Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/20/1996 S (Opposing the Legislative Enactment of HB 1955 and SB 1630) SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 5:11 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris VICE CHAIRPERSON: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Matthews Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Stan Litsinger, Planning Department Deputy Richard Heersema CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good evening. I would like to have your attention, please. We're going to convene the meeting. Actually, what we're going to do right now is convene -- reconvene the county commission meeting from yesterday. We have one item of business left to discuss. Mr. Dotrill, could you start off our evening's festivities with an invocation and a pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks for today and especially this evening. We give thanks for the -- the wonder and beauty of this community and the effort that it takes in order to make this a wonderful place in which to live or enjoy retirement years or to raise a family. Father, we gave thanks for the dedication of the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the staff who have endeavored to prepare this evening's work that will be reviewed. We give thanks and ask that you direct the hand of the county commission as they make the important decisions of a planning nature that affect this community and that you would bless our time here together and that it would be both beneficial and fruitful for the residents of Collier County. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3B RESOLUTION 96-149 OPPOSING THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT OF HOUSE BILL 1955 AND SENATE BILL 1630, LIMITING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY ANY MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN COLLIER COUNTY IN CASES INVOLVING BEACH PARKS, BEACH ACCESS LANDS OR OTHER RELATED BEACH RECREATIONAL FACILITIES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, we are hearing the issue on the eminent domain. Do you have the resolution prepared for MR. WEIGEL: No. I don't have a resolution. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Are we ready to go forward then, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Certainly if the board wants to, you can -- can add that one item and have a brief discussion and we can always direct the -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I have reconvened yesterday's meeting. MR. DORRILL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We continued this item for tonight. This is yesterday's meeting, this final item. MR. DORRILL: Okay. The discussion -- at least for the -- those present in the audience, the board had a discussion yesterday concerning a bill that has been filed in the legislature as it involves eminent domain action and restricting public beach access from any incorporated municipality in Collier County, and that bill had been filed without the knowledge or prior discussion with the county commission. As a result of the legislative delegation hearing, the vote initially was five to two, with the two senators from the delegation opposed; however, a companion bill has been filed in the Senate, and members of the House Community Affairs Committee have indicated for a bill summary that if the county commission chooses or desires to take an official action by resolution, that we need to do that at a regular meeting and get that information to them as soon as possible. And what -- with Mr. Hancock being scheduled to be there tomorrow, that's the reason that it has been continued until this evening. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We -- We had discussed yesterday the advisability of sending a resolution to the community affairs committee. That will be hand-carried by Mr. Hancock, I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mmm-hmm. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And forwarding that to Senator Dudley and Representative Saunders, and I think some of the discussion was whether we wanted to send to each individual senator and each individual representative or what exactly we wanted to do. Also the Florida Association of Counties we wanted to send that as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have scheduled meetings with every member of our legislative delegation in -- in addition to one state representative from Cape Coral set up for tomorrow. So in addition to delivering this and -- and making a pitch to each of them on the item, I think it would be in our best interest to go ahead and forward the correspondence to each representative on the item, and I'm going to try and meet with FAC either tomorrow or Friday morning on this and see if there's anything we can do on that front with the legislative committee there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. With the -- With the approval of the board, then we will send a resolution to each of those members along with a very strongly worded letter for my signature as representative from the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, do we need a motion to approve the resolution as constructed and give direction? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. You will need a motion and a vote for the resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has anyone spoken to Senator Dudley to find out why he changed his mind? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can report back on Monday. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Just odd he raised his hand and said no, and then put a bill in after all. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mmm-hmm. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a copy of the resolution here? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No. MR. WEIGEL: I have not drafted a resolution yet, but we are prepared to -- to do it posthaste, ready to go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At what time do you expect to have the resolution prepared? MR. WEIGEL: What time would you like to have it prepared? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, my flight's at 6:20 in the morning. So you're going to have to fax it to somewhere that I can then reproduce it, and I'll -- I'll talk to you later about where I -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He can fax it to the apartment COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's right. We've got the fax machine there. MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and then you can go to the capitol building and copy it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My first meeting's at 10 a.m. Tomorrow morning. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You'll have it before then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fantastic. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Then did we need a motion? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I'd like to make that motion, but I -- I -- I'd like to ask if he wanted to include in the resolution the -- the information that our legislative delegation at its meeting here had declined to -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, only the senatorial part. The representative part -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the senatorial part of it declined to -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and so, therefore, we had not followed up on it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, you won't have any problem wording that correctly into the -- MR. WEIGEL: Not at all. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- into the rest of it? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like -- Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the resolution that won't say in support of but in negative support of the eminent domain bills that have been introduced into the House and the Senate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? There are none. Item #3A RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) ON THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INCLUDING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSHITTAL OF THE EAR TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SWFRPC) FOR SUFFICIENCY REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA OUTLINED IN RULE 9J-5.0053, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - CONTINUED TO APRIL 2, 1996 With that, I'll adjourn yesterday's county commission meeting, and I'll convene tonight's public hearing on the EAR. I would like to start this meeting with some comments from Mr. Kobza of the committee. Mr. Kobza, if you would. MR. KOBZA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For purposes of the record, my name is Kim Patrick Kobza, and I served as the co-chair of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. I just wanted to make a few comments to provide some perspective in our efforts and divide my comments into really three categories. First, in terms of process, the way we worked, we took 25 members of the committee, and we divided into five subcommittees, and in those five subcommittees, they met every week for 26 weeks and went through every line of your comprehensive code or your comprehensive plan, including all the narratives, all the charts, all the graphs, everything. And then those subcommittees reported back to a committee of the whole, and that's -- committee of the whole also met at least on a bi-weekly basis and in some cases a weekly basis over the course of the June through January 1996 time frame. So there's a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into the report which these committee members are presenting to you here tonight. Secondly, in going through the process, we were very cognizant of the FOCUS effort and of the community discussions relating to the FOCUS. Many members of our committee were, in fact, on the FOCUS or in the FOCUS program and very active in those organizations, and you'll see a lot of the -- and -- well, a lot of the same priorities emerge in the sense of this EAR as have been prioritized in the FOCUS effort. Things like the -- you know, the character of roadways, looking into the future, master planning the activity centers, the environment, the water quality issues, all of those things are internalized in this plan, and many, many of the same priorities emerge. Thirdly, I would like to on behalf of the committee of the whole thank your staff. They have also put in a tremendous amount of time, specifically your manager, Mr. Dorrill; Mr. Litsinger; Miss Cacchione. The -- I -- you know, I'm going to -- I'm going to forget somebody if I go through all of them, but they all put in a tremendous amount of time, and they have -- they have on a weekly basis again provided us with a tremendous amount of support. So you can be confident that this document comes to you with public input because we -- all of our meetings were public. We entertained public discussion. We've had a lot of technical support, and we've really made an effort to do the best job possible. In almost all areas we were able to reach a consensus with the committee in all of our recommendations as they came to you, and there are a couple of exceptions but very few. In the vast majority of our work we were able to reach consensus and also with staff positions, and so we tried very hard to achieve that. I'd like to thank you for the privilege of serving on this committee. It's been a great experience, difficult experience but -- but rewarding, and I'm -- I'm sure that that's true with -- with all of the committee members. So I -- I have to excuse myself. I know that many members of the committee are here tonight, and what we said as a committee that where the county commission had questions, we ask that you look to the members of the subcommittees that are present, and we have several of the chairmen of the subcommittees present and also members of the full body here. I -- I have to meet a flight out of town tonight. I'm sorry I can't stay through the entire proceeding but the best I could -- I was supposed to leave tonight. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not as if you haven't given enough time, Kim. MR. KOBZA: Right. Right. Okay. Well -- but thank you once again, and I'm sure that you'll have the resources here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You know, this -- this whole process is -- is really the way -- Local government and perhaps the state and federal government could take a lesson from this. This is the best of all the possible ways of doing something. This was all done by citizen involvement. It's not government imposing something on -- on people. It's the people coming forward and getting together and meeting time after time. I think you had 80-something meetings all together, 87 meetings, and it's the input from the citizens that we're going over tonight, and hopefully we can adopt it, and we're blessed in this community with the amount of knowledgeable and -- and willing citizens, people who are willing to get involved in the process and make it work, and -- and on behalf of the county commission, I want to start this meeting off by thanking all of those people that were involved. This is your Growth Management Plan, and these are your evaluation and appraisal reports that we're going through tonight, so thank you very much. And with that, Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger of the planning department. As has been mentioned about -- almost exactly 14 months ago, you set us about the project of preparing this evaluation appraisal report, and you decided to appoint a Citizens' Advisory Committee of 25 members. As it has been mentioned, they held 87 subcommittee meetings and 13 plenary meetings which resulted in a proposed joint staff and Citizens' Advisory Committee EAR which was presented to the Planning Commission on February the 1st and ultimately passed out of the Planning Commission on February 15 with the recommendation for adoption by the board with changes on that day. I'll very briefly tell you the process so you can get on to the substantive review this evening. After this evening's review and input from the public and your subsequent adoption of this EAR report, it will be submitted to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Commission for sufficiency review per the requirements of the applicable rule. Within 45 days, the planning council will recommend a finding of sufficiency or nonsufficiency to the regional planning council which will vote on the report, review the recommendations, and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. Concurrently with the transmittal of your adopted EAR, your staff will begin the preparation of the needed studies and analyses identified in the EAR and also begin drafting the EAR-based amendments. Final adoption of the EAR-based amendments by the board is expected to take 12 to 18 months. It should be noted, the county has formally requested a six-month extension on the 12-month requirement for adoption of the EAR-based amendments. In your executive summary, we have provided you with a summary of the primary recommendations and findings on each element. It is very concise. It is much more detailed in the two volumes that you have received. I should point out that the regional planning council received a copy of this proposed EAR on the 27th of February, and they are required to provide us with a preliminary review by the 27th of March. It is our intention, depending on when this public hearing is to conclude, either to recommend that you adopt this EAR conditionally based on the implementation of the recommendations of the planning council, or in the case where the EAR is not adopted prior to us having received the preliminary report from the planning council, we will report back to you prior to adoption of this EAR report. I'd like to point out a few things to you in the introduction. The introduction consists -- if you look on page Roman numeral small i, table of contents, the document has been constructed in the structural matter to -- manner -- excuse me -- to conform to the requirements of the governing rule 9J-5.0053 known as the EAR rule. On this particular page of table of contents, it identifies the location where all of the various required analyses for the EAR -- where its basic content are contained. As you will see in some cases, the analyses are contained in this introductory section. In other cases, they appear as specific elements as indicated. The introduction consists primarily of a compendium of all Growth Management Plan amendments and their primary contents since the adoption of your plan January 10, 1989. It has a detailed, as required by the rule, outline of the public participation process that resulted in the proposed EAR you have before you this evening. It also identifies some of the major overall problems and successes not relative to any particular element that we have encountered and a capsulized evaluation of that situation, unforeseen problems, unforeseen successes. We also identify amendments proposed in the -- for each element -- in the presentation of each element. All of the element presentations will be primarily structured the same way. All 803 goals, objectives, and policies have been individually evaluated with a recommendation and a finding. They have been summarized in a matrix at the beginning of each element. Detailed recommendations appear in each element and will be presented by relevant staff with comment from the public. At the end of the presentation of each element, we would ask the board to take a straw vote on the recommendations and/or any changes prior to moving on to the next element, concluding with the adoption of the entire EAR at the end of the public hearing. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It appears not. MR. LITSINGER: If there are not, we will move right into the aviation element. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me? MR. LITSINGER: The aviation element. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The aviation element. Thank you. MR. DRURY: Commissioners, for the record, John Drury, executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority. I worked closely with the subcommittee. We had several meetings, and, very briefly, the results of the meetings were that we really need to complete the three airport master plans for the three Collier County airports. We have held public hearings at -- in all three communities two weeks ago. We expect that the master plans will be completed in about six weeks. At such time as those master plans are completed, the appropriate language will be extrapolated from those master plans and put into the EAR recommendations. So at this time there are no changes that were recommended from the committee. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. For this meeting, we're going to go down through this element by element, and we'll take public comment on that specific element after each element is presented and discussed by the board. I'd like to remind the public speakers that if you -- if you intend to speak on a certain element, you need to fill out one of the little slips that we have here like Mr. Dotrill has in his hand, and please put down your name and the element that you wish to speak on, and we'll be glad to take your comments at that time. One other reminder is that we -- we limit the public speakers to five minutes each. You don't have to take five minutes if you prefer not to, and there will be no throwing of fresh produce while we're in this meeting so -- MR. DORRILL: We have none on the aviation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: None on the aviation element? And there are no changes, Mr. Drury? MR. DRURY: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. It's hardly worth taking a straw vote on that. Does any board member have any comment? Thank you. MR. DRURY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may be the end of the speedy elements. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. MR. MIHALIC: Good evening, Commissioners. The next element in your list is the housing element. I'd like to say that the housing element in the EAR process -- Excuse me. I'm Greg Mihalic, director of housing and urban improvement for the county. The housing element by the EAR review is approximately 95 percent completed. The subcommittee and the CAC worked hard to bring together the different opinions that were there and how housing should be treated. We have a couple -- one item that's left outstanding from a recommendation by the Planning Commission and their review. The Planning Commission recommends that we designate areas where affordable housing will be located, put lines on maps and say affordable housing should be located in those areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe redlines. Red -- red -- redlines maybe? MR. MIHALIC: The word redlines on maps were used. I've given you a listing -- a table that shows where affordable housing has been placed, and you can see that it's at every commission district, and it's all over the county. We've also produced a map that shows the same thing. On the map these are affordable housing units, and you can see that they're evenly distributed geographically throughout the county. That's both single-family and multi-family buildings that have been built. There's also some legal issues involved in this area of designating restricting of affordable housing to only particular areas, and the attorney's office can speak to that if you'd -- if you'd like. I'd also like to mention that today -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go on, yeah, I would actually like the attorney to speak to that particular item. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, if you could, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think Hiss Student is coming. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hiss Student. MS. STUDENT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. We did do some research and could find no cases directly on point that had to do with the -- this grouping of affordable housing in, you know, given areas of a -- of the county, for example. But it's our opinion that to do that might run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, not withstanding there's also a provision in the growth management law that says that affordable housing has to be equitably distributed or evenly distributed throughout the county, I believe, to avoid such a problem. And we presently, as you probably are aware, have a provision in the comprehensive plan. I'm not going to comment on the policy aspects of the present plan and how it's working. I think Mr. Hihalic can do that, but it would be our concern that to just cjuster it in certain parts of the county or confine it to certain parts of the county would run afoul of the law that I mentioned. And also just to designate affordable housing on that, you may run afoul of our new Private Property Rights Act. I am aware of no reported cases under that act, and it's very broadly worded and so forth. If the impact is to have a negative impact upon the person's property value, then we may have some difficulty under that act. So those are all legal concerns that I would have in doing that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- i'd like to just -- With all due respect to the Planning Commission, I hope that nobody wants to even discuss this issue. I hope that we're not considering redlining the county into affordable housing districts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I was going to ask if any members of the board had an interest in pursuing this because on the surface I, for one, don't. If there's some merits to doing it, I'm -- I'm -- they're not -- I don't see them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not readily apparent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me -- Let me make a statement, though, too at the same time. I agree with the rest of the board that we probably should not get into redlining, but we do need to -- to get some policy that's more coherent on what we're going to do about location on affordable housing. Every time we've had a dispute on an affordable housing proposal, it's been compatibility, and a good example is right out on Davis Boulevard where there's a high-density affordable housing project right next to single-family homes, and that's what we would like to try to avoid, and unfortunately we've -- we've had trouble doing that at times, and it's -- it's not that the board has been trying to deny affordable housing proposals. It's just compatibility, pure and simple, and what can we do in our process here today or can we do anything today maybe to help -- help us have a tool where we can prevent that from happening in the future. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hihalic, not only are you better educated on these items, your candor is often refreshing. Would you say -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was very well put. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we're doing -- that we're doing better than -- and I agree -- there's a particular project, a good example of a problem-type thing that we've had on Davis. But is it a fair assessment from your perspective that we have done better in the last couple of years as far as trying to judge things on their merits as opposed to strictly the not-in-my-back-yard syndrome which I think the commission, both this one and previous ones, were guilty of up until maybe a couple of years ago. MR. HIHALIC: I think you have, Commissioner. I think the only way to get affordable housing accepted throughout the community like you see is by building it in all different areas. Again, we have to understand that affordable housing is the mainstream of our working community. We are dealing with low- and very low-income people that earn approximately the average income of this community. These are not people that are unemployed, these are not people that are on welfare which is the misperception that's out there in many different areas. The more affordable housing we build and integrate into existing communities, the more that can be overcome. The perception is negative. The reality is not nearly so negative. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hihalic, if I may, one -- and, again, this is a very short window that I'm dealing with here, but it seems we're getting a lot of fezones currently being requested in a similar area. It's either out Davis or out Radio. We've had two or three just in the last several months, and I guess it's not so much that I'm interested in drawing a line and saying it only happen here, but the concern may be in those individual communities that they're going to get a disproportionate share of multi-family dwellings thereby increasing density, you know, increasing traffic on the roadways and so forth. It's not so much the -- I think the more these projects are built, the perception gets better because we see that -- that they can be quality projects. They can blend in, but they do carry with them increased impacts that extend beyond the project boundaries. MR. HIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, I think it's interesting that when we come and have affordable housing projects that's going to be put into an existing planned unit development that's already zoned for the same number of multi-family units, nobody complained until they found out that it was affordable housing. Then suddenly it's going to create all these negative impacts on the roads and everything else. I don't think that's realistic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that argument has not held water in the past, and it won't hold water in the future. If the density's approved, the density's approved, and the type of unit that goes in there is not what this board is intended to -- to -- to control. My question is, if we see an area receiving a higher concentration of affordable housing, is that a concern to you at all? MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, you can see that you have fairly even distribution. The market and the value of property -- the value of the land will dictate where affordable housing is to be built COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually -- MR. HIHALIC: -- because there has to be an economic factor here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: According to our own policy too, that we haven't used it as a sole reason but as part of a reason to decline an application, we have used overintensification of an area by our own policy where we try to spread it out. And so if -- if that occurs where there are three or four or five projects all trying to line up in -- in one area, we've been able to according to our own existing policy make sure that doesn't occur. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that policy 7.2? 7.2, 7.4? MR. MIHALIC: 1. -- 1.4.1. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 7.4.1 and it -- MR. MIHALIC: 1.4.1. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. And it -- it says that affordable housing will be distributed equitably throughout the county, something to that effect. MR. MIHALIC: Encourage the distribution of the affordable housing throughout the county rather than the concentration of those units in limited areas. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So -- Good. Okay. So we can use that. If -- if -- if projects tend to start gathering in one location, we can use that. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. Although, I think if you look at the number of units versus the total growth in an area, you'll see that the affordable housing's increase is very small to the total growth of any particular area. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Still my concern I don't think we have addressed, though, and that is a better tool to use for compatibility because we ran into this issue to a degree up on North Airport Road as well. The transition from single-family housing to 12, 14 an acre is not really what we try to do anywhere else, and we need some sort of tool to work with that. MR. MIHALIC: I think you're right, Commissioner, but if you look at many planned unit developments, they have a mix of single- and multi-family at the same net density levels throughout the community, and they seem to work very well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that they create physical separation of those by using binary roadways and -- you know -- In other words, internally when you design it, you can do that. The problem we have on North Airport was that we were backing up directly to something that was -- I think a unit and a half per acre was the actual real density what it was backing up to. So we have the problem of not wanting to turn down affordable housing, but there is a compatibility issue there, and I think what you're looking for if I read you correctly is some -- some middle standard that says, you know, this -- this -- this would raise a flag in the review process, and it would be a basis for -- we can deny because of incompatibility anyway -- MR. MIHALIC: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but we're looking for -- We don't want to be accused of denying because it's affordable when the real reason is incompatibility. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, can I suggest, then, that MR. HIHALIC: That's all I ask, Commissioners. That's all I ask. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I suggest, then, that we're talking about this in the -- in the wrong element. Maybe this is a future land use element issue. If -- if you guys -- what you care about is not whether or not it's affordable housing but if it's purely a density issue, let's look at that in future land use because I'm afraid this discussion perpetuates that myth about affordable housing is something you don't want too much of in one neighborhood -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- when what you're talking about, in fact, is density and transitions and -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. We're -- we're trying to avoid that discussion, and while I understand your point, actually my comments are not directed at -- at previously approved PUDs for densities. I'm directing my comments more towards a proposal that would carry with it a fezone petition. MR. MIHALIC: I think that's certainly reasonable, Commissioner, but when you have a fezone from commercial to residential that's not affordable housing and you automatically allow 16 units an acre for that particular developer, I think we have to look at the same standards that we use as one of my affordable housing developers, 12 to 14 units. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But Commissioner Mac'Kie's suggestion is well taken. Please continue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- and before we leave that, on -- you mentioned 1.4.1. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is a recommended change of wording on that. MR. MIHALIC: Well, only to reclarify -- this was a subcommittee discussion -- reclarify that this means that affordable housing should be distributed throughout the county equitably. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess to me it takes a little bit away of what we've been saying and Commissioner Hancock's concern of just a moment ago -- the existing wording is "shall be distributed equitably throughout," and -- and the proposed new wording is "shall be provided throughout the county." And so I don't think, then, that limits or creates any equitability if the other -- some -- some provided here and some provided there, but I think it takes away the equitable aspects, is my -- my concern if we use that term. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, if we're going to use the word "equitable," then we need to describe what equitable is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We -- we may need -- may need to change the definition there, but I don't -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't happen to like the definition that was suggested. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you going to do it equitable on units of people or units of dwelling or what -- what's equitable? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I -- I think, you know, we're not going to be able to define it per unit. Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that's why they -- they took it out, because you -- you have to define it if you're going to use it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But by taking it out, it may remove the flexibility that we are seeking which is that -- should an area get patterned in that way and it is clearly not equitable, we need the vehicle to say, you know, this is not what we're looking for in distribution. And -- and by taking it out, Mr. Hihalic, are we, in your opinion, diminishing our ability to make that determination -- MR. HIHALIC: No. I think -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- legally? Let me rephrase that. MR. HIHALIC: Well, I won't speak to legal issues. I think your attorney has to speak to legal issues. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, your -- your question is, what's equit -- what are you talking about is equitable and "equitably .... COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- here used as an adverb on "distributed." So it's what's equitable, how, and -- and where they're distributed, and I -- and I think that is as clear as we're probably going to get it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you suggesting no change? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting no change. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just -- I just find that the word "equitable" is -- is -- can be defined according to whoever is defining it at the time it's being defined and -- and -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My objection to "equitable" is that it, again, perpetuates this idea that there's something bad about affordable housing, and we need to spread it out and don't make any neighborhood take more than its fair share. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think whether it's bad or not, an accurate goal of mine is to make sure that no one area is lumped into solely affordable housing. I think it is fair that it should be distributed throughout the county because, like it or not, reality is, it's not politically correct. Reality is, often over a course of time rental projects -- affordable or not, but many of the affordable projects -- most of the affordable projects are rental -- go downhill, and if you have those all cjustered in one area, then you have that whole area go downhill. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, remember that affordable housing brings with it density above and beyond what is dictated in the future land use element. So we are, in fact -- My concern is that -- that density center, you know -- that when we start locating them very close to each other, we're increasing the density disproportionately in one area, and I don't think that's good planning. So, you know, how would we word that? I'm comfortable with the language. I don't see how changing it gives us any advantage nor helps us in the affordable housing. I -- I don't see an advantage to making that language change. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe somebody from the subcommittee will want to tell us if -- you know, if it's important, if they had a discussion that they want to convince us. Otherwise -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm -- I'm sorry for throwing the word "legal" in there, Greg, but I -- I was -- I just -- I just wanted your opinion as to whether or not the language change, in your opinion, restricts us or precludes us from anything that the current language allows us to do. MR. HIHALIC: No. I think -- As our map shows, we want to distribute affordable housing throughout the county, and one time that meant not all in Immokalee. It doesn't mean that anymore. Now we're dealing with smaller, discreet segments. But, again, new construction will go where new construction is being built, and that's throughout the county to be honest with you, and that's where affordable housing communities will be built. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think my concern with the word "equitable" is, are we talking about equitable in terms of projects, of an affordable housing project in this area, won't get a second one until all the others have one. I -- I know the word "equitable" does not mean equal, but we've got to be careful because some people think it does mean that, or are we talking about dwelling units, 500 dwelling units here, 500 dwelling units in the next place. You could have 500 units in a single project, or you could have 500 units in four projects, and -- and that's my concern about what -- what do we mean about"equitable." Is it projects, or is it dwelling units? MR. HIHALIC: I think you want to get back to what affordable housing really is, Commissioner, and that's housing for people that are making between 18,000 and $28,000. Your median wages here are 20,750. This is the mainstream of your community. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've had about 20 minutes on "equitable." Why don't we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Straw vote. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Why don't we -- if there's no input from either the subcommittee or the public on this -- MR. HIHALIC: Let me make two more comments, Commissioners. We received letters today from the migrant farm worker justice project which you have a copy of as well as the Florida Rural Legal Services which state various objections to the comprehensive plan. I would like you to note those and take a look at them. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have a speaker on this element? MR. DORRILL: We have a couple. Mr. Fridkin and then Mr. Wood. While Mr. Fridkin is coming up, we've got a number of people who have turned in slips, but we don't have an idea of which item. I need you to come over here to my desk, please. Ms. McDonald from the Collier Cattle Corporation, Tom Barbusca, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Nunnet. If y'all would just come up here and let me know which element in particular, that would help us call you at the appropriate time. MR. FRIDKIN: Mr. Chairman -- MR. WOOD: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm John Wood, the co-chairman of the housing committee, and if I may, I would like to speak before Jeff does on this particular item that you've been discussing just one short brief moment. The committee wanted to simply and agrees with Commissioner Matthews that the word "equality" in there or "equitable," it begs definition, and it would simplify it if this change was made, and it was felt like it would clarify what we were trying to do, and that's all, period. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. FRIDKIN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jeff Fridkin. I'm here today on behalf of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and the Collier County Economic Development Council Coalition on Government and Community Affairs. The coalition asked -- asked for comments opportunity on this housing element. Fortunately I think you've already acted in a responsible way in recognizing the legal difficulties presented despite the fact that had you entertained adoption, might have even given me an employment opportunity. With that, the -- the only -- the only additional comment that I would like to add is -- is that as you move forward to -- towards rewriting or amending the policies, that you bear in mind the opportunity for innovation in the business community and -- and leave enough flexibility for the businesses to come to you with opportunities. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all on housing, Mr. Chairman. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly if we're taking a straw poll, we were all handed something from the migrant farm worker justice project regarding the application toward migrant farm worker housing in Collier County, and apparently it's this person's opinion or this group's opinion that we don't -- we do not have sufficient information in our Growth Management Plan to address this. Mr. Hihalic, have you seen this before tonight? MR. HIHALIC: Yes. I saw it as of today and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do you have a response to that? MR. HIHALIC: My comments are that we have to study all subcategories of housing more fully. My professional opinion is that in the Immokalee community where most of our farm worker housing is located, we have -- we better satisfy the needs in the farm worker community than we do in the very low-income, non-farm worker community, and there's a statement in one of the letters that says farm worker housing is the most critical need within the community. I do not believe that's true in my professional opinion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: One more on housing. Mr. Beyrent. MR. BEYRENT: My name is Garry Beyrent. I -- I brought a project before the board about six months ago, I guess. It was an affordable housing project, and I didn't have a tremendous amount of support on it but on -- I think of the five commissioners, four voted in favor of the project, and Mr. Norris voted against it, and his issue was specifically density as it relates to affordable housing, and from my experience in the affordable housing business which is very limited, although I've been a developer here for -- since 1971, density is a primary issue in affordable housing. If you don't have density, you can't make these things physically and realistically possible no matter whatever benefits you get from the state or federal level. These things don't fly unless you have a density of between ten and 12 units per acre. The problem comes in -- When you start relating the density to the distance from the nearest commercial activity center and you start running numbers, that becomes a real problem because the property that's anywhere near a density band, a commercial density node is so valuable to the point that it doesn't work into an affordable housing format. So I think what you should consider is that you should consider properties that are nowhere near commercial activity centers that might have a density base of like three -- it doesn't really matter -- and consider them as potentially properties that would be useful for affordable housing. That's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Litsinger, are you going to run the timer, or is someone going to run the timer? MR. LITSINGER: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We didn't need it that time, but I bet we do before the night's over. We -- Does that conclude your presentation? MR. HIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no more questions from the board for Mr. Hihalic, then we need a straw poll on whether we're going to amend that policy 1.4.1. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we ought to accept the -- the recommendation of the subcommittee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I was leaning toward what Commissioner Constantine was discussing earlier, but the gentleman from the subcommittee -- his remarks -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make one more comment here because your -- it was in -- I mean, your -- your question before was one of the reasons why I think we should leave "equitable" in, and that is, Mr. Mihalic has said here and several times in the past our goal is to make that it is not concentrated in any one area, but there is a need throughout the county, and indeed there should be affordable housing throughout the county, and this element says that they will be distributed equitably throughout the county. And I think if you take that out, it takes away our ability -- part of our ability to assure that affordable housing isn't simply cjustered in one area or another, and I'm not sure we need to take that authority away. