EPTAB Minutes 11/25/1991 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD
Minutes of 25 November 1991 Meeting
Present: David Addison Gary Beardsley Mike Davis
David Land David Maehr Glenn Simpson
David Wilkison
Absent: Steve Means Tony Pires Larry Richardson
Michael Saadeh
Observers: I. Barnett, CCNRD; B. Burgeson, CCPRS ; E. Carlson,
Natl . Audubon; V. Corkran, CCLWV & The Conservancy;
G. Lytton, FDNR; C. Owen, CCNRD; K. Polen, CCPRS; B.
Prynoski, CCPRS; F. Reischl, CCPRS.
1. As of 4 : 20, there was no quorum, but Vice Chairman Maehr
called the meeting to order, and asked Dave. Addison to give
a recap of last week's BCC meeting regarding the land
acquisition presentation. Dave. Addison's discussion
included the general sentiment of the BCC (i.e. , they were
uncomfortable with the idea, the whole thing had been done
too fast, they did little/no review and/or were largely
uninformed) , and errors/discrepancies the BCC noted in
acreages of target areas for acquisition. David Maehr noted
that the BCC encouraged the continued effort of the
acquisition goal/process.
At 4 : 35, Chairman Simpson arrived, a quorum was reached, and
the Vice-Chairman turned the meeting over to the Chairman.
2 . The minutes of 18 November 1991 were approved, with the
following amendments: (a) the addition of M. Saadeh's name to
the "absent" list; and (b) the addition of " (2 : 1) " after
" 'good majority' " in paragraph "4. "
3 . Chairman Simpson stated that board members M. Davis and L.
Richardson had contacted him, stating that they were unable
to attend today's meeting. (Note: Davis later arrived at
5: 30) .
4 . Chairman Simpson informed EPTAB that he had spoken to the
County Manager and Commissioners Volpe and Saunders today,
and would be speaking to Commissioner Shanahan tomorrow,
regarding their feelings concerning acquisition. He said
that the BCC's motion was not to stop the acquisition
program, but to go forth; also, a response from EPTAB was
needed.
Chairman Simpson also stated the need to place this item on
the appropriate ballot, where it would have the best chance
of being passed. He also stated the need to revise
information regarding the acquisition program, in order to
-1-
•
present it in a persuasive format, not purely informative
(i.e. , the public should be able to decide "why should I
spend $$ to protect these areas?") . David Land stated at
this point that he thought the intent was to educate the
public prior to the March referendum, but that now it would
be necessary to educate them before acquisition could even
get onto a future ballot.
Chairman Simpson said that his feeling (from talking to the
BCC) was that the BCC, by placing this item on the March
ballot, would be perceived as supporting the referendum (even
if it was to let the people decide) ; they would thus be
viewed by the public as being "pro tax" .
5. A discussion ensued regarding CREW, primarily regarding if it
should it be split off from the rest of the acquisition
effort.
Gary Beardsley pointed out that we need the "overall package"
(i.e. , how to deal with the habitats in Collier County.
David Maehr was concerned that if CREW was separated and
acquired, then the voters would then think they had done
enough. David Land said we should go with a comprehensive
approach, "win or lose" (he felt that CREW was not as
important as some of the other lands targeted for
acquisition) ; only if we lost, would we then make the
determination to go with CREW alone.
6. Glenn Simpson said he had a call in to Carol Browner (FDER)
regarding the intent of her comments from a previous
discussion (if the County was saying they didn't support the
program) ; he wants to assure her that Collier County is not
shirking its responsibilities. David Addison stated at this
point that her (Browner's) intent had been that if there were
no matching funds from Collier County, the state wouldn't
provide money for CREW.
Gary Beardsley said that many perceive the BCC as not
committing the money needed for CREW. Ed Carlson stated that
CREW definitely had the name recognition, but not to take the
"CREW or nothing" approach unless absolutely desperate.
