EAC Minutes 05/22/2002 SMay 22, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAl. ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County Commission Boardroom
Building "F", 3rtl Floor
3301 Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34104
5:00 PM
MINUTES
MAY 22, 2002
Chairman Tomas W. Sansbury called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM
Il.
ATTENDANCE:
Members: Tomas W. Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Alexandra Santoro, Alfred F.
Gal, Ed Carlson, William H. Hill, Erica Lynne
New member: Ken Hommistan; not present
Quorum was established
Collier County: Robert Mulhere, Mac Hatcher, Barbara Burgeson, Alan
Reynolds, Marjorie Student, George Vamadoe, Tim Durham
Bill Lorenz, David Weeks
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No additions, changes, deletions, or changes. Tom
-Mr. Sansbury states for the record that due to his employer owning land that is part of
the objective, he will not vote, in order to keep clear of any conflict of interest
III.
Presentation of the Report and Recommendations of the Collier County
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee For the lmmokalee
Area Study
A) Bob Mulhere, RWA Inc., gives a brief summary of the culmination of three years
work on the county's growth management plan. The plan had three goals:
1) To identify measures to protect prime agriculture areas, including measures to
prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands.
2) To direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitats in order
to protect water quality and quantity and to maintain natural water regime, as
well as to protect listed animals and plant species and their habitats.
3) To assess potential growth by assessing potential conversion of rural lands
other uses in appropriate locations while discouraging urban sprawl and
directing incompatible land uses away from the critical habitat and wetlands
and also encouraging creative land use planning techniques.
The county chose to carry through this process in two separate and distinct
phases:
1) Dealing with the Rural Fringe (in the coming weeks this will undergo
adoption hearings)
Page 1
May 22, 2002
2)
Dealing with the Eastern Lands (consists of 200,00 acres of privately owned
lands, located predominately in Immokalee)
-A group of landowners in this area created a coalition, that offered to pay the
costs data collection and the assessment process, they hired the firm of
Wilson-Miller to conduct the project.
The Board of County Commissioners reviewed and approved the scope of
services that Wilson Miller was to provide for this process.
-Original Deadline was June 22, 2002
-Timeline was extended for Eastern Lands portion, presently at Transmittal
Stage
B) Alan Reynolds, president of Wilson Miller Inc., gives overview of Presentation:
1)
2)
Company hired three years ago for data collection, mapping, subsequently
working through some of the scenarios and creating the recommendations for
the committee. (Refers to twelve point handout- Outline of Presentation)
Mr. Reynolds will offer a brief overview, introduce Ann Olesky, then enter a
twelve minute video for presentation, will follow with an in depth overview of
study area (contains over 195,000 acres of land), Bill Lorenz, Collier Co.
Natural Resource Department and Tim Durham, Wilson Miller will both be
presenting information for this overview (This information is summarized in
Report and Recommendations of The Collier County Rural Lands Assessment
Area Oversight Committee For the Immokalee Area Study), A1 Reynolds will
then review the Stewardship program, Bill Lorenz will cover staff's
"important findings", time will be extended for questions and answers and
public comments, then the meeting is free to deliberate on its findings.
3)
General Remarks: This is a "unique" process, The staffhad to look in to the
future to 2025 for its planning, there was direct collaboration with all
stakeholders in the land (property owners, county staff, residents of
Immokalee, oversight committee, and the public)
C) Ann Oleski, Rural lands oversight committee and owner of the Lake Trafford Marina,
feels that this opportunity to be on the committee was a great opportunity and that they
came up with a great program. The fact that it was comprised of farmers, small land
owners, environmentalists, people wanting to protect upland habitat, the wetlands, and
the farmer made sure that everyone was involved and considered in the outcome. She
feels the stewardship program gives the landowner the opportunity to be a good steward
to the land. She also believes that Wilson Miller Inc. put together a package of maps that
were "sorely needed in Collier County, which the committee was able to utilize. The
outcome was that the Rural Lands Oversight committee voted unanimously for
stewardship program, and she states the program is still under fine-tuning towards
completion. Ann Oleski finds the video is not prepared for presentation.
