I want to add that in addition to those standards, we have an opportunity through incentives, primarily in the form of density bonuses, to increase the naive vegetation retention and the site preservation on projects. And here's really where the disparity between the committee and the staff exists at this point in time. To summarize, the degree to which we rely on incentives to achieve our preservation and natural resource protection differs between the committee's recommendation and the staff's recommendation. Staff recommends a higher reliance on minimum requirements and a lesser reliance on incentives. At this point the committee supports higher incentives and less reliance on requirements. One of the things that you will have to judge as the policy makers, considering the fact that at some point we may be required to sit before a judge, will be how much assurance do we have that the incentives, however we finally bring them forward as a policy, will achieve our objectives. I'm not sure which is the correct answer at this point in time, and this is another reason why we're asking your Page 38 June 13,2001 support and direction to hire a qualified economist. We would like that economist also to look at the relationship between the incentives and the requirements and tell us frankly, based on the marketplace, to what degree can we truly rely on incentives, and the committee supports -- strongly supports that -- that we do hire an economist to look at that. Finally, there are some -- the issue, I think, that's very important -- as Bill pointed out, when you look at the graphic that shows the very high number of parcels of private property owners out there -- thank you. It's kind of hard to see, but there are very significant numbers of smaller parcels out there. There is a much more broken up pattern of property ownership in the fringe than you find in the eastern rural lands where there are relatively few landowners. We do want to be sure that we are protecting the smaller property owners, that they will have the rights that they have today. And we propose, as was -- and if you could go to the visualizer, Katie. We do propose minimum clearing standards for smaller parcels allowing for at least a half acre of clearing, as I believe several -- Nancy and Bill referred to. And there's just a graphic showing how that will work. And you will note on there, we do include a fire buffer for clearing in a 5,000-square-foot home, pretty significant. And so the total there comes up to 20,150, but what we propose is 22,000 square feet of clearing on smaller parcels. That's, by the way, consistent with the ACSC 10 percent clearing designation. Just as a reference, that's what's used in the area of critical state concern. (Woman speaking from audience.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Katie, they're asking you to go back to the bulletin board. MR. MULHERE: It may be a little bit hard to see. D is little bit lower. I don't know if you can swing the camera a little bit lower, Page 39 June 13, 2001 Katie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sue, you might have to slip out of the way. MR. MULHERE: Or you can come up and take a look at it. MR. OLLIFF: Bob, if you could just go over to where the visual is and maybe help Katie find where it is that you're talking about. That's okay. You can leave it where it's at, but just point -- she'll move the camera down where you're trying to get it to. That's it right there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: There you go. A little more. (Woman speaking from audience.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, you're not on the record. I cannot take -- I cannot take this. You've got to come to the mike, ma'am. I cannot take it from the floor. Thank you. If you would just come to the mike. MR. OLLIFF: Can we-- MS. HENTGES: My name is Judy Hentges. I just had a question about Area D. Those are quite large parcels of property owned by one particular person. Several people own that property there in Area D, or is there one -- MR. MULHERE: There are -- in Area D there are a number of property owners. There are also -- you are correct. There are also several large parcel owners. You can see -- it's a little bit hard to see. You might want to come over and take a look at this, but there are some large landowners. There are several. But there's also quite a few small property owners in Area D. I'll go over to the graphic and point it out. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And, ma'am, after this question, I'll have to ask you to sign up a sign-up slip -- MS. HENTGES: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- and then you may come in front Page 40 June 13,2001 when we take public comments. MR. MULHERE: Looking at Area D -- is this on -- there are some large parcels, and here they are as I move my finger around here. But in this area here and here as well as over here and all -- there's very, very small subdivided parcels, probably below 2 acres. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, Katie. MR. MULHERE: But I do -- thank you, Katie. But I do think the point is well taken. There are some large property owners as well, and if I -- if I implied that there weren't, I apologize. It's just that there is a much more broken up pattern of ownership in the fringe than there are in the eastern lands. What's the relevance of that? Maybe I didn't state that. The relevance of that is that we have to work harder to protect private property rights, and we have to work harder to protect natural resources when we do address those private property rights because of the existing pattern of ownership. That's the relevance of that issue. I did want to mention that -- and I said it before, but I'll just repeat it again -- that there are opportunities for mitigation. When we look at our preservation standards, if for some reason a property owner is unable to achieve the preservation standards on site as we propose it currently, there will be opportunities for mitigation. The details have to be worked out, of course. However, it will be a much higher area off site that someone will be required to protect and retain. And that will also help us, on the occasion where, you know, someone can't achieve that on site, in achieving our 90 percent minimum goal. That brings us to another tool, and I think this bears just a little bit of explanation. There may have been, or I think at times there was, a misconception relative to the final order that all we have to do is go out there and study the rural lands, and if we do that and we develop protection measures, we're finished with the task at hand. Page 41 June 13,2001 But actually, the final order, in requiring the assessment in the rural lands, provides a mechanism for the county to evaluate its natural resource protection policies that must be applied in some form or another throughout the county. Now, the eastern rural lands we don't need to worry about because they're still under the final order, and they'll come forward later in this process, and they still have all of the restrictions of the final order. But as we move forward in October and February for adoption, we hope, targeted dates, to implement Growth Management Plan objectives to protect natural resources in the rural fringe, we must at the same time have natural resource protection measures and policies in place for the urban area that meet the requirements of the final order in directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands and protecting listed species and their habitat. Your staff has developed a set of minimum wetland and wildlife protection measures. They are -- let me repeat this. They are draft at this point in time. They've been distributed and out there for review for several months. I think they were distributed in November of last year. And these standards have -- are under review by the EAC, have been distributed to the rural fringe. The rural fringe has not taken a position on them. They have not fully reviewed them, but generally they have expressed concerns with these that they establish -- and I would defer to Tom Conrecode to speak on behalf of the committee. I don't wish to misrepresent the committee's position. So -- but I can say in summary that there is concern that these may constitute a -- another regulatory process. And you may wish to -- if you have further questions on that matter, Nancy Linnan is available to speak to that matter, and again, Tom Conrecode may wish to speak on behalf of the committee. But these are draft in nature. We do need to have protections for wetlands and wildlife countywide, and we have proposed those that you have in your report Page 42 June 13,2001 before you. The staff has proposed those. Golf courses have been a topic of great discussion in the rural area. Your staff and the committee agree that golf courses, by and of themselves -- if designed to have minimal environmental impact and if designed to enhance or protect wetlands and wildlife species, are not, in and of themselves, an inappropriate use in the rural lands. In fact, the staff and the committee both recommend that golf courses be permitted except not in natural resource protection areas and not in Area C, the study area. Depending on whether that is a NRPA or something else, we're not recommending that golf courses be permitted within that area. Other than that, we would propose that your staff work with environmental groups and other stakeholders to develop a set of environmental standards, maybe similar to the Audubon national standards, but not necessarily exactly the same. We need to develop what's appropriate for Collier County. The Conservancy, I know, right now is working on those. Having a note here -- let me just stop for a minute and explain something that maybe some folks would have some questions on. The 90 percent goal of protecting, generally science supports a concept or a proposal or a standard of protecting 90 percent of-- of an ecotome or of an ecological unit in order to allow that unit to continue to function and maintain its ecological value. When you go down below that percentage, there is degradation that the ecological unit or environmental unit may not be able to sustain, so the target is 90 percent. That's the rationale behind that. I think I dealt with golf courses. There are some minor issues, and I can be very quick on these. Sprawl, that's something we have to address. Basically and in summary, we feel that when you put all of these tools together, protect natural resources -- again, remember, one of the things here, we're not talking about -- the total number of Page 43 June 13, 2001 dwelling units that are permitted within the rural fringe today are in compliance. That's not at issue. And we're not talking about reducing that number. What we're talking about is locating those units where they have the least impact on the environment and can be best supported by the infrastructure that is either out there or will be out there. So we don't believe that when you put all of these concepts together, sprawl is of concern or is an issue, and we believe that we can prevail on that issue. We do have to do a transportation study, and as Stan recommended, we would like to look at our 2025 transportation plan. And once we have finally determined what we'd be sending in receiving areas and what types of mixed uses might be permitted, we would look at that and ask the transportation administrator or, if not, a consultant, to review that and advise of any potential impacts. We do have to look at emergency preparedness and hurricane evacuation and shelter capacity and evacuation routes. And while I'm on this subject, there's an unknown factor because, as you know, Area D has the least ecological value. It's also very close to the urban area, and it -- and it jumps out as an appropriate place to receive some of the intensity that we're going to transfer from more ecologically valuable areas. But it also jumps out as maybe an appropriate place for some mixed-use development, some work force housing, these types of things. However, there is a FEMA flood zone study that is currently under way and may end up in arbitration. I've talked to Ken Pineau, and Ken, at this point, expects that to go to arbitration. We're not sure where that'll end up, but a couple of caveats. In a higher category, Category 1 or 2 storm area, there are some issues that would preclude moving some of that intensity there and exacerbating or making worse the opportunity to evacuate. There will be higher -- Page 44 June 13,2001 likely higher insurance rates, higher elevations. So there are some issues that we need to coordinate with over the next few months, and I think you know that Ken Pineau and Ed Perico and others on your staff are working with the building industry and others and are on top of that process, so we will work with them to find out what those issues are. Another issue I just want to mention briefly, and I know Commissioner Coletta is very aware of this, is wildfire protection measures, and we do want to incorporate allowances and measures to allow people to utilize the appropriate protection measures when they develop in rural areas where there's an interface with wild lands because you're going to have prescribed bums, and you're going to have natural bums. And so that's an issue. Finally, schools, commercial, institutional uses -- almost finally -- and mixed-use opportunities. With respect to schools -- and the school board's been an active participant in this process. Staff and the committee, although not dealing with this issue formally, generally do not -- do not have a problem with locating schools within the -- within certain areas of the rural lands; those areas that, perhaps, have the least ecological value; those areas, perhaps, where we would send some intensity and density would be appropriate for locating schools; those areas closest to the urban area or the estates area that would be close to the population that they would serve; and those areas that also have good transportation access. So, in summary -- and, again, we need to work out the specifics -- schools, in and of themselves, in the rural area are not an inappropriate use, providing they address those issues, providing they're not located in an environmentally sensitive area or far removed from the students they would serve -- which obviously wouldn't make sense from a number of perspectives -- and providing they have access to infrastructure, and not only transportation but Page 45 June 13,2001 also sewer and water. Work-force housing, there are opportunities, especially in Area D. One of the concepts would be to have a minimum density in Area D that would cause a -- a property owner to develop at a density that would -- would foster market attraction to -- with a higher number of dwelling units to affordable or work-force housing or, perhaps, in part of Area D. Now, one of the caveats I want to warn you about here is you can't simply say, "We're going to take a high percentage of this land and regulate or restrict it to work-force housing" because that, I don't think, addresses some very valid concerns. Work-force housing should be located close to employment and transportation and shopping and other things that -- recreational things. So there are opportunities to provide those things, and perhaps in Area D there are significant opportunities. I also want to mention, although outside of the study area, there are opportunities with the OrangeTree settlement area to provide some of those. And we would recommend and the committee and staff recommend that the Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy look at OrangeTree -- and I believe that is scheduled to be done -- for the opportunities to, perhaps, provide some services there that would serve not only the estates, but also some of the northern part of the fringe area that may be developed. So we do think that there are opportunities to enhance and promote work-force housing in portions of the fringe. We do have to try to look at mixed-use development in those areas so that we're not completely far removed from the services that those folks would want, primarily employment. I probably went a little bit over 20 minutes, but that's really all of the issues that I had to speak about today. And I think Stan is going to wrap up, and then we'll take questions and -- Page 46 June 13, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, you have a question for Mr. Mulhere? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait for Stan to finish. I have questions all around. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: A lot of questions. And how is my recorder doing in terms of a break? Soon. How long, Stan? MR. LITSINGER: Well, as far as summary, I was going to ask the chairman, would he want to take public speakers before we summarize, or should staff summarize its position? CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I think we ought to get all the summaries and everything, and then we'll take public input. MR. LITSINGER: Then our summary is fairly brief. You've heard all the presentation, and as we have noted in your executive summary -- which I hope you do, at this point, have your executive summaries. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We do. MR. LITSINGER: This being a special meeting and not a workshop, we're asking for specific policy direction. As you looked in your report, you saw a lot of areas which we have hit on in some detail, specifically in areas where there is some conflict as to what the ultimate solution will be to all of the issues that have to be addressed. But one thing is certain as to what we need from you today: We need specific direction from the board to direct staff to begin drafting goals, objectives, policies, and texts -- which, of course, would be supported by the assembled supporting data and analysis which was outlined to you by Mr. Lorenz -- in order so that we can have some opportunity to come to you in the fall with some proposed final GOPs and amendments, after working with the committee through the Page 47 June 13,2001 summer to resolve some unresolved issues of disagreement where we think we can reach some consensus, in order to deliver the required Comprehensive Plan amendments in the form of a transmittal followed by an adoption in the early winter. In order to do that, in addition to your direction for us to proceed with your internal staff work, we would also ask the board to approve and direct staff to inquire and, if necessary, issue an RFP for an economic consultant to perform an analysis of the incentive measures that we feel are necessary to realize the mixture of the incentives leading to the 90 percent preservation standards as being a viable and supportable method to achieve the goals that we feel are necessary in resource protection and, at the same time, providing the marketplace with the incentives to transfer these development rights to the areas where they're appropriate from the areas where they're inappropriate. Thirdly, we would ask that -- I took the liberty that you would direct the transportation administrator to direct and conduct an analysis of the transportation impacts that all of these goals, objectives, and policies would have on the 2025 transportation plan in the assessment area. One area that I want to clarify, that I want to make sure that there's no misconception as to what we're also asking for your direction -- and this would go beyond transportation, future land use, coastal conservation element -- we're also asking for direction to -- in support of these development incentives as far as redirecting the development to cjustering, density transfer, transfer development rights, we're also asking that you direct us to examine and look at the possibility of redrawing the water and sewer district boundary line, not the urban boundary line, because in the final analysis, we believe that in order for these goals to be realistic, that we will need to provide central water and sewer in those areas that we determine to Page 48 June 13,2001 be acceptable for use for density blending and other incentives that we have. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we've got our marching orders. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The letters that were sent out, were they just to the owners in the study area -- or the affected area, I should say? MR. LITSINGER: We sent out, Commissioner, approximately 3800 letters to individual property owners. We tried not to duplicate mailings to -- there are 3850-some individual property owners and somewhat larger numbers of individual parcels. We tried to make sure that every property owner received one -- at least one letter notifying them of these actions today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stan, I think he's asking, are their property areas within Areas A, B, C, and D -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or were there other property owners who received letters? MR. LITSINGER: We tried to only notify property owners who we were able to identify through the property appraiser as owning property in A, B, C, or D. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's my understanding, reading the Naples Daily News, that it's a big development out there in this area, and what I see out here is not big development. So hopefully we can maybe get that right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We got it right. We can't control what the landscape does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's true. Thank you. You said that the data that you were collecting was from Southwest Florida Water Management and Fish and Wildlife. Now, my understanding is those two government agencies have criteria to Page 49 June 13, 2001 direct development away from sensitive lands, wetlands or NRPAs; am I -- MR. LITSINGER: Through their own permitting process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through their own permitting process. And are we trying to go above or create a new wheel or a new layer of government, or should we be taking the information they have to direct development away from that property? MR. LITSINGER: I can summarize your answer, and if you need to get into more detail, I'll call up another expert. To summarize, the situation that we find ourselves in today has been as a result of the fact that over the past 12 years we have more or less deferred to these agencies. As a result of the final order, it was determined that, like most counties in Florida, we need to have our own set of standards to govern the protection of these areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The density blending -- and I think that was a great concept came up with to direct development away from sensitive areas within the area. But can we -- like, in the urban area, we have some areas that we can protect. Can that be transferred property rights from this side of 951 over to -- into the areas affected? MR. LITSINGER: I believe -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You with me? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I understand what he's saying. How does the TDR affect urban area, I believe, and how do you protect the sensitive lands in the urban area? And since I represent the north in everything-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, guys -- MR. LITSINGER: I would anticipate the results of your-- of our analysis would probably -- as far as the economic viability of the transfer of development rights in the fringe, would also have some applicability to issues in the urban area also. Page 50 June 13,2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And am I wrong to say that -- I think it was Bob who pointed out to us -- these are policies that are going to have countywide implications but for the rural area. So -- so the decisions that we make here will apply everywhere outside of the rural study area, the eastern Collier area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just have one more -- a couple more questions. But I just see it as a way that we can get greenspace within the urban area. That's my only thing. And Bob had a -- some figures of if a person wants to build a house, he -- and he can clear up to so much area and plus 30 feet around his house for a fire break. Now, what about if he wants to have a small farm or something, raise some animals or do some vegetables or something like that? Would that be allowed? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would. Agriculture is not restricted in any way. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm going to hold the questions at this point, and we're going to take a 15-minute break. Then we'll come back. We'll take further questions from the commissioners, and then we'll take public input. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We're back in order. Mr. Tom Conrecode, the chair of the Rural Fringe Committee, wants to make a few statements. Then I'm going to Commissioner Coletta for some comments. Then I'm going to public comment. I recognize a lot of you have taken off work to be here, and we will get you in and get your input as quickly as possible. Thank you. And thank you for keeping your cell phones off. I only heard one this morning. Continue to do that. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Tom Conrecode, the chair of the -- of the Rural Fringe Committee. Page 51 June 13,2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Got to be quiet, folks. MR. CONRECODE: And I thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak and to provide some additional comments. You've heard a lot of technical things. You've heard a lot of very specific things relative to environmental issues. There's still a considerable amount of work left to be done. We've got a year to complete that work; although over the next three or four months, the committee's work is going to be more intense than it has over the previous 36 meetings, to cover a lot of things. There's a couple things that you've heard this morning that I would ask you to keep in perspective. Number one, you heard that the data that was used by staff in developing some of the materials that were presented and direction has a 90 degree accuracy rate. I would challenge that, aggressively challenge it, because I don't believe it's that accurate. We've taken a number of specific examples on a lot of the data that's out there and have said, okay, this is -- for instance, this is classified as a wetland. We'll take a section of land and 90 percent of it's classified as a wetland, but if you go in and you do jurisdictional indicators to identify what really is a wetland in terms of federal regulations and the state regulations that are in place today, less than 10 percent of it is. Well, that's not a good indicator that the data's very accurate because it was done by aerial photography, and you really need to have the ground-truthing done to give you some true finding in terms of the wetlands. Now, on the other hand, if you were to take a section of land up around the CREW lands and it claimed that it was 90 percent wet, I can pretty well assure you that it's 90 percent wet. Although, again, you need to rely on the ground-truthing data. That's important to that. So in identifying either the accuracy of the data or the fact that Page 52 June 13,2001 50 percent of the lands within the fringe are wet, you need to recognize that that's wet based on an aerial photography and indicators of specific plant species and not necessarily the fact that these lands, 50 years ago, were dredged, filled, and have long been -- have long been dry. The best available data, I will tell you, has been the biggest challenge that faces this committee. Some of the data that we're looking at is 10 and 20 and, in one case, 40 years old. It really presents a huge challenge. We know that there's better data out there. We're hoping that the Rural Lands Committee will share more and more of their data as it becomes more finalized because we think, although it doesn't apply specifically to a tract of land within the rural fringe, it gives pretty good indicators of species, of habitat of some of these sorts of issues. The next point that I'd like to make is that you've heard a lot about natural systems, about natural resources, but you haven't heard a lot about everything else that's contained in the final order. And I would ask you to read the final order once a week or once a month and remind yourself of what's in the final order because the governor and the cabinet didn't specify just natural resources, but the natural resources element has been probably one of the largest focal areas of everything that's occurring to date. And so I'd ask you to go back and consider property rights - or continue to consider property rights, to continue recognizing new community, new development types and characteristics such as cjustering and transfer of development rights, and new types of-- new towns, school siting issues, which are critically important. The committee has spent a considerable amount of time on that. And we thank the school board for committing the resources to help us understand what their issues are in serving the students of Collier County. Page 53 June 13,2001 And then another item that I would ask is that in reading that final order that you not consider that there's only three things. I think there are more like a dozen things that need consideration. The governor and the cabinet did not break the final order into these three categories with a number of categories. It's a narrative, and it goes into great detail of all the things that we need to consider. And I will tell you, the committee's working very hard to consider every one of those and to provide full balance to every one of those. We aren't saying that any one is any more important than any other one. And so that's where our challenge has been. That's where our work is focused now. We have completed the data collection analysis and the reporting process, and we're going back now with the building blocks, block by block, to develop what will become the goals, objectives, and policies that you'll review in October and hopefully transmit to the DCA. And in terms of staffs recommendation to you today, they asked that you direct them to develop both objectives and policies with our input, but that -- specifically that it is staff that will drive that process. I would ask you that staff needs to drive the process in cooperation with the committee and with the hundreds of people that are in this room today to make sure that you have full balance and a really good process. I'm open to any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tom, I've got a question for you. The difference in the amount of greenspace that was recommended between the committee and staff, could you elaborate on that? MR. CONRECODE: The -- sure. There's a number of different -- differences, but in some cases they're differences in semantics; for instance, the idea of preservation or open space or site preservation. There's natural air preservation, site preservation, and open space. Page 54 June 13,2001 And staff has an opinion that we need 20 percent of one, 30 percent of another, 15 percent of another, and it's a cumulative effect on the property owner. What the committee is doing instead is they're looking at a more comprehensive approach. When you look at the thousands of landowners that are out there that have a 2- or 5- or 1 O-acre parcel, how are they going to be able to utilize that ground? And so we're trying to say, whether you call it a natural preservation or site preservation, that we don't necessarily create this cumulative effect on a property owner or penalize a property owner because he's got a hundred-acre piece of ag land as opposed to a hundred-acre piece of pristine forested habitat. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tom, I urge you to keep going in the direction you're going. And if in the end you don't agree with staff on the final outcome, that your committee file a report that's separate from that so that we can take that into consideration. MR. CONRECODE: I think we will, and we have really made great strides just over the last two, three months in really bringing our positions together, and I think staff more clearly understands the committee's interest in really balancing all of these issues. So I think we've made great progress, and I'm confident that by September or October we'll have a document that really reflects what's good for the community and what is the right response to this final order. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom, you mentioned that the information that you're using is -- is old and is probably not accurate. Would it be in the interest, to be fair to the property owner, to put in language, something if-- if the property owner wants to do some ground-truthing to refute the -- you know, whether it's a wetland or whatever -- the findings of the -- the mapping, then just put that in there so, you know, if it is -- if it's not a wetland or a NRPA, then they can do what -- whatever they want. Page 55 June 13,2001 MR. CONRECODE: I think it's important that we do that, but my comments were more directed towards you understanding the magnitude of the data. And when we say we've got data that's 90 percent accurate, question that, because it's difficult, even today if you were to start something new, to have that level of accuracy, as is the case with the rural lands. But in the other case where we say that 50 percent of the 95,000 acres that we're dealing with or the 93,000 acres we're dealing with in the rural fringe is wetlands is wrong, and we know it's wrong. And we need to keep that in perspective. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a mechanism under way to be able to make correction to this? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I see Carlton Fields shaking their heads out there. I think this is a discussion that's going on in the committee. I think that's where we are. And I'm not going to get bogged down in a percentage this morning. I would leave it up to staff and the expertise on this committee to reach out to an area of acceptable conclusion that can be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners who ultimately have to make this decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, our job is to set policies that apply to the land as it, in fact, exists. And if it's 50 percent or 20 percent or 80 percent, we're supposed to -- we have to because the governor told us to and the judge said, develop policies that direct growth away from wetland areas. It's, fortunately for us, only our job to set the policies, and the scientists and the mapmakers have to find out on the ground what's wet and what's not. But we -- we need to focus on what policies we're going to implement to send growth away from wetlands. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're correct. I want to remind you we're not just talking about policy. We're talking about people and their property and their property rights. Page 56 June 13, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. CONRECODE: And I think it's important to recognize that there are processes in place when somebody wants to develop a site specifically. They go through the Army Corps of Engineers process, and they go through the water management district process that will specifically identify those wetlands on a site-by-site basis. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'll take a comment from Mr. Mulhere, and then I'm going to -- Commissioner Coletta wants to make some comments. And then I'm going to go to public speakers because there are a number of folks in here who need to get back to work. I wished I knew in the order whether you were retired or whether you were here because you're waiting to run back to your job. If I had that in that order, it would be wonderful. I'd take all the folks that got to get back there and do what they need to do to put bread on the table first. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'll be real quick. Two things: Any site- specific information that we have gotten from property owners, we have incorporated and updated the data the staff has, Bill and Mac. The second point I want to make is I think there's a little misconception. I don't want to leave it out there as a misconception for the public. A particular property owner-- these are percentages. This is a broad planning policy. Roughly and according to the best available data, these percentages of wetlands and critical habitat occur, and so that's what we want to protect. But when a particular piece of property comes in for permitting or approval, there's an evaluation of that property. If there are no wetlands and no habitat, they don't have to apply to those standards. They apply to the standards to the degree that it will exist when they come in for their ground-truthing. So there's -- there is a process, but Page 57 June 13,2001 to the degree that we can get more information as we move forward over the summer, we're absolutely open and willing to revise the data accordingly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Conrecode. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I do want you to know I appreciate what the committee's doing and what staff's doing. I think we got a little ways to go -- quite a ways to go, to be honest with you. But I want to -- it's important to note that all of these subject lands that we're talking about are in District 5. In District 5 we supply all the county water. We supply the city's water. We offer the majority of recreational opportunities for all of Collier County. The last of the affordable lands for people to build on are in District 5. In return we get substandard roads, which we're working on. We'll eventually get it right. Our wells are going dry in places because of the demand being put on by the urban area. And what we need to do is make sure that we preserve the rights of the individuals here, that if we're going to do this, the compensation is without question going to be there. We cannot take anything without making sure there's a mechanism in place that's failproof that it's going to compensate people for what's going to happen. I plan to be involved in a case-by-case basis as this goes forward to see what's happening. And if I see something that looks like it's out of whack or it needs adjustment, I'll be all over you. Just fair warning. One of the things I wanted to do, too, is I do have a couple of questions. I'm going to ask them up front now. It might save the audience from asking the same question. I want to thank Tom for answering the one on the 90 percent. I think that's very much open for discussion. I'm concerned about the length of the driveway only being 130 feet back in some of these large ones. So you've got 50 Page 58 June 13, 2001 acres. You're going to have to locate on the far edge of it. Is that really fair? Are we going to have development rights that are going to come in and compensate the people that have large acreage holdings with the fact that they are going to be limited with just one to there? These are questions that I really do want to know the answers to. The cjustering, what areas are they going to go in? If it's down there in D, I think that would be advantageous. If it's any other place, I think it's open for a lot of discussion. People down in D seem like they're going to be the ones to profit greatly from the very beginning with turning it from agriculture to something upgraded from that, be it homeowners, cjustering, businesses, or whatever. How is it going to work when it comes down for the credits that are going to be transferrable credits and all that? These are things that, as we get into the process farther, I want the answers. I want to be able to give them to the people that are out there living in the area or own an investment in that area. And I probably have taken enough of your time now. Thank you for indulging me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, isn't part of this in your area also? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, thank God. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can extend it over to District 3. You can share the wealth with us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you Commissioner Coletta forgot something that they're hosting in District 5, and that's the landfill, which does affect District 3. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we probably shouldn't go there, but I'd probably start talking about the recreational opportunities. Page 59 June 13,2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think that's -- one of our biggest assets is that bird preserve that -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's stay with the program, folks. I want to go to public speakers, if we could do that, Mr. Oliff. And if there are public speakers who need to get back to work and if somebody is here that represents an association, if you can reshuffle that in any way, I always want to get the folks that have got to get back to work first. And I can't do that because I don't know what the order is, but we'll do the best that we can. Or if you've got a need and you're in that stack, come up and talk to Tom. I'm sure he'll try and move you forward. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we have about 20 registered speakers. So I'm going to call them up two at a time, and if the first speaker would go ahead and come to the podium and speak and the next speaker could just wait over here by the door and be ready to speak, that would be helpful. The first speaker is Mildred, and I believe its Haylock, followed by Mike Bauer. MS. HAYLOCK: Hi. I'm Mildred Haylock. I live at 2965 Garland Road. And according to what I see in the map, I'm in section C-1. What I wanted to find out was it doesn't say anywhere and nobody said what the sections were that we're talking about. That map is kind of small, and you can't really figure out what the sections are, because we do own more land which is -- I don't know if it's in the green area or where because I don't know the section numbers. Also, I needed to find out, how can you tell that we're impacting the wetlands and everything like that in our area when at the same time what he said about the landfill -- it's right south of me in the same exact area, in Section C-1 by what I see on the map. I really don't know, but it's right below me. And how come the landfill does Page 60 June 13, 2001 not impact that area? Can you answer that question for me? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would tell you, ma'am, I think everything impacts areas. We have to look at what exists. That's something we deal with it. Now we're looking to what doesn't exist, and I think staff can probably help you identify specifically where your lands are in each section according to whether it's C-1, C-2. And John Dunnuck over here would be happy to speak with you and give you that specific answer. MS. HAYLOCK: Okay. But I don't-- what I don't understand, what I really want to get a -- you know, an answer to is, how can people in their small little houses, let's say 5-acre plat of land or whatever, impact an area when -- don't know how big the landfill is, but it's a pretty big area that I've been there -- that doesn't impact or that has nothing to do with it? I didn't hear anything or anybody speak anything to that as to the effects of how that's impacting Section C or the wetlands in-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ma'am, I think that's because, as the introducers of this discussion said, the existing uses on the land are -- are there, and nobody's messing with them. And one of the existing uses is the landfill, and so it's just kind of subtracted from this discussion, because just like your home is not up for discussion here, neither is that existing land use. MS. HAYLOCK: But doesn't that mean -- according to what I heard doesn't that mean they're trying to buy out or move us to another section? CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. And that's so important. It's so important. I'm so glad you just put that question right out there, because you need to know that you have rights that are vested, you're protected. Nobody can make you move. There's not one concept being discussed here today that involves taking your Page 61 June 13,2001 property, flooding your property, downzoning your property. We're looking at big concepts on maps, and even then we are not -- we won't do anything that would force you out of your home. Just not going to do it. MS. HAYLOCK: Okay. What about if the home was in section -- green lands, whatever that green blob was? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, there's nothing this county's going to do to take you even out of that special study area, nothing. MS. HAYLOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Mike Bauer followed by Luisa, and I believe it's Solerter (phonetic). MR. BAUER: And I'd be willing to defer to anybody that's got to go back to work. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead. Thank you for your consideration. MR. BAUER: Thanks. I'm Mike Bauer, Southwest Florida policy director for Audubon of Florida. There's two matters I'd like to address: North Belle Meade and the open-space concept. North Belle Meade or Area C here, the study area, is a primary part of the Henderson Creek watershed, major tributary to Rookery Bay. It's an area with both pine flat woods and cypress swamps as well as several other valuable habitat types. There are very few invasive species in the area, only pockets along the periphery. Seventeen species of special concern are found in North Belle Meade, including the panther, red cockaded woodpeckers, black bears, and indigo snakes. There have been panther sightings and panther call returns in the area. At least one panther has given birth to young in the area. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has located ten red cockaded woodpecker nests in the area. The Florida Fish & Page 62 June 13, 2001 Wildlife Conservation Commission has monitored several bears within the area. The Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission also considers the area to be a priority wetland and a biodiversity hot spot. The area received a top priority ranking from the Florida Natural Area Inventory. Then at the same time it has severe limitations for residential development in terms of septic tank absorption fields and a shallow depth to bedrock. Also, according to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the soil is not well suited to cultivating crops, with a high groundwater table, poor permeability, and poor filtration. While there's been some drainage, the area remains relatively unchanged in ecological terms. It has environmental connections both to Picayune Strand State Forest, South Belle Meade, and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. It offers opportunities for outdoor recreation close in, a place for our growing county population to stretch its wings in the near future. Hunting and ATV use now occur. This could be augmented in the future with hiking and camping. Audubon of Florida requests that the conservation commission designate North Belle Meade as a natural resources protection area. With respect to open space, the county Land Development Code identifies open spaces as playgrounds, golf courses, beachfrontage, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. All but one of these are of value to the general public or have specific natural values. One stands out as unrelated to the others, and that's golf courses. Golf courses shouldn't be considered as open space. The general public can't take a walk on someone's golf course. Golf courses are a business. They are a money-making activity. They are a private enterprise, and the others are not. Golf courses also destroy the value of cjustering as a planning tool. Cjustering is referenced in the final order as a means of Page 63 June 13, 2001 directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat. Currently cjustering is allowed for the creation of golf courses in developments because golf courses are considered open space. Cjustering is supposed to protect natural resources. Golf courses are not a natural resource. The point's not that golf courses should or shouldn't be permitted in the rural fringe area -- that's not the issue -- but simply that golf courses shouldn't be considered open space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Luisa Solerta (phonetic) followed by Kay Kluever. MS. SOLER: Luisa Soler, and my question is, are you going to send any kind of printout with -- like, I got a letter for this meeting. My question is, where am I in this particular land? I cannot really identify my property. And I was just wondering if something like that's going to be mailed out to the property owners. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: I'll give John Dunnuck credit for this. The suggestion is that prior to the next meeting we send out a fact sheet, what are we proposing, what are we not proposing, with maps that identify each area with streets in detail. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I also suggest that the next meeting be held out in the estates and be held in the evening -- MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to accommodate the people that work, and we have a detailed color handout that we can give people or mail to them, some way to get it to them in a timely fashion? MR. MULHERE: Excellent suggestion. MS. SOLER: I think that would be a great idea because like it is Page 64 June 13,2001 right now, I don't know where I'm at in -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't you give us your address and-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Don't feel bad, ma'am. Probably the five people up here don't know either so ... MS. SOLER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Kay Kluever followed by Glen Dunavan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Real quick as a point of information so there's no confusion, we have A, B, C, and D, and the study area. So there are four lettered areas and a study area, which is referred to as North Belle Meade and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's part of C. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it says here, "Note, Area C excludes the study area." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. But it really is part of Area C. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So that will help, I think, a lot of people as we go along here. Thank you. MS. KLUEVER: I have a sore throat so I will try to minimize this, but we live also in C-1 on Garland Road. We have six different parcels, but two of the parcels that we acquired this last year have melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. My husband went to see about getting a permit to remove them because, as you know, they are on the exotics list and need to be removed. We were told we could not do that. We wanted to know why, because at the same time it's a state mandate -- mandatory to have them removed; right? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, interim community development environmental services, John Dunnuck. I'll be happy to get with you because that doesn't sound correct and -- Page 65 June 13,2001 MS. KLUEVER: No. It didn't to us, either. MR. DUNNUCK: There shouldn't be anything in this final order that would restrict you from removing exotics. MS. KIJUEVER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Glen Dunavan followed by Nettie Phillips. MR. DUNAVAN: I'm Glen Dunavan, and I'm with that lady that was up here. These maps that were sent out are absolutely worthless. You can't read them. They don't have highways on it. If it had highways on it, you'd have some way of identifying where you was at. Might be an idea. I just want to remind the county board that what they're dealing with is people's property, that people own it -- Jim touched on that a little bit -- and you're regulating property that you don't own, people own. If you don't have property rights, you don't have freedom at all. The other thing is Pam touched on taking people's property. There are different ways of taking it, which is not allowing uses on it. That's taking it. And people don't want compensation. They want to use their ground. They want to stay there. I bought my ground figuring on staying there until I die and figuring on using it. But if I can only use 1/10 of it, then I lost 9/10. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Nettie Phillips followed by Wesley Roan. MS. PHILLIPS: Good evening -- good morning, Commissioners. And to the new commissioners, I haven't spoken before you before. As a 55-plus-year resident of Collier County, property owner, ! would like to address balance, and I would like to Page 66 June 13, 2001 address mandates. I don't know where we find balance between the property owners and nature when the property owners probably have less than 10 percent of what's going on. I believe it's stated at a lot of your meetings that 5 percent of Collier County is urbanized. With all the greenspace we have, the map of Collier County is primarily green. The mandate from the state and federal government and the international agenda keeps talking about greenspace, greenspace. If we only have -- apparently, if we only have 2 percent of Collier County left, we're going to have to deal with greenspace. By the time there's greenspace, there's not going to be much left. I would like to know on behalf of myself-- and in my opinion and speaking specifically for myself, everything that's going on talks about broad-based public participation. I've been to cjustering meetings. I've been to so many meetings in the last years on all of this agenda that I hate to even think about. And at most of them, you didn't even have the right to speak because at several of the meetings we had to ask permission to speak because we had to leave to go to other meetings. So I would like to say, on behalf of these meetings and this broad-based public participation, that under a mandate from the State of Florida -- and I won't even talk about the mandate from the federal government -- in a process that has a predetermined agenda with a predetermined outcome, it doesn't really matter a whole lot what I have to say, what I like or what I don't like. The reason I'm speaking at this moment and did not waive my privilege to speak is because I have listened to various commissioners state that we must be doing a good job. There's no one here speaking in opposition. We must be doing a good job, because otherwise the room would be full of people. Well, under a mandate it doesn't matter if I'm here or if I'm not here. A mandate will be fulfilled, or Page 67 June 13,2001 you will be under sanctions from the state government. There's so much, much more I could say, but I'm just going to speak on the mandate, the broad-based public participation in a mandated situation, and greenspace and balance. I fail to find any balance because the balance -- apparently, nature won. I don't think people even have a chance. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: The speaker, Mr. Roan, waived. The next speaker, then, would be Mary Jane Gay followed by Lisa Lefkow. MS. GAY: I'm Mary Jane Gay. I live out near Corkscrew Sanctuary. I've been there 25 years. I'm glad to hear that you're saying that you're not going to take our land. Can you tell that to the people south of Alligator Alley, and can you tell that to the people north of Bonita Beach Road? You know, they maybe before was told this too. What can we do -- and I need to know, and I need a copy of the property rights -- to protect our land? As I said, I've lived there 25 years. I enjoy it. A lot of the people that-- and another thing, too, they're wanting to do and you -- and the staff and everybody are wanting to, let's develop everything a mile east of 951, and let's let those builders or developers, let's let them buy some land out in Corkscrew or some trees or south of the alley or -- or down in, what's it, in Marco, and let's let them develop everything there. Well, you're destroying some of the wildlife that's right there on that piece of property. They're tearing down the pine trees. This new Calusa whatever just east of 951, they went in and tore down all the pine trees. That's what the red cockaded woodpecker eats on, you know. And I think what they're trying to do, too, is to put all the wildlife west of 951 and to heck with the ones that's on the other side. Page 68 June 13,2001 But also, are you saying, too, that -- that if I have a 1 O-acre piece of land and I have it already developed, that if I want to go out there and plant an oak tree or tear down a tree, that I can't do that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is A-1 we're talking about. MS. GAY: Now, you're saying it's zoned agricultural, but -- and I wish I had thought and brought it -- but on my tax roll, on my county tax roll, it says nonagricultural. And like someone else says, this agricultural zoning was put in there 40 years ago or so. This land -- there's a lot of 5-acre tracts that's been developed since this time. And also, they're going to restrict us what we can do for -- with our land. I wish there was someone in the county that could come out there and help us, my husband and I, to make this a better community. Code enforcement, the police department, we don't get - - I used to call this the dumping ground. When the county didn't have anything else -- anywhere else to put anything, where do they want it? Oh, let's put it out in Corkscrew. And-- and that's been going on for years. But we don't -- you know, we're like the forgotten community. The only way I'd ever get my road cut -- and this is going off the thing -- but I'd have to call the road department and say, "Hey, our road hasn't been cut in a year." But now you're wanting to come in and say, "Okay. You can't do this and you can't do this on your property." Now, I know the governor has come down. In fact, at one time we were under the NRPA, and someone -- I believe it was Ed Carlson -- said they should take us out, and I talked to Mike Hatcher, and he said that we were taken out at that time. But I know the state, that's what we're wanting to do, they're wanting to come in and take our land. But I need, also, a copy of the property rights to where I know Page 69 June 13,2001 where I stand and where I can fight. And a lot of the people out there, you know, they're -- they're -- they don't know, and they're -- they're concerned, but yet they're afraid to come and talk or do things and be involved in this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Marjorie, could you possibly supply her the property rights of the State of Florida -- that's what it would come under -- and then -- for her to be able to read it. MS. GAY: I'm sorry to take so much time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's all right. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. That's found in the Florida Statutes at Section 70, and I'll be happy to give you a copy -- make a copy of that for you from the county attorney's office. That's the Burt Harris Private Property Rights Act. MS. GAY: I mean, like, I got this letter on Saturday. But guess what? At 8:05 I was on the phone to -- to the county, Horseshoe Drive, trying to find out what they plan to do for my -- with my property. But I like it there. We've been there 25 years, and we want to stay. We don't want -- and another thing you've got to watch is some of the other -- some of the other organizations -- I don't think that's the right word -- have sometime rerouted some water coming in there to try and make us a wetland. And I'll tell you what also. The state tried -- I think it was the state -- in 1974, and there was a lot less people than what there are now fought to keep our land out there because -- and a lot of times the people, they say, "We don't want to live out there, but you know, we want to come out there and visit." Well, we like living there, so let's not disturb us. Okay? And I trust that you'll help me. I know that you will. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Page 70 June 13, 2001 MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Lisa Lefkow followed by Kathleen Avalone. MS. LEFKOW: Good morning, Commissioners. Lisa Lefkow from Habitat for Humanity. I just want to say thank you for this opportunity and to remind you that as we came out of the workshop on work-force housing, which has been identified as a priority of this commission, that we did talk about Dr. Durseau's (phonetic) proposal to look at rezoning some land that might fall in that rural fringe area. And as I hear things this morning and look at the maps, it looks like the Area D is the area that we would be most interested in. So as we begin to talk about the rezoning of that, that there would be special consideration for work-force housing. And, of course, that brings in a number of tangential issues like mitigation, density blending or density bonuses. you, and thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to keep that before Before you go, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, do not buy any property and try to speculate on it at this point in time. MS. LEFKOW: We're waiting for you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is all in the conceptual stage right now. MS. LEFKOW: We're waiting for you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. And there's going to be some other considerations through all of this that we'll look everywhere to do this so it will not be limited to one area. Although that may be a focus idea at the moment, it is not cast in concrete. MS. LEFKOW: Correct. And you can count on us to be supportive wherever that is, so we appreciate that partnership. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Kathleen Avalone followed by Ronnie Poplock. Page 71 June 13,2001 MS. AVALONE: Hi. I have to apologize for using my sunglasses, but they're the only ones I have, and I can't read without them. I'm Kathleen Avalone, and I'm cofounder of the Citizens for the Protection of Animals in Naples. I also live in District 5. And I'd just like to state that I'm all for the following: That the size of the buffers be based on the species involved and not a flat 300 feet; that TDRs be very specific in their regulations and that North Belle Meade be designated a NRPA and, as such, a possible sending zone for a TDR; also, the areas not designated NRPAs now be subject to revision depending upon the fact that endangered and listed species may be using them now and did not at the time that the designations came out. And that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Ronnie Poplock followed by Tom Sullivan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: She's waiving. MR. OLLIFF: Tom Sullivan, then, is your next speaker and will be followed by Michael Kirk. MR. SULLIVAN: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: here. Boy, real nervous. Don't be. We're glad you're MR. SULLIVAN: I'm Tom Sullivan. I live in C-1. I have my company shirt on-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to speak into the -- MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. I live in C-l, and I don't represent my -- my company. I work there. They're in the same area. I represent myself as a homeowner there. A couple things I wanted to -- a couple details I wanted to bring to your attention. First of all, I think these people are doing some -- some good work. I think they -- they are doing the right thing, and I'm a proud resident here for my Page 72 June 13,2001 entire life. And I -- I take comfort in knowing that there's still panthers in Florida and that there hopefully will always be. And -- but I think the board should be -- should know that if there's a lot of emphasis being placed on the fact that there's panthers in the area, they should also know that just recently some people have been bringing captive, live, large cats in the area and that these sporadic seasonal, perhaps, sightings might be because they're being attracted by a lot of captive cats. And it's kind of an artificial sighting, maybe, and that really the value of that land to panthers isn't really quite what it might appear to be because of that fact. Also, I think -- I can't speak for everyone else in the other areas, but in C-1 I know the area pretty well. A lot of it's already been cleared. A lot of business is there already, farms. And I'm not sure what -- the environmental value of that Area C- 1. It might be a little different than C-2. I don't know C-2 that well. I know that there's no roads in C-2 like there is in C-1. And, also, the fact that they should think about in the future the proximity to Exit 15 C-1 has and how it might be -- how already White Lake Development's in the industrial park and that in the future it might be, how should I say, a launching or a landing pad for business for Collier County to the East Coast, and that might be very useful in the future as an industrial park, perhaps, or for housing more businesses to help connect Collier County with the East Coast. And I guess that's about it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I can't agree with you more. That area is prime because of its location for clean industry, and that has been my goal. I've been talking with the EDC for -- MR. SULLIVAN: That's your last area. That's the last big industrial area you'll have on Exit 15, the last doorway of Collier County going to the East Coast. And we'll be -- if this has any permanence -- I mean, maybe you-all won't be here, and they'll Page 73 June 13,2001 change it all again in a few years; who knows. But you might really be shooting yourself in the foot on that by closing that area to significant development. And there's one other thing I wanted to say, but I got so nervous I forgot. Oh, I think we're losing, also, the big picture here. A lot of these people, they bought this property specifically knowing that development's going to come, and they're going to sell it all for big money. And I think that what's going on is, if I heard right, you can development for agriculture -- you can clear it for agriculture, you can clear it for your house, then what's the restriction? The restriction's going to be you can't sell it all to a big development so they don't come and clear it. And basically what you're looking at in this room is, even though we all got blisters and we're wearing boots, you're looking at a bunch of millionaires in this room if you don't take the environment into factor, because eventually development's going to come, and all these people are going to sell their property for a ton of money. And I think -- and somebody stop me if I'm wrong about that -- what they're trying to stop is that specifically. They're trying to keep the small portions small portions and uncleared, which I'm not entirely opposed to trying to conserve the property there. I mean, a lot of it's beautiful -- like they said, beautiful cypress, no exotics, and it's half the reason I enjoy living there. I mean, maybe they have some point, and there should be some -- obviously, some debating on how much and where. But I think C-1 -- I got to speak for myself, I would hope that you would all see my point. And that has some serious potential there for industrial park, perhaps, in the future and that if you-all go there, I think you'll also see that there's a lot of illegal dumping there, a lot of already cleared property, a lot of the exotics, and there's already roads established in that area. Maybe it doesn't have as much Page 74 June 13,2001 environmental value as some of the other areas. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments, sir, and they're very well taken. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: Robert Duane. Next speaker is Michael Kirk followed by MR. KIRK: Hello. My name is Michael Kirk. I'm a civil engineer long-range planner for Collier County Public Schools. First of all, I'd really like to commend the committee and Tom in navigating this committee in this awesome task. I've sat through most of the deliberations over the last several months, and they have made many gains. I know that they are -- there's a lot of work left to be done, but I really have built some confidence in the committee as well as the contributions that have been given by staff. And I believe between the balance of what the staff is offering and what the committee is offering and also what the general public will offer and have more opportunity to offer in the upcoming process, that what will be a final product will be something that will be pleasing to all of us in Collier County. From the perspective of the school district, our main concern is that as growth occurs, that we have the opportunity to have places where we can place schools to serve our students in Collier County. We -- we're -- we have been watching this process in order to determine what will happen because we understand that there will be some growth and this question of where will the growth be, and what we want is the opportunity to be able to go into the areas where there will be growth in order to place schools. Right now in our 20-year plan, we are actually identifying 16 possible school sites that we figure that we will need over the next 20 years. And as we pursue property and in pursuing property, we are -- we are in-- I guess in a dog fight, in a sense, with developers in Page 75 June 13,2001 finding large pieces of property in order to place schools. And what our desire is in the rural fringe is to have the opportunity to buy large pieces of property to provide schools. We are looking in the Golden Gate Estates area to find sites for the need that will be there. However, that's a very difficult process for us because it requires the assemblage of property. And if anybody's ever dealt with the assemblage of property, they understand the difficulties that come with that. So what we are looking for is opportunities -- and pardon the pun -- but to find property on the fringe of the fringe in order to both serve Golden Gate Estates as well as whatever development will happen in the rural fringe area. So that is what we want, and we want to have regulations in that will allow us to do that. The staff as well as the -- as well as the chairman and the committee have made a commitment to -- to look after our concerns in whatever they develop as far as regulations. So we want to say that we want that opportunity in order to meet the needs of Collier County students. And then also, as it relates to TDRs, we have only one major concern as the school district, and that is that the transfer of density rights be done within the area, that they'll not be transferred from A to B or from B to D, but within that area, because part of our -- what we use to determine where we need to build schools and find school sites is that we use buildout information that the county has gathered based on today's regulations. And because of that, if you transfer around, then that will throw off our numbers as -- as it relates to us identifying where we need to find schools. If you're going to transfer density from the north area down to the south area, then we've got a 20-year plan. And whenever that occurs we cannot determine at this time how much will be transferred; therefore we might find ourselves in situations where Page 76 June 13, 2001 there's development, and we have not provided the needed school sites. So that is our only concern. But as far as everything else that is occurring with the process, we've been very pleased, and we've been very -- the committee as well as staff have been receptive to our needs. And that's basically what we want to state, that we are interested in having those opportunities to provide school sites for the school -- for the students of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker is Robert Duane followed by MR. OLLIFF: Peggy Whitbeck. MR. DUANE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole Montes & Associates. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. I've attended a number of meetings of the Rural Fringe Committee, and they've made some substantial progress over the past two or three months; however, one area of-- of disagreement that's come to your attention this morning is over the preservation requirements and the set-aside requirements, a fairly big difference between the committee and staff regarding that. I made a proposal some months ago regarding this issue, and I think if you turn to page 35 of your report, you'll see the differences between the committee's recommendation on preservation to staff's and -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thirty-two, I think. MR. MULHERE: It's actually page 33 of your report, I believe. MR. DUANE: It's 35 on mine. But, anyway, I think the three proposals are summarized for you. I was asked to come back to the committee and present this proposal, and in a roundabout sort of a way, they asked it to be put into this plan for the rural fringe so you'd have another alternative to look at today, so that's why I'm here. I'm Page 77 June 13,2001 going to try to distill this down as best I can, but let me begin by making what I think are a few salient points. You've heard this morning that you have about 50,000 acres of vegetated area in the rural fringe area, and I would point out to you that over half of that area is being preserved in NRPAs. That's almost 28,000 acres of the 50,000 acres in the study area. NRPAs have always been at the heart of our environmental protection plan. Back when I was chairman of the Environmental Technical Policy Advisory Board ten years ago, we were wrestling with NRPAs. I supported them then; I support them now. Bob has told you that 76 percent of the wetlands in the study area are preserved in NRPAs and that 67 percent of the strategic conservation land. And I think that that's -- fulfills some of the substantial goals of our plan, as I understand them to date. On the other hand, your committee is requesting or proposing that generally in Areas A, B, and D, that 30 percent of the vegetation on site be preserved; and in Area C that 45 percent be preserved. On the other hand, you can see the variance between the various proposals. The staff is recommending that 85 percent of the vegetation be preserved in Area C -- that's in the Belle Meade area but falling outside the NRPA, of course -- in Area B, 60 percent; 55 percent in Area D; and 45 percent in Area A. Well, what do the differences in those numbers mean when you look at the data? And I'll tell you what I think they mean. The committee would have you preserve 36,000 acres of this 50,000 acres of vegetation, and the staff would have you preserve 43,000 acres. There's a difference of approximately 7,000 acres. Now, that may seem like a large amount of land area. On the other hand, I will tell you that there's over a million acres in the Big Cypress Preserve and in other preserve areas in our county. Page 78 June 13,2001 So putting the difference between the committee and the staff in that context does not make it look as great as the percentages would otherwise seem to indicate to you, unless you happen to own a small piece of property that has 20 or 30 or 40 acres on it and you can only use 3 or 4 or 5 acres of it, depending upon which study area you're in, of course. Another area of disagreement between the staff, myself, and the committee is this set-aside area. The staff has taken the position that if you have a farm field and it's been totally denuded, you have to set a portion of that aside so it can restore itself in some way, shape, or form. And I realize restoration is an important goal. But these set- aside areas, they range from 25 to 60 percent of your site that you cannot utilize if it was previously impacted. And if you put that requirement on top of the difference between the staff and the committee's proposal, you're roughly about 15,000 acres apart. In other words, staff would like to see 7,000 acres of the study area restored, and they'd like to see 7,000 more acres of it preserved. I'll try to finish up shortly here. May I have another minute, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. DUANE: The staff has taken the position that they would like to preserve 99 percent of the vegetation combined with this restoration standard. I will tell you that that's significant in an area that was designed to be transitional between the urban area and the rural area. It's an area where urban uses in some locations are appropriate, and there's going to be an area where I think ultimately you may want to expand your urban area once you fill it up. So it's a resource that I think that we should use wisely, and I think balance is going to be very important there. Just a couple of final points to close. I think with somewhat lower vegetative area requirements, I think you're going to see Page 79 June 13, 2001 somewhat less cost or more affordable housing by virtue of the fact you're going to be able to use larger portions of your site. The staff has set their preservation area requirements so high that if we are going to try to achieve through incentives part of this goal of preserving it, ain't much of an incentive left if you've got to preserve 85 or 60 or a substantial portion of your site. And my final point -- or two points -- is the set-aside or these previously impacted areas, and we've already heard about Area D. These are very logical areas to transfer development rights from your NRPA areas. They're very logical areas for affordable housing, and they're areas that probably ought to be developed before more pristine areas. So I would leave you with an issue that you can't avoid grappling with, and that's how much of the area you're going to set aside. I would rather rely on incentives and other proposals to try to achieve that restoration. Finally, balance is an important one. I think you've got, you know, some wrangling here to do on that issue. I do support the economist to make sure that we get -- set these incentives right so they're going to be meaningful in the final -- final analysis. I also support the concept of some further sector planning in Belle Meade because there's two Belle Meades. There's one that's in the special study -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. I've got-- MR. DUANE: -- and there's one that's outside the special study area. And I appreciate you allowing me to go over. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Duane brought up some very good points that need to be addressed. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, they will be addressed. The committee will address it, and we'll address it. Like any data that's Page 80 June 13, 2001 presented, I always like to know the backup numbers and how it got there. So I think it's an important input into the discussion. Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Peggy Whitbeck followed by Norman Patica. MS. WHITBECK: Hello. My name is Peggy Whitbeck spelled W-h-i-t-b-e-c-k. I live at 1450 Kapok Street. I'm in the Northern Belle Meade area. I'm on the executive board for the Golden Gate Civic Association and the Golden Gate Chamber. I have heard over the last three years several cries of several of the people that are in this audience. Excuse me; I'm nervous. I understand their concerns. I understand the environmentalists. I would not be doing my duty if I did not mention the fact on July the 18th we will be having an environmental forum that will -- pardon? Sorry. It will -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please, we can't have comments from the audience interrupting the speaker. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. WHITBECK: It will consist of the Audubon Society, The Conservancy, Big Cypress Water Basin, and I can't think of all of them, but there's several -- seven different agencies that will be on our panel. It will be open to the residents of Northern Belle Meade and Golden Gate Estates to ask your questions on restoration of the wetlands, on the impact of the Audubon Society and The Conservancy as far as the habitat for panthers. There's cockaded woodpeckers. You'll get to ask your questions. I invite the whole board here to please attend that. Excuse me. I need to breathe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is it and time? MS. WHITBECK: It will be at the Golden Gate Community Center in the gymnasium. It starts at seven p.m. It'll run to ten. We invite you to come as early as six to talk to all the panelists, to talk to the board members, to vent your frustrations. Hopefully we can get some answers to the people that have just been totally frustrated for Page 81 June 13,2001 several years. In 1993 I talked to the board from Tallahassee about the Northern Belle Meade area and the CARL project. At that time they stated that the Northern Belle Meade was not a natural protection resource area. It was truly transitional wetlands. They said it should not be part of the CARL program. I received letters stating that this was true. Unfortunately, I didn't bring them with me. And it's just amazing what time and a different panel of people will do to change this opinion. I heard a couple things that really bothered me. One thing is that the Northern Belle Meade area is sort of part of the restoration project, part of the Everglades restoration project. It truly is not. It is totally surrounded by residential land, totally surrounded by Golden Gate Estates, that is if the Everglades Boulevard area and the Desoto area does stay, in fact, part of Golden Gate Estates, is not also included in part of this transitional buyout, transitional wetland, or restoration of the water for the rest of Collier County. Other areas that are very sensitive to the people of the estates and Belle Meade is services. It is such an impact for Collier County to have all of these residents, and as the estates grows, to have them all transport in to the areas past 951 going west. The roads would be not sufficient. We have not enough businesses to support all the people that will move into this area. And the children of these people, where are they going to live? What property are they going to be able to buy and build their home? It is truly known that Naples area, Collier County, is being inundated by people from all over the world. We're truly the best place in the world to live, as far as I'm concerned. I moved here because I love Naples, I love Collier County, I love wildlife. I don't - - I don't want to hurt the animals. I have 25 acres. My husband maintains it in a manner that it -- it suits wildlife, the birds, the bees, Page 82 June 13,2001 and everybody else. Services for the estates is essential. I truly feel that we need to look at that desperately. And, Mr. Coletta, I look to you for that because you are our commissioner, and I truly support in what you're trying to do for us, but I feel that this is bigger than everybody. I've watched little baby steps with all these different agencies in taking first with the southern estates, then Marco Island on their beaches, and Bonita and other areas. So I really would like you to give this very, very serious consideration as to what you will do with Northern Belle Meade and all the areas that you have on your map today. And thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Norman Patica followed by Judy, I believe it's, Hentges. MR. PATICA: Hi, everybody. I'm Norm Patica. I live out in Section 6 at C-2 on your map. That's part of that Northern Belle Meade area. I'm kind of like a sore thumbprint out there. To begin with, I come from Southwest Florida here. My father was born and raised on Marco Island. That was before the Deltona Corporation took that place over. He was born on the kitchen table, and I'm not far behind, you know. I'm following in -- I thought I could follow in his footsteps. As that little round seal up there says, in God we trust. Well, you better believe it, because all others you just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay cash. MR. PATICA: -- take it for what it is. The reason I -- I moved out there to the area I am in is because there's nobody there. I don't want to live on a golf course. If I wanted -- if I wanted to live on a driving range, I would. You know, that is the reason I'm there. You know, this Mr. Mole (phonetic), I Page 83 June 13,2001 believe his name was, quote, unquote, I think I dealt with golf courses. That was after the two -- two small statements that he made which made my hair stand up on the back of my neck. You know, these green areas, sure they're green areas, you know, but that's -- it's -- it stands about a quarter inch high, you know. They clear-cut. They completely destroy everything that we had here in Southwest Florida, and I think it's a damn shame, you know. I completely support everything as far as the preservation. I have 20 acres out there. I need a home. I would like to keep my cattle going on the land. I -- as far as maintaining the property, that's none of my business. I don't belong to maintain anything except my home and the little area around it. Mother nature maintains that property. I have no business -- nobody has any business going in there and clear-cutting anything. I heard a lot of really good stuff. I heard a lot of stuff that really -- really upset me. People who have to ask "Where do I live?" probably don't belong there. If they have to ask "What is wetland?" they don't belong there. You know, go over to the -- to the Orange Grove -- or Orange -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tree. MR. PATICA: -- whatever it is over there -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tree. MR. PATICA: -- where they're going to build their-- their, you know, castles and stuff that are 20 feet apart from one another. You know, that's probably where they came from to begin with. I have approximately 680 acres behind me. I've walked many, many of those acres for many hours. I have a lot of animals out there -- I don't. There is a lot of animals out there. I don't -- I don't poach. I don't hunt. I do seek to watch. Gee, I don't know where I'm going with this now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing a good job. Page 84 June 13,2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you're officially my hero. I mean, I just think you -- you -- I wish -- I probably will print out a transcript of your remarks to say this is who we are trying to take care of. I just appreciate your remarks so much. MR. PATICA: You know, it's the people that, you know, were born and raised here, you know. Take a look, you know. We're not looking to bulldoze everything down. We want to leave it alone, you know. Why don't you move north, not south, you know? Just one little tiny thing I would like to touch base on. I saw the graph somebody made up there about percentages of the property that can be used and/or cleared. You know, I think somebody may have made a little bit of a mistake. As far as clearing 30 feet around your home, you know, that's hardly even a breathing space for a fire. We all know that. And, you know, when FPL hears there's a fire out there, the first thing they do is cut your power off. You can't save your home, you know, unless you have your own power plant, you know, and your own sprinklers on top of your home. You know, it is what it is. So someone might reconsider that 30 feet around the home. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Judy Hentges followed by Vince Cautero. MS. HENTGES: Hi. My name is Judy Hentges, and I appreciate you allowing me to ask that question earlier. It was really important because that part of the map was cut off. Let me tell you that my husband and myself have lived in Collier County since 1981. We've seen a lot of growth. Two years ago we sold our home in -- off of Oakes Boulevard and we moved to north Florida because we wanted more space. Page 85 June 13,2001 So let me say that we do own 10 acres of property in C-1. We bought that property solely for the reason to give to our children who are choosing to stay here in Collier County. My son and ourselves had planned on building a horse barn out on the 10 acres. Now, you can't build a horse barn in the woods, so we would have to clear a majority of our property, so the 80 percent for our property would not work for our property for what our plans were for our property. A horse barn and the plan that we had -- and I wish I would have brought a picture of it with me. But the plan that we had did include a lot of greenspace and trail rides around the 10 acres. We're also surrounded by several residential, several nurseries. We -- our back borderline is American Farms. There's a topiary right around the comer. We are -- right across street from us is Mr. Dunavan, who owns the cats that one of the other persons alluded to that could be the reason why the panthers are coming in. Just a few things about the wildlife in general. I am a creationist by belief. I do believe in the six-day creation. I do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, most of the environmentalists are evolutionists, and I will use their own theories against them at this particular point, but I did want to reiterate that I am a creationist. The evolutionist theory is survival of the fittest, and they believe we are animals. So, therefore, we are the most intelligent animals, and we have the rights over the other animals. I do not believe that encroaching on the -- I don't believe that the areas that they have marked out right now are encroaching on the animals' habitat. I believe we need to protect the animals' habitat, but I also believe that you need to go out in these areas. You need to drive these areas. You need to see what is out there. Population studies need to be done. When APAC -- if you'll see on C-1 up there, there's a large section on the northwest comer of C-1. We fought APAC because APAC wanted to come in there, clear-cut that entire Page 86 June 13,2001 section, build a big hole, and take all the rock out. We fought and won because that is not what we wanted. When we got the population studies from the zoning department, those three sections surroundings that section were the most populated sections in the entire Golden Gate Estates. So I think you need to do a population study on these sections and find out exactly how many people live in those sections, because what they did when we were with APAC is they took the population of the estates, and if you look at the estates it is, what, 21,000 acres. It's a huge section of property. They took the population of the estates, which includes Logan and Oakes, and then they spread it out over this entire thing. And they were trying to tell the commissioners at that time that there was only 10 people per mile. Well, I can tell you there's a heck of a lot more than ten people per mile. In that square mile that our house is in, there's a lot more than ten people. There's a lot more than ten people in a lot of those places. Also, go to the insurance companies and find out what flood zones are there, because I was talking to the Campbells, who own out in what you're calling the study area. They're in Flood Zone X. Flood Zone X is one hundred years. Every one hundred years it will flood, and they are smack dab in the middle of that study area. I talked to another lady who's down in the D area. She's in Flood Zone 7. Her property will flood every 25 years. You cannot tell me that D is less of a wetland than C. It doesn't figure. It doesn't figure because the insurance companies know who's going to flood and know who's not going to flood. So that's where you go to. You don't go to the environmentalists who are saying, "Hey, you know, these are wetlands." You don't go to them. You go to the insurance companies who know what's going to flood and what's not. That's their business. That's how they make money. And that's all I really Page 87 June 13,2001 have to say. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please. (Applause.) MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Vince Cautero followed by Dr. Richard Woodruff. MR. CAUTERO: Cautero for the record. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Vince I'll be brief. I just wanted to stress one point. I believe Mr. Conrecode hit the mark when he talked about other issues that are important in addition to environmental protection. As you're all aware, part of the assessment criteria in the final order talks about the cost-efficient delivery of public services and facilities. And I think when the staff and the committee start talking in more depth about incentives for development dealing with density, I can't stress enough that I think that's going to be important to be talking about issues like parks, schools -- I think Mr. Kirk's testimony was very compelling -- affordable housing, and dedication of land and/or construction for utilities. And I think that that should be stressed very much, and I just wanted to point that out. In addition to the interrelationships of the uses around areas where people are going to be developing, I think more thought needs to be given about compatibility and if there should be some room for incentive there. And, finally, I wanted to urge the board to take the staff's advice to hire an economist, and I think you know that that's important. I hope you do. Time is of the essence with the final order provisions. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much, Vince. Dr. Woodruff. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Dr. Woodruff followed by Tim Hancock. DR. WOODRUFF: Good morning, Honorable Chairman and Members of the County Commission. A couple of points I would Page 88 June 13, 2001 like to make. First of all, I would like to commend to you the nine citizens who have spent literally hundreds of hours. They have now had 36 meetings, and tonight they'll hold No. 37, and probably before it's over they'll hold No. 50, but they have done an outstanding job. I would also like to commend to you your staff. The staff has done what I believe is excellent work in trying to help bring the issues together. There is no question there is some variance, though, between the committee and between the staff, and I'm comfortable that over the next several months that that variance will be eliminated. There are five specific points I want to make and then three clarifications I would like to make from the staff's presentation. First of all, as was stated, I want to make sure that you understand that the report before you -- and I have bound mine because I carry it with me wherever I go to memorize those important salient factors. The staff report before you only addresses the rural fringe, the 94,000-plus-or- minus acres. It does not address the eastern lands. As you contemplate these things, please contemplate them in that framework. In approximately three months, we'll be bringing back to you a report from the eastern lands area that will address many of these same issues. The second thing, when you look at the final order, you must try to balance. And there is no question that the final order has statements in it that you are required to comply with, but there's also no question you must balance private property rights. Now, I have in my hand -- and I'm going to ask if you would put this on your projector real quickly. Based upon the Collier County Tax Collector records -- and the people in the audience have wondered, you know, how many -- where you live and so forth -- this actually shows you ownership. And if you'll notice, the -- the north -- the NC area is the Page 89 June 13,2001 Corkscrew area, then coming down A-1, A-2, and so forth. What you're going to find is the number of parcels in that middle column and the number of property owners on the right. And the bottom line is when you're trying to balance the final order, you must also balance private property rights. Whether people bought it for their home site or whether they bought it for an investment are both equal and appropriate under our system of government. There is neither one nor the other that has a greater claim to property rights. Therefore, you're dealing with over 3,835 recorded owners, and there actually are more owners than that because some of them are children or heirs and so forth, so you're going to have to balance the private property rights issue. The third point that I would like to make is that we did submit to the fringe committee a report on transfer of development rights. I will tell you that after studying development rights programs throughout the country, we obviously know that when Dr. Spagna helped start the TDR program here in the '70s, that is has not been successful. But it has failed in Collier County or at least reached limited success in Collier County because of the structure of the program, not because of the program itself. It's kind of like saying, "Well, you know, we shouldn't have people become chefs because Richard Woodruffs a bad cook." Well, don't judge the culinary arts of the world on me. On the same thing, don't judge the potential for transfer of development rights on what has been Collier County's experience to date. There are several outstanding programs that we've identified and we've shared with the committee, and I believe properly structured, you can have TDRs become the backbone of accomplishing many of the things that the final order requires and accomplishing a way of providing property right protection. Fourth, development will occur in the rural fringe. Development Page 90 June 13, 2001 will occur in the rural fringe. When you look at it, there is no question, though, that the statistics are clear. To have it continue to develop in 5-acre, 1 O-acre tracts with private roads that are dirt that interfere with sheet flow, with septic tanks and wells, that is one way to develop it. The statistics are clear, though, there is a better way, and that is cjustering. And with cjustering should come the requirement for central water and sewer. You should give the flexibility, though, that that should not be an obligation of the county. You should give the flexibility of either private or public. Two clarifications: Accuracy, the 90 percent statistics that were told you, that's the same data that we were given for the east lands. There was a 17 percent error rate -- a 17 percent error rate -- that we discovered in the 194,000 acres that we have been studying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seven oh? DR. WOODRUFF: Seventeen percent. So that's not a 90 percent accuracy. Second thing on that point, please do not misinterpret wetland cover versus jurisdictional wetlands, and I'm going to give you one example. In the rural fringe area on Immokalee Road, we have a client that, based upon wetland cover, would have had roughly 80 acres. However, based upon jurisdictionals, that was reduced to 9 acres, and that is a fact based upon what reality of development -- Immokalee Road canals, Golden Gate Estate canals -- have done. With that, I thank you for your courtesy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Dr. Woodruff. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Tim Hancock followed by Tom Siemianowski. MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Hancock, vice president with Vanasse & Daylor. I'm here to discuss, as opposed to particulars of the report, quite frankly, what has been, in my opinion, an omission in the Page 91 June 13, 2001 report. The final order issued by the governor and cabinet requires Collier County to encourage, and I quote, development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, including but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, aerial-based allocations, cjustering, and open-space provisions, and mixed-use development. The reason I note that there was an omission is that, as stated on page 10 of the report, the approach taken in the rural fringe assessment is very different than that of the eastern lands assessment based primarily on the number and size of parcels. Quite frankly, in order not to trample the individual property rights of the small parcel owners in the rural fringe, a different scale and different approach was used; wisely so, and I support that approach. However, I think it has skewed the scope of the rural fringe assessment toward protecting the development rights of small parcel owners -- which, again, I reiterate, has to occur -- while really not fully examining the potential of the larger ownership parcels. And by doing that we may not be meeting the requirements of the governor's final order in reviewing urban villages, new towns, and satellite communities in the rural fringe. I think we've all come to accept, even though we haven't seen a report, that the Eastern Lands Committee is going to be applying those types of concepts. But there are within the rural fringe, as you've heard today, certain areas that are far more capable of handling development than others. We've talked about moving development scenarios to those areas, specifically Areas A and D and possibly some parts of C. Why are we not looking at the smart growth concepts of new towns or what we're calling rural villages in the rural fringe area? We have the ability, and we have not addressed it in the report to date. Page 92 June 13,2001 The tools necessary for the development of predominantly a self-sustaining village are present in the report but not focused with the development of villages in mind. For example, a cap of .3 units per acre for lands in the rural fringe subsequent to TDRs just really isn't sufficient. The recommendation to hire an economist to ensure the marketability of a TDR proposal is a sound recommendation, and we support that fully. If we're going to effectively change the pattern of development in the rural fringe or at least provide the opportunity to change that pattern of development, we have to take a different approach and take on the issue of encouraging larger landowners to apply true comprehensive smart growth initiatives. To that end, I'm requesting today that you direct the Rural Fringe Committee to incorporate the following: One, provide for a rural fringe overlay within the lands known as the rural fringe -- not a mandate, not requiring that it occur, but provide it as an overlay that can be taken advantage by the larger property owners on lands more suitable for development. In that rural village overlay district, some of the elements of that-- and these are the same elements you'll find in smart growth discussions going on throughout the country -- are the provision -- and these would be requirements -- of school sites; central water and sewer; commercial development sufficient to serve the village; habitat recreation for areas adjacent to NRPAs; a true mix of housing that provides a broad spectrum of housing options for a variety of income levels; and achievable density, somewhere from 1 to 1.5 units per acre, very similar to the urban residential fringe already in your comp plan; a binary street network assessable to the public; use of dual water systems for irrigation; and restoration of flow-ways where appropriate. I -- I list those items simply as elements for thought, not as a comprehensive list, and ask that they be target areas in adopting any Page 93 June 13,2001 type of a rural fringe overlay approach that are addressed. That list needs to be refined and may become more inclusive as further study goes on. Rather than asking for an endorsement of this concept here today, I simply ask that the committee be directed to look at that between now and the time they come back with specific recommendations. One thing that may help you or comfort you in moving forward with this kind of concept is that we're talking about land masses in the 3-, 4-, 5,000-acre size. We're not talking about a hundred acres or 200 acres. So any project that would take advantage of an overlay district of this type to create a self-sustaining community, for the most part, would in all likelihood be a DRI, or development of regional impact, which as you know, has a substantial public participation element in any approval process. It's not just a rezone. It would probably require a state DRI process to accomplish it. I think this is the kind of concept, not just in the eastern lands, but with the opportunities that exist in the near future within the rural fringe, that we have to take advantage of the out-of-the-box thinking as opposed to continuing to perpetuate low-density golf course communities. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Tim. Well thought out. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Tom Siemianowski followed by the last registered speaker, Mark Morton. MR. SIEMIANOWSKI: My name is Tom Siemianowski, and I live in the A-1 area, and I'm basically here just to put everything in perspective to both the board and to staff. Big Corkscrew is listed in the brochure that everybody got today in the pamphlet, but in fact, it's called Big Corkscrew Island, and it's Big Corkscrew Island for a reason. It's a pine island with palmettos. And, you know, it's been that way for -- for several thousand years. Before there was Twin Eagles, Waterways, OrangeTree, Valencia Page 94 June 13, 2001 Lakes, the Collier County Extension, and the Jones Mining Company and the rural fringe concept, there was Big Corkscrew Island and Big Corkscrew Island community. It's curious that both the OrangeTree and the Waterway development, which was in orange, I believe, in that map, is listed as a rural settlement when, in fact, Big Corkscrew Island has been a settlement for 50 years. There's many people that live there. We have a Big Corkscrew Island fire department. We've had a Big Corkscrew Island Civic Association. And, like I mentioned before, it's been there for 50 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think this means it was the settlement of a lawsuit. There was a lawsuit settlement that resulted in that boundary. That's all that means. We know you were there first. MR. SIEMIANOWSKI: Well, it wasn't clear in the -- in the -- in the pamphlet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. SIEMIANOWSKI: Okay. Absolutely. Understood. Basically, we are a community. We've been there for 50 years. We have a fire department there. And maybe as a follow-up since we're sandwiched in between A-1 and A- 2, that there could be meetings there, held, you know, as follow-ups to let our community of several hundred people to find out what's happening in a follow-up on all of this with the rural fringe. Okay? Thank you very much. MR. OLLIFF: Last speaker is Mark Morton. MR. MORTON: Good morning. Mark Morton. Good news. Technology has caught up to Collier County. What you see on this wall is a color aerial that was flown of Collier County in February of this year. These aerials have been flown by about half a dozen different aerial companies who have -- as you can see, it picks up most of the rural fringe area, and it goes all the way up to the Peace River and most of the way down to the 10,000 Islands. Page 95 June 13,2001 In terms of for the folks in the audience here that are concerned about their property and where they sit and how maps can affect them, all of this -- these aerials will be available to the county, I believe, within about a month or two. And at that point they can either be put on the community -- on the Web page and people can have all of these C-2 areas, etc., overlaid on it. And what can happen with these is -- you're seeing a large-scale version of just the whole county. That can be taken to larger and larger scales, almost to the point you can pick the people's houses off of these maps in terms of their quality of resolution. These were picked up from an aerial company that the county did not purchase from. The county's are even a higher resolution. So I think as the committee and the staff proceeds forward with the best available data, that these aerials will be very key to them because you can actually see all of the wetlands, all of the vegetation, and as I said, all of the property owners. And they have the capability through CAD to put overlays of the streets, all the property ownerships, etc., and I suspect it would be very helpful to the people here in the audience that are concerned. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you leave that up there, Mark, so that people can look at it? MR. MORTON: Yeah. This is only one part of the urban area. It doesn't really pick up that area, but I'll leave the big one too. Also, in the original notice on this, there was going to be discussion about the wetland and wildlife ordinance for the urban area. Is that going to be addressed at a later workshop? Because it was taken off this agenda. Is that still existing or is that -- MR. MULHERE: We made references to it. That's the county - - that's the countywide minimum wetland and habitat species protective standards. To the degree that the board wants to discuss it, it's on the agenda. It's been already discussed. Page 96 June 13,2001 MR. MORTON: Okay. I have before me a notice from the Department of Environmental Protection on some public workshops they're going to be holding throughout the state. For, I guess, about a year now, the state has been working on wetland identification and mitigation criteria that'll be required to be adopted by all the counties. The intent of this rule is to fulfill the mandate of Subsection, whatever, Florida Statute, which requires the establishment of a uniform wetland mitigation assessment method to determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts of proposed activity to the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, fish, wildlife, and listed species. The method established in this rule is binding on the Department of Environmental Protection Agency, the water management districts, local governments, and all other government agencies in the State of Florida, except for federal agencies. I would suggest that this is very -- fairly well-documented, and those workshops are going to start occurring. There's -- the one at South Florida Water Management District is in July, and staff probably should get ahold of this because I know they're putting a lot of effort into that type of work right now. And it looks like the state's going to have something that you're going to be forced to use anyways. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. OLLIFF: That's all of your registered speakers. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's it. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I was going to make some recommendations, as we move forward towards this process, that we look for a more realistic percentage of land use, something that's between the committee's recommendation and staff's recommendation. It just isn't applicable that you can except Page 97 June 13,2001 somebody to only be limited to a -- to a limited driveway of 150 feet, especially on the land uses out there. There should be a little bit more of a giveaway there and especially with the size taken into consideration. Golf courses, if allowed -- and I'm not exactly in favor of golf courses, period. But if they are allowed, they should be not only made to be environmentally friendly, but they should be -- many density credits go with it and also mitigation. I don't want to make it easy for them to do that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I believe that you'll find that Dr. Bartone (phonetic) is the one that's establishing that in the -- saw it somewhere in the plans. I'm sure -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I've seen that, but I want to make -- I want to emphasize on that. Also, if-- and I don't want to scare the members of the committee away, but possibly you might consider holding some of your meetings in a more user- friendly location and possibly a little bit later in the day, in the evening. I was thinking of OrangeTree every other one. Every one would be great, but I know that might be very difficult for the people to make it, and I know that Developmental Services is an easy place to meet and use our resources; the next meeting of the Collier County Commission on this subject be an evening meeting and out to OrangeTree. The -- I'd like to see some -- I couldn't see it in there, maybe it was, but I'd like the fencing issue to be addressed. If we're going to have acreage out there and people put up cyclone fences, it's going to defeat everything you want to do environmentally. If that issue hasn't been addressed, it needs to be looked into. ! suggest that you look into hiring the economist, and I think we need to better identify wetlands out there so that we're site specific. And that's my recommendation. Page 98 June 13,2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That is all under part of staff direction, that which we need to consolidate, as was presented by Stan this morning. So we need to, if it's the pleasure of the board as we answer these questions, to wrap that in the general categories and address those concerns. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, those are all outlined. The good news about the staff recommendations that we have in our executive summary today is that none of them, as they told us at the outcome, requires us to make decisions today. If you look at all three of them, the last two are the easiest. One is, do we want to hire an economic consultant to be sure we give people viable market-driven alternatives? And surely the answer to that is yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Like a Fishkind. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe Hank Fishkind, maybe somebody else, because his name is so associated with the development. I mean, I -- he's the only one I know, and I would be very happy with him. But when I mention his name to environmental types, they say, "Oh, God, no. He doesn't understand the value of open land, of vacant land, of environmental resources." Maybe he's not the right guy. I don't know. But somebody like that for sure. And then do we want to direct the transportation administrator to conduct the analysis of the transportation impacts? Well, surely those two are not controversial. And then if we look at the only -- you know, the remaining decision for us today is, do we want to tell our staff to start drafting the comp plan amendments that are necessary, frankly, to put the questions to us that will allow us to make the decisions that Commissioner Coletta was describing and that people here put the questions to us about how much open space and where the TDRs, if any, should be transferred, and should we have density blending? Page 99 June 13,2001 But, you know, I commend the staff. In my six years, I've never seen a better presentation. John, your guys, all of you, Stan, Bill, all of you did just a fabulous job of laying out an extremely complicated issue. And I know it's still hard, but you laid it out very methodically and -- and in a way that is clear to people who are paying attention hard. It's still hard information. But I really just wanted to commend you publicly for that and to say, you know, I'm -- I make a motion that we adopt all three of the staff recommendations. And all that means is they'll start drafting the rules, they will measure the economic and transportation impacts, and we will continue to talk about what Should be the outcome. So that's a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about those other issues, Pam, that I mentioned? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what you'd want to add. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to look at a more realistic land use for clearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But see, that's -- that's the to-be- decided part. There -- we will get that question posed to us when they give us an ordinance or when they give us a comp plan amendment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to make sure that they don't think they've reached the final decision. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They haven't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no way. CHAIRMAN CARTER: They haven't. The work towards a consensus on that is where there's significant divergence and approach to issues in the staff findings versus the committee's position. And I think that gives them a broad direction to take and fold that all in. Page 100 June 13,2001 And what you -- what you had mentioned as a last part of your direction, I am in favor of looking at sewer and water districts, which do not imply that this is moving the urban boundary line. But OrangeTree is a classic example, which Mr. Mudd has already brought forward to us in the long-range planning for public works, that the sewer treatment facility, we cannot ignore what's going to take place. And particularly when you look at the septic systems are not desirable in the future when you begin to start looking at cjustering and doing things like this. So I don't think we can ignore the issue. I think we need to explore. And I would hope the board would agree that we have staff and the committees look at it and give us recommendations so that we understand where we are on that issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a motion on the floor, so I'd like to second that motion with -- if you'll agree with me that it includes the suggestions that Commissioner Coletta has -- has given to incorporate in that number one of the three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would certainly agree with regard to meeting times and meeting places and those practical aspects, but we don't have -- just -- we must focus on the fact that we don't have the choice today, or ever, of saying we think -- just as Ms. Linnan told us at the beginning, one side wants 40 percent, one side wants 80 percent, so we're going to split the baby and say 60 percent. We don't have that authority. The state tells us what we can and cannot do as proven to them by science. So our job is to tell staff go out and draft what the science supports. And if we want to get pushy about it when it comes back and try to push the governor a little bit, then we can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I beg to differ with you. Tom, when he was up here, said the fact is that there was rationale behind the numbers that they were coming up with. I'm looking for -- well, Page 101 June 13, 2001 if it isn't possible to do it, then it's not possible. But I still think it is, from everything that's been described to me. Read to me where it says in there that we have to hold to this 90 percent number. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioners, if I might add, part of the question that Commissioner Coletta has raised, which is a valid question and it has been raised by a number of people, will be partially answered by the issue to which and the extent to which the economic incentives are a valid market-- marketable way to achieve the science-driven standards that we know we have to approach. And part of those answers will come through in the -- through the summer and during -- through the economic analysis to answer the question as to how far we can get between staff's recommendation and the committee's recommendation and still meet the requirements of the law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- and that's why if we would give them the direction in the staff recommendation, we would have the opportunity later to hear the science and the economics and the transportation impacts of all of the information. And based on that, balancing that, we might discover that 80 is the right number instead of 90 or 50 in some places or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we can incorporate that in the motion, I --just as long as we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- encourage the committee to go forward with what they have to gather, as far as their stance on it. They're using the -- their logic is based upon the actual needs out there and the uses because they're related to the subject. Staff is looking at it more from the technical side and the legal side. Between the two of them, I'm sure there's some marriage. I don't like the numbers I see from staff. I don't see them as workable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I do like them, you know, Page 102 June 13,2001 so I understand that we disagree on that point. MR. OLLIFF: And I think you need to recognize that this process is a lot like your original Growth Management Plan development process in that I think you heard several committee members indicating to you that they think that there will be -- the majority of all of these issues, that the committee and the staff will probably work these things out over the course of the next several months and probably bring to you a unified recommendation. On those few areas where they don't, generally the board is presented with here's what the committee recommended, here's what the staff recommended, here's the rationale for both of their recommendations, and the board gets an opportunity to make that decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just to be sure, Commissioner Coletta, that that's in there, what I would propose to add to the end of number one under the staff recommendations, because what it -- the last sentence there says that the committee and staff be directed to continue to work toward consensus on areas where they disagree. And I would add and where consensus is not possible, that a minority report be presented or a committee report, whoever disagrees, that we be presented with the minority report in addition to the consensus information. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As long as we keep that avenue open by telling our committee out there to stay the course. MR. OLLIFF: And so you know -- and I don't want to make it any more confusing than it has to be. But as we did the comp plan process too, you need to recognize there are probably some advisory board recommendations that will be in there as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope so. I hope this is going to EAC real soon. MR. OLLIFF: So there will be two or three different, probably, Page 103 June 13, 2001 recommendations in front of you, and the board's going to have to pick off of a Chinese menu of some of these things as to what you think is the most rational way to go on some of these issues. But the point of this workshop was to get the board educated in terms of what the process was; to understand that we are probably a year away from making real solid, hard, final decisions; but to give us some general broad policy direction to go start working on those goals, objectives, and policies that will start to narrow this down to decision points for you to make. The things that I heard today that I think you need to decide on policy-wise, from some of the public speakers, for example, Commissioner-- ex-Commissioner Hancock's recommendations regarding some of the smart growth issue. Do you want the committee to look at some of that clustering, new-town-type development within the rural fringe? Because that is not something that I think that we are currently looking at today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can do that by -- after we get through this motion and we vote on it, is to give input, "Okay, Committee, look -- we want you to look at this also." And like Commissioner Carter said, water and sewer, private/public, you know, those type of things. So I call the motion, and we'll get into that discussion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I -- I understand what you're saying, Commissioner. However, if you ignore what's on page 43, 4.01.1.93, second paragraph under central sewer and water, I do not know how you're going to accomplish the other objectives without that being factored in and discussed and becoming a part of the total process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Commissioner, by virtue of the fact that it's 1.4. Whatever you just said, it's a part of the process. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in there. Page 104 June 13, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Of course it's part of the process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So all we have to do is tell the staff to please go forward and draft things, and that'll be one of the things they'll draft up and-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: As long as it's there. I don't want any misunderstanding on this dais. MR. OLLIFF: I think that there's probably three, from what I could tell, major policy direction kinds of things that you may want to give your staff and that committee. And one regards recognition and consideration in bringing back final recommendations on public utilities and infrastructure issues within these areas. The second thing is to make sure that that public infrastructure includes school sites. And then the third thing is really just that planning issue that I think Tim Hancock brought up for you. And those are the three sort of policy directions that I think, in addition to those things that the staff has recommended, we'd like to get some direction from you on this morning. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm comfortable with that as long as it's inclu-- if that is all part of the motion as everyone understands it and gives staff sufficient direction, I can-- I will call the question unless there's any other discussion. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one comment, and that is I'm happy to incorporate that, all of that, because I think all of it's already in there except, perhaps, for Tim Hancock's suggestion. And I wish that we would direct the committee and staff to use their professional discretion on that topic. I mean, I just don't have any idea if it's a good idea or if it's harebrained. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Speaking to Nancy Linnan and the staff off dais, they were telling me they were doing those considerations, but they can clarify that for us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's already something that Page 105 June 13, 2001 you guys are considering, so I'm happy to include that then. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I call the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation this morning. We'll look forward to seeing you at the next meeting. MR. GOODNIGHT: Could I have a final word? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, the meeting is over, sir. MR. GOODNIGHT: Well, one little thing you-all left out. Now, you changed. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to identify -- MS. GOODNIGHT: Allen Goodnight. I have property up here off of Immokalee road. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, sir, you will have to speak with staff on that. We had everybody sign up to be-- MR. GOODNIGHT: You changed the property value here, and I've heard nothing about taxation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, you will have to discuss that off record with someone else because we've already closed the meeting. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page 106 June 13,2001 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAMES I~ '~ARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK :',:: ~These,.m[n~tes approved by the Board on as pregented ~ or as co~ected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 107