7 . A motion was made by David Land: "with respect to a
referendum for purchases of environmentally important lands
in County, we move forward, CREW jointly with other
properties or not at all" (don't split off CREW & then later
have another referendum for the other lands) ; Glenn Simpson
then stated "for purposes of going to referendum, this board
supports maintaining same properties as a whole, and is not
in favor of splitting off any parcels" . This motion was
seconded and unanimously approved.
8. David Maehr read a draft letter to the BCC that he had
composed, regarding their decision and motion made at last
-2-
week's hearing, which was slightly amended by David Land and
Gary Beardsley re: "On behalf of EPTAB, we appreciate the
BCC' s support for the proposed Collier County Land
Acquisition Program we look forward to providing
you with a detailed plan for land acquisition as well as
other ordinances etc.
David Land warned not to convey to the BCC the vote that they
just passed (that this would be a county-wide program, not
just CREW) .
Glenn Simpson didn't think CREW would be split off. He
thought that this letter to the BCC was a good idea, to thank
the BCC for their vote and support, and to let them know that
EPTAB wishes to proceed and go forth, etc.
Gary Beardsley stated the need to include in this letter that
EPTAB will continue to move forward on the GOP's, and
everyone agreed.
9. Chairman Simpson then stated that there were 3 things that
EPTAB needed to do: (a) clarify lands and reasoning
(salesmanship, be persuasive, include "why" , not just "what" ,
be the wordsmiths for the general public) ; David Addison
suggested informational brochures; (b) despite all the work
done to come up with map of proposed acquisition areas, the
project is perceived as a "wish list" (we need to come up
with " it was X%, it is now X%, and we propose to protect X%"
type of information) ; and (c) need to clarify acquisition
procedures, provide detailed information, clarify intent.
Gary Beardsley gave his opinion that EPTAB's focus was too
narrow and should be focused on the comp plan; a discussion
ensued.
10. Bill Lorenz gave a summary of the overall concept and
strategy behind the habitat protection ordinance (see
attached diagram) . An important aspect of this would be that
the County would meet with the applicant, prior to any
development activity, and would then specify the desired
preservation area(s) and percentages.
A general discussion of the "criteria for inland habitat
evaluation" ensued; highlights included:
- we can't go by % alone; we have to consider function;
- it was noted that landscaping is commonly used as all or part
of the 25% preservation requirement (CCME) ;
- the need to clarify that we're not saying no development, or
demanding a very large % (taking) ; we're simply saying where we
want the preserve to be;
- different % preservation in different areas of County may be
appropriate (wilderness, urban, ag, etc. ) ;
- input from Fred Reischl on pre-development procedures;
-3-
- idea for dividing County into zones, with some overlap, e.g.
corridor, aesthetic, critical wildlife, water protection, water
management, landscape, existing habitat (David Land) ;
- the need to connect urban preserve areas;
- general review and comments on different criteria (for ranking
different habitats on a site) ;
- how much is too much? what should we base our X% preservation
requirement on?
- at what point does X% become a taking?
- this X% will be recommended by NRD and approved by EPTAB;
- the need to incorporate the 60% open space requirement (discuss
with Long Range Planning) .
12 . Chairman Simpson reminded everyone that the next meeting of
EPTAB will be held on 9 December at 1: 00 P.M. at the
Vineyards; Wayne Daltry will be speaking.
13 . David Land asked that everyone get their comments on
"criteria for inland habitat evaluation" to NRD ASAP.
14 . A motion was made (Land) to approve David Maehr's letter to
the BCC (see "8. " above) , as modified by EPTAB members, to be
signed by Chairman Simpson; this was seconded and approved
unanimously.
15. EPTAB will be meeting on 16 December, during which time staff
will walk through development scenarios, using evaluation
criteria on projects involving 25% and 50% preservation of
total project area.
16. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M.
-4-
--.:::- _
---_--- Z
/ 2
D Q �A
J
09 50 1" Pc4.- 4 a. 0
r ,..
-- \7_44'
2
1fl
(5 ,.
i 2 J c*, cl
, 0 (4,-7 , i-----„, 'D ________ 1
LI) ,_,)
_0 -----------7
Pli: d
09. A- Pg
7
Y ‹ I
c