-Tom Sansbury moved to change agenda
Page 2
May 22, 2002
D) Tim Durham, Wilson Miller inc., feels it was important to note that mapping was a
major part of the first year's work, this enabled everyone to know what exactly was being
discussed and was a good starting point for their discussions. Tim Durham states the old
mapping of the natural resource in the Eastern County area were inaccurate. States that
Wilson Miller lnc, took these maps and made them more accurate. (All maps are
contained in the Report and Recommendations Handbook)
Exhibit 1 - Existing Landcover - findings for broad characterization, predominately
"Agricultural" uses, "Other" accounts for mining activity and miscellaneous category that
accounts for a small percentage, the rest of the map shows "Wetlands", "Uplands", and
"Water".
Exhibit 2- Existing Natural Vegetation - Basic purpose is to show the vegetation
coverage in these parts and some of their uses, the three major components are "Other
Landcover", "Natural Vegetation", and "Permitted Water Retention Areas".
Ed Carlson asks of the resolution of the map and how small an area would be
represented, for example, isolated wetlands?
Tim Durham states that one acre or less would show and states that there are
smaller map units available, detailed mapping is available in the stage 1 report.
Exhibit 3 - Hydric soils Vs Non-Hydric soils - covers soils wet enough to support
wetlands (Hydric), this offers general view.
Exhibit 4 - Existing Land Uses - Maps previously listed have reviewed Land Cover,
what is out there, this covers its uses, Primary is "Agricultural," "Grazing Leases"
(primarily cattle leases), "Public Lands", Tim Durham apologizes to Carlson, stating that
previous maps have "generalized" Corkscrew lands as public lands, which is not strictly
correct, rather it is more of a generalization, primary purpose being to recognize them in
a conservation sense, "Other" is shown as well (again primarily mining), and open
"Water"
Exhibit $ - Breakdown of Agricultural Area- Gives breakdown of agricultural uses.
Exhibit 6 - Agricultural Surface Water Management Systems - Reviews coarse exhibit
of general direction of water sources. Generally moves north to south. Shows the
mapping of water movement.
Exhibit 7 - Was missing, but is in Handbook- Oil and Gas Well Pad Locations
Exhibit 8 - Public Lands/Acquisition Programs
Exhibit 9 - Interim NRPAs and Special Study Area - Outlines in broad terms the
opposed interim NRPAs of Collier County, Special Study Areas outline areas that it was
agreed would warrant extra attention throughout the process
Exhibit 10- Water Resources - general movement of surface water through the area,
location of existing production wells and identified well recharge areas, map identifies
important well areas to keep in consideration through the process in order to avoid
negative impact
Exhibit 11 - Listed Species (Without Panther Telemetry) With Natural Vegetation -
used a number of data sets and attempted to superimpose them in order to provide a
Page 3
May 22, 2002
general idea, identifies known listed species occurrence points minus panther (on
following two exhibits)
Exhibit 12 - Florida Panther Telemetry Data For 90 Panthers From 1/81 to 6/00
Regional View - Broader view of panther issues, dots indicate one-time panther
locations, with all points you see the telemetry of the panther.
Exhibit 12A - Florida Panther Telemetry Data For 46 Panthers From 1/81 to 6/00 Study
Area - Again use of red dots to show telemetry, this is a view zoomed in from the
previous view, they have tried to keep these connections and trails in mind while going
through their process.
-Ed Carlson states that this information shows only "collared" panthers and excludes
"non-collared" panthers
-Erica Lynne wants to say that for genetic diversity it is important to keep in mind even
areas with low panther telemetry when considering protection
-Tim Durham wants to leave an overall impression that there is a large majority of
agricultural areas, but there is also wetland, and upland areas.
E) Robert Mulhere, RWA Inc., covers methodology and development of these scenarios.
-Re-established the three major goals: Natural Resource Protection, continued
Agricultural viability, and what can "loosely" be termed as sustainable
development in appropriate areas within the study area.
-Committee and the staff of Wilson Miller Inc. determined the best approach was
develop and test several scenarios. Foundation of all THREE scenarios was Rural
Land Stewardship, this offers a new way of looking at how they value natural
resources on privately owned lands. The idea is to provide an incentive to the
private property owner so that he is a good steward to the land. The system was
designed to be flexible and primarily incentive based. A technical analysis of
impact of natural resources in order to assess their impact on the public. They
established a horizon framework of the year 2025, feeling that anything further on
in time would be less valuable and not reasonable to test the scenario. Time
frame is consistent with the FPO framework. Benchmarks for comparison include
components of the 2025 time frame, projected road work analysis, the interim
NRPAs boundaries in the baseline, the current Immokalee boundaries were
presumed to exist and not be changing, analyzation and utilization of the Big
Cypress Area of critical concern, the boundaries and acreage of public lands. In
the economic analysis employment estimates and demographic indexes will be
used to determine the level of support services under each scenario. Wilson
Miller Inc. used a 20,000 sub acre that best represented the entire lands, these
20,000 acres were used to test the scenarios as well as the scenarios were modeled
on this 20,000 sub acres. The critical component is the stewardship program.
Scenarios:
1) Solely an incentive based scenario.
2) Incorporates a reasonable estimate of potentially available public dollars to natural
resource areas was applied along with the incentive based stewardship program. An
Page 4
May 22, 2002
3)
analysis was done of expected public dollars and this was applied to a reasonable
expectation of what might be purchased.
Incorporates some baseline regulatory structure. This proposal does not only rely on
the incentive based project or on an estimated projection of public dollars, but it also
regulatory baseline structure in the case that someone chooses not to participate in the
stewardship program or if there are not public dollars available to purchase these
lands.
F) A1 Reynolds, Wilson Miller Inc., covers scenario 3 and the stewardship program.
Key points to arriving at stewardship - governor convened a "growth management study
commission to tackle problems such as rural lands, 70% of FL is rural and most planning
of last 20 years is urban since this was a pocket of growth and rural was left in a void.
Rural areas are now building up and demanding research. Agriculture is now facing
threats international markets, changes in regulatory climate, and price competition. Need
a strategy to balance to ensure agriculture remains a viable part of collier county, natural
resource protection, and population growth and its needs. Gives credit to Craig Evens,
President of FL Stewardship Foundation, for saying that the way we look at the value of
land does not currently reflect its natural resource value rather its housing and
development conversion value. Evens wants to remember the natural resource value by
giving it a larger monetary value. Evens wants a system where natural resource value is a
higher value, in order to give incentive to private owners to protect these lands with rich
amounts of natural resource. He also wants us to recognize that there is not enough
money to protect all the lands we want to with public money, plus a large majority of
these lands are privately owned. This is where incentives come in to private owners, in
order to encourage them to be good stewards to these lands, therefore protecting the
natural resources. This is a very simple definition to the idea of Stewardship.
-Appendix D -(handbook)- actual legislation that came out of the growth management
study commission in reference to stewardship. This is the most significant piece of
legislation that came out of the committee with the most support that the state asked for
testing to these issues. Collier county was already engaged in a process that was looking
at these same issues, so the committee began to look along these lines. This is the most
fully conceived idea of Stewardship. This proposal may not be one of the states five
demonstration projects, it does not have to be.
-Some strings attached - what can you do with credits, can you move credits outside the
study area, how is the process implemented
-Mr. Carlson feels definition of stewardship may be different (dictionary term is care for
and manage something) when reading plan did not see anything linking staying out of
land and actually taking care, no linking between care and management, and if this is not
in effect then it becomes a wild waste-land, what Carlson sees is "a transfer of
developmental rights plan"
-Mr. Reynolds feels that there is provision in this system for this very kind of
stewardship. Feels for these credits there must be an agreement that specifically states on
a land specific basis what the responsibilities of stewardship are. Mr. Reynolds and Mr.
Page 5
May 22, 2002
Carlson will go back to this when they review the specific policies that contain this
information.
-Erica Lynne has concerns that private owners will not want to sign on to all these
stewardship rules and provisions of care.
-Mr. Reynolds feels this is already going on in some cases and this is a program being
offered into an alternative of no program. Acknowledges details of a stewardship
program are not spelled out in the plan, this is just the enabling language to do so.
-Mr. Carlson questions if committee ever discuss concept of economic benefit of
transferring development rights and being able to do state of the art "village kinda stuff'
there has to be a greater economic value in this, was there discussion of taking some of
the economic value in this and using it to manage the sending area, that allowed you to do
the more "economically enhanced" development?
-Mr. Reynolds states that he is not sure if it was discussed because under this system, the
creation of credits derives from giving up uses that are currently allowed on the land
today. Still, what is implied in the system is that after the lands are put in sending areas,
there does have to be a conservation easement placed on the property and it has to run in
favor of different entities and what the cost of this is will differ on a case to case basis.
Specifics will need to be worked out in each agreement. The fact that people have come
and said, they are willing to write a check is recognition that this is a good start to the
process. Feels the thought behind this is addressed.
-Appendix K (Handbook) - Natural Resource Index Analysis- 195,000 acres of land,
certain natural resources of the land where chosen to be indexed in order to code them
into a certain natural resource value, the darker the color the richer it is in terms of natural
resource characteristics, gives way of scoring high versus low natural resource value,
(maps where done by a computer on a GSI system that codes the land on natural resource
basis
-Mr. Reynolds compares this to Appendix H (handbook) - Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Overlay, Stewardship Credit Worksheet - looking at two maps you see a
close correlation between what the data said and what the stewardship concept says are
sending areas.
Compares to Appendix G (handbook) - Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area
Assessment, Stewardship Overlay Map - Actually goes into the comprehensive plan that
is like the future land use map of the area, this is a system where the land is put into
classifications based on their the sending side (their natural resource characteristics),
comparison shows that the overlay map captures the natural resource features of the land,
This then refers to Appendix H (handbook) - Stewardship Credit Worksheet - takes the
stewardship natural resource index factor and it scores every acre of land within that
195,000 acres, list uses of land in layers assigned a value, the idea is that when you
remove a layer of use from the land, then you get a credit for that. Then you multiply it
by what the land scores on an environmental basis and what you get is a credit per acre
Page 6
May 22, 2002
number. They are trying to create credits from the land that has the most environmental
value, this creates credits out of environmental lands which are used to accommodate
development and you protect the agricultural land. All three objectives now fit together
under this system. This was then balanced against population growth, on the receiving
areas it requires a more compact fashion then what is currently required under
regulations. It squeezes down development, protected natural resources, and maintained
agricultural uses.
-Mr. Carlson - states he will always have a problem with the logic that "some lands that
are environmental sensitive that are deep flow-way wetlands have the same residential
development values as other lands".
-Mr. Reynolds feels that they do not have the same value, but that you must distinguish
between value and entitlement. This is an incentive based process to have private owners
protecting these natural resources, and how you get there is less important than the result,
if the system works. This system is blind to ownership and specific needs that way the
same methodology may be used to determine value.
-Mr. Reynolds continues by going through the goals, objectives and policies in the
handbook.
(Pg. 42 - handbook)
Five groups or policies
1) Goes through mechanics of the system
1.1 - establishes overlay
1.2 - incentive based
1.3 - applies to privately owned lands, does not apply to public lands
1.4 - underlying density and intensity of land does not change until you take advantage of
the credits, property owner are compensated for loss through the credits
1.5 - baseline standards
1.6 - credits are created from sending areas (SSA's)
1.7 - goes back to previously mentioned methodology worksheet and speaks of need for
land development code to have an overlay district (this will get into the details that you
shouldn't cover in a comprehensive plan)
1.8 - scoring based on natural resource indexes
1.9 - natural resource value has to be at the time the property is designated
1.10 - the more you give up, the more credit that you receive
1.11 - discusses the different layers in the system and that they have to be removed in
sequence, all uses in a layer must be treated as ONE group
1.12 - receiving areas must meet specific criteria
1.13 - procedures must be spelled out in the stewardship district and the land
development code
1.14 - discusses exchange of credits for entitlements
1.15 - cannot increase intensity or density unless you use the overlay system to do so
1.17 - credits can be exchanged internally with an ownership or between property owners
1.18 - how public money is accepted into the program
1.19 - if there is acquisition it must be on a willing seller
Page 7
May 22, 2002
1.20 - county may acquire credits as well
1.21 - early entry bonus, incentivizes protection before there is a market for the receiving
lands
-Mr. Carlson's concern is that a bonus may be better placed after it is found that there is a
demand for the land
-Mr. Reynolds would accept a recommendation to do so
1.22 - on the 5th anniversary of the program there will be an evaluation of the program
2) deals with agricultural interest
2.3 - creates an agricultural advisory council
2.5 - reinstitutes the Immokalee Planning Commission
2.6 & 2.7 - reflect the "right to farm act"
3) relate to the protection of natural resources
3.1 - establishes flow-way stewardship areas
3.2 - habitat stewardship areas (nothing before this plan, put this land into protection)
3.3 - discusses how areas were delineated, and if there is more definitive data that these
lines are not exact then they can have flexibility to adjust them
3.4 - flow-ways and habitats must be sending areas and cannot be receiving areas, water
retention area has more flexibility
3.5- these lands are designated, to change anything to a receiving area you must petition
the county to make a decision at a public hearing
3.6 - you have to remove first two layers out of any flow-way areas
3.7 - you have to remove the residential layer in any of the habitat areas as a starting
point, you may remove more
3.8 - how property owner is compensated through credits
3.9 - agriculture is an allowed use within flow-ways and habitat stewardship areas
3.10 - recognizes agricultural activity today, but was it is designated as a receiving area it
must stay
3.11 - cannot convert from passive uses to active uses after it is designated as a receiving
area
3.12 - series of mechanisms that incentivize the use of private land for restoration
property owner does restoration receives a larger credit, or receives credit for
allowing another company to do the restoration
3.13 - simple recognition that there are public and private conservation lands that have
protections if they have conservation easements on them
3.14 - specifics of incentives for restorations
3.15 & 3.16 - get into some of the technical details of the water retention areas, as you
convert from one service to another you have to have a no net loss of habitat functions
and if it is adjacent to flow-way, any restoration has to occur within that flow-way
4) sets up series of processes of incentive that allow economic diversification for
receiving areas, criteria are creating master plan for receiving area, comply with
locational standards, sizes, characteristics, standards for minimum and maximum density,
buffers and compatibility for adjacent areas, and you can only have certain uses for lands
based on how they score
Page 8
May 22, 2002
4.17 - physical neutrality, here you have to show that you will have a positive impact on
the county's economy before you develop
5)- create a regulatory constraint to property owners to use their current rights
5.2 & 5.3 - deal with the regulatory standards that operate outside of the stewardship
program in two cases, case one is you are in the ACSC or case two you are not in the
ACSC
5.3 If you are not in the ACSC, this can minimize impact on natural resources
7:25 PM A five minute break was taken
IV. 7:30 PM Speakers
1) Robert Duane, representing Hole Montes and Associates. Mr. Duane is concerned
with a policy (unnumbered) on density blending that deals with Pepper Ranch in
Immokalee. The policy is located at the end of the staff report and he wants to reiterate
that he does have staff support for this policy and he was willing to entertain questions
regarding the policy. There were no questions.
2) Nicole Ryan, representing the Conservancy of SW FL, states the conservancy does "in
general" support the stewardship concept for the Eastern Lands, but feels it needs
modifications. For the program to work the conservancy feels that careful attention must
be paid to the land development code amendments are to be drafted in the future and are
to coincide with the GOP's. Some specific comments on the draft GOP language:
1) policies need to be expanded as "baseline regulations" for ALL of the eastern lands
(county regulations as well as state and federal)
2) future conditional uses are eliminated from flow-way stewardship areas and the
habitat stewardship areas, this includes golf courses, extraction and earth mining,
collection and transfer sites for resource recovery, oil and gas development, asphalt
and concrete plants (the conservancy feels these items are not compatible with the
sending areas)
3) the Conservancy feels that the sending areas are delineated, not sending areas until
someone buys into the program. The conservancy liked how the TDR program made
sending areas and receiving areas concrete lines and not vague or flexible.
4) Water retention areas are said in 3.3 to be protected while in 3.5 & 3.6 they allow
water retention areas to be incorporated in the stewardship receiving areas for storm
water retention. The conservancy feels it should be delineated specifically on a map
which water retention areas are part of sensitive environmental system and should not
be used for storm water management in conjunction with development. Suggest these
areas should not be allowed as part of a receiving area.
5) The conservancy disagrees with local regulation of agriculture is prohibited under the
FL right to farm act and believes the second sentence of policy 2.6 should be deleted.
6) Concerns of the early entry bonuses. Believes this needs to followed with caution in
order to keep these towns as rural towns and villages.
Copies of comments and details are in (The Conservancy of SW FL email)
Page 9
May 22, 2002
3) Ann Olesky, owner of Lake Trafford, states she is speaking for herself not the
committee she is a part of. She feels the plan in effect now is a "do-nothing plan" and is
a danger to this community. Also she believes that over the past 100 years there have
been good stewards to the land. She believes stewardship means protect and take care of,
would like this in the very beginning of the policy. Requests an Agriculture Advisory
Group and that The Immokalee Advisory for Planning be reinstated. Feels on a "personal
note" that Naples has "messed itself up with all its growth" and moving into rural areas.
She feels that it must now be protected by good "stewards" and hopes the committee
looks favorably on this program.
4) Nancy Payton, representing the FL Wildlife Federation, states they want lines on a
map with specifics of protection and that the stewardship plan is a retro~plan. Feels that
policy 5.1 does not protect the habitat areas. They feel the habitat protection area in the
Camp Keys strand needs to be wider and larger to protect the panther. She states it is
important to remember that only the panther resting sites were taken into consideration
for this planning and this only shows ONE component of the panther. Brought a
illustration of the larger than represented proximity of the panther. In summary they feel
that all habitat that covers panther ranges must be protected and that there no wildlife
policies to protect the other listed species identified on Exhibit 11 and policy defer to
federal and state agencies that do not always have the authority to do the right thing.
Refers to their attorney's letter dated April 24, 2002.
5) Brad Cornell, representing Collier Audubon, states that they are impressed by the
product of this effort. He believes that we need more upland habitat, feels these were not
marked particularly along the Camp Keys Strand. To address this he recommends that
(policy 3.14) the 500-ft. strip should be changed to HAS, habitat stewardship area. Also,
he believes there is a need in the Camp Keys strand for a 2500-ft wildlife corridor buffer
that incorporates a large amount of agricultural operations. The buffer will then be kept
from urban conversion which is not compatible with a panther habitat corridor. He feels
that identifying habitat stewardship areas for restoration should be formally done by
naming the flow-way stewardship area, habitat stewardship areas, and the wildlife
corridor buffer as potential restoration zones that are incentivized by the .5 index scores.
He believes there need to be policies about management plans for areas where credits
have been used. Collier Audubon does concur with staff on the changes listed in the staff
report, they believe there should be consideration of credits in the urban area at the five
year review, and that the five year review should include an evaluation of designated and
restored lands to see how it compares to today, as well as and evaluation of how many
acres of native cover have been converted to any other uses. Also he believes, 10%
clearing in habitat stewardship areas would be more appropriate than 30%, only in the
FSA's and the HAS's.
6) Mike Bauer, SW FL Policy Director for Audubon, served on the rural lands
committee. Wants it to be realized that all the people who have already opted in to this
"product" have placed faith in it, and he has as well with added protection for isolated
wetlands, scientific determination of the width of wildlife corridors, a limit to golf
Page I0
May 22, 2002
courses and rock mining. Believes that on a basic level they have asked agricultural
interests to give and that they have responded.
7) Ernie Cox, attorney representing Eastern Collier property owners, states that he feels
this is a chance to do something that has not been done in the state of FL and to address
some of the issues of what to do with rural policy and the continued agricultural viability.
He asks the committee to consider taking this and having faith in the work done. Has not
seen scientific data to state that a 2500-ft. buffer is either necessary or desirable, and
would like to see this data since it goes into agricultural lands. On behalf of owners
willing to come into this program, he urges them to support this plan. Mr. Cox represents
specifically: the Baron Collier Partnership, Collier Enterprises, Pacific Tomato Growers,
Russell Pritty, Consolidated Citrus, and Delico; (they own collectively approximately
168,000 acres of the 195,000 acre study area).
-Mr. Carlson says that there is a memorandum from Jim Beaver on the need for a 2500-ft.
buffer and that agriculture areas would continue but no conversion to urban uses. Mr.
Carlson states that this was Mr. Cornell's point. - Mr. Cox has not scene Jim Beaver's
information before this evening and would like to see this information given and
explained at a public meeting.
-Majorie Student states, for the record, "that the County Attorney's office and their
special legal counsel's opinion has not changed since the hearings on the rural fringe in
regards to the right to farm act, there was a memo that was prepared that was made a part
of the record for the rural fringe of January 31, 2002 from Martha Chummler at Carlton
Fields and also a response memorandum on to a letter for Tom Reese dated February 20,
2002, and I just wanted to state for the record that that opinion has not changed".
-Erica Lynne states that she spoke with Margaret Chummier and that this opinion was
derived from a framework setup to avoid lawsuits.
-Majorie Student feels this is the job of their office to advise the committee in this sense
-Mr. Carlson moves that they NOT recommend that this report be approved for submittal
until some of the major issues brought up by the Wildlife Federation, The Conservancy,
and Collier Audubon, are addressed. - Mr. Gal Seconded this motion, carried with Yes -
4: Lyrme, Hill, Santoro, and Coe. Mr. Sansbury notes for the record that he abstained
from voting. Motion passe 7 - 0 with 1 abstention.
-Due to the large amount of information and the new information presented this evening
the committee discusses a new time to further their recommendations.
-Joe Schmitt, community development and environmental services administrator states
for the record that they will take this as a negative recommendation, because regardless
this matter is going before the planning commission on Friday, and before the board on
the twelfth of June, 2002.
Page 11
May 22, 2002
-The committee decides to meet before June 12, 2002 to provide a more detailed
recommendation in an appropriate time that it is useful.
8:25 PM-
Mr. Coe made a motion to continue the meeting in the same room, unless otherwise
posted, for May 23, 2002 at 5:00 PM. Hill seconded the motion. Yes-4 Gal, Santoro,
Carlson, Lynne, Sansbury abstained from vote
Ve
Meeting Continuance - May 23, 2002 at 5:00 PM
Attendance:
Members - Michael Coe, Erica Lynne, William Hill, Alfred F. Gal, Ed Carlson
Collier County - Robert Mulhere, Mac Hatcher, Barbara Burgeson, Alan
Reynolds, Majorie Student, George Varnadoe, Tim Durham, Bill Lorenz, David
Weeks, Start Litsinger
-Chairman Michael Coe calls the meeting to order at 5:00 PM
-Roll call - Hummeston, Sansbury, and Santoro are excused
oA quorum was established
-Mr. Coe opens the floor for discussion
-Mr. Hill notes that with a 5 person quorum that for a recommendation to be forwarded it
must have a unanimous vote
-Mr. Coe motioned to reconsider the motion from last night (May 22, 2002), Mr. Gal
seconded the motion, there was a unanimous agreement
VI. Presentations from Staff
1) Robert Mulhere, of RWA on behalf of the staff, generally staff supports the growth
management plan at hand, provides revisions. Revisions:
A) Golf courses in most conditional uses should not be allowed in the flow-way
stewardship areas.
B) Golf courses in most conditional uses should be discouraged in the habitat
stewardship areas unless they can demonstrate a positive environmental
benefit.
C) Clearing should be limited to no more than 30% within those habitat
stewardship areas and that any clearing taking place would have natural
resource areas would be the lowest priority and the already cleared areas
would be the highest priority for placing these uses in those areas.
D) Recommends when achieving 35% open space, to go about it by protecting
any valuable-natural vegetation that may be on the site in that receiving area.
-Policy 3.6 - The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation
of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation
program within a FSA.
-Policy 3.7 -states general conditional uses, earth mining and processing uses and
recreational uses shall be allowed only subject to a conditional use approval which
Page 12
May 22,2002
demonstrates that cleating of native vegetation has been minimized and that such uses
will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats or that such
use is and integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a HAS. They also
included a requirement of any golf courses in a habitat stewardship area that they be
designed to the Audubon signature program, this is consistent with their recommendation
in the rural fringe.
-Policy 4.10 - amended to read "shall include contiguous lands greater than one acre
within the SRA with Natural Resource Stewardship index values of greater than 1.2.
-With these changes the staff was supportive of the opposed language with both the
incentive program and the component that protects natural resources even if someone
chooses not to participate in the program.
2) Mr. Lorenz adds that the program identifies flow-way stewardship areas and habitat
stewardship areas as the primary protection mechanism through incentive and
minimal regulation. Feels one needs to look at "are those boundaries of protection
areas properly identified given the data analysis? The second question is the range of
the panther protected and do these boundaries protect the species? Are the protection
mechanisms appropriate? Basis for staff recommendation is by looking at this policy
it allows certain uses to exist as a conditional use as long as the environmental
features are going to be improved in those areas, this is why they feel it was
appropriate to therefore allow those uses as a conditional use.
-Bob Mulhere states that concludes the summary of the staff recommendation but is
aware that Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Durham would like to give a brief response to some of
the issues raised last evening and requested the opportunity.
-Coe and the EAC committee decide to go through the policies, the large issues, and their
discussion and if they have questions of presenters they can do so, but that further
presentation is not necessary.
-Carlson addresses key issues and problems with nine point to be addressed in report and
if these are added then he will be able to support it
-Mr. Mulhere feels this was done at the rural fringe hearing and that it was effective
-Mr. Hill feels it was not fully effective
-Board decides to discuss each issue a board member had and then make a motion based
on this
Issues:
-Mr. Hill feels that in staff recommendation 2D, that "conservation lands" is not fully
defined and needs to be. Also, he feels that in the rural fringe the EAC lost out what their
concerns were on the area of buffering?
-Mr. Carlson does not agree with the definition of an "appropriate buffer" in the staff's
recommendation
-Erica Lynne feels that if the buffers are not sufficient, that the plan essentially fails
-Mr. Carlson makes motion that EAC will support this plan if the EAC's points are
integrated with and become addressed in the plan.
His points are:
Page 13
May 22, 2002
1) All county staff recommendations will be included in the plan with the
exception of item 2.D, which refers back to the buffer widths which are "way
too conservative.
2) The highest priority receiving areas be identified within the total receiving
areas and justified in order to assist in future planning
3) Implement bonus credit program only if the market demonstrates it is
absolutely necessary
4) Evaluate flow-water stewardship area, habitat stewardship area and water
retention area concepts value for listed species protection relative to the
NRPA program
5) Solicit independent expert opinions from both the FL Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Commission
concerning the appropriate width of a wildlife corridor for panthers in the
Camp Keys Strand stewardship are and incorporate those opinions into the
plan
6) Solicit an expert opinion from the South FL Water Management District
concerning appropriate buffers to protect the hydrologic intensity of flow-way
and habitat stewardship from development and adjacent receiving areas and
incorporate that into the plan
7) Conservation easements must be required for lands protected by the removal
of credits and these easements must specify basic resource management
requirements that include exotic plant control, prescribed burning, and
hydrologic integrity monitoring
8) (Policy 4.12) That buffers be entirely native vegetation and not include golf
courses
-Erica Lynne seconds the motion
-Hill motions to include the FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation in Mr. Carlson's point #6
-Mr. Carlson seconds
-Mr. Gal motions to remove policy 3.4, Erica Lynne seconds the motion
-Mr. Lorenz feels it would be better suited to alter policy 3.4 rather than delete it
-Erica Lynne enters "Declaration of Jane Comiskey" into the court record, she feels if we
fail to recognize this information, then the process fails
-Mr. Hill requests Mr. Gal to alter policy 3.4 rather than deleting it, Mr. Gal was
unwilling, but was willing to provide it as a separate motion if that is necessary
-A vote is taken on Mr. Carlson's eight point motion, Mr. Hill's additional motion, and
Mr. Gal's motion to delete policy 3.4 - All 5 voted yes, passes unanimously
-Mr. Coe wants to note that he takes "personal offense" that this large amount of work,
that people worked very hard on, came to the EAC on such a small time frame for
review, he also states that outside experts not being invited to help with information
leaves questions open as to why, he hopes these things will be done before it goes to
County Commission.
-Mr. Carlson would like to agree, states he almost is to the point that if information is
given to him the night of a presentation he feels it possibly should not even be considered
due to the lack of time to appropriately review it
Page 14
May 22, 2002
-Mr. Hill feels it is unconscionable that the group was presented, this report that was so
important ,only three days before and that the dates for these hearings where scheduled
too close
-Erica Lynne feels that yesterday's opposing information was also provided at to late a
time to review thoroughly
-Mr. Carlson suspects that the staffhad limited time as well and feels this is sad because
he believes it is a good staff that works hard and they more than likely had too little time
to review the material as well
VII. - Public Comments - public comments were not being taken at this time
VIII. Adjournment - the meeting adjourned at 6:25 PM on May 23, 2002
Page 15
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME..~.J~ST NAME--MIDDLE NAME .~'--'"' NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMI'I-rEE
- THeE BO,~RD,-COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR:MI~ITTEE ON
CITY
_ .. ~ l,__..yO U NTY
DATE ON WHIC~I VOTE OCCURRED
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
0 CITY ~O. U NTY
NAME OF PO~C_~L ~'UBDI~ISION:
I-3 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
MY POSITION IS:
ELECTIVE
//~PPOINTIVEf
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
~n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
.;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may padicipate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
· You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO A'FrEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
I, . ~~
(a) A measure came or will
inured to my special
inured to the special
inured to the special
inured to the special
whom I am retained; or
~'~ inured to the special gain or loss of
~.-/?' '~:"~~/~¢~,.~eby disclose that on
come before my age~y which (check one)
/
private gain or Io.¢;
gain or loss of my business associate,
gain or loss of my relative,
gain or loss of
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
Date Filed
Signature
/'
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO'~AKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98
PAGE 2