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I'm a little unclear, and I asked Mr. Mihalic that question. By this change, are we eliminating our ability to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me read the -- the recommendation. "LMI housing shall be provided throughout the county." That's pretty clear, "throughout the county." COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's pretty clear to me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: "And shall take into consideration need, convenience accessibility as well as infrastructure availability." I -- I think that -- that we get where we want to go with that language and that we shouldn't substitute our three minutes of discussion, although we've had more than that, for all the work of the committee and that we ought to accept the committee's recommendation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I mean, if that's going to be the attitude, then we don't need to have the public hearings. To say we're not going to do it because the committee suggested it, all the work the committee has done, we have them do that for a reason, and the board's here for a reason. The change is very simple. It's -- two words are gone, and one word is in. Instead of "shall be distributed equitably," it's "shall be provided throughout the county," and that means -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's completely different as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It is very, very different. MR. MIHALIC: Excuse me, Commissioners. Miss Cacchione just brings back -- we will bring specific language back to you as you adopt the EAR-based amendments. So you don't have to make a decision tonight on what specific language you would like in there. This is more of a policy question for your discretion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is there won't be many minds changed between now and then, so we might as well pick a direction and -- so I guess the question is to leave the -- You know, the straw poll question should be something to the effect of do we want to leave the language as is. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My preference would be to leave "equitably" in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to agree. Let's leave it the way it is. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My preference is to accept the subcommittee's report. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Accept it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll vote to leave it as is. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have one question before Mr. Mihalic disappears hopefully for the evening. MR. MIHALIC: I hope so. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I noticed that objective 1.1 on the summary sheet indicates that an inventory is going to be taken of substandard housing. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. We -- We -- When the plan was initially put together, the methodology that was used was overall -- it was based on the 1980 census. Now I think we want to be much more definitive and have a more comprehensive analysis of substandard housing, what substandard means, and then you can see the companion policy is -- what to do about it, how we then alleviate over a certain period of time the substandard housing conditions that are within the county. Now, we're doing that right now with rehabilitation loans and other programs that we have, but we want to continue and -- and codify that effort. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I -- I guess my -- what I'm asking for is not -- is not that we not do it but that we do it and, gee, I wish we'd done it several years ago because we wouldn't have as much substandard housing as we do at this point. But do you have any idea for when that inventory is going to be completed? MR. MIHALIC: No. We're just looking -- we're just looking at it now, although in the -- using the methodology that was adopted when the plan was originally adopted, the amount of substandard housing is dramatically reduced -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I read that. MR. MIHALIC: -- under the EAR, but there is no doubt that we do have areas of substandard housing that need to be rehabilitated or leveled and rebuilt. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- that particular section as we adopt this evening does not commit us to extensive studies and consultant fees and so forth. I did read that in -- in the changes there's a $35,000 study proposed? MR. MIHALIC: Well, that's a -- that's a comprehensive study, but you notice that we -- we say that the comprehensive inventory is about 640 hours, and we expect to do that in-house and using various different departments. And then the -- the feasibility of how to try to reduce that, we think that that methodology will take about 40 hours or so to develop. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just want to make sure we weren't -- MR. MIHALIC: Now, those are just guesstimates, Commissioners. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure we weren't committing to unfunded outside assistance at this point. MR. MIHALIC: No. We want our money to go to alleviating the problem and not studying the problem. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We know the problem. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If there's no more questions for Mr. Mihalic, a straw ballot on accepting the housing element with the exception of policy 1.4.1. All in favor say aye. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All opposed? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. I'm -- I -- I wasn't exactly sure -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we took a straw ballot. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we already did that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That was just on policy 1.4.1. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Miss Cacchione asked that you reratify that you're not accepting the Planning Commission recommendation on redlining areas for affordable housing. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That was reratified. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, before we get this back in two weeks, there's this page in here -- it's not numbered, but it's called "Deferred Impact Fees, Density Bonuses," and for the record so that we don't get stuck with this thing forever, under density bonus granted, you've got one here that's got 6,701; is that correct? MR. MIHALIC: The sheet that I handed out this evening, Commissioner? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No. This one in the book. It comes after 43 in the housing element. MR. MIHALIC: Let me look at the sheet. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's listed for Arbor Lakes. MR. MIHALIC: My staff tells me it should be 67.1 although -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: -- I haven't -- I haven't found it in the book yet. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just -- MR. MIHALIC: We'll make that correction, Commissioners. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to make that clear because if it gets in the -- I don't want somebody to get 6,000 density bonus units on 246 -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That would be a tall building. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A very tall building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little high-rise action. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Next element is our recreation and open space element. MR. BRINKMAN: Good evening, Commissioners. Steve Brinkman, your parks and recreation director, and we have really a very good element because we had very few changes. Host were just bookkeeping errors. The one change that we did make in the plan was amending the policy level of service for regional park land, and that was that it would be county-owned regional park land which is a change which would actually no longer count as inventory state and federal land because the state and federal land really is not available to the public in the same way our regional parks are available to the public. Because of that change, that caused the refactoring of the existing 700 acres of regional park land that we now have which changed the 2.94 acres per thousand population to ten. So -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So we -- we have 700 acres in stock, and we need under this amendment 200 about? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That's clear enough. Speakers on this one, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, two, and I have one question for Mr. Brinkman. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm confused. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not how I read it. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings will be first. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I didn't get that. MR. DORRILL: So my understanding is that we will be then deficient for regional park lands as a result of -- of not counting the state and federal parks, preserves, strands, et cetera. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. We will continue to be at a deficit because of that. MR. DORRILL: Will we continue to count the coastal beaches as regional park land, and have we taken into account the additional beach capacity as a result of the renourishment project? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Wait a minute. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we're increasing the requirement from 2.9 to 10 MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. And -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're creating the deficiency by doing that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. BRINKMAN: That's because we're not counting the state and federal properties any longer so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because in reality there's not very much recreation or park value to those properties since nobody can get to them or walk on them, so it's sort of a game. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what they tell us when they buy the land. MR. BRINKMAN: They're more -- They're more natural preserves than actual parks. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm -- I'm still -- I'm confused because we're going to create a deficit from what I'm reading by increasing our requirement, the policy level of service going from 2.9 to ten acres. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: While subtracting inventory, we're increasing the requirement. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's kind of like saying, while we're losing money, let's spend more. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, that's -- that's the way I read this. If I'm wrong, help me. MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. We're creating -- We are creating a deficit, and that is to allow for the purchase of future regional parks within the community. It will be the emphasis hopefully in the future to build large -- fewer large regional parks rather than another 10 or 12 smaller community parks because it's much less expensive to operate and maintain a few larger areas than it is many, many small areas. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's also less convenient for the people getting to them and impacts on your road network and so on. I -- I don't understand -- separating out the fact that you want to no longer count state and federal -- I don't necessarily agree with that, but separating that out for the moment, why -- the increase from three -- from 2.9 to 10 is simply to try to put a stress -- stress a priority on regional parks? MR. BRINKMAN: It's to account for the 700 acres we now have and to allow for the purchase of a regional park within the next five- to seven-year period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would guess I would disagree with that because as our community fills up and intensifies with neighborhoods and more and more people throughout the empty space right now, I think it's kind of nice to have 50 to 100 acres of green space in ten or 15 locations. I think that's preferable than only having three set at far away spaces. I -- I -- I disagree with that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yeah. My concern is that -- Right now the policy is 2.94; is that correct? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we have -- We're going to broach the 200,000 population, so that's 200 times 2.94 which the 700 regional park acres we have right now meet the requirement. If we go to ten acres, we're talking about needing 2,000 acres, and -- and I applaud needing park land but -- but -- I mean, Commissioner Hancock continues to tell us that we give DCA the stick with which to beat us COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and -- and -- I mean, I -- I want to work towards 2,000 acres for sure, but I don't want DCA to force me to do it tomorrow. MR. BRINKMAN: Well, you know, that can certainly be adjusted, you know, a little bit at a time over -- you know, every five years adjusting that a little bit more each time. It's going to be very easy to do it. MR. DORRILL: Was the driving factor behind the proposed change the CAC subcommittee or committee for parks and recreation, or does this somehow mesh with the parks and recreation advisory board's desire to change the type of recreational complex, and are we -- are you classifying regional parks as -- For example, a regional soccer complex with ten fields, is that going to be a community park or a regional park? MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. The -- An athletic complex like that would be a regional facility because it would draw from the entire county to go to that facility, but the driving forces behind this were, of course, one, to try to not account for that state and federal property; and, two, the park board's effort to try to move towards -- move away from the community park emphasis over the next five to seven years and move to a regional park emphasis where the land is much less costly to maintain. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But at three -- at 2.9, we're not precluded from doing that. We can still do that at the lower level so -- and I -- I'm anxious to hear from -- from members of the public because we're probably -- I -- We're all singing the same song here. That is, why would we send something to the state that puts us in an immediate deficiency is beyond me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can always do more than the minimum we require of ourselves. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's hear from the public and see if maybe we can get a little more information. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings is your first speaker. Then I have -- Mr. Fridkin, you'll be second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You wanted 20, didn't you, Fran? DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I'm not sure I want to speak after hearing all of this, but I think we just basically wanted to support the idea that a lot of parks and open spaces are one of the things that set communities apart and help improve the overall quality of life. So we do see a value to having a larger amount, and I do appreciate the dilemma that you see here. And certainly with the smaller requirement, you can always go above and beyond it, but we do think that without getting into the argument over regional versus local -- I guess we probably need both -- that we do need as much of this kind of thing as we can so -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think what's bothering me also is -- is the definition in the Growth Management Plan of what a regional park is. It's -- It's very, very large, and -- and I think a lot of our citizens would like smaller, closer-in parcels where 2,000 acres of regional park if I -- if memory serves me, in the Growth Management Plan is described as serving a population within a radius of 60 miles. Is that -- that's the whole county so -- DR. STALLINGS: Maybe to some extent the nature of the property could -- could determine that, and there might be a case where a regional park would be real good, but I certainly appreciate the need for having something that's, you know, a little closer to home. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize obviously adults -- we have adult softball and any other number of things, but when I think of parks, I think of kids, and whether you look at -- Near me there's the Golden Gate Community Park or if you go to Veterans' Park or if you go to Vineyards Park, all of those are readily available where a kid can hop on his bicycle and go to the park and participate in the activities or play on the swings or play basketball or tennis or anything else, and I -- I don't think we want to discourage that by getting away from that. Now, I don't think that means it's an either/or, and I think Dr. Stallings said that we can still move forward with regional parks, but I don't think we want to do that at the expense of the community park idea. I -- I'd like to see us maybe do something -- One of the reasons we didn't put an economic element in our Growth Management Plan was, as you said, we don't want to give DCA the stick to beat us with. I think we can set as a local policy or local goal growing our inventory and trying to set more aside for parks, but I -- I don't have a great deal of interest in increasing our requirement from the state where we're immediately deficient and greatly deficient. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just as we did with the library, we realized we were well behind in books per capita. So rather than setting a high goal that we knew immediately we couldn't meet, we have worked on incrementally pushing that goal up each year in a manner that we can make the acquisition. I see this as much the same way. If we're going to place the focus on the -- on the regional parks -- and the parks you're talking about, the basketball courts, the community center with the billiard table in it and that kind of thing, we may see an eventual separation of your -- your soccer fields and your baseball diamonds being gathered in more regional areas because of the activities and team sports that go on in this community with the community park concept staying intact, but let's not make this jump and force that issue at this point. If we want to make an incremental step here, that's one thing, but I think this spread is far, far too great for us to implement. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd rather leave it like it is, and -- and we can make steps all along, but why would we, you know, create a deficiency. I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your -- Your library example is a good one. What we've done is set a policy of trying to increase that every year, but it's not until we allocate the funds for that increase that we change our plan to show that increase, and I think we need to do exactly what you're saying, and that is, let's set a policy of trying to expand our parks lands, but let's not do -- you know -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we at least -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- back ourselves into a corner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we at least clean this number up to 3.0? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a thought. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There's a good thought. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 2.94127 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we make it pi? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Pi. Pi has been suggested. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pi. If we're going to change it, let's just clean it up to 3.0 and not create a deficiency for ourselves. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fridkin was your other speaker. MR. FRIDKIN: I -- I can move through this real quickly. The coalition did consider this recommendation and -- and frankly -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Keller -- Mr. Keller, could you take it outside, please? MR. FRIDKIN: Jeff Fridkin and on behalf of the chamber, EDC Coalition. We did look at this recommendation and -- and -- and favored it as a better way to enhance the quality of life but with a proviso, and I think you're addressing the proviso. It's sensible to think about not setting the bar higher than you want to be forced to jump. That's a pretty sensible approach. As you move forward with the concept, however, of improving the level of service as you see fit to do, the coalition certainly supports that effort as a good and favorable improvement of our quality of life, but we'd ask that you seriously consider funding as a component part of that process so that at the same time the level of service has increased, an equitable mechanism for funding that increased level of service is also enacted. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd make a recommendation that we -- since we have 700 acres of regional park land and we're going to be at 200,000 population sometime during this year, that we look at -- at increasing it to 3.5 so at least we can then ensure ourselves that it will not go down, but I'm -- I'm not sure I want to jump all the way to ten. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I'm sure it's not going to go down. I can't imagine we're going to sell off one of our parks but -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about the population coming in, as the population goes above 200,000. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah. But let me point out that your proposal is -- is setting our level of standard at level today -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and next year we'll be deficient. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The next car that drives across the county line puts us in deficiency when we are not prepared financially at this point to purchase another regional park. We're still handling the initial improvements to the last one we purchased. So I think we have to be or try to be reasonable and buy ourselves enough time. So I agree we want to -- if we want to inch the bar up, that's one thing, but setting it at current level causes us deficiency next year, and we're going to need a few years to -- to plan, locate, and -- and get the next regional park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm comfortable that if we set policies and goals, we will do those just as we have with the library system. We said we would incrementally do that by .05 every year, and we have. And -- and so I think we need to set some specific goals and policies for ourselves in reference to the park land and then make sure we maintain that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My preference -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and bump it up each time along the way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My preference is at this stage to clean it up to 3.0, and, just as Commissioner Matthews has suggested, we need to look at where we want to go with that and what our eventual goal is, and I -- I don't think we're ready to set that tonight. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 3.0? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.0. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. There's -- There's three and more. And that -- that was the only change that was recommended in the first place, so we're adopting or we're approving the change -- the change to 3.0 and the rest of the recreation element. Thank you very much. MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Intergovernmental coordination element. Who's going to present that? Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger of the planning department. The intergovernmental coordination element EAR is rather simplified in its evaluation. The reason for that is -- is that there was significant new legislation passed as a result of the 1993 Elms legislation requiring very extensive rewrites of the intergovernmental coordination element relative to coordination between governments or neighboring boundaries on every aspect of development which might affect those adjoining neighbors. Also there were some very significant changes in the current development of regional impact review process and also relative to the interaction of school boards and local governments. The bottom line is -- is that the proposed EAR amendments are primarily housekeeping at this time, as there is pending legislation to, for the most part, repeal all of the existing legislation and to restore the DRI process or either retain it as it exists as there has been a pretty much bipartisan uproar around the state to the prospects of change of the DRI process and taking it out of the regional planning council's hands. The staff and the CAC recommendation and Planning Commission approved recommendation is to do the housekeeping measures as far as changing of dates, appropriate titles of organizations with the possible requirement of a drafting of an interlocal agreement with the school board prior to October 1st pending the outcome of this legislative session which may more or less set us back to where we were in 1993. That is really all I have to report to you at this point. We will be keeping you updated as we go through the amendment process relating to these EARs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All welre doing with this is meeting the change in the state law, but I think itls a good one as -- and if you read the remarks at the bottom of 1.2.6, the intent of this requires local school boards now to submit a notice of intent to construct a school facility 90 days prior. And the city or county must, once a complete application is received, determine whether the proposal is consistent with the local GMP and land development regulations. And I emphasize it only because the Pelican Marsh school that is being built, it doesnlt come anywhere close to meeting what we require every other builder in the county to do -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and -- and -- it is absolutely abusive to the neighbors who are adjacent to that school, and so this is a giant step toward making sure and taking care of people who are adjacent to any school property just as we do with any other construction. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to piggyback on that -- and I have also received several phone calls on that, and Iive worked with the school board on it, and I think the differentiation is when youlre going in next to existing development, then the standards have to be -- you know, have to be consistent. If youlre going in and therels nothing else out there, then, you know -- so, yeah, we -- we need to clarify that, and I understand the school board has prepared something to submit to us, and to comply with this, we just need to review it, and if you have any questions ahead of time and you want me to meet with members of the school board to talk about it, Iid be happy to. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Public speakers on this element? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any dissension on this one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That one actually went unanimous then. Weill forward that one on to you. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. Iill carry on. The next element is the capital improvement element. The recommendations for the -- of the EAR CAC staff has approved with the -- by the -- excuse me -- approved by the Planning Commission are to make all the necessary routine data updates, review all data sources relative to revenue, population, and so forth. More specifically, welre proposing to do an in-depth analysis of the basis for and the validity of all level of service standards and the level of service methodology for all category A and B public facilities. A few minutes ago you were discussing the parksi -- the regional parksi level of service standard. This would also be included. We will bring a recommendation to you based on the seven years of experience as to whether or not all of your -- all of your three level of service standards for parks are valid, whether the revenue sources that you have in place are sufficient to sustain the adopted level of service, and whether or not therels a recommended amendment to those levels of service. This will be an extensive process and will be coming to you over the next 12-month period. We proposed to specifically look at, of course, probably recommending an amendment to level of service standard the way we look at solid waste due to the changes and their methodology there. Other levels of service that I'm sure we will be recommending changes will be water and sewer and potable water. Of course, the roadways are pretty much set. And as we mentioned before, parks. And possibly there will be a recommendation relative to the library level of standard -- level of service standard also. But, as I said before, as part of the amendment development process, we will do an in-depth analysis on all of these and come back to you as part of the amendments to the capital improvement element. The other significant amendments to the capital improvement element have to do with policy -- most significant, policy 1.3.3. The Citizens' Advisory Committee disagreed with staff where staff had wanted to delete this policy referencing accessibility of shoreline and beach access. The CAC and the staff reached consensus which is approved by the Planning Commission to amend policy 1.3.3 to reflect a commitment to develop a program for implementation to expand the availability of access to beaches, shores, and waterways, including funding, within one year of adoption of the EAR-based amendments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On those two words,"including" and "funding," we, through parks and recreation and the beach parking scenarios, have a very significant inventory of what's out there. You can sit down with Tom Olliff and in ten minutes find out what properties are vacant and within a half mile of the beach. We have the ability in-house to prepare a plan to expand and implement and increase access to beaches and coastal areas. By putting "including funding" in there, I hope we are not saying that we need to add staff or we need to hire a consultant to do something that the groundwork has already been laid for. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we just don't include those two words? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we take those two words out, I'm happy because that -- that sounds to me like we're talking about farming it out or adding staff, and based on the groundwork that's been done, I don't think it's necessary. MR. LITSINGER: If I could share some recall on the discussion on this particular item, the issue of funding has to do with acquisition -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With the acquisition. That's what I took it to mean too. MR. LITSINGER: -- either through direct purchase or eminent domain. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not for study purposes but for -- MR. LITSINGER: Absolutely not. In terms of acquisition of additional access where deemed appropriate through either direct purchase or purchase through eminent domain. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't it a little odd in a -- in a long-range purchase program to try and establish a funding mechanism for land whose value is going to be unknown and -- at the time of acquisition? It -- It -- It's just -- It's not that I'm trying to avoid -- I mean, we have areas that we can develop that we're looking into, at least in North Naples, for beach parking and so forth, and -- you know, and I -- I want to pursue that, and I know there's an area -- some areas on Marco that -- that are possible also, but I'm a little concerned that "including funding .... again, the state comes over and says we want to know how many dollars you're allocating every year to do this when we don't know what the end cost is going to be, and I -- I'm -- That's just a concern for me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a legitimate one. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It is, and -- and the other comment is that this -- well, the comments on this policy are -- are talking about some eminent domain issues, and the problem with our county is that all the beach-front properties are essentially developed, and I'm not interested at all in considering eminent domain for access to beaches in a fully developed area. Now, whether it's Pelican Bay or Marco Island, it's just something I'm not interested in at all, and I don't know that -- that I would feel comfortable at all leaving any reference to eminent domain procedures in this policy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What page is that on? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Forty-nine MR. DORRILL: Only one speaker. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: One speaker? Let's -- Let's hear that speaker. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton. MS. STRATON: Chris Straton. I was on the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and I have to say that this was one of the elements that -- policies that I was personally leading the charge on, and the funding we were looking at was to look at a mechanism -- some way of getting money to acquire additional beach access, would that be parking fees, impact fees, you know, try to put something in place so that as we move forward to try to acquire additional access, there is some source of funds that has been looked at as a potential way of trying to acquire the land. So that -- that was the funding that we were that -- Right now there is a plan. We would like -- You know, I assume we'd like to gain additional beach access, but there was no funding mechanism that was allocated towards that, and the only thing that you had to look at is a possibility of ad valorem. So what we were trying to say is to try to look at what are some of the ways that we could raise some money to -- to enhance that. So that was the -- the intent, my intent and the intent of the committee. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It seems to me this policy merely states that we reflect a commitment to develop a program for implementation to expand our availability and to examine the funding mechanism for that program. That's all it is. MR. LITSINGER: A proposal would entail a recommendation being brought to you by staff for your consideration for the implementation of this program -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Now, this -- MR. LITSINGER: -- with alternatives. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If we were to adopt this policy as written here, would that require us at some point to come up with a plan for funding? It requires us to make that plan? MR. LITSINGER: Only to the extent that your -- your comprehensive plan is an ordinance from the standpoint that you could choose to implement or not implement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The thing to remember there is it depends on how DCA interprets that. While we may interpret it to mean that as part of our program development we have to develop how we're going to come up with funding, DCA may interpret that to mean we will come up with funding within that year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- I think you can refine it to meet what Miss Straton just said by instead of saying "including funding," to list .... identify possible funding options." That doesn't mean securing the dollars up front. In other words, I'm trying to avoid an extreme interpretation. So instead of "including funding," if we say "identify possible funding options," that includes the examination of just that. I would like to -- I would think that would accomplish what we're trying to do there without -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's four. I think that will solve that problem now. You know, as long as we're funding -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I jumped in when you were still talking so it's five. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't want to leave you out on that one. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As long -- As long as we're considering funding willing seller-type projects, I'm certainly willing to go along with that, but I would like to see if the board's interested in making sure that we don't have any eminent domain language in there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm just reading here the legal remedy of condemnation of private property has been determined to be unfeasible and I'm -- Maybe I'm missing what you're reading because I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I don't think it says that that's an option. I think the wording might -- MR. LITSINGER: If I might clarify -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- almost suggest we can't do that. MR. LITSINGER: -- the issue of eminent domain was a discussion topic. It wasn't a specific recommendation as a methodology. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it's not in there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's not going to be a part of what we recommend tonight? MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Good. That solves my problem. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Especially if it's not feasible. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any other speakers further, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That was it? And with that change, a straw vote says -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the change of striking "including funding" and inserting "identify possible funding options." COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. MR. CONRECODE: Good evening, Commissioners. Tom Conrecode from your public works division on the sanitary sewer element. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, boy! MR. CONRECODE: No substantial changes with the sanitary sewer element to report. We will, however, intend to update our master plan which is currently under contract and to make miscellaneous updates and revisions to keep the plan current. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the septic tank policy under the new -- MR. CONRECODE: Specifically restricting the density of that. It's following clean water standards, in essence. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a choice in that? I -- I assume we don't have a choice. MR. CONRECODE: No. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for edification purposes, what is -- more specifically, that restriction is? MR. CONRECODE: It's -- It's fairly detailed. If you'd like, I can provide you that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you? Thanks. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My office also, please. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: One speaker. Mr. Perkins. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, when do you expect the master plan to be completed -- the update -- MR. CONRECODE: I'm sorry. I didn't -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When do you expect the updated master plan to be completed? MR. CONRECODE: By the end of the year. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: By the end of this year? MR. CONRECODE: Yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a master plan that we paid for -- and I don't know if it was potable water or sanitary sewer -- a couple of years ago, and we were not happy with the result. Does that ring any bells to you? MR. CONRECODE: It doesn't ring any bells to me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stormwater. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that stormwater? Okay. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. Yeah. That would be stormwater. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: The water and wastewater plants haven't been updated -- I believe 1989 was the last time they were done, and that generated elements -- the input to the capital improvement element. They're in the process of redoing all that right now to bring everything current. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a speaker or not? MR. DORRILL: Apparently not. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Apparently not. Okay. Then we need a straw ballot on this element. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm on board with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Fine. Great. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. You may go to the next one. MR. CONRECODE: The next one is my report on the potable water element. Again, we have -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This looks fairly similar to the one we just saw. MR. CONRECODE: -- minor miscellaneous updates and revisions. This master plan is also currently under way and should be completed by late summer, and that will reflect any capital improvements resulting from the master plan update in the new CIE. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins does want to speak on this one. MR. PERKINS: This is solid waste? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No, sir. MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is -- This is potable water. MR. DORRILL: Hang on then. Solid waste is his. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with it. MR. CONRECODE: That concludes my remarks. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No change. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm fine with this. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Everybody's in agreement then, all -- those of us who are here? Next one is drainage subelement. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. MR. BOLDT: Good evening. For the record, your stormwater management director. Public facilities subcommittee of the Citizens' Advisory Council reviewed the drainage element in great detail. Their recommendations in summary regarding most of the drainage objectives and policies gave some brief recommendations. First of all, they amend the drainage subelement and brought it up to date to incorporate the many changes to the drainage system that are taking place since the Growth Management Plan was prepared seven years ago. Just physically it's a lot of changes to the system, a lot of changes in the responsibilities between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin Board, and the drainage element needs to reflect that. There are also recommendations to make various minor amendments to several objectives and policies to reflect completion of the master plan that was completed back in 1990 and adopted by the county as their blueprint for the future of drainage in Collier County and then to incorporate those master plan findings into the element. The real recommendations of the subcommittee boiled down to two proposed new policies that they would propose to introduce, and with staff's concurrence those -- that new policy is -- in particular is 1.1.6 and is sort of broke down into three different parts. One, the subcommittee was recommending that we initiate specific detailed basin studies to determine the recommended level of service and cost of improvements to raise the level of service of all the basins, and that includes -- that were included in the secondary drainage system. And these studies need to be done in conjunction with but not overlapping the studies being done at the current time by the Big Cypress Basin Board, and they're currently doing an overall master plan of all of the regional area of western Collier County. They're also doing detailed basin studies of the Cocohatchee River basin area and southern Golden Gate Estates. The regional plan itself is going to kind of set the framework for all the other basin studies. If there's going to be any attempt at all to say -- basically to replumb the system, this would be the tool that would initiate that. And then particularly in the urban area where we're more involved in our secondary systems, we would do our studies in conjunction with theirs but not to overlap with them. We're saying that the initial study that should be performed by the county itself and the urban basin should be the Gordon River basin. It's a very high-priority basin area with a number of problems related to flooding and drainage outlets and some water-quality problems. We estimate the cost of that study to be somewhere in the neighborhood of five to $600,000. We've had some preliminary discussions, and I -- I emphasize preliminary, and we have some tentative proposals from staff, the city engineer's office that are subject to approval of the city manager and the city council. Now, the city would participate somewhere in the area between 50 and maybe as much as $100,000 in the study of the Gordon River itself. In addition to that, we've had the same kind of preliminary discussions to the Big Cypress -- Big Basin -- excuse me -- Big Cypress Basin staff and a tentative proposal from them that's also subject to approval of their Big Cypress Basin Board in the amounts of something like 150 to $200,000 totalling then anywhere from 200 to $300,000 by these two different agencies, either from the city or from the Big Cypress Basin. It would leave the balance of about 50 percent or, you know, 250 to $300,000, and we're recommending that either this be paid for either by a special taxing district or other kind of partnership of funding that could be set up by the county. In addition to that, the subcommittee also recommended that we move forward with implementing the previously completed district number six water management plan, specifically the Lely and the Lely Manor basin. And, again, we've had some tentative information for you if you'd like to talk a little bit about the cost of that project. It's -- The Lely basin and the Lely Manor basin together total some $17 million. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me? MR. BOLDT: Construction cost -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. Say that again. MR. BOLDT: $17 million including -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone just woke up, Mr. Boldt. MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir. I would like -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's just for the Lely? MR. BOLDT: That's the Lely and the Lely Manor basin. I'd like to share, if you'll allow me to, a map we prepared and a very preliminary first draft of a proposal for cost allocation. We've broken this down into components. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt, could you tell us how much of that would have come with -- you know, for free from the developer if Sabal Bay had gone forward or if it were to? I mean, I know it's -- substantial improvements were proposed in that drainage basin to be done by the developer. I can't resist asking. MR. BOLDT: Yes. I realize that. It's all a matter of timing, who is going to do the work first. If -- If they had done the work first, obviously that would have been subtracted from the total cost of the project. They would have been included in the assessment district or taxing district and then given credit for the work they've accomplished. If we were to go in today and do the work, a similar type of arrangement and include them in the district, and they would be charged for their fair share of the benefits received. That's rather complicated. I personally haven't even thought through that whole process of how it would work and put some numbers to it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be fair to say if the city hadn't held up Sabal Bay, they would be paying -- their -- Their portion of this would be several million dollars? MR. BOLDT: Several million dollars. If you look at the cost allocation breakdown under the Lely basin -- specifically the Lely main, of the $10 million in the Lely main, we're talking about $2 million for the spreader facility that's all on the Villages of Sabal Bay project and about $4 million in water level control structures, most of which are on the Village of Sabal Bay project, and then channel improvements are scattered throughout the whole area. there would have been several millions of dollars of work in the Village of Sabal Bay project. The Lely branch totals a million seven. It's not nearly as significant. There's another $4 million you note in the Lely Manor basin which is the basin adjoining to it, and that has something similar as the Villages of Sabal Bay and that there's a large project there called Lely Lakes that can be folded into this project. We've got a lot of discussions with them. The master plan that they developed incorporates the improvements, the spreader facility, a pumping station, and a lot of environmental enhancements to that. You notice also that this cost allocation table -- and, again, I emphasize this is a first draft of a preliminary proposal. Staff developed it. We have had some very preliminary discussions. It's a starting point. We would recommend at this point that the county might perhaps share at large the -- 15 percent of the cost which is, like, two and a half million dollars. Aside from the Village of Sabal Bay, we're talking about a million four in other contributions by the developer and some other places, like along the north side of Davis Boulevard -- again, a matter of timing, who constructs it first, whether we get the contribution or it would be included in the assessment district. The figures you see for South Florida Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin, I reviewed them in preliminary form with Paul Van Buskirk, and he -- he thought his board would act favorably on cost-sharing in particular on the environmental portions of this which is the spreader facility, the water level control structures, not so much in the channel improvement but in those and some totalling maybe $3.4 million with the first cut. Portions of this project are going to greatly impact Rookery Bay and would do a lot towards improving the water quality there. We feel that there's a real good chance we can get the Department of Environmental Protection and NOAA to participate in, again, some of those water quality improvement portions of the Lely system and more particularly the Lely Manor again to a million dollars. If you sort all those out, that leaves either by special assessment districts or taxing districts, say, about -- you know, eight and a half million dollars to be spread over that huge area out there that includes literally thousands and thousands of parcels. I wish I could tell you right now specifically how many acres, how many units, how much runoff would be generated, what it would boil down to on a typical single-family residence. We haven't come near approaching that yet, but if you were to spread this project over a three- to five-year construction period and then finance it over, you know, seven, ten, 15 years, I think we would see some dollar values, that it would not be, you know, out of reason. So it boils down to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That depends on who you ask. MR. BOLDT: What's that, sir? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It depends on who you ask. MR. BOLDT: Yes. That's true. That's very true. So the committee is recommending that we move forward with the implementation of the Lely -- Lely basin. We are currently in the process of meeting our environmental permits. We already have our South Florida Water Management District permit, getting close to the FDEP permit, then would come the Corps permit which would fold in. We have almost all the right-of-way we need, with minor exceptions. We have monies in this year's budget to initiate some engineering studies if we can get things to that point, and we're recommending that we amend our plan to fold us back into the Growth Management Plan and sequence it out over priority period and show a good-faith effort to implement that portion of it. Beyond that, the studies that we propose as a follow-up to the Big Cypress Basin and what they're doing and the Gordon River, the ones we feel we would be responsible for is the Belle Heade area. The agricultural portion of it needs a good master plan as that area was developed in transition over the years so it would be done in a logical manner. We would like to do a master plan drainage of the Immokalee area of all the different basins up there to give them a long-term drainage system and then more on the urban area. We have some smaller drainage systems like Rock Creek and Haldeman Creek, and there are several other smaller urban basins; that once we got the Gordon River basin under way and started to implement that, then we would do another small study that might cost a couple hundred thousand dollars, get that completed, and once we implement that, initiate another study, keep these things phased over the next 10- to 15-year period. Rather than try to, you know, bite it all off in one bite, spread it out over a longer period of time, take smaller steps, and make an effort to implement what we've got going already. So that's basically the committee's recommendations, and I'd be glad to answer any questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's clearly obvious, although an anomaly year, this past year highlighted that we do, in fact, need to have a better handle on our stormwater management system countywide. I don't think anyone up here would deny that. What we're being asked to include in the Growth Management Plan is a rather large commitment. The idea of initiating studies on -- on policies 1.1.6 and 1.1.7 I don't have a problem with because it doesn't establish a specific time line, and we can piecemeal those studies as funds come available, understanding that -- that it's important to the people that live in those basins that we get it done. I am completely at a loss on the Lely basin on how best to approach that. It's a -- it's a huge nut to crack, and it needs to be done, but I don't know that based on the presentation this evening and my knowledge of it that I'm comfortable amending the Growth Management Plan in such a way that -- that we are committing to a $17 million project, particularly with a lot of the unknowns you've indicated. So I would need a little direction on -- on what you're seeking specifically for the Lely basin as an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. MR. BOLDT: Well, specifically the process we're going through, as I understand it, is we're -- we're seeking direction onto future amendments to the plan. The amendments we're seeking are 1.6 -- 1.1.6, 1.1.7 which are -- basically says we add a new policy to undertake basin studies and implement construction in district number six and the Lely basin. You know, that -- that's pretty wide open. It's not specific. It's not time-specific. It would just show, I think, a good-faith effort that that's the direction we want to go. We have lots of other checkpoints as we go along the way. We need to develop some cost for you to understand what that impact would be on an individual property owner in that area, and we need to do a lot of work and research in the area to know what we've got and come up with a methodology similar to -- using lessons we learned in Naples Park, to come up with a methodology that people understand that's fair and equitable to them. Once we get to that point, then I think you start to see how this would unfold for the period of time, what the impact would be on an individual property owner. MR. DORRILL: I -- I think the question, though, is the way the -- the policy is written, it says "to undertake basin studies," but then it says "and implement construction." And the question is -- and I -- I think I know the answer -- they certainly have the right to -- to distinguish between those two and defer the "and implement construction" until such time that they actually have a better idea as to what the costs are going to be. MR. BOLDT: Very true. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Again, I -- I support initiating the studies, but, again, we don't know the final cost. So to -- to reference construction in this is a leap that we're not ready to make. We do need to make a commitment countywide to our residents that this is important, and I think we can do that in a local -- a local effort without having to put that in the comp plan at this early stage, and that would be my preference. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, I'm -- I'm even having a little bit of problem. You know, I -- I agree the studies need to be done but -- I mean, we had a little flurry of activity on these basin studies about six months ago when a member of South Florida Water Management plan was offered to cooperate with the DCA to help beat us on the stormwater -- to help beat us with that stick and as I COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: East coast versus west coast. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As I researched the legislation that brought the Big Cypress Basin Board into existence, it seems to me that the basin studies were supposed to be done by them, and they're not yet done, and it's 17 years later. MR. BOLDT: Particularly the whole regional plan, true, but as it's evolved, they have taken over the operation of the works of the basin, the major primary system, and they're not going to be dealing with the Gordon Rivers and the smaller basins. That's -- They feel that's outside their scope. Although they can include it in the overall plan, we need to get to the specific detailed studies of those particular areas because we're responsible for them. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But their -- their initiating legislation 17 years ago required them to do it. Have we traded that responsibility with them for their maintenance of various canals, and have we agreed to assume that responsibility? MR. BOLDT: We do have a cooperative agreement that was entered into back in 1991 that does outline the various responsibilities. Basin studies was the one that the county did assume. That was a responsibility we were going to do. They were going to do the more environmental aspects of construction. The county was going to do the drainage and flood control. We've actually not moved forward and met our obligation of that cooperative agreement as in the Big Cy -- as in the Cocohatchee area where they're doing all the construction activities up there. So the agreement really is out of sync right at this point. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's out of sync at this point. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My big problem is that they have levied taxes and collected taxes for 17 years under an enabling legislation that drew a picture that -- that isn't what we're dealing with today. Now, we can't go back and do anything about that, but I think it needs to be said. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if maybe we could, if maybe we ought to have our county attorney give us some advice on -- on what action is available to us since we -- we all acknowledge pretty much that they have been collecting these taxes, and it's just not really clear -- The best face you can put on it is it's not really clear what's theirs and what's our job because we do have this cooperation agreement. I reviewed it, but it doesn't bear any relation to what's actually happening on the ground. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't identify or clarify basin study responsibilities. And, in fact, what Commissioner MAtthews has identified, if the county attorney's opinion is, in fact, that it places the responsibility upon them, then -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can they trade it away? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Or, you know, then they should do it, period. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you -- could you give us some -- some advice on that, Mr. Weigel, about what -- what is available for us? Because, you know, real simply stated, what we're talking about is somebody's already paid a tax once for a study. Now we're saying, well, they didn't do it, so we'll tax you again and do the study. I -- I hope that's not going to be the result of the research but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it is, we're talking mutiny here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it is, it's a bad thing. MR. BOLDT: The only thing I can add to it is their legislation talks about development of a basin plan. That can be very broad, very conceptual. You can do a plan like that for $10,000. It would be absolutely worthless. You could spend millions of dollars doing a big basin plan and really get some good information. But when it came down to something site-specific as the Lely or the Gordon River or Rock Creek, you know, their basin plan isn't going to give you the specifics that you need there. It's only going to relate to how these plans are all going to work together, how water might be controlled from one area and diverted to another, you know, through an interchange of basin boundaries. It's like the major plumbing systems, what they would be responsible for. I think we're responsible for the minor piping that gets it to the customer itself. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think what I'll do, then, and for the board in the intervening two weeks is to pull that enabling legislation and send each of you copies. I felt pretty comfortable that it spoke of subbasins also. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there is also that -- that agreement that you should look at in conjunction. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Rather than -- and, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Rather than adopting specific policy language on this tonight or -- or taking a straw vote on it, I think we should hold off until we hear from the county attorney on those two documents as to whether -- whether or not we need to initiate these studies at the expense of -- of local taxpayers again possibly. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So we will revisit this issue or this -- I'm sorry -- this element in more depth at the second public hearing? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Weigel -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a second public -- We do have a second public hearing? MR. LITSINGER: It would be a continuation of this hearing if you do not complete the items this evening. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is important enough to -- to do that. MR. LITSINGER: The assumption being that there would be a continuation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you do have some speakers on this subject. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, you're clear on what we're looking for? MR. WEIGEL: I am. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Morton, you'll be next. MR. PERKINS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'd like to start something a little different tonight. I want to tell everybody here I am a citizen of Collier County, I'm a voter, and I'm a taxpayer. I'm not from out of county. I'm not from out of state here to lobby you. I do not get paid to be here in any way whatsoever. A lot of your speakers do. Now, you brought something up. I need to ask a question. On that $17 million, does that include us putting in the piling for Lely for their new boat basin? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not here tonight making specific cost decisions on -- on the subbasin. These are preliminary numbers, and -- and I don't think we're really going to argue them or discuss them in detail tonight nor are we making decisions to commit to them. So it may be an inappropriate time for that question. MR. PERKINS: Right. And as far as tax, is there any way I can get my tax back that I paid all these years for this? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can go hire yourself an attorney, A1. MR. PERKINS: I already did. He's sitting right there. Okay. Flooding. You guys are talking about water control, water management. I'm going to talk about flooding because they're one and the same, and in particular the Belle Meade area and the south blocks which contain four canals over there that eliminate the flooding all the way from the Immokalee Road clear north to where it turns to the east. Now, these canals over there, South Florida Water Management wants to fill them in. Where is that going to leave us as far as flooding and backing up the water? Now, one of the things that's never said, a canal is also a reservoir. It's right there, but now they're going to take and fill it in, and they're going to charge you more and more and more. Okay. At the meetings of the South Florida Water Management, Big Cypress Basin Board, very seldom does anybody show up except the people who have their hands out. The special interests are always there. You people better get up and pay attention, what's going on. Those canals out there, by the way, is the Fakaunion, the Miller, the Prairie, and the Herritt. They go down to Port of the Islands. Now, if they want to flood that entire area which they did a year ago Christmas -- A year ago Christmas they backed the water up, and it backed all the way over into the -- into the Belle Heade area, meaning that the whole place was saturated in time for the rains, and this was some of the problem that backed it clear up all the way to Alico. Bonita caught it bad. The farmers caught it and pumped. Now, we can either fix this problem or make it worse than what it is. The only thing that I'm going to tell you to do, you need to apply some good basic common sense and look at the situation because you're only being told what staff wants you to know. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Morton. Then we'll have Mr. Beardsley. MR. MORTON: Good evening. Mark Morton with Barton Collier Company. We -- Excuse me. I just want to get a clarification on whether or not the recommendations for the two HSTUs is part of this EAR process or what relevance they have. Is this just to tell us what it might cost? These don't go up? I mean, I'm just -- I'm kind of surprised that in -- that we're going to put in a comp plan specifications for an HSTU. I mean, it's the only portion I see in this entire suggestion that we would, you know, tie your hands, you might say, to force an HSTU upon the people in all these areas. It -- It just kind of sounds to me like taxation without representation. I mean, the committee to sit and say the HSTU would be a great idea and then tax all the people in Belle Heade and all the people on the Gordon River water shed and make that part of the comp plan so that later on when you all want to say we don't want -- When you start hearing from them that you don't want to pass the HSTU, well, gee, you know, it's in the comp plan. You have to do this. So is this going in the comp plan? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe I misunderstand, but I -- I think all it says is that we're -- they're recommending that we initiate studies. I mean, they're now being thorough in talking about longer-range plans, but I don't see anything in the EAR that says anything other than initiate studies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MORTON: Well, that's really the clarification I wanted. I just thought it was interesting that this is the -- you know, they're recommending cost on all of these studies, and this is the only one that's recommending an HSTU specifically, and I just thought that was -- I wasn't sure why that was being done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Litsinger, you were going to respond? MR. LITSINGER: I might add a little input which would be a -- something to consider in all the proceedings tonight. The board is not giving approval -- final approval for any studies this evening. What they're doing is giving approval to have brought forward in the next 12 to 18 months a series of proposed amendments which would go through the public hearing process which would be much more detail as to the proposal that staff and the Citizens' Advisory Committee have outlined. The board has not directed that any studies take place this evening or the subsequent capital cost either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Much less MSTUs I think is what he's saying. We -- even if we adopt the recommendations, we haven't -- we haven't concluded that these studies will occur nor have we concluded how the implementation, if any, would be funded. So this other stuff, I think, is just information. MR. MORTON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Beardsley. Then Mr. Nunnet. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, I'm speaking as an individual and also as a board member of Eco-Swift which is comprising about 40 organizations in five counties. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And your name is? MR. BEARDSLEY: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your name for -- MR. BEARDSLEY: Gary Beardsley. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. BEARDSLEY: I apologize. We really tried to focus on three elements, of conservation and coastal element, the drainage element, and the future land use. So I'll try to direct my comments to the drainage element. That's the wrong term. It's a bad term. I understand you're looking for some other agency to take over the responsibility, and -- and if you can find that agency, that's great, but in '89 the county said they would do it, and here we are in 1996, and the county hasn't done it. And my understanding -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- you're out of compliance. You've got an administrative hearing coming up because you're out of compliance. Let me soften this a little bit. I'm on a committee over in West Palm Beach, environmental advisory. There's also a utilities and an ag committee, and we meet monthly. The other coast is looking to this coast and says, "Wow, you've got it made over there. You can solve your problems ahead of time." We don't have that opportunity now. You need to do your basin studies. Whoever pays for it, it needs to be done because that's the way you do planning. You have a basin study. You know the problems in the basin, and when the developer comes in, nobody's trying to stop it, or an ag operation comes in, you understand how that operation is going to impact the basin it's in. They do it in the Chesapeake. They've been doing it in the United States for years. They do it on the other coast. Why don't we do it? It -- It just needs to be done. I -- I'd like to turn in one copy for the chairman and one copy for the record, and, again, I'll address the other two elements, but that drainage basin plan needs to be done, and you need development standards. The important part of that is once the basin studies are done, it ties into all the other land development regulations, you know, the habitat protection at whatever level, the natural resource protection areas at whatever level. It all folds together. That makes sense. If you don't want to do it, you're behind the curve. You really are. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nunnet and then Mr. Erlichman. MR. NUNNER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Nunnet for the record, and I was a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. I was also the committee chairman for the public facilities subcommittee. We spent the majority of our time in our subcommittee talking about drainage. We had six subelements in our subcommittee, and I would say 40 percent of the time was spent on drainage. Hopefully I can clear up a couple of things that I've heard spoken about tonight that everybody is a little bit concerned about. The intent of our new policies was to get the ball rolling. And, Commissioner Hancock, your first comments were it's a tough nut to crack. It's -- It's a huge nut. It's -- it's very -- It's a huge problem that we have, but we weren't trying to solve it in this subcommittee. We were just trying to get the ball rolling. Our two new policies, 1.1.6 and 1.1.7, were intended to be open-ended, generic recommendations that didn't tie the board's hands as far as implementing construction or anything beyond two basin studies and future studies as those studies are completed. So I just wanted to clarify that, that we weren't trying to tie the board's hands into a humongous project, but we did want -- You've got to understand, we were doing this at the time of last summer, and we had a lot of first-hand experience. It was a mess. We wanted our language to be as strong as possible, knowing that we were going to have to come here one day and propose our recommendations to the board. So we had a balancing act. We feel that the recommendations are pretty generic. They're not going to tie the board's hands, and they don't commit ourself to the state. If we want to make commitments as far as at a county level, that's one thing, but we're not making humongous commitments to the state. The last thing I'd like to say is one of our recommendations talked about finding other funding sources. That's as far as we got. We recommend that we look for funding sources. We did not recommend any specific funding sources. On your drainage element executive summary where it says on the last line, "Funded by MSTU" on policy 1.1.6 and 1.1.7 is not part of our recommendation. We did not -- We are not recommending that this be funded by an MSTU. That language as far as I know is not going to the state. The only language that we're putting in here that is going to the state is that we look at alternate funding sources. Thank you for the opportunity to serve on this board, and if you have any questions I can answer -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Nunnet. It might interest you to know that on Halloween of last year, which was very appropriate, we had a planning meeting, and in that meeting flooding and drainage was our number one concern as well, and we certainly agree in concept with everything that your committee worked so hard to bring to us. What we're trying to avoid is -- is language that would take the decision process out of this board's hands and put it in the hands of the state, and that's all we're trying to accomplish. So thank you very much. MR. NUNNER: Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to clarify Mr. Nunner's final comment there with Mr. Litsinger. His comment is correct that the verbiage of MSTUs does not appear or will not appear on anything transmitted to the state? MR. LITSINGER: No. That's just information. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to thank the Gary Beardsley fan club for showing up tonight. You get the round of applause for the evening so far, Gary. What we're trying to do here simply is clarify responsibility. If we find out it's our responsibility to perform those basin studies, then 1.1.6 and 1.1.7 need to be implemented, period, but we need to clarify the responsibility first and foremost. Once that's done, we can move ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me add to that, not because we don't want to do it or we want to shirk some responsibility but because we want to be sure that taxpayers aren't taxed twice for the same service. So that's the point of inquiry. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it -- it may even be different than that in that we conduct the studies and the people we ask to implement them and build the structures don't agree with the results of the study and they go -- and it's their legislative responsibility and they go back and do another one. We -- We could go on like this forever. So I -- I -- I just as soon find out who's really responsible before we decide to do it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Erlichman's been waiting forever, so let's hear from him. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ever so patiently. MR. ERLICHHAN: For the record, my name is Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I'm speaking for TAG. Well, I'm glad that the gentleman before me opened up the -- the -- the subject of responsibility and funding mechanism -- other funding mechanisms because at the present time all the people in this room plus everyone else in Collier County pays a tax -- a tax on their ad valorem taxes called water management, and that's -- that is taken by the South Florida Water Management District. They don't ask anyone, well, can we -- can we raise it to 50 cents, 60 cents -- pardon me -- 60 mills, 70 mills, whatever it is. They -- they act -- They're an independent board established by the State of Florida, and they answer to no one but the governor. I have a few questions here, but I'd like to know first -- and I'm not -- I'm not addressing this to the commissioners because I -- I don't think they have the answer to this question. We don't -- We don't have any idea as to what the studies are going to cost. I got that from the previous part of this meeting; is that correct, sir? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have estimates. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We only saw this -- MR. ERLICHHAN: Right. Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- just now, so we can't answer that. MR. ERLICHHAN: The other thing is that Big Cypress Basin Board and the South Florida Water Management District worked together with Collier County on flood control and any other drainage problems. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You'll be pleased to know that the agencies have recently begun a brand new spirit of cooperation with Collier County Government, and I'm optimistic that we're going to continue that. MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm glad you said "recently," sir. One month ago? Two months? Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Fairly recently. MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. What about -- Okay. I have a big question here. In the newspaper several weeks ago, there was an announcement by the South Florida Water Management District and Big -- and Big Cypress Basin Board. Big Cypress Basin Board covers all of Collier County and the northwestern part of Monroe County. This is due to Mary Ellen Hawkins. It was written up in the paper for -- for seeing this big -- you might say octopus reaching out from Tallahassee by the South Florida Water Management Basin -- Basin Board and all the other five Florida boards on the -- in the state to grab your responsibility and the tax -- and the tax -- the tax dollars of the taxpayers. Now, the whole thing is, they announced several weeks ago that they were -- they were -- they were planning to flood Fakahatchee Strand. Fakahatchee Strand is all the area south of 1-75 east to 29, State Road 29, and north -- just north of or including Port of the Islands. They were going to -- They were going to do that by just blocking off all those drainage canals, and they're going to flood that whole area. And the idea of that is to -- is to help preserve and -- and -- and protect the water supply in -- in Collier County and toward -- and over toward the east coast. And then it was a news bite on the radio a week -- two weeks ago about them moving the panthers from this area up north because the panthers naturally wouldn't be -- wouldn't be able to get food, and they would be drowned; so, therefore, they were going to move the panthers up north, the northern part of Florida where that's plenty of game, plenty of food for the panthers. Well, I tried to get an answer to that question. I called the state game -- state Game and Fisheries Commission. I called the South Florida Water Management District, Big -- Big Basin Board, and no one knew anything about that, and to me it's a mystery to this day, but that's -- that's one of the aside. So to me the most important thing that the commissioners can do in the -- in the subject of the South Florida Water Management Basin and the -- and the district and the Big Basin Board is to make sure, as the chairman informed me, that they're going to really cooperate now and in the future, and the idea of us having to study -- okay -- study the idea of collecting taxes for this water -- water management -- water drainage system down in Collier County and not relying on the South Florida Water Management District is questionable. We -- Right now we're paying taxes, South Florida Water Management District. And, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, we don't want to pay double taxes for the -- for the same thing. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, one would hope that if the state chooses to relocate the panthers, that they don't forget to take their $70 million worth of crossings up to put at some other intersections. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean the ones that are used by only one panther because they're marked? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's it for the public speakers. Do we have any comments from the board? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than we -- I -- we're going to delay this for two weeks while we get an opinion from the county attorney as to responsibility for -- for those basin and subbasin studies? Is that the crux of -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anyone have an objection to that? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. If this is the only element that we do not finish tonight, then we can have that, I would assume, as part of our regular scheduled Tuesday meeting? MR. WEIGEL: Is that a question? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we -- could we -- if we -- If this is all we need to finish, could we do that on a Tuesday? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As a public hearing? MR. WEIGEL: As a part of the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Our stenographer needs a break. Are you just changing paper or -- THE COURT REPORTER: I need to make a phone call to call Barb to let her know. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Do we want to take a dinner break? We're sending out for pizza. Anybody who wants anchovies, would you please raise your hand. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not me. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to take a brief break, order the pizza, and then take a longer break whenever it arrives? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good idea. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We'll take -- The stenographer needs to take a break, and we'll be back in five minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene for the moment. We'll reconvene at the solid waste element and -- Mr. Russell, take it away. MR. RUSSELL: Okay. For the record, David Russell, solid waste department. The major points in the report on solid waste subelement -- I'll go down through these. The amendment to recognize the implementation of mandatory collection, the original document's supposed to look at implementation of that project, and that has been implemented. Also regarding improvements to the landfill regarding leachate management and gas management, that needs to be modified to implement and maintain because both of those systems are under construction at this time. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. What -- just -- just as an aside, when do we expect the gas management to be on line? MR. RUSSELL: By June. And I might add, that's -- that's a first phase to that project. On the heels of that will come the gas utilization. Once that half of the system is put in place, then we'll be working on a utilization plan. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do you mean by utilization? MR. RUSSELL: To use that gas to generate electric power. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh. So we -- we are a waste -- Okay. I'm -- I'm -- what -- What's going to happen with the power? What are you going to do with it? MR. RUSSELL: The power can be sold back to the utility company. We're also looking at the possibility of using that power at the water treatment plant. It's just down the road from us, also possibly in part of the drying process in their raw water treatment. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Power that we sell back to FP and L, or are you going for power that we can sell to our utility department? Are -- are we going to reduce our tipping fee with that -- with that revenue? MR. RUSSELL: That's a possibility. We'll have to look at the -- the exact numbers -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: My question, Mr. Russell, is, is the county going to get the money, or is waste management going to get the money? MR. RUSSELL: No. The county in our contract will retain ownership of the gas. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. That's what I wanted to hear. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was an issue during the contract. MR. DORRILL: You have just one speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We're not -- I don't think Mr. Russell has gone through. We kind of interrupted him. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we did. I'm sorry. MR. RUSSELL: The -- Another policy change had to do with the method of calculating our current capacity that recognizes the current capacity that we have at our landfill. Basically the bottom line is there that with the level of service standards calculations, that it will be another five years before we fall below that ten-year's threshold for having additional land. We're in a good position there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So unlike a couple of years ago, Henny Penny, the sky is not falling? MR. RUSSELL: Beg your pardon? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. RUSSELL: The last major point that I would bring to you is the fact that the -- the landfill siting effort now under way is recognized in this report and will be able to include in the amendment cycle the site that's identified -- that's scheduled to be identified by this June, and that project looked like -- looks like it's on schedule and will be able to include that in the amendment cycle. Do you have any questions beyond that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on the bottom two items, 1 -- 1.3.2, it refers to recycling. Obviously we want to encourage that as much as we can. This -- this doesn't -- This shores up our commitment to that. This doesn't create any new requirement? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. In the original plan, it talked about researching the possibilities, and this is maintaining and enhancing the recycling projects that we've put into place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then on the bottom one -- I just commend us for taking that out. That's getting rid of incineration. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: While Mr. Perkins is coming up, I'd like to alert the people here present in the audience that the Board of County Commissioners did order pizzas, and we'll be eating that when it arrives. So we'll take another little break here shortly when it gets here. Then we'll come back and try to finish this up tonight. I understand it doesn't get daylight until about 6:30 so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My flight leaves at 6:20, so we have to break early. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Perkins. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll run out long before then. Thanks. MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups, citizens for constitutional property rights. Needless to say, we've discussed the landfill over and over and over again. I'll let you know that the college properties is still available at a nominal price which is a heck of a lot less than $340 million. The -- The survey which costs the citizens here $800,000 need to take and put an emphasis on recycling, and I see in here they do mention it. It's the first time I've -- At the meetings, I seem to be the only one mentioning waste recovery. Now, Hazel O'Leary this morning -- I kid you not, people -- Department of Energy -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What country was she in today? MR. PERKINS: No. No. She was in Washington. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With 40 of her dearest friends. MR. PERKINS: But anyhow -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only 40? MR. PERKINS: For -- For once, I sat down and I watched her, okay, and she was talking about recycling big time, and it almost sounds like she took a leaf from my book because she even mentioned building blocks and road surfaces and total recycling. Now, I highly recommend if anybody wants to find out, Department of Energy -- there's a letter you can write to Hazel O'Leary if you can catch her on a plane. Okay? As a matter of fact, I've been putting you people on to the recycling thing big time. We have the option to fix the problem. We have the place which is located in the proper place to fix the problem. Now, with that, there's a couple questions involved in this landfill thing, but let me go on with this just a little bit. Nobody's talking about composting. I see in here they talk about incineration. Well, that's out. Because that goes -- floats around, and it comes down. All it does is changes its matter. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in here to come out, and that's the purpose. MR. PERKINS: Yes. Yes. But what I'm getting at is we have the option of recycling totally 97 percent, and what is not recycled can go into those building materials. Composting is a big factor here because of the greenery that we grow and the trees. We can actually fix the problem by turning that stuff -- composting it and putting it on the cattle fields out there and some of the farmers. Oh, yeah, we've got farmers here. You'll hear about them when they -- when the Immokalee bunch get on. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I'm sure we'll hear from them if we put it on the farmers. MR. PERKINS: The composting? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. That's what you said. MR. PERKINS: Sure. Composting. They've been doing it in Europe for years and years and years, along with sludge. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. PERKINS: Let's get to the gas now for just a second. You people have been paying $268,000 for a survey, and you haven't been paying any attention because three years ago Clear Flame put out a report on how dangerous the landfill was. Now, if you would pay attention instead of laughing, you might learn something because let's face it; I can get damn nasty. Sometimes I think people have got more money than they have brains. $268,000 is a lot of money to put on a survey and not do anything about it. That was three years ago. You're talking about flaring off the gas. Well, folks, we've been losing $100,000 a month because we've been throwing it away. These are waste management's figures from Pompano. Now, tonight is the first time I heard that we're going to take and use some to generate electricity. Are we going to use any of it to take and supplement the water treatment plant up in front of the existing landfill and save us another $80,000? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was exactly the way Mr. Russell said that that energy would be used, at the water plant. MR. PERKINS: In electricity? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. PERKINS: Just in electricity? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what he said. MR. PERKINS: Okay. All right. Well, then we can sell the rest of it. Okay. Back to the leachate. What kind of provisions are made to take the leachate to Lely's waste recovery of the sewage plant? MR. RUSSELL: The project is a lift station and force main. We're going to send it to that plant -- MR. PERKINS: Is it -- MR. RUSSELL: -- with some pretreatment. MR. PERKINS: Is it going down 9517 MR. RUSSELL: It's going under 1-75 over to that commercial park next to the toll booth. MR. PERKINS: Then being sent down? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any others? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Comments from the board? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No objection to the suggested changes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: None. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: None. I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Russell. MR. GIBSON: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Gail Gibson, senior hydrogeologist for your pollution control department. I'm here on behalf of staff and the subcommittee to comment on the natural ground water aquifer recharge subelement. Staff and the subcommittee in evaluating this subelement found that the goals, policies, and objectives have been met. The basic recommendation is for continuation of this, updating the language, text, and so forth to reflect that -- that recommendation. We can speak of each policy if you wish, whatever is your pleasure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have questions on the last two, the two new policies that are suggested. MR. GIBSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me to add a policy to implement a local petroleum storage cleanup program operating within state funds? MR. GIBSON: At present the pollution control department is contracted with the state -- or the county is, to implement petroleum cleanup. We are looking at this as a continuation on local level of that within the context of state funding. It is an ongoing project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this would solidify our commitment? MR. GIBSON: It's going on right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second one is -- or the final one is the one I really have a problem with, and that's add a policy to increase household and conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste collection activities. Because I've been very unhappy with the manner in which we're currently doing it, so I'm not sure I want to increase it until we get the current program squared away. We've gone through this discussion two or three times with the board, and I can't remember if we did this when you all were on -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: During budget. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The $28. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Originally we went with the fee collection, and we fixed that, but also the -- some of the things we are spending money on to accomplish are questionable and __ CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. This is the collection activity -- MR. GIBSON: This is the collection activity. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- like we had here the last -- MR. GIBSON: Right. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- a couple of weeks ago; right? MR. GIBSON: And that had been expanded with a -- an activity on Marco that same weekend. This is not the small -- what we call -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This won't get into the education aspects? MR. GIBSON: No. This is not that part of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Putting together -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This was the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- brochures -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- Amnesty Days where you have a setup out here and you bring your -- your stuff in from your garage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I withdraw my objection. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had one question for Mr. Gibson. Obviously when it comes to ground water, we have concurrency requirements on what we can treat and supply. Do we know what our capacity to draw from is? I've heard -- and -- and the reason I'm asking is -- is we keep looking at buildout. We keep talking about the importance of tense and so forth. Do you, Mr. Gibson, know what our capacity to draw from the aquifer on a daily basis is without adversely affecting the average water table? MR. GIBSON: I'd have -- have to defer to utilities in and around well fields. Our data -- pollution control's data on a regional scale is that there are -- on a regional scale, there's not an impact on water levels. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. GIBSON: Locally this would not be the case, but we cannot -- I cannot tell you what that number would be. They're looking -- I know that the utilities are looking at the ASR. They're looking at -- at RO, different sources of water other than just the surficial aquifer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll ask it at a more appropriate time. Thank you. MR. GIBSON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No speakers on this one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Beardsley says he's got a -- MR. BEARDSLEY: I'm sorry. I didn't -- I could not find any forms. Could I speak just two seconds? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll give you three. MR. BEARDSLEY: For the record, Gary Beardsley. To answer Commissioner Hancock's question, the lower west coast water supply plan in our coast took all the regional comp plans and looked at the projection of population and water demand, and they took it and put it on a computer and pushed it out into 2010, and they came up with some hot spots in Lee and Collier County and Charlotte, and I would recommend that that would be a document to look at to see where those projected using our population projections. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I've heard a number. I was curious if our staff had information. Thank you, Gary. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's for potable water though; right? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Comments from the board? None? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let it fly. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins also indicated he wanted to speak on this. MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups, citizens for constitutional property rights. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go, A1 -- Mr. Dotrill, are we out of slips or -- MR. DORRILL: We're -- we're trying to find some additional ones, but people who -- who want to speak, if they'll just give me a slip of paper, I'll -- I'll incorporate them in, but they may not be on preptinted slips. MR. PERKINS: I'll be brief. The water supply that we're talking about, the City of Naples is looking to spend $20 million to purify their effluent to the point where it's drinkable, and we have the option of recycling the water that we use instead of shoving it down a deep well and not being able to see where it goes or whether it's going to come back up. Now, when you shove it down a deep well and you can't see where it's going to go, you've already treated the water. It could be coming up anyplace and affecting that water supply, or it could also be crushing in all directions the aquifer. You have no way of knowing where it's going. So what I'm recommending and what I'm -- I recommend recycle the stuff. If we run out of water, we're going to be in big problems, and all you seem to do is grab some more fresh and throw away the old. Let's recycle this thing. We have the technology, we have the ability, and we're sure as hell spending the money. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry of the planning services department. I'm here to present the traffic circulation and mass transit elements. The mass transit element was reviewed by the subcommittee, and a variety of changes or recommendations were suggested. Some of the recommendations and changes recommended by staff were those of -- of annual update types amendments, changing the dates and -- and keeping the elements current. There were some very specific recommendations dealing with right-of-way issues, planning and acquisition long-term -- for long-term needs for right-of-way. Also in areas of landscaping standards, developing landscaping policies and maintenance policies for landscaping of the arterials, we're also suggesting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you direct me to the page where that is? I keep flipping back and forth here and I -- the two new policies regarding landscape standards. I can't seem to track that down. MR. PERRY: Page 199. It was recommended a new study to develop minimum roadway landscaping -- roadway landscaping standards and guidelines for all county roadway projects, both new and retrofitted projects, that a new policy is needed to establish minimum standards and guidelines for all county roadway projects making provisions to incorporate those with corridor management plans for consistency, and then new policies will be needed to establish maintenance programs for those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this is saying that we'll go ahead and look at that and try to establish a policy? This doesn't give any suggestion as far as specifics of that policy? MR. PERRY: There were no suggestions -- none of our recommendations included actual language for -- for amendments. Those amendments would be developed and brought back to you for consideration, but we -- it was the subcommittee's consensus that there was a need to at least look at the idea of having standards and guidelines for the way we landscape our arterials and highways, and that if we are spending money to landscape them, we should make sure that we're incorporating plans for maintaining those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. PERRY: In addition to the landscaping and right-of-way provisions, one of the other provisions that was considered to be a relatively new provision of the element was a program dealing with rural roadway needs. There was an absence really of planning for the rural highway needs, something that was recommended by some of the citizens who attended some of our working group sessions. And, finally, there was a series of studies recommended that included some of the ones we just talked about dealing with landscaping as well as right-of-way acquisition. And if there's any specific questions about any of those on the -- in the executive summary, I'll try to answer those for you rather than go down every one individually, but I can do that if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one thing I'm extremely pleased to see on here particularly is the new policy implementing advanced right-of-way acquisition programs in areas of long-range need. That's something we discussed at the 2020 plan discussion on the MPO, and I'm very pleased to see the CAC picked that up and -- and create that -- that as a step. I think that goes a long way towards taking the undeveloped areas of the county and making sure we don't make the same mistakes we made in -- in the developed areas of 20 years ago. So I'm -- I'm pleased to see that, and I commend the CAC and your department for -- for incorporating that. Is it something I said? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question, Mr. Perry, on policy 1.4, and this is the -- amend the policy to lower the acceptable standard of level on standards on state roads. That would be U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard and 29 and -- MR. PERRY: State Road 951. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. And I believe there's a proposal -- at least I seem to remember one -- of making Pine Ridge Road a state road from 41 to Airport Road; is that correct? MR. PERRY: There are a couple of county roads that ultimately may become state roads through mutual consent between the state and the county, but that's possible. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Most of these roads today are really busy, and -- and I'm -- I'm wondering what -- what the impact of lowering from level of service C to D will give a perception of. MR. PERRY: The concern that was expressed -- and you'll notice that we're talking about what's called the transitioning urbanized area. This is the fringe area. Between the rural area and the built-up urban area, you have this area that's going to be urbanized some day. The concern that staff had and expressed to the Citizens' Advisory Committee is that if we establish -- if we use the state standard of C which during peak hour of the season is a very high standard to try to maintain, that as development occurs, we're going to be forced to widen those roads to -- to maintain concurrency. In fact, we -- we -- Because the level of service has to be maintained at such a high level, we actually encourage development to go out in those areas because the roads have to be maintained at such a high level of service, and we have to go out there and follow right behind them and make improvements to them when, in fact, we should be doing things to encourage in-fill development in areas where we are currently widening our arterials and our collector highway system instead of actually forcing ourselves to maintain concurrency in areas that we really do not want development to occur, or at least not at the same pace we're encouraging it as in-fill. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, are we holding the state roads at a better level of service than our urban roads that -- that the urban population uses? MR. PERRY: Absolutely. Absolutely. In that transitioning fringe area, the state has -- has established -- in 1989 established the minimum standard of service of C. And, as you know, most of our roads are -- our minimum standard is D, and a few of them are adopted at E. So we, in fact, have to, with the state, try to keep a level of service C standard maintained on those areas where you're now seeing quite a few developments cropping up because -- primarily because the standard of service on those roads is -- is manageable. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Substantially better. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And do we see funds that maybe could be used on a higher-volume roadway being transferred to those types of projects due to that level of service being C instead of D? MR. PERRY: Absolutely. The priorities -- If the MPO in establishing funding priorities on state facilities and- and to some degree on how state funds are used on county facilities, if you are using concurrency and levels of service as a top priority for maintaining your -- your roadway conditions, then obviously if you set your levels very high, then you're going to be building roads out there to maintain those high levels of service. The worst obvious case would be having a level of service A or B standard. You would be out there widening roads all the time to try to maintain free-flow conditions which obviously is not possible so -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that will -- that will encourage urban sprawl which is one of the things we want to discourage. MR. PERRY: Exactly. So this brings the -- those state roads within the fringe urban area down at a level where they are the same -- basically the same standard that we have established for their counterparts in the urbanized area. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there any speakers on this one? MR. DORRILL: You have two speakers. Mr. Perkins again. Following Mr. Perkins, I believe the gentleman's name is Trebilcock. Norm Trebilcock, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. PERKINS: Hello again. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade group, citizens for constitutional property rights. A group of people, including a lot of people from MArco Island; fire chiefs; civic associations, various ones around the county all approach the subcommittees to designate Miller Boulevard Extension and Sabal Palm Road as potential evacuation routes. This was a matter of record. I have it on tape. There's been -- Everybody and their brother was at the meeting. So far I have yet to see it surface. Now, the bottom line to this thing is, are we going to save lives, or are we going to save animals? Because Miller Boulevard Extension needs to be put in to protect the lives of the people of Goodland and MArco Island and all along 41 which is being built out quite extensively right at the present time with country clubs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Now, this thing here is very important for the simple reason, if you take and extend the roads up Miller Boulevard over to Everglades, up Everglades right on into Immokalee, one of the big factors you people need to know, that in this -- the landfill survey they -- the consultants who got paid -- are getting paid $800,000 came up with a fact that the center of activity in 2020 is going to be Pine Ridge Road and 951. Now you have a problem. In 2020 where are you going to put these people? How are you going to get them away from a -- to evacuate them out of here? You need to move them to the east and towards Immokalee. From Immokalee they can make it up to Orlando. These routes need to be put in place to save lives. Now, if the environmentalists don't want to save lives, I wish they'd raise their hand and show you so. I am protecting the kids and the people. They come first. Then the animals come. And that's all I've got on this one. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Trebilcock. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good evening. My name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm representing the EDC chamber coalition. I'm the chairman of the transportation subcommittee. What -- My comments are regarding a proposed new policy concerning neighborhood traffic assessments. Regarding this, the idea of -- during the fezone process or conditional use of assessing traffic on neighbor -- neighboring areas is a good idea. However, before we do this, I recommend that specific criteria need to be established; otherwise, you're going to have a subjective report that basically serves no person. It's opinion against opinion. So before this gets adopted, really specific objective criteria need to be established. In addition, instead of having a separate report, really including this in the traffic -- existing traffic impact statement, just having an additional section is really the recommended way to go because the concern is, is some of the minor conditional use or fezones -- it creates an economic hardship that can be often unnecessary. So those are really my comments regarding the transportation element. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Perry, based on this, we are not necessarily adopting the process or thresholds that activate the need, but we are saying that we are going to address it; is that correct? MR. PERRY: That's correct. The -- the policy -- there would -- The recommendation is that there be a policy prepared and submit it back as part of the EAR-based amendments that would require some sort of neighborhood traffic impact assessment during the rezoning and conditional use process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the particulars as to what that vehicle is and how it should be structured will -- will come at a later date? MR. PERRY: If -- if that policy should be adopted, we would -- we would probably have -- prior to the adoption, we would have gone through a lot of the things that -- that there seems to be some concern about, about developing criteria, how it's going to be done, whether it should be simply part of the existing traffic impact statement procedures or whether or not it's a separate document that is prepared and required under certain provisions. Perhaps some -- I would agree that maybe in all cases it's not necessary, but certainly in some cases more than others it would be necessary to provide an analysis of how a project is going to impact local streets and not just the -- the arterial highway system and I think -- you know, that's our -- Certainly our intent is to -- is to bring forward to you something that -- that would be manageable. There's -- some concern has been raised by the EDC chamber coalition concerning the financial cost and burden, that additional -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we will all -- we will have to review at a later point before adopting specific language. MR. PERRY: Right. Either -- Either in the Land Development Code or simply as a policy. How these things are going to be done would certainly be worked out prior to you ever adopting a policy that says you're going to have to -- we have to know what that is -- I'm sure you would want to know what that thing is before you adopt a policy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a knack for wanting that, yes. MR. PERRY: Regarding -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Regarding Mr. Perkins' comment, the subcommittee did not want to specifically take action on recommending any particular roadway connections or alignments or -- They didn't feel that that was their job. In fact, they were encouraged not to do that because that wasn't their job. But they did, in fact, adopt a policy which was on page 201 which specifically addresses rural roadway needs of Collier County, saying that attention should be paid to the mobility needs of the rural resident, including the availability of roads for rural to urban travel as well as hurricane evacuation purposes, and that there needs to be addressing maintenance and operational characteristics. So that missing link, if you will, of the roadway system was identified and agreed to based on the recommendations of the citizens that appeared before the committee, and this is the recommendation, that there actually be some rural roadway planning undertaken that would -- would look at those types of connections that he's talking about. Specifically no recommendation was made by the committee on making any roadway connections that don't exist today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. Generally when -- when we have a PUD or some sort of fezone come to us, there's -- there's a traffic circulation clause in there, and generally they use a number like 5 percent -- MR. PERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- as -- as whatever the threshold is for creating the traffic impact. MR. PERRY: Right. Hmm-hmm. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I'm going back to policy 1.4 where we're lowering the level of service on state roads in the fringe area. I -- I -- I guess what I'm asking from your perspective as a professional, should we not also be looking at lowering that percentage level to state an impact if we're going to lower the level of service? MR. PERRY: I think we're dealing with two different issues, the first an issue of concurrency and how the adopted level of service has to be maintained and when you're going to have to make an improvement to a road based on traffic volumes and how they relate to the adopted standard. The 5 percent provision that you're talking about deals specifically with the capacity of the road, and it's stated in there that regardless of what your adopted standard is, the threshold is 5 percent of level service C, I think it is, and that requirement simply determines whether or not your project is making an impact. It doesn't matter how good the road is operating or how bad the road is operating. It simply sort of triggers a certain process that you must follow if your project is big enough. So I -- I think we can separate the two without creating a problem, and I think reestablishing the level of service on state highways for concurrency doesn't create a problem for this threshold. Now, if you'd like -- if you'd like to consider changing that threshold, if you think that it's too high or too low -- our committee or subcommittee did not find that a problem, and no one raised the issue -- we could certainly look at that if you think that it -- it -- it sort of triggers too soon or it triggers too late. We would be able to look at that for you and give you a -- you know, an analysis on that. But nobody -- nobody really raised the issue that that was creating a problem for -- for any projects that were coming in, neither staff nor the representatives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just bring it up because in a road like 951 that's -- I don't know -- 20 miles long, if not longer than that, you only need 20 projects along that road at 5 percent which each one of them says the impact is insignificant, but 20 projects later we've doubled the road use, and the capacity may not be available so -- but -- but we can handle that with amendments and stuff as they come forward but -- MR. PERRY: Right. You -- You look at the 5 percent of that particular roadway that's out there in front and determine the trip generation of the project compared to the 5 percent of the capacity of the roadway, and that sort of determines whether it's a little project that really it is insignificant or is it a fairly good-sized project that is generating an amount of traffic that, when combined with other 5 percents, you would have a significant -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. PERRY: -- a significant problem. And we could change that number and -- and catch more of the smaller projects that are slipping through by lowering the percentage down to two and a half percent, or you could let more projects through without as much scrutiny by raising the percentage to 7 percent or 10 percent, and more projects would sort of slip through the filter because they would not be judged as significant or generating a significant amount of traffic. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That sounds like a discussion for another day but certainly something we can address. MR. PERRY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have another speaker? MR. DORRILL: Transportation? MR. FORT: Yes, it is. MR. DORRILL: I didnlt have it. MR. FORT: Iim sorry. Somebody was kind enough to put me on the agenda, and I was supposed to be on for two issues. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We donlt have people put on the agenda. You need to sign your slip. MR. FORT: Iim sorry. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Youlre welcome to speak. Youlye got five minutes. MR. FORT: Well, I want to -- I want to apologize for that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thatls fine. MR. FORT: First of all, I really want to thank ylall. My name is Clifford Fort. Iim coordinating director of Broken Wing Ranches, and Iim also president of the Southern Golden Gate Utilities Association. I feel like Iim kind of a pen pal with ylall, and Iive really -- Iive really written a lot of letters, and I have to say Iim very impressed about the way that youlye been kind enough to make time to respond to me. We realize that ylall are under a lot of political pressure, particularly with southern Golden Gate, and the specific issue Iim going to relate to you right now is that I attended a number of those EAR meetings, and even though southern Golden Gate Estates comprises 40 percent of all of Golden Gate, not one resident, not one landowner was on that committee. I mean, thatls a shame. Now, we sat there, and we tried to give input as much as we could, and I was at a number of those meetings, as a lot of other people that are here tonight, and I literally pleaded with the committee, and they seemed to hear my pleas. It was on the second meeting. I said, gosh, guys. I mean, canlt you give us something? How about just, like, paving that little piece of Betson Boulevard that the governor gave the commission all that rough time over, just that little piece. I mean, all those tax dollars. How about the $2 million in trust fund money that GAC put up? Canlt you just give us a little piece of that? I mean, welve been eating that dust out there for years. Well, the committee -- you know, they said, well, gee, whiz, I guess we can do that. Do you know every time one thing came up to give us one eeny weeny little bit of relief out there, do you know what they were told? Staff said, sorry, thatls in conflict with the revised settlement agreement with the DCA. Well, gee whiz, you know, DCA and the DEP are kind of working together out there. DCA comes in, they put a gun to your head, and they say, hey, we want that land. By the way, letls take away the use. Staff says, gee whiz, we cut a deal with the state. We canlt do anything for you. You know, I talked to Glenn Simpson. Glenn told me -- He said, Cliff, if the governor approved that rehydration plan tomorrow, it would be ten years before the first bit of dirt was moved. Now, how are we supposed to get in and out of there for the next ten years? You know, there's a lot of people out here that are pretty old that own land, and do you know they're going to die before they ever get one break, and this land use plan and this EAR thing is a crying shame. I don't think any one of you up here object to property rights, and I don't see -- I see us pretty honest people trying to do the right thing with the state there with a big old club right on you bashing you in the head. I don't see you as wanting to give away the tax base out there. That don't make sense. That's bad business. So here we are, and I've been talking to y'all for six years, and these people are going to be sitting out there because a lot of us are pretty upset, and we'll eat that dust, but we're not going to sell to the DEP at ten cents on the dollar. And I'm asking y'all, please, just amend this plan a little bit. Stand up there to the DCA and say, hey, you guys want that property? Then, buddy, fish or cut bait. Go to your pocketbook, and you condemn it, and you pay those people like the DOT did. You know those -- the DOT took that in a couple of years? We've been sitting here talking about the same horror, and I've got people here that paid 5,000 an acre, and they weren't ripped off. They love that land, and they love that drive out there, and they didn't think they had a bad deal until the county said you'll never do anything with it, until Gail Brett wrote a bunch of articles in the paper and said, heck, what do you mean roads -- paved roads out there? That land's going to be flooded. You people were ripped off. You bought swamp. Well, the elevation out there where we are happens to be plus-14. So we're just saying, please, just a little bit. At least pave Betson Boulevard. I'd be dreaming -- If I had a wish and I wished for Miller Boulevard, I'd be wishing in an empty genie's bowl, but maybe you could do Betson for us. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Nobody else. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No more? Okay. Mr. Perry, do you have anything further? MR. PERRY: I have nothing to -- nothing else to add. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Perry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to explain Mr. Fort's comment there that -- how staff did or didn't influence the CAC in any discussions or decisions regarding -- MR. PERRY: I can't respond to it. We didn't talk about those kinds of issues in our particular committee. We talked about the need. They did raise the issue of connecting Miller Boulevard to U.S. 41 to provide evacuation and convenient access into the southern blocks, but as far as the statements about settlements, agreements and -- that may have come up in other EAR committees. It didn't come up in ours. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, Barbara Cacchione of the long -- the comprehensive planning section. Basically what Mr. Fort discussed were some discussions we had in the future land use subcommittee. There are recommendations that you will see as part of the Golden Gate master plan from the CAC and the Planning Commission to modify some of that language. I think staff's position is that that is part of a stipulated settlement agreement, and you need to be aware of that if you're looking at changes to that, and that's what we've said to them all along. So we will be looking at that in the context of the Golden Gate master plan. There are a series of recommendations to modify that specific language. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a number of questions and comments, but are you telling me that in anything in regard to Mr. Fort's comments, it will be better addressed in the Golden Gate master plan section? MS. CACCHIONE: It's specifically objective to the Golden Gate master plan. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Consensus from the board? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm -- I'm fine with the traffic element. I -- I -- I just had some questions about the settlement agreement and -- and what that agreement allows us to do, what is the limit that we're allowed to do, and -- and -- and are we pushing that limit, because if we aren't pushing it, maybe we should be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've already communicated with the state many times over that -- you know, as Mr. Fort said, fish or cut bait. It's been our position on that land communicated and yet the state turns a deaf ear to our communications. So when we get to -- to that element of the Golden Gate master plan, I can see that being a significant discussion. I also don't have any problem -- I -- I actually am very pleased with the traffic circulation and mass transit elements. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Fine. Thank you then, Mr. Perry. Well, we are going to take about 30 minutes' break and be right back to start with the coastal and conservation -- conservation and coastal management element. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the meeting. Mr. Lorenz, the long-awaited conservation and coastal management element. MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. Good evening. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The process for the EAR report for the conservation and coastal management element -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've just been alerted the doors into the building apparently are locked. So if anyone wandered outside during the break, they may not be able to get back in. I'm reasonably sure that wasn't by design, but perhaps -- I don't know where Mr. Dotrill is, but perhaps Neil -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here he is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you see if we can unlock the doors downstairs? MR. DORRILL: We're trying to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. DORRILL: Some lady let me in. She's standing downstairs. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought our doors didn't lock until nine o'clock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. MR. LORENZ: The process was very similar to the other elements. In addition to the subcommittee that met very frequently through the latter part of 1995, also EPTAB formed a subcommittee, reviewed the Citizens' Advisory Committee's comments, and provided a report to the full EPTAB. It was somewhat selective, though, and there may be some issues that will come out as a result of that at the full EPTAB review. But the EPTAB did have a subcommittee also to review the -- the EAR report. The citiz -- the Collier County Planning Commission also reviewed the report and provided certain direction that I'd like to cover. The first item was to provide a section to highlight positive accomplishments that were accomplished through -- for the growth management plan. This -- this was added as -- within the overview section of section 1. This -- this is titled description of accomplishments. This was done in direction of the Planning Commission. Also the Planning Commission -- VOICE: Louder, please. MR. LORENZ: The Planning Commission provided that the amendments continue or change the -- the -- to either continue or change a date, recognize a new date, would be appropriate for amendments for the conservation and coastal management element, but no further changes of objectives and policies were warranted in the Planning Commission's recommendations. So what the board has here is COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're having trouble hearing you. Maybe you want to get closer or something, but I've heard a couple people say they can't hear you. MR. LORENZ: What the board has in their executive summary packet is the modified EAR report, according to the direction of the Planning Commission. The recommendations that were deleted from the report, which the recommendations the Citizens' Advisory Committee provided, are shown in your executive summary with a double asterisk, I believe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yup. MR. LORENZ: The net result of the Planning Commission's -- in terms of just -- just summarizing, the net results of the Planning Commission's direction would basically be continue pretty much with the current plan in terms of status quo recognizing whatever programs we have, to continue them. If we didn't hit certain dates in the past, that we would recommend due dates in -- in the new plan. So basically, again, the Planning Commission's -- the net result of the Planning Commission's direction was to continue with the existing plan. For instance, it would continue with the NRPA program. It would also recommended -- it also would continue with developing additional standards for a variety of different habitats. We've lumped that four under the Habitat Protection Ordinance, not necessarily develop the ordinance, but -- but the net effect of the Planning Commission's direction would be to -- would be for staff to continue with developing standards to bring back to the board for -- for different habitats. Just in general, in terms of the report card, the conservation and coastal management element has -- it has 306 objectives and policies, quite a large element. Two hundred forty-eight or about eighty-one or eighty-two percent of those objectives and policies were judged as complete. Forty-one were not complete. Seventeen were not begun. The Citizens' Advisory Committee basically recommended a total of 105 amendments. Fifty-four were changes that -- that were titled as substantial. In other words, they did not simply address continuation of a program or amending some type of date. Again, as I -- as I re -- as I said before, the Planning Commission did not recommend that those substantial-type amendments be -- be included in the EAR report. What I'd like to be able to do is -- is to cover in the summary of the EAR recommendations generally highlighting some of the more important issues. And this would start on page 18, I believe, in your executive summary packet, page 18 of your executive summary. Again, the double asterisk within the -- the -- that table indicate those are the amendments that the Planning Commission are not recommending to forward on to DCA. Policy 1.3.1-A .... A, basically recognizes that -- well, policy -- excuse me, policy 1.1.1 is for the county to continue to maintain a technical advisory committee. Currently EPTAB is your technical advisory committee for the total comprehensive program. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, is there something in the EPTAB establishment ordinance that would sunset them at some point? Why is this in here? Because I'm looking at policy 1.1.1, and it doesn't say anything about terminating the -- the committee. MR. LORENZ: That -- that's correct. It was only the -- it was simply the -- the -- excuse me. The existing language says to establish a technical advisory committee, which EPTAB was established for the purposes of the growth management plan. This particular amendment would continue EPTAB as your technical advisory committee for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It just seems to be a pointless amendment -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- because the existing language doesn't say anything about terminating the committee at any point. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Concur. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Concur. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please continue. We concurred that that one would be deleted, by the way. MR. LORENZ: Policy 1.3.1-A would be amended to recognize the implementation of a -- of an adopted NRPA -- to identify the NRPA and map form its overlay as future land use element map during the next amendment cycle. This basically refers to the Clam Bay NRPA. That's your one NRPA that you -- that you have adopted that has to be amended. The future land use map will have to be amended to incorporate that area on to it. Policy 1.3.1-E -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go on, didn't we suspend some of the activity with the Clam Bay while we're taking care of the other problem there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We didn't do anything involving the NRPA. We just moved the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're recognizing it despite the fact we don't have any funding for it right now? MR. LORENZ: No. Staff is -- staff is still working within the Clam Bay NRPA in terms of prioritizing the dollars for the exotics removal program to monies to -- to address some studies and permitting for the mangrove die-off. There's some additional staff time that -- that is still available to -- to perform for the recommendations of the Clam Bay NRPA, which we are continuing to do in part and also to supplement the assistance to the mangrove task force. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that includes levels of water-quality monitoring in addition to continuing reviewing this system for any factors or signs of detriment or problems? MR. LORENZ: Correct, the sea grass monitoring, sea grass beds which will occur in the next couple of months. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of my favorites. MR. LORENZ: The amendment to policy 1.3.1 is to provide for a variety of different mechanisms for -- for future NRPAs that were not specifically listed in the existing growth management plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of these in particular concerns me. I read these words -- and perhaps I'm just misunderstanding it. Tailor development standards to the needs of NRPAs? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The -- the NRPAs, if depending what the board want -- wishes to pursue particular NRPAs, there are certain areas that we may have identified some additional development standards, for instance, cjustering, a NRPA could be established where an appropriate location in the NRPA would be cjustering. That would be basically a development standard to specify how the cjustering should take place within that particular NRPA. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May I ask on that, could -- could that take the form of -- if you were to establish a NRPA on a strand system which there were some uplands involved, that you may encourage that property owner to set that land aside as a NRPA by allowing cjustering on an upland portion? I mean, is that a possible negotiation tool to set areas aside that are recognizable and -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. And -- and the NRPA management plan itself would try to identify those areas and what would be the appropriate mechanisms to try to accomplish that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a broader question? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As we're going through these recommendations one by one, I wonder if there might be a more efficient way to approach it since my -- my starting point on this is that this is the element of the comp. plan that won that award for the best in the state. And I don't know why we're scrapping it and starting over, which is what so much of this does. And I wonder if we want to talk about it on a more global -- instead of going through point by point and reaching consensus on each one. My -- my feeling is that I -- I pretty much can agree with what the Planning Commission did. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the pleasure of the board on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But for clarification of those who may not be aware of the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, said it was an award-winning element. Why would we stop? Why not implement what we have before we throw it away and start over? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the -- the point in that that -- that seems to be surfacing here is there's a level of frustration that certain things in the plan were not adopted as groups and individuals had hoped or intended. Perfect example, Habitat Protection Ordinance, we said we'd have one. What was presented to this board, and it was before I came on, was I don't believe what the board had intended when -- you know, it didn't fit the mold of what this board wanted as a Habitat Protection Ordinance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt one or aren't going to adopt one. It means the one that came was not correct. And I feel that some of the frustrations with the lack of implementing things is manifesting itself in recommendations that -- that are losing the -- the character of that original plan. And I went back and did a little research and came up with the same thing you found in that a plan that was heralded at one time as being progressive, as being one of the best in the state, will look absolutely nothing like what was started if all of these changes occur. And so, in essence, we're writing a completely new plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Instead of implementing the award-winning plan and -- and I think that we have failed to implement the -- the previous plan at -- at unacceptable levels. And that's what the purpose of this evaluation and appraisal is, is how are we doing. I think that our programs and policies and objectives were good, and apparently so did other people in the state. And I acknowledge that we haven't implemented them at the level that we have, but I'm not ready to scrap the old plan and develop a new one. I'd rather implement the old plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that leaves me satisfied, frankly, with the Planning Commission recommendations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do feel like -- and there are people here that worked on that plan that agreed with that plan that are now making these recommendations. And I think it's more of a level of frustration of saying you didn't do what we wanted you to do, so we're going to change it and make you do it by putting this verbiage in instead of what was there originally, when the focus to me is we haven't yet done what was originally intended. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have consensus then. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, with all due respect, I think I'd like to hear from a member of the committee as -- as to whether there really was a level of frustration or are they working with these words in an effort to -- to try to make it clearer what the goals were. I mean, I recognize that the element we had is an award-winning element, but if we have failed to implement all of it, there's -- there's got to be a reason, and the reason may be that it was simply too confusing in order -- too confusing to produce what it was the board wanted. And I'd like to hear why the CAC subcommittee is really recommending these kinds of broad changes, because there's got to be some sort of methodology to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with that. My only reason for interrupting at this point was instead of going through these point by point, why don't we talk about that global picture first. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. Is there a member of the CAC that would like to take that responsibility? There's one, two -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up. MR. STAIGER: Good evening. Excuse me. For the record my name is John Staiger. I was the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with the coastal and conservation element. Our rationale for some of these suggested amendments was that it was obvious that some of these award-winning goals, objectives, and policies hadn't been implemented, and we felt that perhaps by making them more readily implementable that you might be able to go forward with it. For example, dealing with the NRPAs, there are suggestions to make NRPAs out of areas that are already under now or potentially under some other umbrella of protection by some other agency. So the concern was, well, let's not add those into the -- the mix. They're already potentially going to be protected. Why don't we look at taking existing county lands that are already being held for conservation or protection purposes, develop management plans for those, and go forward with that, scale it back a little bit. It can always be scaled up in the future, but that way at least you have the ability to go forward, whereas now you get frustrated because the proposals for these things are objected to by a great many players. A number of the amendments we suggested had to do with making certain of these policies and the like a little bit more attainable financially. Right now you have commitments to test fresh water and estuarine water and marine waters for all applicable state, federal, and local water quality standards -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's incredible. MR. STAIGER: -- which is a very expensive proposition. So we suggested that this should be re -- rephrased to have a monitoring program that selected parameters that were indicators of problems and not commit to doing this whole thing which is very expensive if somebody said you are not -- not in compliance with your plan because you're not testing 300 priority pollutants or something like that. So it was a matter of scaling back to what would be financially done and also committing to a continued program of -- of estuarine monitoring and freshwater monitoring, trying to tie it all together and tie some of it into the lower west coast water supply plan and the like. So the -- what we were trying to do here was to acknowledge the existence of some of these other things like the lower west coast water supply plan, to integrate some of your programs with that, and make them a little bit more easily attained. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Dr. Staiger, do you mind if I ask you a question? If -- if there's nothing -- it seems to me there's nothing wrong with really setting high goals and trying to reach them, and we could leave our goals high and still develop a program to monitor something less than the 300 blah, blah, blah. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But that's -- that's just the opposite of what we did an hour ago or an hour and a half ago with the regional parks program. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is different. I mean, this is a place where our goals should be high, and then where we can -- we can live up to this. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I agree they should be high, but they need to be attainable also. MR. STAIGER: Yeah. This was -- we discussed this at considerable length with pollution control personnel, for example. What -- I think what their fear was that as long as you have this commitment, for example, to all these parameters, if they don't sample for all of them, somebody can, you know, holler at DCA and say they're out of the compliance. So -- so what we felt was deal with those things that are known indicators of pollution problems and the like and not necessarily make these blanket commitments. I agree. I think it's wonderful to commit to everything, but it's financially sort of unattainable, or you do one sample a year with your whole budget. And that was the reason for some of that. The -- our -- our desire here was to get into some of these things that could be done without necessarily resulting in a massive protest from one or another sector from either the development community or the conservation community because you were or were not doing something by dealing with issues that were, we felt, a little more attainable. Now, if -- you know, as -- as -- as Mr. Lorenz pointed out, the Planning Commission's action results in falling back to the plan you've already got, which calls for habitat protection and natural resource protection areas and the like, which is a wonderful goal, but thus far it hasn't been achieved. And we felt that it would be more reasonable to get into something that -- that could be achieved and perhaps expanded in the future but not necessarily -- you know, if it hasn't worked out, maybe we could change it to make it more workable. That was our -- our goal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, let me put something in context, and please tell me how this changes that approach. We already have a Habitat Protection Ordinance. The Habitat Protection Ordinance that was created, sections of it indicated saving more or less 25 percent of every community on site regardless of the priority of that community, regardless of its -- its vegetative value, its value as a habitat. There was no -- there was no priority. There was nothing -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a landscaping ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, there was nothing saying, you know, that we prioritize communities in this manner, these are the most important to us, and when these occur, we need to protect them. It was kind of like save a little of everything. Because that's rejected, that doesn't mean that the initial -- and I'm talking about this is my opinion. It doesn't mean that the initial goal of a Habitat Protection Ordinance is rejected. So, you know, help me how what is produced here clarifies a Habitat Protection Ordinance for us. And I need that as an example, because what you're saying is you've made it more achievable. So because what was presented was not acceptable, how have we clarified how we can create a Habitat Protection Ordinance that is acceptable with these changes? MR. STAIGER: Well, I think regarding that what we dealt with was the -- the issue of preservation of a certain amount of native vegetation exclusive of requisite landscaping without getting into the detail of -- of a percentage of every single type if there are more than one type of habitat. And I know that -- that staff has -- has had input into this process before. They have felt, I think, that -- that excluding landscaping and -- and having this blanket protection of 25 percent of the -- of native habitat, you know, no matter what kind it was without specifying of every different kind, was a -- an attainable thing. And I don't -- I'd have to defer to Bill as to how he -- how he felt that could be accomplished, but we considered that to be a reasonable goal without -- without getting into trying to rank, you know, whether something was functional or nonfunctional or semi-functional. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, but the Habitat Protection Ordinance as presented didn't rank -- MR. STAIGER: Well, I think we approached that from the -- I'm sorry. We approached that from the standpoint of the -- of the landscape end of things, not as a separate stand-alone issue. The -- the only -- the part of that that we -- we looked at as being something that needed to be dealt with specifically was the -- the natural resource protection area issue, which was, you know, to bring it -- bring it into something that might be attained more readily. I'd have to defer to Bill on exactly -- we dealt with so many of these issues so many hours that it -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, why don't we -- why don't we do this. There's been a request from a couple of the board members to not go one by one through these double asterisks. So why don't you go through the ones that are not asterisked. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. STAIGER: I think you already have. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we're going to go through items, I mean, I have some items I highlighted that I have questions on. If we're going to go through them all that way, let's either just go through them -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I said was go through the ones that don't have the double asterisk. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There aren't many. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a few. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a couple more. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a couple more. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And your suggestion considering those that are asterisked we're not to consider? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had a request from the -- from a couple of board members to take those as a group. And if that is -- if that request is to be honored, then what we will do is to go through the ones that are not marked with a double asterisk separately, and I think there's a half a dozen or so of those. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And, Mr. Lorenz, if you would. MR. LORENZ: I think that brings us to page 19, the next page, policy 3.2.1. Policy 3.2.1 which basically needs to be amended to indicate the county will continue to maintain and update the three-dimensional model that calculates cones of depression around potable well fields. Again, that's a continuation of the program. 3.3.1 is to amend to include petroleum storage tanks that were not preempted by the state -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: -- in the program. Yeah, I'd like to have -- since we cut across in departments, somebody from pollution control might be able to -- to provide you with the details from that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would have a question on that because these petroleum tanks -- I mean, we've been changing them out for several years now, and this is the first that I've seen that the state preempts some. I'd like to know -- I'd like to make sure the ones they're preempting are not the ones that are going to pollute our groundwater. MR. YILMAZ: George Yilmaz with pollution control. There are small storage tanks such as 500 gallons underground or above-ground storage tanks. They can be diesel generator tanks or gasoline fuel tanks for small businesses. They are exempt from most of the state regulations in terms of registration and groundwater monitoring requirements. And we did find out in preliminary surveys that those are the small tanks especially the ones with no catalytic protection do present potential for groundwater pollution. And currently we don't have anything at the local level to address those issues. Staff recommendation is that we should not establish a local storage tanks program. However, we should have database through which we can communicate to state -- to address these local issues. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- so you're saying that these -- these are 500-gallon tanks, and because of their size, they're exempted from the state changeout program. But at the same time they are the very tanks that pose a danger. MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. They do present a danger for groundwater pollution. However, we're not recommending full-blown storage tanks program at local level. But we're trying to make sure that we do have database through which we can communicate these issues to state agencies and basically dip into their human resources as well as financial resources to address these site-specific issues. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And try to get them included instead of exempted? MR. YILMAZ: Or address them under Florida Statutes 403 which deals with all hazardous wastes or products. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we're being more restrictive than the state? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're what? I don't think he said we're being more restrictive than the state. This is a case where maybe we want to be a little bit more restrictive than the state. I mean, Tallahassee doesn't have an aquifer for its water, you know, potable water supply; we do. And I know groundwater's not, you know, aquifer water and so forth. But, you know, this may be something that I -- I would really like to see that database maintained so that we know where these problems are and can deal with them when we start seeing contamination. But right now your proposal is only that we continue what we're doing -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and we make no other adjustments. MR. YILMAZ: In terms of financial commitment on this board's part. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says here amends to include, so amend would mean we're not just doing what we're doing now. He's not just saying continue -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's something we were previously including. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He says to amend to include those petroleum storage tanks not preempted by the state. The ones that I'm concerned about are the ones that are preempted. I mean, if we're going to amend to just merely meet the state law, then we're -- that's fine. I mean, we should, but we have a whole 'nother problem waiting out there to happen as well, and that's these 500-gallon tanks that the state is not addressing. I'm not sure that we need to -- to do a monetary funding mechanism to do the changeout for them, but I think maybe we ought to be looking at what's available to us in the form -- in the form of asking the owners of these tanks to change them out. Apparently no one agrees with me, so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Yes, policy 3.3.2 would be to amend to indicate the county shall continue to reevaluate thresholds for quantities of hazardous wastes and materials. Again, that's related to the groundwater protection ordinance that has specified thresholds in terms of when you have to get a certificate to -- to operate. This policy would simply be -- be put in the plan to allow staff to evaluate whether those thresholds are appropriately set for the safety of the groundwater resource. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions on that one? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Huh-uh. MR. LORENZ: I believe the last one is on page 20, policy 12.1.1. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nine point five. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nine point five. MR. LORENZ: Oh, okay. Yes, you're right. That's simply just reflecting the fact that we have a groundwater protection ordinance. That's more of a housekeeping item, and so we will simply implement it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: And policy 12.1.1, amend to state to continue -- this deals with historical and archeological resources -- to continue, in effect, regulations regarding development and other land alteration activities, et cetera, that bas -- again, that basically says that we currently have land development regulations, and we -- we simply need to continue to place those regulations into effect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's the only comment -- that's the same comment I had earlier on -- what was it -- one point -- 1.1, is if there's no language to discontinue those, why do we need specific language to continue it? You know, I hate to put in stuff that's unnecessary just to be adding language. I think Hiss Student is going to rescue us here with an explanation it looks like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hooray. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. We can't predict how DCA is going to react to this. We've tried that in the past, and it's like looking in a crystal ball. But in some instances their 9-J-5 requirements that broad areas are addressed, so if we have continuation language, it's merely to show them we're still doing it so they can't say we took something out and we're out of compliance. That's the only reason for it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thanks. That's a reasonable explanation. Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. This might be a good point to inquire as to what the board's intentions are. We have about 18 speakers on this. I have 10 on the future land use element, and then I have about 15 on the Golden Gate master plan, so we've got quite a few. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sounds like about two o'clock. We should be able to make that. Let's -- let's start. As the speakers are coming up, I will remind you, once again, that we have five minutes allotted for each one. You don't have to take your full five minutes if you don't want to. Mr. Dotrill, if you would call -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Beardsley, you'll be first. Then, Hiss Slebodnik, you'll follow Mr. Beardsley, if I could have you stand by, please. MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes, good evening, Commissioners. Again, Gary Beardsley representing myself and also Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida. The difficulty is -- in the conservation and coastal element is that we're focusing on the recommendations and the possible amendment changes when really the environmental confederation has a real problem with the evaluation and appraisal. The documents that it's -- are based on are out of date. There are many documents that are much newer than that, the lower west coast, the GAAP study, Rookery Bay, watershed study, the ADIB study. I mean, it goes on and on. The graphics and readability of it is poor. The format is unbelievably -- I'm sure if you've looked at it -- confusing. It -- it talks about policy, and yet it doesn't have the policy there to look at. You've got to refer to the back. I did a lot of cut and paste to try to put it in. It's just very difficult to read. So there -- my focus and the Eco-Swift focus is on two parts, the evaluation and appraisal, very weak, and the recommendations. I understand what you're struggling with, that maybe there's some perception that we didn't get it done and so now we need to change the language and make it understandable. Of the recommendations there are 20 of them that we say strongly no. We're not saying put them all back in. We're saying, no, don't put these recommendations in. And the packet that I turned in has those specifically identified. There are some that we say "no, but," and some of those are date certain where they've taken the date out and pushed it, you know, into the future five, six, eight years, something like that. And then there are some that we say, yes, with a big smiley face. Again, I think the document was a good effort back in '89. I think the commissioners then -- and I don't think any of them here were there then, so you won't get the blame. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah? MR. BEARDSLEY: In fact, I think the county manager, I've heard -- I wasn't there -- the commissioner said you mean we have to do this, and he said, yes, I think you do. You adopted it. And they said, well, then we need to change it so we don't have to do it. And, again, I think the bottom line is the dollar values. How do you -- how do you get the money to do it? I think I'm understanding you're all saying, sure, we need to do it. But how do we get the money to do it? Again, I think there's so many problems with this conservation and coastal element. I'm here for standing, so that kind of gives you an idea of where the confederation might be going. And I think you need to seriously rework this element. And let me suggest that back when the -- one -- the original one was passed in '89, the commissioners sitting then heard the same story; this isn't going to make it, you better rework it. And they took that advice, and they set a committee, and within about a month they reworked it and fine tuned it, and that's how we got the award. And that was a compromise. We had attorneys; we had large landowners; and we had three -- we had three natural resource-based people, and it was a compromise, but that plan did win an award. So I really hope that you, you know, take a breath, a deep breath, and sit back and don't rush forward with this, because you're going to regret it later. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Slebodnik and then Mr. Simonik. MS. SLEBODNIK: Kathleen Slebodnik representing the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters of Collier County was involved with the development of Collier County's comprehensive plan and has since supported strong environmental protection, habitat protection, and natural resource protection. As the Board of County Commissioners evaluates the EAR recommendations from its Citizens' Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, we urge you to retain the concepts of habitat protection and natural resource protection areas and to move quickly forward to implement these concepts. The mangrove die-off situation in Pelican Bay is alarming and -- and unhappily alert -- and an unhappy alert of the need to designate natural resource protection areas now. That's my prepared statement from the League of Women Voters. I'd like to speak as a member of the EAR personally. My element was public -- public facilities, and I know the time that we put in on public facilities. We had the six subcommittees to look at. As much time as we put in on public facilities, those people put in on conservation and coastal element. A tremendous amount of time went into this element. I also attended both sessions of the Planning Commission when they totally threw this thing out and said, we don't want this, we don't want this, we don't want this. Forty-six of your elements there have the double asterisks, which means they're to be thrown out. I feel that these people who put this kind of time in on a coastal and management element deserve more con -- deserve a lot of consideration. They didn't do this off the top of their head. They didn't come through with a new plan simply because they felt they wanted to -- to impress anyone. They seriously honestly sat down, worked this thing through. They are people who place a very heavy priority and value on the environment, as all the citizens of Collier County do. There's something here -- if you -- if -- to lose this -- this environment that we have would be the greatest tragedy, and to dismiss these elements is simply saying we don't need them because we've got something else, and to not look very carefully at these recommendations would be a disservice to the people who put their time in. My feeling is -- well, I guess this -- to take a look at this land that we have, what would be the value that they have to us, the quality of life which we experience. This is supposed to be a growth management plan, a plan to manage the growth in this county. And this is an important part of it, whether we look at density, whether we look at whatever, we -- there's -- there's no easy way, folks, I'm sorry. The homework's got to be done, and it's got to be done in this area. Just because I'm up here I'm going to tell you my favorite quote. It's from an African proverb that says treat the land well. It is not inherited from your parents. It is borrowed from your children. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Simonik. And then Miss Wilson. MR. SIMONIK: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good evening. My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the environmental policy facilitator at the Conservancy. I speak to you tonight on behalf of the Conservancy, its 28-member board of directors, its 630 active volunteers, and our well over 5,000 members. The Conservancy would like to express our strong support for the approval of the conservation and coastal element in the EAR as it was approved by the CAC. We especially urge you to reinstate those items in the EAR in this element that the Collier County Planning Commission deleted. Your approval of this element as adopted by your appointed 25-member citizen advisory committee will facilitate the preservation of natural resources and allow for monitoring of water quality, which we believe is extremely important and financially reasonable. Programs such as the natural resource protection area program, the watershed management plans, the Habitat Protection Ordinance, and the urban green space program address current and future concerns for water quality issues, water conservation strategies, flood protection, and expanding urban sprawl. Without these preservation opportunities and the establishment of provisions for our natural resources, we limit our abilities to truly manage population density and growth in Collier County and maintain our quality of life. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. DORRILL: Miss Wilson and then Dr. Staiger. MS. WILSON: My name is Sallie Wilson, and I'm a recent new resident of Naples, full-time resident. My background is in real estate. I have listened to the recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and I recommend approval of the evaluation appraisal report as it was approved by the CAC. Economically designated areas for open space will increase property values. The public generally will pay more for homes that back up to open space, and homes will retain their value in the long run with proper planning. Environmentally, I believe, we must look at the long-term impact of what we do so that we have the resources to support humanity in the future. Philosophically, remember we are the wardens of the earth. If we do not take care of her, she cannot take care of us. And we are all in this together, and I feel that united we stand, divided we fall. So thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Staiger. MR. STAIGER: I've already been up there. I'm happy with what I hear, so I'm not going to say any more. MR. DORRILL: Miss Berg, Elizabeth Berg. Dr. Stallings, you'll follow Miss Berg, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. MS. BERG: I'm Elizabeth Berg, 13 High Point Circle North. And I just want to say that I'm very glad that Dr. Fitch of the Conservancy issued a call to arms in his letter to the editor the other day that was entitled speak up for nature. Because when I saw the newspaper story a month ago or so about how the Planning Commission had rejected the environmental protection advice of its own Citizens' Advisory Board, I was really dismayed, you know, like Hopelessville. I -- I thought about cutting the story out and mailing it to you with a note saying this -- this stinks, but I knew my -- I knew my lone opinion wouldn't matter to you if the opinion of the Citizens' Advisory Board didn't. But I hope that the large group of lone people like me assembled here this evening, thanks to Dr. Fitch's call to arms, will matter to you, because the principal problem in Collier County and worldwide today is preservation and sustainability of natural resources. And Collier County has a special priceless and endangered gift of wildlife, water birds in particular and even birds like egrets that people from other parts of this country and other parts of the world have never seen before. And if you do everything you can to protect this wildlife and particularly its habitat, you will save this county. And if you don't, you will destroy it. It -- it's like the canaries in the mines. And you have only to look what's happening in Pelican Bay with the dying mangroves. This is a wake-up call. So please wake up. You are charged with maintaining and enhancing the quality of life of this community at large. And this requires you not to sell it out to that faction of our community which I would dare say knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee, you'll follow Dr. Stallings. DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings, Florida Wildlife Federation. First, just a brief comment on the HPO. When I went to work for Collier County, I believe that thing had been through about 20 different editions. And while I was here it went through about 20 more. So I kind of came to the conclusion that it just simply wasn't acceptable in any form. But anyway we tried a lot of different ways, and it just wasn't the desire to have one. Obviously I can't take the time to go through each one of these things individually, but I'd just like to call your attention to a couple of them. One of them is policy 2.2.2. It says amend to include post-development groundwater recharge characteristics are not altered from predevelopment conditions and an attempt is made to ameliorate the discharge timing of freshwater to predevelopment conditions to the estuarine system. Well, the first part of that simply says that whatever groundwater recharged function you had to start with you're going to have when you finish the development. I have no -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that impossible once you make a single square foot of impervious surface? DR. STALLINGS: It's a goal to be moved towards because you can't achieve 100 percent compliance, but this is the standard that you're doing your best to live up to. And what it, in essence, says is that this development is going to cost a little bit more, but it also says that this same developer five or ten years down the road is going to have a water supply that's going to support that new development five or ten years down the road. So it's just simply a means of preserving the water supply, and in that I think it inherently makes some awfully good sense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for that it sets an unattainable goal. DR. STALLINGS: Well, we don't really need an unattainable goal. I think we all realize that. And it says that the characteristics are not altered. Well, that language could be doctored a little bit because they are going to be altered, and the standards should be that we're going to maintain the groundwater recharge function. So a little bit of sharpening there, but the basic concept is a real good one, because we need that water supply. The second half of it says is that you're going to carefully examine your timing of the freshwater discharge, and a little bit further down in policy 2.3.1 it says all point source discharges shall meet applicable water quality standards and address maintenance of natural hydroperiod including peak and duration of freshwater inflow to estuarine systems. Well, to me what these things say is that if we had followed those principles when the Pelican Bay development was built, we wouldn't have the problems we got in Clam Bay today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me understand what applicable water quality standards means. DR. STALLINGS: Well, it just simply means you're going to meet whatever standards there are, which goes back to Commissioner Norris's earliest concerns that this is probably just a restatement of something we have to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already have this. DR. STALLINGS: That's right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm afraid that we have -- with all due respect to Dr. Fitch, and I know his motives are good, that people in the room and probably others are concerned or have the impression that if we reject what the Planning Commission -- if we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and reject the CAC recommendations, that we have taken a step -- that, you know, we've favored development over -- over environment. And, in fact, that's -- that's just a misconception. DR. STALLINGS: Well, I think, first of all, the committee that had to oversee all of this was not loaded by environmentalists. It cuts across the broad range of community interests. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. DR. STALLINGS: And my sense of it is that they were simply trying to fine tune what we had. Because obviously what we had, even though it might be a prize-winning plan, was not working as well as it should. So what they were trying to do was to adjust it to make it work better. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I can understand the frustration, because the reality is that the will of the people who have been sitting on this commission have been not to implement what was and is a great plan but -- DR. STALLINGS: Well, there are some things I think I would have to say that should be implemented. And I think that this particular group of amendments recognizes that, because if we had done certain of these things, we just wouldn't have the problem we've got in Clam Bay today. And I think it kind of comes back in some ways to a question of, well, how much sense does a truly environmentally sensitive development make. And the most environmentally sensitive development I can think of momentarily is what's being done over on the north end of Key Island. And obviously there's some other factors there, but the building pads start, the 20 of them, at a beginning price of 2,750,000, and it goes up from there. And a very, very heavy part of that advertising is that it does back up to a preserve, that it maintains conditions that are very, very positive from the environmental perspective. So I think there's really a situation where your quality of life and your property values, if you do things in a certain way, tend to be much, much higher. And I know one thing that really does concern me is that I don't want to see us end up like Hillsborough and Pinellas and some of those counties where they overallocated the water supplies. They had people go out and buy land and build houses on a nice lake 15 years ago. Today they got a dry hole out there. And I think a lot of this is aimed in that direction. And I do again -- I, again, would say that this particular committee that you appointed cuts all across the broad interests of the community, and they worked awfully long and hard. And I think their interest was focused more on the good of the community than was the case with the Planning Commission. (Applause.) So my recommendation to you -- to you -- to you very simply is that you go along with the recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Committee and that you ignore the recommendation to cut all of this stuff out, because I do believe this represents a fine tuning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee and then Mr. Morton. MR. LEE: Good evening. My name is Arthur Lee from Naples, and I'm on the Historic Preservation Board. I'm speaking to 12.1.1, I think. A question has been raised as to its having so many words. This was a simply mechanical problem. The way the -- that section of the original plan had been drawn, it was date specific. And the easy way to continue in operation the functions that the board's been carrying on, it was simply much easier to sit down and write this piece of language. This is a simple continuation of work that has been going on with the -- under the old plan. It -- I think you all would agree that the work that's been done has been satisfactory. The -- we have preserved archeological sites. We've preserved and marked and celebrated the marking of some historic sites. As a matter of fact, your board has issued a whole series of commendations to people who participated in some of the salvage. I would -- I simply can't imagine having to go back and start from scratch wiping out everything that's been done and restructuring the whole operation. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lee, regarding the elements that are -- are focusing on historic and archeological preservation board, what is it specifically you are asking for, because we now have archeological site maps that every time a development comes in, it has to be compared to the map, and if that's an area of a known or expected dig, then it kicks in certain requirements? I read in here things such as now requiring to carry out procedures to insure information regarding location of known sites and areas likely to contain such sites as available to those concerned with -- you know, what I'm saying is just go to the next level. Now it's site investigation regardless. I -- I'm curious what it is you feel is -- it needs to be changed. This -- this wording can be changed, but what is it you are looking for specifically, sir? MR. LEE: Simply a continuation of business as being conducted at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sold. MR. LEE: And this -- all -- all of this verbiage is wrapped up in the building code in one form or another. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LEE: And I'd like to add that we're being as easy on the contractors and the builders as we possibly can, and we've saved them a good deal of money simply by telling them, look, you better look very, very carefully at this lot that you -- before you sign up a contract with a -- with a builder and have your machines going and the time running and then discover a body, in which case by state law everything is frozen in place. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. LEE: This actually has happened. We've told them, just dig around a little bit, hire an archeologist. He'll cost you an afternoon of $300, and if there's something there, they can remove it neatly and cleanly in accordance with the law, and you won't have a lot of contracts running. And this is what this does. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. LEE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Morton, then Ms. Cawley. MR. MORTON: Mark Morton with the Barton Collier Company, and maybe more importantly, I'm here today as the ex-chairman of the Land Development Code Committee and also participated in the coastal element way back when. I worked at Bonita Bay, and when I came from Bonita Bay to Collier County, one of the first things I got involved in was the coastal element, and I read through the comp. plan and read what Collier County was doing with their coastal element. Frankly, after reading it and getting -- starting getting involved in it, I had the question instantly was how would we ever pay for this. I mean, it was extremely aggressive. I mean, it was award winning and all these things we're saying. But there was no way in reality I knew that any -- that the taxpayers were ever going to pay for all of the different programs that were going to be done in there. And, in fact, we haven't. Every time we try to do the NRPAs or different things and it's come down to funding, if we even took it to a vote, the taxpayers -- we're all pretty certain they would not allocate their funds in that direction. So we really haven't -- you know, what I thought was going to happen with the EAR was we were going to come out with ways to take those things that were costing us money that we weren't willing to do and figure out how to fine tune those out or clarify them so that we wouldn't be in the big funds and larger staffs and et cetera. And I was absolutely appalled and shocked by what we ended up getting out of this particular group, especially at the end of it. If you notice every other one of them pretty much has funding ideas and studies that you're going to have to pay for where this one is absent no dollars at the end of it. Getting back to the land code quickly, as the chairman of the land code we were supposed to put together a land code that satisfied the development regulations that were required by the camp. plan in every single element. We had a challenge from the -- a threat of a challenge by the Audubon Society and Sierra Club that if we did not implement a land code that satisfied the camp. plan on the coastal issues, that they were going to challenge the camp. plan. So the county attarney's office was honest throughout the process; you've got to satisfy these. So there was a subcommittee, and they gave us recommendations we adopt them. And you know what; the challenges went away. We didn't get challenged by Audubon. We didn't get challenged by Sierra Club. The land code was adopted; camp. plan was not -- it was not challenged. It's been functioning four years. Let me name some of the projects that came out of our functioning land code that's been implemented just fine, which I would tell you, da, is the HPO. The HPO is supposed to be -- the camp. plan was supposed to come up with regulations. So everyone is telling you that's the HPO. No, it's the land code. It's the ESI statement. It's the exotic removal section. It's the encouraging planting. It's native requirements, on and on. Read the LDC. Read the environmental sections, and tell me we don't have the most comprehensive effective document that really is award winning. I know Lee County has adopted tremendous sections of ours because it is so well written, exact verbatim. We have 60 percent open-space requirement. We have 25 percent retained native veg -- habit -- native vegetation that's viably functioning. In other words, we don't want to say 25 percent of exotic invested areas. We have exotic removal requirements. We have encouragement to save trees on site. You get bonus points for that in your landscaping. On and on it goes, and it's a great document. I'm really proud of the thousands of hours that other citizens put into both those documents, in all due respect to the new group that has put another list of, you know, hours into this. These issues are the ones that keep coming up over and over, and I feel like I'm haunted from the -- the chairman position. I'll probably be 85 years old and still telling you, you know, I was the chairman of the land code, and here we are again, you know, trying to adopt this, you know -- you know, tighten up all the things that didn't get accomplished the last time. I think if you go to the land code, you tweak the few sections in there that could be improved upon, it would satisfy these issues. Let's go through the projects; Collier's Reserve, Audubon project, Grey Oaks, restoration of wetlands, et cetera. I don't think anybody would complain about the vegetation that's been saved there; Audubon, Lely Resort, Pelican Marsh. The total restoration of the Cocohatchee Strand is part of that project and all the exotic removals. You can just go right down them. I would challenge you to ask your staff; go see what's been permitted in the last four years, and tell me what's broken before we start trying to fix it. I think you stick with the plan you have, you stick with the land code you have, and if you've got to make minor changes to that, then you do it. But otherwise -- the die-off in the mangroves is not because of the land code or the comp. plan. That's an old problem, and I don't -- I think it's -- it's not fair to excite the people in the community that our environmental codes are all astray because of what's happening in Clam Bay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Cawley, then Ms. Straton. MS. CAWLEY: Good evening, Commissioners, Barbara Cawley. I'm here representing myself basically, but I work for Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek. I sent you each a letter, I believe, and I can put that into the record as well. Mark's a hard act to follow. He had a lot of the things that I would have liked to have said to you, so I would like to say ditto to basically what Mark said. Additionally, one of the things that I'd like to say is that part of our process here with the EAR is a way to be positive, to tell DCA all of the things that we've done, all of the things Mark talked about. And I don't believe we're doing that right now in what we're putting forward to them. We're making it sound like we have done nothing over the last seven years to implement -- implement any environmental regulations. It's cost this community a lot of money, and Mr. Stallings was very accurate to say that you have million-dollar lots. Well, we don't think we can afford to have everybody live on million-dollar lots to do the things that are being done on one particular project. We need to think about the cost of all of these things to our community. One of the things that I wrote in my letter that I was very concerned about is a couple of the objectives and policies and goals and how they're being changed. And I think I -- I natrowed my list down. I know that the Planning Commission and a number of other people have -- have gone a little broader than I have. But I've natrowed it down to basically policy or goals were 6 and -- and maybe goal 11 that are really the problem areas. And those are the ones, of course, dealing with wetlands and habitat and uplands and all of that where we're now taking the language that we got DCA to agree to, that we got the environmental community when we wrote our plan to agree to that allowed us some flexibility, some common sense, some -- some way to go forward without stopping everything in this community. And those words are viable, naturally functioning, net, unacceptable. I mean, they're very important words. You just can't make a statement, no loss of wetlands, no loss of uplands, and not be sued at some point, I would think, by someone who says, well, you've just told me that I can't use my land. So I think what -- what we need to do is do like Mark said, maybe go through, and maybe there are some fine-tuning things that we can do with this plan that are good. And I think that some of the recommendations are good that are in here. But I think what we've gone to in some of these recommendations are an extreme. Secondly, one of the things that keeps coming up is this is your citizens' committee that adopted this language. And I know for a fact that the citizens' committee never saw this language. They -- they adopted this (indicated). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. CAWLEY: That's all they saw. They didn't see every piece of -- of change, every word change, every policy change, every goal change. They only saw a generalized statement that was recommended by the subcommittee. And the subcommittee said, you know, do good things. You know, we want to have incentives. We want to have -- like Mr. Staiger said, we want to be able to find a way to do county property and manage it and come up with NRPAs on county property. And that was taken and converted into this list of goals, objectives, and policies that the staff assumed was what the committee wanted. But I know that the committee did not see that, and I don't believe that that was the intent of the subcommittee from the people that I've spoken to that were on the subcommittee. And I know Christine's here, and I know John's here, but I talked also to Linda Lawson who was on the committee, and she's not here this evening, and that was sort of the feeling that I got from her. So I think what we've done is we've -- we've taken a hammer to kill a gnat, and I think what we need to do is step back and -- and try to find maybe a fly swatter or something a little smaller and -- and either go forward with the CCPC recommendation or find some ways to fine tune that a little bit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're saying that the full committee never saw what we're seeing tonight? MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, can I speak to you about that? MR. LORENZ: No, that's not true. The full committee had the total report that you have in front of you. MS. CAWLEY: They had all of the changes, every -- every one of the strike-throughs and underlines -- well, not strike-throughs CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did they vote to accept the full changes that we've been presented? MR. LORENZ: Yes. MS. CAWLEY: Okay. I may be wrong then, but I know that the committee's report -- well, the committee's report is this. This was the committee's report, and it was not the full document. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the subcommittee report. MS. CAWLEY: Subcommittee report, I'm sorry, to the full committee. And I apologize if I misspoke on that, but it was my understanding that the subcommittee report went forward this way, so I apologize for that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You didn't put a copy of those two pages with this letter, did you? MS. CAWLEY: They're in your packet. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're in my packet? MS. CAWLEY: Yeah, they're the first things -- three pages. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Gotcha. You're only holding up two pages. MS. CAWLEY: Well, it's back and front. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. MS. CAWLEY: Yeah. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Straton and then Leonore Reich. MS. STRATON: Chris Straton, member of the august, infamous or whatever Citizens' Advisory Committee. When we formed our organizational meeting on the subcommittee -- and let me share with you some of the things we talked about. We knew that the issue of natural resource protection areas was very controversial. We hadn't gotten very far with it with all of the other attempts. We knew that the HPO, again, was another one where it just got bogged down with a lot of excruciating detail. So generally what we did is we looked at the goals and objectives and said, hey, those still make sense. The problem is, is how that has been interpreted into some documents that have gone forward. And as John talked about, we said natural resource protection area, if we can get the county to do management plans for the land it owns that's being held in the public trust, that's a major step forward. If we had done that with Clam Bay, we might have been discovering some of these problems in advance. With the Habitat Protection Ordinance, we said, look, you know, there's rare and unique habitat out there, tropical hardwood hammocks, some scrub. It's quickly disappearing. And we talked about the fact of really providing incentives. You know, if you have to set aside 25 percent of your native veg -- naturally functioning vegetation and you happen to have some scrub, you know, instead of -- and you've got 2 acres, well, instead of giving you 2 acres' worth of credit, you know, come up with something -- give me a 5-to-1 ratio or something like that. So if the developer chooses to save that, he really gets a big bonus out of it. So we said, all right, let's -- the goals and objectives the way it was implemented or approached probably didn't make sense, but it's still a worthwhile thing. So we said no real changes there, but we wanted to give some direction to EPTAB. Then we looked at the native vegetation issue. Right now landscaping can count towards that 25 percent. And if you argue very effectively, you can get a lot of landscaping counted towards native vegetation, and -- and I think the intent on my part, I was thinking that was habitat. And hibiscus in a median is not habitat. So we said, you know, maybe we need to take away some of the wiggle room on that. Well, that was probably a bold move on our part because it became controversial. Then we looked at the viable functioning, all those wonderful words that depending upon how good your consultant was and how effectively you could argue would make a big difference in terms of how much wetland you had to negotiate. And we thought, well, you know, we'll -- we'll take a stab at that. The reality of the situation is Collier County doesn't really do any permitting. You rely strictly on what the Army Corps does and what the water management does. But it was sort of, you know, one of those -- those moments of, wow, here we are, we're going to worry about, you know, the environment. So take away some of the -- I'll call them weasel words. But, again, if you've got a good consultant, you know, you've got a different story. The reality is you guys aren't really controlling that anyway. So then we said, okay, those were the areas that had been controversial in the past. Now, the rest of the document, we sat down, and we met with not -- not Bill Lorenz's people, Bill, but the pollution control people, the hurricane preparedness people, you know, the -- John Boldt. Those were all elements that we had to address. And we said, okay, let's look at some other things. And there were some very good suggestions that those people made, things like, you know, put something in where -- for -- for plumbing fixtures and landscapes for water conservation. You know, the feeling was we need to do more water conservation. The feeling was we need to put together some sort of pollution prevention education program. We're spending millions of dollars on beach renourishment. Let's make sure we have a plan to maintain those dunes and to maintain the vegetation. And we thought, gee, those are really good things to do and would be noncontroversial. Well, those were all things that were on the hit list because, you know, they were not a change of date or -- or a change of -- to -- a continue, an effort. So there are a lot of good ideas that came through from good staff people who had looked at trying to do their jobs to -- to do a better job of water quality, dune restoration and things like that, and we incorporated those things. Those are some things that I think need to -- to be looked at again and -- yes, Commissioner, you were going to ask a question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions going back to your weasel words. MS. STRATON: Those are my words. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your argument, I guess -- MS. STRATON: It was a moment of weakness on our part. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your argument would be valid except I would think the response would be the exact opposite of what you did. And that is if you say those weasel words allow you to get use of your land according to how good of a consultant you have, then do we take out that flexible room and we just penalize everyone to make sure no one has use regardless of who you have there speaking? MS. STRATON: These are words that are very difficult to define. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is, if you want to even the playing field, you should even it so that everybody is on a fair shake instead of just saying nobody can do anything. MS. STRATON: And that was what was done is to take away something like viable if everybody defines it differently. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But my point is by -- MS. STRATON: What does that mean? And that was part of the problem that staff was saying is it's very difficult to argue with anybody when they say, well, what does that mean. It's hard to define. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is, though, by taking those away, you're penalizing everyone. All of a sudden you can't use anything regardless of whether it's viable or not. There's not going to be an argument there. If you take those away, you just can't use it. And it comes to the point where you've penalized everyone. Yes, you've put them all on an even scale, but you've taken stuff away even from the people who should have access to their own land for that use, another legitimate use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that even if you have a completely useless, not viable, not functioning wetland, you -- MS. STRATON: I don't know that there's such a thing as a totally useless wetland. I mean, that's one of the things that's going through the process right now. If you've got melaleuca, you know, well, it's not really wetland. It does perform a wetland function so -- and that's part of the problem, you know, I don't want to debate that whole thing, I mean. But we're trying -- when we put this document together, my -- as the committee met, we said the political reality is -- is we want to try to retain an NRPA that has a chance, retain an HPO that has a chance. You know, maybe get habitat consideration more than the -- you know, don't get to count the hibiscus in the median as habitat. And those were -- those were the main sort of goals, plus to allow staff people who were worried about pollution, who were worried about hurricane preparedness, who were worried about watershed management plans, and to reflect those concerns. And I'm afraid that what's happened is that, you know, we got caught up on the HPO and the NRPA and the viable, naturally functioning and a lot of other good things that are of benefit that do make the award-winning plan even a better plan -- you know, we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned a couple of times the landscaping, for example. And my understanding of the intent of that originally was of -- you have some restricted use of your property by setbacks and by requirements for landscaping and so on. And if that landscaping happens to also be natural vegetation, you shouldn't be penalized and have to do it twice on your property. And so by saying -- and, again, I understand there are circumstances where people stretch that. But when -- I mean, your phrase just a moment ago was don't throw the baby out with the bath water, and I fear that's what you're doing there is saying, well, there are some cases where it gets stretched, so let's throw them all out. MS. STRATON: And staff has said probably what needs to be done is to have some sort of criteria consistent with what the circumstances are -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wouldn't disagree with that. MS. STRATON: -- so that the project reviewer on this project and that project are debating, you know, it's -- again, trying to get some consistency with the application on some of the stuff so -- thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Reich. Mr. Cornell, you'll be following Ms. Reich. MS. REICH: I'm just a concerned resident who had the impression that we had a workable master plan for which Collier County even had received a commendation from the state government. This is redundant, of course. I was disappointed to hear that this plan was never put into effect. The changes suggested by the Collier County Planning Commission to delete the 10 percent open-space requirement and extending the urban boundary to include four sections instead of the original two will all contribute to urban sprawl such as found in cities like Fort Lauderdale. As to conservation, the deletion of virtually all the EPTAB GNP committee suggestions on potential reduction in density to protect natural resources, public health, safety, and welfare would greatly impair the quality of life of all of us who chose Naples as our home. Mr. Michael Fernandez, the subcommittee chairman, mentioned buildout at 800,000 population at 16 units per acre and compared Naples at that stage to equal Tampa with all its acute problems of pollution and water shortages. Therefore, common sense dictates that we limit growth and remember that our resources are not infinite. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one correction I think is necessary. If we build out at current numbers in the urban area, the total population will be at buildout 468,000, not 800,000 in the urban area. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cornell, then Mr. Perkins. MR. CORNELL: My name is Brad Cornell, and I'm here representing myself and also on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. I've been asked by the board of directors to speak about the EAR, which we're all talking about tonight. One thing that -- that all this discussion is taking place in the context of is the fact that Collier County currently has over a hundred thousand units, and two hundred and twenty PUDs currently permitted, and these aren't even built yet. They can be built tomorrow if -- if the developers so choosed. So with that sort of growth potential just around the corner, it makes a growth management plan all the more important to look at very closely and consider with the utmost care. Collier County Audubon Society applauds your involvement of the community by your appointment of the CAC. We do believe that the conservation and coastal management element recommendations very reasonably address ways to accomplish the unattained objectives that we're all concerned about. That is recognizing that over 80 percent of the objectives were obtained, which is laudable, but some of the most important ones are yet to be implemented. If an objective has not been implemented for over six years, we feel a response is essential. Collier County should say what it can do to remedy that situation. Six years is a long enough time to really give it a good effort. And if it hasn't been implemented yet, then something needs to be done to address the problem and -- and I believe that is what the recommendations are actually doing. The LDC does not meet the requirements of the unattained goals, objectives, and policies. We, therefore, ask that you accept the 54 substantial recommendations of the Citizens' Advisory Council -- Committee. They are a very reasonable consensus of the citizens of Collier County. Thank you very much. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Anderson. MR. PERKINS: Bob Perkins, Belle Heade groups, citizens for constitutional property rights. Obviously everybody here that's on this side of the room doesn't want anybody else to move into this county. Now, the Osceolas and the Hicosukees never told me to get mine out of here, and what right do we have to tell the future generations to stay out of here? That means that we're going to build out. There's no two ways about it. The same reason why you people are here is why other people want to come here, just that simple. And they're making money up north to be able to do just what you're doing, retire where they want to retire. Land use, the restrictions on land use is putting a burden on a lot of people, especially farmers, cattlemen, and what have you. When I think and use the words land use, the proposed landfill pops to site -- pops right to the surface. We're taking jobs away. We're taking economy away. Every business will be hurt by it. Now, I've overheard people saying, well, there's low-cost personnel up in Immokalee. We could put it up there. But one of the things that I want to drive home, if you people decide to put a landfill, and you're going to have leachate in Immokalee, you will be upstream of your water supply, people, upstream. When we had the flooding, where does the leachate go? And don't tell me that it didn't happen. It overflowed just like everything else did. Now, whether it got into our water supply or not I have no idea. The point is water's important, but so is recycling the water important. Keywaydin Island was mentioned, 2.7 million dollars for a lot. Well, we paid 13.7 million dollars to buy that portion of the lot -- the land out there to provide a private beach for wealthy millionaires. It's just that simple. And you're going to lose the taxes on it, too. So you better take and reassess your values and get your act together and find out what you're talking about. As far as the habitat -- and I've heard habitat over and over and over again. I've heard exotic plants and flowers and birds and all the rest of it. In the Bell Meade area in the south Golden Gate Estates, the state forester came in and said in a public meeting that was held right here in this room by the South Florida Water Management, we're going to make the southern estates into the Picayune State Park, da, da, a park. And they told me that I can go horseback riding, and I can go camping, and I can go bicycling, and I can do all the nice things that I want to do. I can have myself a good old time out in the middle of nowhere, and I can take and see the birds and the alligators and all the panthers running around all over the place. Then in 15 minutes the South Florida -- South Florida Water Management says, well, we're going to flood that place. We're going to drown the raccoon, the muskrat, the rat. Anything that crawls, anything that that stinking panther eats is going to die either of rot or some kind of a disease. Now, just what are we doing here, and who's talking and telling the lies out of both sides of their mouth? Because every time they do, they say lay the money in my hand while I run away. The minute this environment money dries up here, these environmental people will be out of here looking for greener pastures in a heartbeat. It's the nature of the animal. Going back to the Belle Meade and to the southern estates, South Florida Water Management saw fit that they could flood out the Belle Meade. What happened to the cattlemen? What happened to the farmers? You can bet Gargiulo stayed dry. That's for a fact. Getting down to the taxes and the prices of this thing, you people are losing three point -- I forget what it is -- 3.2 million dollars out of the -- out of the whole area out there as far as the Belle Meade, southern estates, and the Fakahatchee. With that somebody else is making up that deficit, and it's you people. You're paying the price. It's just like anybody else said here tonight. You want that land so bad, you want that water -- you say that water is precious. Well, if it's precious to you, it's precious to me. Pay me my price and I'm out of there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, A1. MR. PERKINS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm Young, Van Assenderp, and Varnadoe. When the 1989 comprehensive plan was first adopted, the Department of Community Affairs initially found it not in compliance, and they proceeded to rake us over the coals over it. But they did give us that award that you earlier discussed as having the best coastal and conservation element. Yet there are more amendments proposed for this award-winning element than any other element in the comprehensive plan. These recommendations will alter the original intent, and the intent was not to empower the county as a fourth regulatory body over isolated or already impacted wetlands. These changes will remove any common-sense flexibility that is now in the plan. And if -- if the existing element hasn't been implemented, then let's implement it before we adopt new requirements which are going to have their own new set of implementation requirements. Lastly, I would point out that there has been no consideration whatsoever of the fiscal impact of these recommended changes for when a claim is brought under the new private property rights protection act when you have required someone to set aside some more of their land for preservation. When you talk about, you know, weighing the costs of implementing new requirements, that needs to be factored in as well. And I would just urge you to affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just -- could I? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You may, indeed. I have some questions of my own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In going through these, you know, as we've discussed them more thoroughly, there are some -- the policies that are all under policy four, four point twelve, thirteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-six, all seem to me to be good ideas. They are amended to include the implementation of the recommendations within the lower west coast water supply plan, water conservation strategies. It's on page 19 about the middle, 4.12, 4.26. I'm going to be supporting the inclusion of those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question on two of those? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the purpose of changing the phrase effluent disposal to reuse water than be politically correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's just modern -- modernizing there. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's a difference there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There can be a difference there. Effluent water, if -- if we say we're going to -- we're going to call it reuse water and go by that definition, then we can't put it down a disposal well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even in emergencies? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It wouldn't be reused then. It would be effluent that we disposed of. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in the wet season we can't give that stuff away -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we can't do that then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and our choices is to flood homes on the other side of the pond. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, you can't do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask a question on 4.1.3 because, quite frankly, I don't know what the heck that means, amend the state, implement water conservation strategies that will serve to maintain identified native biomes. Identified by whom? Identified as what? And what the hell is a biome? You know, so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a little elf-like creature. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wears a little red hat, lives in a tree. So I'm going to -- you know, I don't mind hearing more about that, but there are some things on here that -- the problem I'm having is what I hear from some people at this microphone is that what we wanted to do is X. Well, then I read what's in front of me, and the two don't match. I hear what we're trying to accomplish is just this one little thing. Yet when I read the language, it's adding personnel, it's creating additional levels of review. It's not tweaking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me ask you about just a couple more. The only other ones that I especially liked is 4.2.6, amend to evaluate and make recommendations where appropriate for plumbing fixtures and landscapes that are designed for water conservation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no problem with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I like 13.1.3. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Commissioner Hac'Kie, can we go back to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- 4.2.4 and -- I pulled policy 4.2.4. And what it says is to identify existing and future privately-owned land suitable for irrigation with treated wastewater effluent such as cemeteries, agricultural operations, nurseries, commercial industrial parks, and incorporate those into future planning for effluent disposal. All the policy is asking us to do is change those last two words to tense. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- Mr. Lorenz, are -- educate us on that. What's the reason for the change in the words? MR. LORENZ: I think it made it broader than effluent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is broader than? MR. LORENZ: Broader than effluent. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When I took that term and read it into the policy itself, tense makes a lot more sense to me, and -- and this board has gone on record -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want tense. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- as wanting to encourage the use of gray water. MR. LORENZ: Right. That would be an example. But it would also include effluent as well. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But would it cause the problem that Commissioner Norris was concerned about, because that's a serious one? We can't do that. MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure where that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dorrill, who knows on your staff then? MR. LORENZ: -- can be physically identified. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody has to know the answer to that question. MR. DORRILL: Pertaining to the disposal issue? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Effluent versus tense. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we change those words, do we take a risk in the disposal wells? Because that's a risk we can't take. If it's innocuous and broadens the possibility of tense water and the implementation of gray water, then I want to do it. MR. DORRILL: That's something that I'll need to have Mr. Conrecode pursue with DEP to make sure that we're not creating a little trap for ourselves. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing, I don't want to lead us down a path of -- toward establishing a gray water -- a mandatory gray-water situation for existing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To retrofit, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's the intent here, but I don't want that to lead us in that direction. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. And we've said we don't want to go back and retrofit, but we do want to look at encouraging new subdivisions coming on line to use gray water. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we can leave in 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 with this proviso that Mr. Dotrill will have his staff check on, that that will be what I'm going to be supporting. And that finally 13.1.3, which has to do with sheltering residents, amend that to indicate that the county should develop strategies for sheltering residents and guests in nontraditional settings so that we would have 60,000 -- we would have shelter for 60,000 by 1999 for emergencies, hurricane shelters. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that's in the right element. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I thought it was kind of odd, but I don't know if it belongs there, but it belongs somewhere. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know it deals with -- I have a little experience with disaster response, not as much as Mr. Pineau -- MR. PINEAU: For the record, Ken Pineau, the county emergency management director. Although trying to get 60,000 shelter spaces is a very noble cause, I think that Commissioner Hancock can attest that managing those more than probably hundred, hundred and twenty shelters would be virtually impossible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The design standards, I mean, shelter -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's impossible? MR. PINEAU: It would require about 2,400,000 square feet of shelter space. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do we presently have capacity for? MR. PINEAU: We have about 28,000 at the rate of 20 square feet per person. The problem is with condominiums, the condominiums are in the coastal high-hazard area. Now, those are the areas we're trying to get people out of. Unless they continue to build up in Immokalee or out in the estates, we're going to have a great deal of trouble reaching that 60,000 shelter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it's simply unattainable. Now, we can begin labeling things as shelters that are not built to hurricane code if you want, but if we're talking about things that are built according to hurricane code, to achieve 60,000 in a place that it just -- it's not attainable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, on policy 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, when you -- when you look at what the policy says in its original form, that -- the changing of that won't make any difference. If -- if you're changing somewhere in our plan the definition -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- then you've got a problem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But this is just simply a very narrow usage, and it won't make any difference for those as far as I'm concerned -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- or it don't matter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it doesn't make any difference, why don't we leave them be. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's broader. It just won't hurt us on the injection well issue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So all of the fours we're talking about leaving in? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm suggesting that we leave in all the fours. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by suggesting that we're going to have the ability to discuss the specifics? Because without having the Southwest Florida Water Management or lower west coast water supply plan in front of me, that particular statement falls in line with about a dozen other in here -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, these amendments are going to come back to us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the reason -- and let me state the reason why that concerns me. There are other areas where we are referencing state and federal guidelines. We are instituting something basing it on state and federal guidelines. Last time I checked people want local control, and every time we reference state and federal guidelines, we lose the control of their application. If we reference a state guideline and that state guideline changes, we then have to amend our comp. plan, which is damned near impossible, if the guidelines are more restrictive, and it just -- you know, I'm -- I don't like referencing state or federal guidelines in place of county. I just think that's the wrong way for government to go, and we're trying to -- on a national level we're trying to go to the state. States are trying to go to local. I don't want to go the other way. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just ask the remainder of the board to hear me? If we're going to have a second hearing to take care of a couple of items anyway, if the two items of effluent versus tense water, if we should bring those back and have Mr. Conrecode do a little homework instead of agreeing to that today? I'm sorry. He had suggested Mr. Conrecode. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode. MR. DORRILL: I had that down. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I'm scanning these, there is one that Dr. Stallings brought up that hits home with me because of Pelican Bay. Number -- policy 2.3.1, the problem -- one of the problems in Clam Bay is that when they designed the water management system -- right now you have to design to predevelopment discharge rates, meaning the total volume meets predevelopment. The problem is that volume could be discharged in a manner inconsistent with the historical flow, and what happens is you get peak flooding, long droughts. You get surges in areas and not in others. And I think that that particular part of stormwater management can use a little better review system so as -- as Dr. Stallings said, that language as it's presented I'm not real keen on, but it's -- I think we need to take water management, particularly when its end point is a coastal ecosystem -- I mean, very end point, not 10 miles down the road -- when its immediate discharge area is a coastal ecosystem, how it discharges, rate of discharge and pulsing of that system can have adverse effects so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that something, though, that we don't regulate? Isn't that only regulated by the state? We don't want to add our regulations on top of existing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is South Florida Water Management District, I don't believe, really looks at that in issuing the permits. Now, if -- if there's overlap from DEP or from Corps in the environmental impacts, then I need to know that. I'm just saying that that's an idea that I want more information on. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A good idea but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've seen its failure of application in at least one scenario. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, did you get a satisfactory answer to your biomes question? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, rather than go -- go into it, I think I need to know more about that, because if it doesn't identify what native biomes we're focusing on and how we're focusing and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting we have a clearer picture of that -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, 4.1.3, I need to know more about that. It doesn't sound like you have a problem with it. I just COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're native plant and animal associations. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Which ones? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know. I'm not into botany. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me suggest if we're going to sit here and go through these things, let's go in order. Let's start at the front and go through in order. And we'll just -- let's -- let's start -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Let's start 1.1.1, right on the front. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We said to delete that earlier. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We said to delete it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Policy 1.3.1-A. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No objection. The next one is 1.3.1-E. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I kind of like that because we -- we've been talking about mitigation banking concepts and -- and -- and cjustering and that there are instances where those are really -- really needed, and you do get a -- a total net environmental saving from -- from cjustering in -- in the mitigation banking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to also support that for one reason. That is that if we do designate a particular area as an NRPA, what goes on immediately adjacent to it and how it discharges into it should at least have an additional consideration. And since it is -- the first word here is consider potential reduction, not mandate, not shall. It gives the flexibility, but it raises a flag. If you're going to develop next to an NRPA that the county establishes, then it gives us some -- you know, some leeway and some options to look at. I don't see that as being harmful. In fact, it becomes a tool, not necessarily a mandate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Earlier in our discussion when we first brought this up, Commissioner Matthews said can this be used to work with the developer, and my concern is that it's not simply going to be used to work with them but to arm twist anyone into a particular need. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we can adopt -- we can adjust that kind of wording, though, when the amendment comes to us if we think it allows arm twisting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just worry. Many of these things that start out with good intent end up being -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's our job that when the amendment comes to us that we read it carefully. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to be able to support that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have two votes for 1.3.l-E, one against. Is there a third vote? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not interested -- I -- I know -- as much of a supporter of NRPAs as I am, I don't think that this -- this "tailor development standards to the need of NRPAs in the form of overlays or other forms of similar zoning overlay treatments" scares me too much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The second part of that is not as important to me as the first part, that -- that increases the level of consideration -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- adjacent to NRPAs. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take out the tailor sentence, tailor phrase -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. How about up to the point of welfare, we make that a point of consideration for adoption in 1.3.1. E. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where are you? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cjustering and mitigation banking, I like that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like the cjustering and the mitiga -- I mean, that's what I like about this one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, why don't we take out "tailor development standards to the needs of NRPAs in the form of overlays or other forms of similar zoning overlay treatments"° COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just that sentence. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just take that -- that clause out of there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll support it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we'll leave that one in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That one stays in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you taking this down, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can you hear us okay? We're sort of mumbling by ourselves. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Objective 2.2, when I read it, it says federal, state, and local. And, I mean, we're going to have a discussion of adopting federal, state, and local, and this one's going to get rid of federal. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Delete. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, delete the word federal and it wind up -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leave that in so that we delete the word federal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Adopt objective 2.2 as COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Fine. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't make any difference because the state has already adopted the federal levels. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 2.2.1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Delete. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, this one bothers me because the FDEP regulations, we're going to be adopting those. They can change almost daily. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't want to incorporate FDEP regulations into our code or into our plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's three no's then. 2.2.2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the one that we said is not possible to achieve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not possible to do, no. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But if we change the word characteristics to functions, as Dr. Stallings suggested -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is, first of all, you cannot definitively measure the groundwater recharge function of a parcel of land. What are you going to do; measure to cubic feet per second of flow? I mean, how do you do it? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You measure it inches per year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how do you do that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have no idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have no's. Okay. 2.2.4. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Continue and expel -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nope. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nope. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 2.3-C -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the same as -- that's just eliminating the word federal. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we lose flexibility there if the federal agencies adopt different standards that are less stringent? If it says federal, state, do we take the more stringent, Mr. Lorenz, typically? That's the only question I have on that. MR. LORENZ: The way it is worded is that we would take the state standards. If it's more stringent than the federal, then, yes -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 2.3.1. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to keep in -- in some form -- I guess I'm not comfortable with the wording here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think that's not something that we regulate, and we don't need to add another level of regulation to that. That's already state and federally regulated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree wholeheartedly. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only where permitted -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, yes, it's a good idea, but do we need to regulate it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not the proper bodies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That Clam Bay system is under the old regs. That couldn't happen today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but my point is South Florida -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They couldn't pull those permits today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's say Can Key Strand (phonetic) was adopted as an NRPA and development 20 years from now occurs in that area, the method of discharge under current permitting standards does not cover the pulsing and the distribution of that water into the system. If we're not going to keep it in here, I'd like to ask that maybe we direct Mr. Lorenz to draft a letter to South Florida Water Management District identifying this as a problem and encourage them to adopt policies in that regard. At a minimum I want to see us go down that path. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can do that. But I think I'm persuaded by the argument that we're not -- we're not really an environmental regulatory body to this level. We don't set ourselves up for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, that's three, but I -- can I give direction to staff? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question, though, on this because I think Commissioner Hancock's point is well taken, that all new permitted point source discharges and so forth, unless the state or federal government -- whatever water quality standards this is applicable in this issue, they may never come to see what's going on. But if we adopt in our plan to meet applicable water quality standards and we become aware of them at a local level, we can take care of it. Even though it's the same water quality standards as at the state level, we're not adopting anything at a higher level. But are we going to call the state and feds to come down and take care of this, which they're not going to do, and that way we just let it perpetuate itself? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is in the maintenance of natural hydroperiod. If they're not willing to review that as a part of their permit, that forces us in a position of reviewing it. And maybe we have the capability; maybe we don't. But I'm always skeptical of creating another local level of review. I would rather encourage the permitting agencies responsible for it in the first place to permit it properly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I'm getting talked into the opposite position I took. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You are. You're right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think that's the right tact, though. Rather than us adopting the permitting responsibility, let's encourage those agencies responsible to do it properly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who's idea was that? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Some lowly commissioner. I don't remember. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You did it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So that will remain as a no then. Policy 2.3.4, I have a question there. It says include sentinel stations in all estuarine stations to be monitored seasonally. And that's a little confusing on exactly what that means. Does that mean in all estuarine systems all over the county and they are to be monitored seasonally, or does that mean that we will put sentinel stations only in those estuarine stations that are to be monitored seasonally? What does that mean? That would be a maj or -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a better question. How much is this going to cost? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks like a no to me. MR. GIBSON: I'm Gail Gibson, pollution control, in charge of these monitoring programs. Currently we move our estuarine stations -- estuarine system by estuarine system year to year. What we're planning, using our own laboratory facilities so there's no money going out of county for any analyses, is to install probably ten stations monitored twice a year, April and August -- that's our season -- catching the beginning of the wet season, the end of the dry season. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a nay for me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MS. GIBSON: We're looking at this point, primarily the nutrients, the cost per station is about $40. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A year? MS. GIBSON: A sample. So -- all right, $400 to $800 a year approximately to monitor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many estuarine systems are you going to monitor? MS. GIBSON: We're putting in ten systems. If you want to subdivide it, that's 21 estuaries. It's basically 10 when we put them all together. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Eight thousand dollars a year? MS. GIBSON: No new dollars. This is to be done in-house. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No new dollars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then once those status reports are compiled and you have all that information in one little booklet, what happens to that booklet? MS. GIBSON: Published. You have copies. All available agencies have copies -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with that copy who does what, other than putting it on a shelf? MS. GIBSON: Putting it on a shelf. The information is passed to the available agencies, USGS, the Corps, EPA -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's available. MS. GIBSON: It's available. We provide that information to the health department. The pollution control department as such does not have -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think what Commissioner Constantine is getting at is what is the ultimate purpose of doing this, and I am assuming that it is early warning of something going wrong somewhere upstream. MS. GIBSON: We're looking at trends of the water quality. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that -- is that a satisfactory answer? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're currently doing that without expanding what we're currently doing, aren't we? This says expand and modify current monitoring. We're already doing some of that, aren't we? MS. GIBSON: We're doing some of that. We're moving basin to basin year to year over a five-year period. We would set up -- propose to set up as stationary -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have two no's. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two no's. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to keep it in because I -- I think the trending is important. I think we need to do the monitoring so that if something is going on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I agree, but we already are. Without expanding it, we're already doing something. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So what's wrong with keeping it in there then if we're doing it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not saying keep it in. I'm saying don't expand it. Let's keep what we have, but don't expand and modify what we already have. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we're doing an adequate job. I remember talking about this in budget last year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. That turned out to be a no. I heard three no's. Two point five, okay. This -- this -- purchases more land use data as water quality information comes down. Is that something that we have to generate, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: What? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can't answer that question right now? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can formulize your answer then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: After this discussion, we'll take a little break. MR. DORRILL: I fell asleep about five minutes ago. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What -- Mr. Lorenz, it says the addition of more detailed land use data and water quality information. Does this somehow require us to do additional work to gather this data, or what does that mean actually? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have half the data, and we just want to -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The objective says, "By August 1, 1992, the county will complete and develop the development of an estuarine management program." Do we have such a program now? MR. LORENZ: Well, we -- we do in the sense that we -- we've adopted the Land Development Code recom -- items in the Land Development Code that will drop -- address boat dock restrictions within the estuarine system. But what we haven't formulated is looking at the -- how the -- the land use draining into the estuarine system itself is affecting the estuaries. We were -- we were trying to rely upon the basin studies at some particular point to use that information. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is a moot point, because a majority of the board shot down the additional monitoring. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So to reflect more detailed data that we just shot down monitoring -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if it were there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see. That's a no then? We have three no votes on that? Let's take about a five-minute break, and we'll come back and wrap this up in a heartbeat. Maybe not in a heartbeat. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene. We have -- we have consensus by some of the board members that we will not continue after this element due to the late hour, and we will reschedule the remaining hearings for a later date, potentially April the 2nd's regular scheduled board meeting. But for those of you that are waiting for some element other than this one, we're not going to get to it tonight. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're talking about finishing this up the afternoon of April the 2nd? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And can we give our manager adequate direction to keep that day light then? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It already is. That's why we're -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is a light day. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is a light day? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So on that day we will hear -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Afternoon. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Afternoon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question? My concern here is particularly the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. But then all the Golden Gate people can't come in the middle of the day. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. There's the Golden Gate element and it's winter, and there are other folks that aren't going to get here in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right, you can't do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just as soon go ahead tonight. But if you don't want to go ahead tonight, can we at least do that in an evening? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do Golden Gate tonight. They're here. They waited all night. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They've been here six hours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do Golden Gate tonight. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine with me. I didn't want to leave anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I don't think it's going to take that long anyway in light of Golden Gate's master plan CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Golden Gaters, stick around. We'll do the Golden Gate issue as well. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Future land use can go home? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Future land use and Immokalee will not be tonight; correct? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there anybody here from Immokalee? Were you here for the Immokalee master plan, sir? VOICE: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you get back in the daytime? VOICE: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's continue then so we can get the Golden Gaters out of here as well. We're down to 2.5.1. And this, again, looks like they're tied into the watershed issue that we did not choose to continue. There are several of these policies in a row here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not in favor of this one for the simple reason we are still in the process of basin studies, and I don't think we're at the level of detail to handle a watershed study. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that 4.1.27 COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, 2.5.1. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I can speed this page up. We had continued 4.1.3, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4. Is there anything prior to those? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. 3.4.1, I think, is a good policy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have okay by that one, too, because it says to continue the existing water quality -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. I don't think we've given Mr. Lorenz clear direction here on what we're doing with 2.5.1. That's no; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No for me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 2.5.2 for the same reason? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And 2.5.3 for the same reason? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. What's wrong with the pollution prevention education program? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good Lord. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For homeowners and businesses, I think that's just kind of going overboard. But, again, I get back to our little hazardous waste thing where we're putting out brochures in Creole, and we didn't even know where Creole businesses were, but we were going to put them together anyway. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, they do exist. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know they do, but we didn't have a plan on how to distribute them, and that just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention this last Amnesty Day. I must have heard it on the radio a dozen times, and I knew full well about it, so I'm particularly looking at our financial picture this year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not in favor of putting that in the growth management plan. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three no's, Commissioner Matthews. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 3.2.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is something that we already do? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we already do these. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All three of these. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in favor of 2.1, 3.1, and 3.2. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ditto. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three of us who are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.4.1's okay? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 3.4.17 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 3.4.1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll say no, and we'll put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is continuing the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is our -- this is what we were talking about earlier, but the unexpanded; right? I mean, this is what we already do. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is continued. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're amending it for what purpose? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Put the word continue in like Mrs. Student told us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it said implement or something like that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they listed it as one of those continues, 3.4.1, to make DCA happy? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Just to make sure that we haven't lost a 9-J-5 requirement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And 4.1.2, what did we -- we decide to do what? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not in favor of that, because it references the South Florida Water Management District lower west coast water supply plan, which we have no control over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we -- would you consider a policy that said amend to include consideration of implementation of? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Possibly, maybe, could be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, okay. I just wish that we would -- I don't want us to ignore it. I am looking for a stick to force the board to look at the lower west coast water supply plan -- I admit that -- because I'd like to see that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- as a requirement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And, again, the last time we talked about this a half hour or more ago, these amendments are going to come back to us for us to tweak them and make sure that they accomplish what we're looking for, and that's our responsibility when that happens. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Lorenz, you had something? MR. LORENZ: I need to go back to -- to another one, I think, that we left a misimpression with you. On 3.4.1, the last phrase, "to guide growth and increase population management," that's new language to that -- to that policy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure we can -- MR. LORENZ: Or should we not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure we can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's got a nasty little connotation to it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I continue my nay on that one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my yes was only because it -- I thought it was going to be -- Miss Student and I had talked about it, was just to make 9-J-5 happy. MR. LORENZ: No, I checked. It's -- it's old language. Before that is the same. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we -- if we said just water protection program to guide growth, period -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many no's do we have? We have three no's on that one then, at least three, minimum three. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee, thanks for bringing that one back up, Bill. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 4.1.2 -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm a yes -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- with a modification. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes with a modification. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not -- and the modification says amend to include the consideration of the recommendations? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Consideration of the implementation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To consider implementing. I just can't stand all that language, but to consider implementing the recommendations of the lower west coast water supply plan. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can consider that without saying in the growth management plan that "will consider it." I mean, that's kind of silly that we're going to bind ourselves to think about it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The growth management plan is not enabling. And what you're asking is an enabling act -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I don't think this is the appropriate place for that, so I'm going to say no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're going to say -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just say no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just say no. We've no'd it all of a sudden? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you could say, Mr. Norris, before we know for sure because Ms. Matthews and I are yes's. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he just wrote down no, so it's no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have to agree that we can do this outside of the growth management plan and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I'd rather not lock ourselves into something that the South West Florida Water Management District has control over. And if we -- we -- we've stated that same principle a couple of other times tonight. 4.1.3, what did we do on that?. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1.3, 2.3, and 2.4 we're going to continue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 2.6. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was a yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Policy 5.2.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if there are three no's, that answers it. But in the past every time we've referenced the LDC, the state has kicked it back to say you can't reference the LDC in the growth management plan, because when we change the LDC, you change your plan without getting approval so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that one in its structure alone is out of line. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That one won't fly anyway? Okay. That appears to be a no, Mr. Lorenz. 5.3.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can tell you I have no's on the rest of the page. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- I have a no on that, because we're inserting a time element that we don't have right now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And like Commissioner Mac'Kie, the last four I have X'd out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As do I. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As do I. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I can tell you on page 20 I only support 9.5 and 12.1.1. That's the most problematic page of all to me, elimination of the concept of viable wetlands, viable functioning wetlands, to just include all wetlands. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since I have a couple of questions, let's go ahead and go through -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's just go through it. MS. STUDENT: I wanted to just generally make a statement about where all that so-called weasel language was recommended to be removed. I have a concern about it because of the new private property rights legislation. And, again, there's no cases that I -- court cases out there on it. But if you do something that devalues the property or interferes with reasonable expectations of the property owner, it triggers the act. So I have a concern. And this may be arguable, but I still have a concern about all of those that do that. And I feel that perhaps it would be better to come up with some criteria or something if that's possible, but I just wanted to get that concern on the record about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. All the ones that delete the weasel words I don't think we should put -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're in favor of keeping the weasel words, let the record reflect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 6.2.10, then, is a no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Where are you? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Top of page -- COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that's a no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.2.12. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a no, Mr. Lorenz. 6.2.13 is a no -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- as is 6.4 and 6.4.1. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me write those in. We have 6.4.3. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.4.5. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think five -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These are LDC again? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, 5 and 6, because they reference the LDC, and it becomes problematical. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that will not withstand DCA reviews. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has not in the past. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. 6.4.6 has another viable and natural function. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.4.7. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is changing a word shall to may. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gee, that -- that sounds like someone's going soft. What's that doing in here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shall create consistency versus may create consistency? I think we should create consistency. I don't think we should change that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. That's a no, 6.4.7. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a no? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because you don't want to relax -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the opposite of that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it doesn't relax it. It says should we be consistent or should we not. You shall be or you may be consistent. MR. LORENZ: No, let -- I want to make sure that the -- the phrase comes in -- this is concerning the trying to preserve vegetation on site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. LORENZ: Exceptions shall be granted for parcels which cannot reasonably accommodate both the preservation areas and the proposed activity. That shall there would then go to may. So -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You've got several shalls and mays in here. Which one are you talking about? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last sentence -- MR. LORENZ: I believe it's the last sentence, if I remember the discussions. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exceptions may be granted for parcels which cannot reasonably accommodate both preservation area -- MR. LORENZ: This would bind the county to grant the -- to grant the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exception. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exceptions. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the current regulation, and that's the way it can stay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prepare to talk to either one of us -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why -- why should granting an exception be mandatory when we can make it by -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's called property rights. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.5. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have an okay by that one, except I have a modification. I have, "amend to indicate that the county may amend the LDC to incorporate additional native vegetation in the landscape designs". COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can do that anyway if we want to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- without giving the state a stick. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Remove that stick. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Remove that one? That turned out to be a no, Mr. Lorenz. 6.9.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonnoxious. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Help me with that one, Mr. Lorenz. Why are we -- group of the '90s. Why are we eliminating nonnoxious? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that mean that now we will be able to put noxious plants in? Is that -- MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we adopting this from the city's code? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Carrot wood, we can put the carrot wood in now. MR. LORENZ: From a biological perspective, it's not a definable term. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that's fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll leave that one then? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. All the biggies. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.6. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. So that -- that leaves it as being priorities for incorporating native vegetation into landscaped shall be. So you're just -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We're allowing nonnoxious. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Natives are nonnoxious because I __ COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What worries me is it assumes definition of nonnoxious. MR. LORENZ: I don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There are native noxious plants; true or false? MR. LORENZ: I'll have to ask my staff to give me details on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There are. Of course, there are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that was probably so that people wouldn't go out and plant sand spurs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we should leave that one open for further information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid my yard would be in violation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we do that? Can we at least get some information back on that between now and two weeks from now? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to close this tonight. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Huh? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to close this tonight. We're going to vote on it tonight. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have enough people to vote, you know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That want to come forward and __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've asked for input on items and work changes -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 4.1.3. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In the settlement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've got three continued so far. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were there, trust me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.2.4 -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We want a clearer definition of tense. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention I'm still looking for biomes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, tensing biomes. MR. DORRILL: And now kudzu. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kudzu. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So is that all right if we bring that one back? I don't have a big objection, but I think that may have been there for a reason. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are noxious native plants, aren't there, Ellie? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Lorenz, then can we bring that one back, 6.5.17 MR. LORENZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 6.6 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- is a no. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 9.5. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Haven't we already -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've already approved that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- approved the Habitat Protection Ordinance? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's just housekeeping he told us. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've already approved that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's housekeeping. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It stays in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 9.5.1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 11.1.4. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like viable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And 1.8. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same. Those are no's. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: There is a hidden thing in the narrative as it relates to 11.3.6 about moving the coastal construction control line, our line, back to where the state's line is. And I have also a private property rights concern about that because it's for undeveloped barriers -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do you mean it's hidden? Where is it? MS. STUDENT: It's in the narrative. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why isn't it on this list? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because it's hidden. MS. STUDENT: It's in the narrative about moving the coastal construction control line back to the state line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that requires discussion. MS. STUDENT: Policy 11.3.6, because it's only applicable to undeveloped coastal barriers. But I understand from staff that they are private ownership, and my concern about the Private Property Rights Act is that if that's moved back and you can only get a variance to build forward of it, that may impact the value of the property. So I wanted to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want us not to adopt that without discussion. I -- surely that's not about to happen. Mr. Lorenz, could that possibly be about to happen? I mean, we were going to move the coastal control line without knowing it, talking about it? MR. LORENZ: No. In the -- in the narrative, I think, it's -- what page is that? We do have a recommendation about that. It wasn't picked up in any policy. In other words, there was no existing policy. MS. STUDENT: It's on page 173. And my concern -- it's under the -- I believe it is the series 11.3 objective. So when you go down 11.3.6, it would impact that, and I had a concern about it, unless staff can tell me I'm misconstruing something. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many -- how many undeveloped coastal barriers are there in Collier County that are subject to development that are not part of state or federal ownership? I mean, is this something -- MS. STUDENT: I understand from staff that there are some. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there? MS. STUDENT: Perhaps Morgan Island and part of Keewaydin -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Part of Keewaydin is privately owned. MS. STUDENT: Keewaydin and parts of Morgan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let -- let's request -- when -- let's ask that item to come back -- MS. STUDENT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with a little explanation would be my desire because I'm -- if there's some property -- private property rights issues there, we need to know about them before we either approve or don't approve. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You mean they've made a change that's not on our -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Really scary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lorenz, are there other changes that didn't make our amendments -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Summary list? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to goals, objectives, and policy list? MR. LORENZ: There's some discussion on the NRPA program where we have a -- basically a recommendation not to -- not to modify a policy or -- or an amendment, I think is the way this wasn't picked up, for the NRPA program that concentrate on county-owned areas. It wasn't recommended to make an amendment or policy change. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I think maybe we need to give direction that when we review what we're asking to see, anything in here that's not on here we need to talk about at that time, so we need to be very thorough about that. MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We just corrected something last fall that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- was not in the discussion in 1991. And I -- I think that we need to make it clear that if we don't discuss it here tonight as these specific policy numbers, that it's not part of the plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or at a subsequent hearing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At some point in the course of this, if we don't discuss it, it's not part of the plan. MR. LORENZ: Exactly right. And there are -- we'll have to make sure that as we go through the review of the narrative, that whatever the board has adopted is the recommendations for the change -- for the future changes, that no other language within the narrative will touch -- touch on something else. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to follow up, make sure you understood Commissioner Hancock's direction. And that is anything that appears in the narrative that does not appear on our summary we need to talk about when we continue when this comes back in two weeks' time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Any modification, period, or it's removed. MR. LORENZ: Exactly. And the reason why it hasn't shown up before is because through the discussion with the Planning Commission, it was not part of their -- their particular objectives and policies that was in summary table. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we don't care. MR. LORENZ: I understand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 11.6.1. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 11.6.1. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a big no. Wait. I'm not really sure what the application there is, the coastal zone management continues its implementation, sure. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's just updating it with current information the way I'm reading it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a fair assessment, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: To -- that's correct, to continue with our current data gathering that we do on coastal zone, in the coastal zone area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our current data gathering. MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no objection to that then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a yes? 11.6.2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got a problem with that. Maintaining dune systems for all renourished and nonrenourished beaches. One of the main reasons to create a dune system on a renourished beach is that the beach will then try and act as more of a natural beachhead. I'm concerned that by putting this in the growth management plan -- you know, a dune gets depleted on half its vertical height, the next thing you know, we're out there building dunes every six months. I just -- that sounds a little unwieldy to me. I don't have any sense of application on that, so I'm a little skeptical on that one. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If a nonrenourished beach has a dune system, wouldn't we want to keep it? I mean, wouldn't we want to maintain it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you -- if you go in and alter and maintain a natural dune system, is it any longer a natural dune system? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's keep in mind that we can do these things if we want to. We can have a maintenance program for dune systems without giving the state a stick. I support the concept but not putting in the EAR. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind I'll suggest a nay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A nay on that one then. 11.6.3. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a continuing of current policy, and -- and with this beach dune and coastal area data we do what? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually this looks like it references 6.2. MR. LORENZ: Well, we would assess the -- assess the condition of the beach system and determine where we have problems or not have problems. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that part of our monitoring from the beach renourishment and funded by beach renourishment? Don't we already do that as a part of -- don't we already do that as a part of beach renourishment as a part of the contract and the maintenance and all that staff? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're doing it. We're doing it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And 12.1.1 we agreed was all right? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12.1.2. This is the archeological -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only problem I have with this is the line that says, "carry out procedures to assure information regarding location of known sites and areas likely to contain such sites," so on and so on. Is that an addition that seems to me to add a field investigator to go out and recheck information. If we have an area on a historical archeological map that says this is an area of concern, why do we need to reverify that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the reason I underlined that is the rest of it seems to just simply state what we're doing. Okay, never mind. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a no then? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You will not be getting Christmas cards from Mr. Lee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 12.1.3. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only problem here, it asks for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a nay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It says adequately supported by county staff. We -- we don't have a mandate in the growth management plan to support any board with staff, and that -- I'm not -- that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why not just take that out? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The rest of it I -- the rest of it I'm comfortable with. It talks about applying for grant assistance from state, federal, private sources through the BCC. It does not commit the BCC to those grant sources. It says, furthering historic and archeological preservation and education. These are all good things that that board does for us already. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're suggesting simply scratch out "and adequately supported by county staff"? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Scratch out shall be continued in being -- yes, and adequately supported by county staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we take on a responsibility even though that line isn't there, though, if there are all those things that we are requiring ourselves to do? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like the last one, prepare and maintain a master file of the county historic and, separately, archeological sites. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who is going to do that? Even if we don't say specifically county staff, who specifically is going to do that over and above -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I was under the impression that we already have that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We already have that. MR. LORENZ: My understanding is that that's a non -- that's a state requirement that we have to maintain that list. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. So with the deletion of the words "and adequately supported by county staff," I believe we have a yes on that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13.1.3. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Crossed out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sixty thousand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our emergency management director pretty much said it's not possible. I don't need much more than that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13.2. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is a future unimproved request? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I need to make a comment here, because in the existing plan it says, "All future unimproved requests for development in the coastal high-hazard areas will be denied." And I don't think that that should be in the -- in objective 13.2 as it presently exists in our plan. And they added to it to say denied or approved. I think what happened there, going back eight years, the coastal high-hazard area was very small at one time, and it has grown through an amendment to the definition to, I believe, the category one area. So I think it would be better to just strike -- you know, strike what exists in the -- in the plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just take 13.2 completely out? MS. STUDENT: Just take 13.2 out, denied, and I don't think we can do that. The law requires that you limit development in the coastal high-hazard area. It doesn't say denied -- it has to be denied. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So you're -- excuse me, excuse me. You're saying delete 13.2 in its entirety? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't believe we've existed this long with something saying deny all development in category one when development has occurred. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So in 13.2 we're talking about deleting it, not amending it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have completed then our review of the coastal conservation -- conservation and coastal management element. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the throwing of the stones begin. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, we have a problem here. And the problem is we've finished our review of it, but we've asked for some of the parts of it to come back. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to make a -- shall we make a motion to accept the board's straw vote on all those items with the exception of those that we're bringing back? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before -- before -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Litsinger MR. LITSINGER: Are you still going to continue with Golden Gate, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we are. But I'm just referring to this one element because there were, I think, three things we asked to have a further explanation of at some other point in time. And what I'm concerned about is that we go ahead and ratify what we've agreed to tonight and leave only those three, I think it is, items open for review at a future date. Can we do that, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was -- not that it's that important, but the items that were open, I think it was actually four or five, but also the items that were not reviewed here, if -- if the board doesn't review them, I want to reiterate -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't you make a motion for adoption of what we've done so far here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one more thing I'd like to add. We heard some ideas on Habitat Protection Ordinance that did not make it into our changes. And what I'd like to ask the motion maker to incorporate is to direct staff that a Habitat Protection Ordinance that focuses on credit for plant communities and incentives as opposed to penalties should be the direction we take to achieve that -- that goal in our growth management plan. I'd like to see that direction given since it was brought up here this evening and, again, the carrot instead of the stick. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not as a part of the EAR. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not as a part of the EAR, but let's not let this entire review go without giving it some direction on the Habitat Protection Ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind doing that. We can -- I'd like to do that, have a further discussion on that, too, not tonight, but I think we as a board need to have further discussion on -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. I just want to make sure that discussion occurs and we don't let it lay fallow. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I don't know that we need a motion for that part if nobody objects. I'll go ahead and make a motion we ratify those items which we either approved or deleted this evening, and obviously the items we asked to be continued and any items that were not discussed by this board are not included in that ratification. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Golden Gate area master plan. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just getting grumpy late at night? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Huh? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't agree with everything either. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, and that's why conscience-wise I have to say no, because I didn't agree with all of it. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione with your comprehensive planning section. I'd like to go over the changes to the Golden Gate master plan. The first change is to the neighborhood centers. Both the citizens' committee and the Planning Commission recommended some changes in that regard. The current map, as you see here to my right, identifies two future activity centers. This is based on the board action that the board took in 1993. The recommendation of the citizens' committee and the Planning Commission is to put the neighborhood centers back on as they existed with the original plan adoption in 1991. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go over that one more time. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically what happens is these -- these activity centers all came off in '93. And there was -- is no more ability for commercial rezoning. Now, part of the language was as part of the evaluation and appraisal report process, we were to look at the need for commercial. Staff does find that after the year 2000 there could be a need for some commercial in some of those areas. At this point in time, staff did not support putting the neighborhood centers back on because we're moving with your direction in 1993 to take them off. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell us what has changed since 1993 and now other than obviously some growth in the area but -- MS. CACCHIONE: That's basically the main conditions that have changed as population growth has continued. Our analysis shows that sometime after the year 2000 there could be a need for some additional commercial but, again, that's something that you weigh in terms of compatibility and concerns with what people want to have their area developed as. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't that analysis exist roughly the same, though, in 1993, that there might be a need there in the year 2000 -- MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at that time? MS. CACCHIONE: That's the same analysis. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So really the analysis hasn't changed any since the most recent action? MS. CACCHIONE: No, not much. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It seems to me that we took them out in a mid-cycle. We can put them back in in a mid-cycle if there's a decision to do so. And that to me -- there's absolutely no need to put the neighborhood centers back in here at this point in time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me ask on that question, Miss Cacchione, in mid-cycle DCA is much more acceptable and amenable to us reducing land intensity uses. In that same mid-cycle would they be as receptive to increasing commercial opportunities, because I have a feeling that's how DCA is going to look at it? They're going to see the addition of these neighborhood centers in part of an evaluation and appraisal report, and they're going to shoot it back saying this is not consistent, you're increasing intensity in these areas. MS. CACCHIONE: It's basically your local plan, and we can amend the plan annually as the board so chooses, and we can do it this year, next year, whenever you so choose. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can do it in 2000 when they're warranted or a couple of years prior to allow for planning. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let me say something. I heard after the meeting on this particular element that the recommendation had been to do this. And I've asked the Golden Gate Gazette to put a notice in the paper that I'd like to hear from -- from people who were either opposed or in favor of. And I had -- I -- I had nearly three dozen conversations with people who were opposed, and they all lived in ZIP Code 33964, which is the area affected. I had conversations with two people who were in favor of and a letter from two people who were in favor of. One of -- one letter came from Miami. I wonder what that interest is. And another letter I just responded to this morning comes from, I believe, the real estate agent for Avatar. So I don't think I have to say a whole lot more than that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only question I have is as the estates grows in population, it's an obvious concern that if those people have to travel the east-west roads which are nearing capacity in many areas to get to urban services, we're going to have heavy congestion on those roads. My -- and so I understand -- if the people don't want them, they shouldn't be there. I'm not opposing that. But what I am saying is that it's simply not good planning to assume that that entire area with its future population can exist without commercial services, knowing full well what our capacity -- remaining capacity on those east-west roads is and our inability to expand them beyond six lanes. So there is going to have to be some commercial at a development stage in the estates because the roads simply can't handle not having it. And so I -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a concern, and I just need to make sure that's being addressed. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. And I understand that at some point in time such centers may be needed, but at this point in time we have to look at Orange Tree or north Golden Gate city has a full commercial area there, and there's nothing there except a convenience store and a gas station right now. And -- and even though Orange Tree is -- is developing very quickly, the latest I hear on a full-scale shopping center there is still several years away. And I just -- I'm -- I'm concerned about putting commercial centers in the heart of Golden Gate Estates and having commercial centers develop merely because we put them in there and then having vacant commercial property in there that becomes something that we really would rather not have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think when the master plan was first created five years ago I was active -- I wasn't on the board, but I was active in the process. I didn't object to the idea for the same reason you're saying, a long-term plan, gosh, there wasn't a necessity there. But in 1993 it was actually citizen initiative that got us to take that out. It was on overwhelming response from the people that live in the estates that said, you know, this isn't what we want in our area. And these master plans -- the Golden Gate master plan or the Immokalee master plan or now North Naples is talking about doing one, and Marco Island is doing one. Those are citizen initiative. Those are what the people of that community really desire. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, I agree that long term there may be a need, but I think at that point then those citizens will come forward and say we have a need. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to argue with the two people that represent that area. I was just expressing a concern, you know, and you're right. It will be answered long term, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll know what they need when they need it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I can see an eventual need, but I'd like the citizens who live there to tell me that it's needed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from the public speakers. MS. CACCHIONE: One thing I should clarify about the Planning Commission's recommendation is that they did say that these would not be eligible for commercial until the year 2000, so that was part of their recommendation. There are other changes. Do you want me to go through all the changes to Golden Gate and then open it up for the public speakers or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to do it that way? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's pretty brief. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Go ahead. MS. CACCHIONE: The next changes are to the policies in the plan, that basically there are 33 objectives and policies, 31 of which are hundred percent complete, four which are recommended for deletion because the work products have been completed. The amendments to the policy is policy 1.2.5 is an amendment to the policy to provide that the private utilities within the Golden Gate area should be taken over by the county within the next five years. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can anyone say no? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fast enough. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- just for a factual standpoint, I'll point out in 1991 -- that was a year after what had been the first Florida Cities increase in several years, and it was a huge increase. We did some homework, the county did. And as president of the Golden Gate Civic Association, I was very, very active in that. There was a county assessment. This is -- Florida Cities did not agree that this was what their price was, but the county's assessment of what it would cost to buy and build out in 1991 was 31 million dollars. Florida Cities argued that it was considerably higher, but Collier County said 31 million dollars in 1991. That broke down to between five and seven thousand dollars per house in the Golden Gate area in 1991. I suspect in the last five years the price has gone up not only because of general value increases over that time frame, but they've also expanded the system some in that time frame. So we are probably looking somewhere between forty-five and fifty million dollars, which means you're probably looking for eight to eleven thousand per household. And when you have homes that are worth sixty to eighty thousand dollars in much of the community, you can't suddenly hit them with a ten thousand dollars hit. I think the best thing we have done is what we just did, and that's take back control of the water utility rates. But the idea that we're going to be able to purchase this out in a five-year span and then build it out isn't realistic and, frankly, would put far too much of a burden on the people in the area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, the reason that I wanted to hear the public speakers is so that we don't go down there and make the decision before we get to hear the speakers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, if I can make a -- make a comment on what you were just saying. At an FAC meeting I was at two weeks ago, Charlie Richards from Sarasota was telling us that Sarasota County had just purchased SSU in Sarasota County, and they had done that and worked it in such a way that they do not have any assessments, and they do not have any rate increases. And I'd certainly like to find out how they did it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was done by magic. One of the unfortunate things is most utilities when they put in their system have a certain number of homes on a street before they will hook up, and then they will require everyone to hook up once the pipe runs. And the deed restrictions in Golden Gate says that that will happen, but it has never been enforced. So in 30 years' time you've had pipes run down a street, and they have 15 homes on it, and they have 6 that are hooked up and 9 that aren't, and another street may have 12 that are hooked up and 3 that aren't, but it's just a mishmash. And so for the county -- obviously the county requires everyone to hook on, and the cost becomes overwhelming. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know. Perhaps, then, it would be good to find out from Sarasota how they did it and if by black magic or white magic -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple friends on the commission. I'll ask them. MS. CACCHIONE: The next policy was to look at accessing the water supply lines in Golden Gate for access for fighting fires. This has not been feasible. We discussed this with Kevin Rambosk (phonetic) of the city and with Mr. Newman of our utilities department. They do not want to provide access to their raw water supply line. We also met with Chief Peterson, and it was felt that the more appropriate amendment would be to look at establishing drafting stations out of the canal to appropriately fight fires and would give them more flexibility in terms of location. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Miss Cacchione, can you help me with that, because I was talking with Chief Knotley (phonetic) Immokalee about something which sounds similar to what's here, and he called them a dry hydrant. And it's just a hydrant that's got a pipe that goes down into the ground and a flexible pipe into a water source, and a truck comes by and hooks up to it and drafts out of it. Is that what we're talking about? MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. DORRILL: They're talking about the low pressure high volume raw water mains that are coming from the well fields, and because of the -- the fairly low pressure that is associated with those, they're not sure as to the ability to be able to feed a pumper, and then repump the water, because of the very low pressure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't this be a fire district's responsibility, though, as opposed to the -- MR. DORRILL: We don't have good land development policy in this county. It depends on the district as to whether or not, if at all, they're maintaining, installing, testing fire hydrants across the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What Commissioner Matthews is talking about in situations where properties in an area don't have fire protection, sometimes a local -- has required a dry well, and it's basically a draft well. It's just a well, and it's hooked to a hydrant, and you draw directly from the well source of water. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he's drawing -- he's talking about drawing from the water retention lakes and so forth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is the same then. MS. CACCHIONE: The policy is that we would try to access those water supply lines, and we would investigate that possibility. We've investigated it, and it's not going to work. So we want to try another method, and the drafting stations seem to be the ultimate that we're striving -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that really a comp. plan item? Okay. We'll hear from the public speakers. Never mind. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically 1.3.2 is to make amendments as there were a lot of policy amendments in the conservation element. As those changes went into place, it was felt that we would then amend the Golden Gate master plan to reflect those changes as they're completed. The next policy, 2.1, is the development of the rural road network that Mr. Perry spoke of. It follows along with the need for that. The next change is merely a name change from DNR to DEP. The next two changes relate to basically the process for permits in southern Golden Gate Estates. Right now that process requires the county to receive a building permit. We then ask the person applying for the building permit to negotiate with DCA and provide us with notice that they have negotiated with DCA to purchase their property. And basically we would complete that within 180 days and then issue the building permit. This is all part of language that was adopted in 1993 with the Department of Community Affairs to settle the Golden Gate master plan. They found us not in compliance, and this was the language that was agreed to at that point in time. The language changes suggested here by the Planning Commission and the citizens' committee are to delete that process, that you -- all we would basically be telling people when they come in is that this purchase process is going on, and it's up to you if you want to contact DER -- DEP and negotiate with them for the sale of your property. It would just make them aware of the information, not require them by policy to go negotiate with D -- DEP. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2.2.2, I just -- I chuckled as I read it here, because it reads, "The county will support the Florida Department of Community Affairs in any effort to include the southern Golden Gate Estates and the Big Cypress area of critical state concern." This board has actually passed resolutions opposed to that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right, just the opposite. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- during my time on the board so '- MS. CACCHIONE: That proposed change is to change it from "will support" to acknowledges that DCA is doing that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about refuse to acknowledge? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about opposes? MS. CACCHIONE: And, again, the history of this is this came about to find the Golden Gate master plan in compliance. This is how it got there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I say we thumb our nose at them one more time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I say. (Applause) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to go beyond saying acknowledging and say opposes, because it's more appropriate. Anyway, we'll wait till we get to the public comment before that -- MS. CACCHIONE: That concludes the changes for the Golden Gate master plan. MR. DORRILL: The first one we had was a Christine Ramsey who had to leave to attend to some children matters. I can't say that I blame her. She did leave a letter and said I didn't have to read the letter but to please indicate to you that she's a resident of the northern estates and who is opposed to the neighborhood commercial centers. I told her that I would do that. Mr. -- it's Euthbertson or Cuthbertson. Following him, Dr. Stallings. MR. CUTHBERTSON: My name is Abe Cuthbertson. I'm a property owner. I'm here -- I just heard through the grapevine - I really didn't know what was going on because I didn't even know they were having a master plan, but I would just like to see policy number 2 eliminated. When I bought the property ten years ago, you know, nothing like this was on there. And you're not a regulatory body, so let's eliminate the whole policy number 2 for southern Golden Gate, and let them negotiate with us. I'm not going to -- I'm making my will out, and I'm going to give all my land to my kids. I'm getting old, but I'm paying my taxes. And I hope to get some infrastructure out there. I hope Wilson and Miller extension gets -- I think for the public welfare and need, because the state doesn't look like they -- I hope they make a park out of it, and I hope they buy as much as they want. I'm encouraging people to sell to them, you know. But I'm not going to sell, and there's a lot of people that's not going to sell to them, so we're standing fast. Could you eliminate policy number 2, though? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we need to look at it. MR. CUTHEBERTSON: Eliminate the whole thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your kids have to pay your inheritance task by selling -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fitzpatrick. MR. FITZPATRICK: County Commissioners, thank you for hearing us tonight. I represent about 10,000 acres in southern Golden Gate Estates. There's another entity down there that represents about 7,000 acres, which would bring them up to over 85 percent of ownership if they negotiated good faith, that is the state. The Big Cypress Basin Board has recommended in their transmittal to the governor and the cabinet to get immediate condemnation authority. I would rather recommend that the board go along with that or reinstate services down there. Just a little history, if you would. 1990, Estes Whitfield writes the Board of County Commissioners, says don't put access down there, it will raise property values. Heaven forbid, they paid fair value for land. We changed the language in 1992 on a stipulated agreement, but I think there was a point that was missed. The fire chiefs, the emergency medical people indicate that there is peril to citizens down there today because of that policy. It may be a good reason to go back to the original language in the master land use plan, because it puts those people in danger because basically what this is, it's a business deal. The county backed off to get compliance to keep those values low. That's all it was. That's fine if you run a business deal. But when you start putting people's lives in danger -- Vince Stewart and others will come up and tell you that -- then we've got a problem. I would recommend you eliminate policy 2 on that basis. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Valera, Reutha Valera. Mr. Keller, you'll follow this lady. MS. VALERA: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for allowing us to stay this late. I thank you for this opportunity. I work with several of the property owners in the Golden Gate Estates area, and my concern is I have followed all of the meetings that have been conducted here, the various subcommittees and the CAC meetings, during the past 11 months. Some of my concerns were this whole process. It was extremely difficult for the property owners for the most part in the Golden Gate Estates area to attend some of these meetings because they were held during the workday. And most of the people in that subdivision are working-type people, and it made it very difficult. Some of the people that did attend, there were situations that were brought up and different requests that were made. And my concern was I did not see them in the final EAR report, some of those being -- one of the big elements was with regard to right now in the southern block, property owners there can only clear 10 percent of their property. And if you're a property owner of one and a quarter acres and you can only clear 10 percent acres, in the event of a fire those individuals will literally burn. There's no place -- there's not enough of a fire break. That was brought out in the subcommittee meetings by the fire chiefs, and there was some recommend -- recommendations that were supposedly to be made to reflect those type of requests that were being made to the committee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did we -- 'cause I'd like to know -- that sounds really important. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically that amendment's already in process. It's been reviewed by DCA. It is back here. We cannot adopt it until we get our EAR approved. We have made it an EAR-based amendment which you will hear under the future land use so that we can proceed and adopt it at the earliest appointed time. It does provide for the fire breaks discussed in the estates south of the Alley. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's some good news. It sounds like on that point it's not in this standard report you're hearing tonight because we're trying to rush it. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, we've actually had to include it an EAR-based amendment so we could adopt it quicker. MS. VALERA: I was not aware of that until this evening during break. I did call and spoke with Mr. Litsinger yesterday and was not made aware of that unfortunately. The other -- the other concern I had was with the extension of Miller Boulevard extension. I know there were quite a few requests for that from the local people. There -- again, there was some testimony by the fire chiefs that was brought to their attention of the difficulty there, and apparently there was a death not too long ago there in the southern block area, and it was very difficult for the emergency medical service people to get there because of the problem with access down there. And it was brought out that this would also be beneficial to have this Miller Boulevard extension to be in existence, not only for that, to get access there, but for evacuation purposes for the Marco Island people there during a hurricane. And that was also brought out. And unfortunately, I don't really see that in the EAR -- EAR report. I guess basically what I would like to also state tonight, I kind -- to summarize it, I think that if the committee would take some consideration for the property owners there in the southern estates area, since the State of Florida does -- would like to acquire that property, then my recommendation would be that they should do so immediately with condemnation proceedings or allow the property owners there to develop it. These people literally have been hanging in limbo now for ten years. For those of you that aren't aware of it, the state is making offers as little as $300 per acre for this property. And it's really offensive to the property owners there. And unfortunately as far as real estate brokers, we can't find anybody that's even willing to talk to these people to list it. There is no real estate market for it. So they're literally just waiting for these people to die off. And that's really not the way to treat these individuals. And my request would be, too, if you could just remove this two -- two point whatever, and we would really appreciate it. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think everybody on this board is stymied that the state has taken ten years to acquire that property. I know I've been corresponding with the DEP now for three years but, you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Until we get some backbone, they're going to keep doing it. (Applause) MS. VALERA: If I can add one comment to that, I did attend a meeting here on November the 15th and Diana Dartland (phonetic) with the acquisition department and Dr. Brock stood here, and there were probably about -- approximately about 60 people in the room, and they made it very clear. It is not their intent to declare eminent domain there. And so they're looking at an indefinite nightmarish limbo. And if you've got county roads out there and the roads aren't being allowed to be maintained, obviously it's going to have a negative impact on their property values. It's a real bad situation which needs to be addressed. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- again, I think we -- we talked earlier about this. We've got a stipulated agreement with the DCA that right now we -- we -- I don't know how far we can and can't go with that agreement. And perhaps we're not pushing it hard enough to find out what the limitation is. And -- and, you know, we do have this legal agreement, though, and -- but I'm fully in favor of starting to push that agreement to find out where -- where the boundaries are. MR. VALERA: That was part of the frustration with attending these -- all these meetings, because every time the public would make these requests, staff was constantly reminding the committee members that -- of this stipulated settlement agreement. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, but -- MS. VALERA: It was, in essence, like, you know, well, we have this agreement, and you can't make those recommended changes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have to be careful, too. In their defense we are the policy makers. They have to implement the policy adopted by the board. So that's their job, is to say we have an agreement. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tell you what. I think we need to go beyond looking at this. I want to eliminate number 2. You look at -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've read it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the agreement or not, because you look at this, and there are private property owners -- let me backtrack for a moment. If the goal is to return this to its natural state, God bless them, and I don't think anybody argues with that. But to leave these people in limbo is outrageous. And here for us to assist the state's land acquisition program, what land acquisition program? They don't have one. There's no money. There's no purchases being made. And then for us to have private landowners who own property and for us to say we will implement a system restricting public infastructure and that we will have minimal road maintenance and no road surface patching or grading, to have -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we give them -- until or for a period not to exceed? VOICE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And then let's call CNN and get them down here. VOICE: Yes, sir. I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like the board has traditionally said, well, DCA says we have to, so we have to. But I think perhaps it's time we stand up and say, no, this is wrong. (Applause) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have often -- you know, our staff has often stood here and said, well, the DCA isn't going to let you do that, and we look at them with blank stares and say, so what. You know, we want to do it, and let's let them tell us we can't. Now, at the same time, though, I think in all fairness to the rest of the taxpayers in this county, that we need to get a report to our legal staff if we eliminate goal 2 what -- what are the ramifications, minimum and maximum, so that we know the dice that we're starting to roll. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let the record reflect Mr. Weigel is sweating profusely. MS. STUDENT: I think I can answer that. We have a -- we had a stipulated settlement agreement with DCA, and we did some comp. plan amendments based on that stipulated settlement agreement. So it's just like any other amendment, you know, to the comprehensive plan -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Changing our mind. MS. STUDENT: -- there's been some change in conditions and so forth, i.e., that the acquisition process isn't proceeding as expeditiously as was thought or something. You know, we have the ability within the year to revisit all of these. It's an amendment now. It's not like there's some separate agreement. The agreement was implemented through the adoption of the amendment so -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's do it. Let's do it then. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we're looking -- MALE VOICE: Address the public maybe. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we need to look at the legal issues there. But I think the one thing you hear in every political season now is that people want people to represent them with common sense. And I'd like to think the five people here have pretty good common sense, and let's do the right thing here. MS. STUDENT: The one thing I want to add is, yeah, the DCA does a sufficiency review of this, and who knows what comments might come out of that. But I have to tell you that so you know the procedures. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's don't discuss this item tonight. Let's bring it back as a full agenda item some day and discuss it in detail. That's not what we're supposed to be doing tonight. We're supposed to be at this point you're finished. He's next. MS. VALERA: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller, then Mr. Fort. MR. KELLER: George Keller. I'm the official representative of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association to this county board. We had a meeting one month ago at the Golden Gate Estates Association, and it was not called on the particular subject of this particular request. Forty-three people attended. Thirty-eight people said they didn't want any more commercial in the estates, no activity centers, no regional centers, or any other kind of centers. And also they -- they objected to the fact that right in here you've got a provision that you can have regional centers after the year 2000, and we don't want that in there either. Because we figure that, basically speaking, when the need arises, you can adjust this plan anytime you want, and when the need arises you can go and bring it up to a public discussion and get the feeling from the public and decide whether we need commercial in the estates. The estates is only roughly about 10 square miles, and there will be commercial built around the estates. There already is commercial around the estates, so most of the people are not at a great hardship driving 5 miles, because most of the people have to go to major stores anyway once a week at least, and they -- they go. They use their cars. So the business of road traffic or anything else is -- is not a part of this discussion -- be a part of this discussion. I'm also suggesting that every single place in this Golden Gate plan where they mention the fact that -- on page 80 -- 58-A of your changes, there -- A-1 and B-1 and B-2, neighborhood centers are referred to, commercial districts is referred to, and shared parking is referred to. So you -- let's do this right. Let's go through the whole Golden Gate plan, and anyplace where they say that there is going to be any -- any possibility of commercial in the estates, delete those words right out so there's not any question as to whether we got it or not. There also has to be brought up the fact that you know provisional use is a -- or conditional use or special exception over the years has kept on changing its name, but nobody knows what it is anymore, I think. Let's be very, very careful about putting provisional use in the estates, because we've just recently had a problem where we did put a park in and nobody -- nobody realized that by putting the park where they put it we had a piece of property in between that wouldn't be really good for residential. But they're going to put a church and a child-care center in, which is sure not transitional to the park or to the school. It's worse. So we -- we don't want to get ours in a position basic -- basically speaking, we've got enough churches in the area right now probably. I think we've got 32 churches in the Golden Gate area of every denomination you can think of. So I don't think we're -- we're really struggling for them, and basically I think that until -- until the estates gets developed, it's about 25 percent developed now. It's got 75 percent more to be developed. I've been there in the estates myself living there for 18 years, and it hasn't developed all that great. It's -- it's developing, but only 25 percent in 18 years, because I was one of the first -- one of the early residents, third house on my street. So basically speaking, let's -- let's cut everything out, and let's go back to the original program we had when we set it up in about seventeen -- 1978 where we -- we said that you had to have two and a half acres. We grandfathered in the one and a quarter acres by calling it -- by calling it legal -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nonconforming. MR. KELLER: -- nonconforming, which I don't know what the hell that means, and I don't think anybody else does, because it's either nonconforming or legal. But the point is this, those people who bought property, one and a half acres, they've been protected. Let's keep it two and a half acres. Let's keep it residential. And I would make a suggestion, if you're going to make any changes, if there's anything in there yet that says you can have a guest house, forget it. Host of the guest houses that are there are being rented, which is supposedly illegal according to the county code. So maybe -- maybe it would be smart to get rid of the guest houses to keep the density down. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fort, then Ms. Gundeck. MR. FORT: Cliff Fort, Broken Wing Ranches. We're still awake, and there's a bunch of south Golden Gate people out here. Some of them are senior citizens, and they've driven 140 miles to come and talk to you all tonight and tell you what's going on. I think you all know because I've sent you so many letters. You know what's going on out there. And I really want to thank you, first of all, for helping us out there in the boon. You all did a good job. We've been flooding out there, and you've tried to get the people out there, and they've made a commitment to us. I talked to John Boldt. They're going to try and get out there and help us. You know, I beat up on staff a little bit. And you know what happens is when you're frustrated and you're trapped out there, you look at things -- the first thing affects you. And staff is what we see affecting us. And I talked to Barbara tonight. You know, these people are stuck with a revised settlement agreement that DCA rammed down their throat. I'm being very straightforward with you here. I sat there and I looked at the elements. You all have one right here in front of you that the DEP uses to value our land. Do you know that the DCA in that revised settlement agreement took away every element of value by definition of the DEP right here? First of all, here's what Hiss Gail Brett tells everyone. By the way, every time I get a buyer, they go by this map. Staff has to hand them this. This is the DEP propaganda sheet, okay. Now, they call this the willing-seller program. We call it the unwilling-victim program. And I'll quote Ross Perot there. If DEP thinks we're getting a fair deal out there, then they believe in the tooth fairy. We're getting a real raw deal out there. Right here where they establish value, they say the availability of water, sewer, and electricity. Revised settlement agreement takes that away. I'm still six years -- and now Army Corps jumped on me for 20 square feet of impact on those poles I'm running out to Broken Wing Ranch. I've been kicked all the way to Jacksonville, and I could sit up there for another two years. Took me six years dealing with the county to get this far, okay. Next thing, whether access roads are paved or unpaved. Well, we've been talking about that all night, element of value. Here are these guys telling anybody that tries to develop their land or anybody that's going to buy my land, they're chumps for doing it, because they got the DCA to come in and put the whammy on the property out there, and they've driven the value away. How about this one, the distance to shopping centers, schools, hospitals, and fire stations. Well, guess what; revised settlement agreement took away our infrastructure. Oh, here's a good one, the prices paid for properties in the Golden Gate Estates. The appraisers out there, Cliff Bowen (phonetic) and the other guy I talked to, their property sold for three to five thousand an acre. And every one of those buyers thought they got a good deal until they woke up one morning and all the land use was taken away because of Lawton jumped all over it. He appointed Linda Lou Michelli (phonetic), Virginia Weatheral (phonetic) -- Linda Lou Michelli with DCA came down here. Those guys leaned all over you. So we have no value there, and we're dying. I can't last another couple years. Some of these people are going to be dead before anything happens. Now, Valetie Boyd had the nerve to tell the governor get off your keister and condemn it, and that's her Godfather. Well, how about you guys saying, look, if you don't condemn that land, we're going to restore it full land use. Why should southern Golden Gate be on the south side of the Mason-Dixon line? We ain't evil people. And when we bought that land, we were right on Alligator Alley, and we were downtown in 20 minutes. So that was a better business decision. Bill says a swamp. Well, poor John Boldt don't have a budget to go out there and spend a night to make it swamp. We used to drain better, but all the swales are plugged. All the culverts are plugged, and the water don't move because it can't get to those evacuation routes for that water. I think you all know it. How do you all make a decision here to save us? We can't last another couple years. Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Ms. Gundeck and then Ms. Taylor. MS. GUNDECK: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, that's very cute. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know what we were talking about the last time we were here at midnight, APAC. MS. GUNDECK: Oh, really. Golden Gate haunts you in the evening or early morning hours. My name is Regina Gundeck. I live in south -- north of Alligator Alley, easternmost estates, south of Golden Gate Boulevard. I'm here speaking opposing the neighborhood activity centers. Several commissioners were on the board back in '93 when these were taken out. They heard all the concerns -- which is still the consensus of the residents in the area that I have spoken with just in the last couple of days, since I didn't know about this meeting until yesterday afternoon, has still -- have that opinion that they do not want the activity centers. They have a lot of concern about the provisional use, as Mr. Keller has stated. We agree with him. We'd like those taken out. Protect our community for residential development only. In the year 2000, as some have referred to that date as a necessity, let it be reviewed again Let the people come to you. Let them say if they want that commercial. I -- I would like to caution you with something that has been mentioned already this evening about the property rights law. I think that there is a possibility of a -- of -- of standing for someone if you do designate that as a possible future site, and it's not used, I think that they may have standing and come back to haunt you with some type of lawsuit if in the event later on it's not used. So I caution you even in, you know, next year, the year after and the year after, be very cautious about when you decide, if ever, which I hope not, to put commercial in there. As Mrs. Matthews said, there is plenty of commercial outside of the estates. There is 20 acres that is not used already at Orange Tree. I talked to Mr. Lowitz (phonetic) of Orange Tree Development this morning, and they are going ahead with their golf course there. But the commercial is still, as he indicated, down the road quite a piece because the necessity is not there. And in all defense, I know that the advisory council and the Planning Commission worked hard on this but that I think there is a difference in definition of needs versus desires. That comes up quite often. What the residents feel is a need does not necessarily have the same definition as the Planning Commission defines a need. Simply residential development, in our opinion, does not justify the need or a need for commercial development. We -- we travel outside of the estates every day. Ninety-nine percent of the people work out there. We get our things before we come home. And if we don't get them or forget them, we either call the neighbor or you don't need it that bad, one or the other. So there is not a lot of traveling. I think in Mr. Hancock's comment about the traffic congestion and stuff, actually I think a store would make more of a congestion at that -- at whatever intersection it may be at, because now traffic is simply flowing through those rather than stopping at those intersections. It would create a wildlife problem. You heard this previously of lots of bear sightings and stuff in that area. Garbage would be just like a field day for them. They would think that would be great. We have enough trash that is picked up. I think there was 130 bags not too long ago. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Something like that. MS. GUNDECK: Please help us to keep our neighborhood pristine and unique like it is now and deny the reinstatement of the activity centers. I thank you for your time. I hope I've covered everything. If not, you'll be hearing from us. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Taylor and then Ms. McDonald. MS. TAYLOR: I'm Diane Taylor. I live on Golden Gate Boulevard between Everglades Boulevard and Desoto Boulevard, and I thank you so much. When we're ready, we'll let you know. And I wish you would please tell Planning Commission to let us be. Not one of them lives out there. They don't know anything about our lives out there. And we don't want someone telling us what we need, when we need it. We're tired of this. We're constantly waiting for something to drop on us, and we would just like to live in peace for a while. So please leave us alone, and let us live peacefully out there, okay. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. McDonald and then Mr. Barbusca. MS. MCDONALD: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for listening and staying so late. My name is Tina McDonald of Collier Cattle Corporation. Presently my husband and I own 225 acres. Originally we bought two and a half sections of land in this area. Our family put up fencing, raised cattle on eight sections of leased land in this area years ago. We lost our lease because the Collier people wanted to sell the property. So we sold our cattle, and we picked out the two and a half sections of the highest elevated land in this area. We know it like the back of our hand. It's not a swamp. Cows can't eat grass underwater. Pine trees cannot grow in water. We have beautiful land, and we want to keep it that way, but we need your help. We're asking for your help. We're pleading for it. We've been hurt tremendously in our land sales because of what has come out of the state department and also Collier County. We've been hurt very badly. One woman came and spent a half a day, and she was told that land is going to be flooded. How are you going to get out of there when a fire occurs? If you have an emergency, how and where are you going to go? Where are you going to get your water? Numerous things to discourage our buyers from purchasing this land. It's not only unfair to the buyers that want to buy, that want a little piece of land to live out in the country in peace. Why is this being done to us? Can you tell us? Is there anybody there on the panel that can tell us why this is being done? Is it fair to us as -- as taxpayers and landowners? We pay tax like everybody else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I need to be honest and tell you -- I'm up here, ma'am, up here. The speakers are very confusing. MS. MCDONALD: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't oppose the rehydration, the flooding. I don't think that it's the wrong thing to do. What's wrong here is how the state has dragged out the acquisition to a point where people have lost their property values. It may be that the '- MS. MCDONALD: And that has happened, and that has happened. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's the delay that's wrong. MS. MCDONALD: What can we do to help this delay? What can we do to move it on? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Probably '- MS. MCDONALD: What can we do to keep our property values where they should be? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Probably the best thing that you could do is let us vote on it. (Applause) MS. MCDONALD: Would you please? We would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can't until we're through with the public speakers, if you get my drift. MS. MCDONALD: We would appreciate it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Boy, that was subtle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't call him Mr. Smooth for nothing. MS. MCDONALD: But anyway, as a senior citizen I can't see in my future where we will get fair compensation or reasonable land use restored. I feel sure that your commissioners are going to help us. In God we trust, our seal of the State of Florida. I trust you to make the right decision for us, the people. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. MCDONALD: Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Barbusca, then Mr. Dellecave. MS. CACCHIONE: Commissioners, my name is Tom Barbusca, and I'm president of Tropical Ranch Properties located in Section 13 south of 1-75. I've been looking at these three pages all night, and everybody else has said everything on here. So about the only thing I can say is I don't have that many pieces -- parcels left to sell, but the people who have bought and the ones who are living on there, they really need a friend. And when my daughter was very small, she had a favorite toy. She used to pull it, and it used to say, will you be my friend. And that's what I'm asking you now for those people, will you be their friend, because the state has really driven down their prices to where it's useless for them to own the land unless something happens. So I hope you will be their friend. I think it's late enough, and that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dellecave and Mr. Hoover. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many more speakers do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Three more. MR. DELLECAVE: Good morning. My name is Frank Dellecave. I'm going on a 27-year residence and business. I sent you a letter, because I'm a better letter writer than a speaker. I hope you took the two minutes to look it over and the map. And, by the way, Monday on a credit guide which we use to put the houses in, there was 20 more houses, notice of commencement in Golden Gate Estates. The growth is unbelievable. And if you don't work like I do, you don't feel it. It's fantastic, the growth out there. And I was on the committee in '91. I think it was the first advisory committee for the estates. I felt very happy that the planners, the two planners, are no longer with us. And our committee worked a couple years. Even Keller was on it. I kicked him under the table a few times, but the -- I thought we were really making progress, and then the -- at that time -- my secretary keeps track of these houses -- there was 4,862 homes. In March llth of 1996, there's 6,377 homes. That's quite a growth. Traffic on Golden Gate Boulevard has increased 52 percent from 1991 to 1995. George Archibald's going to go crazy, as I mention in my letter. It's just -- one of these days it will be worse than 41. Now, 89 percent of the people in the study area of three, you talk about I felt that we did a job in '91 when we put in our activity centers, our commercial centers. There's no place -- we've had some people here that want the birds and the bees. I like the birds and the bees. But I don't think anywhere on earth you'll find a hundred square miles of land all residential. Of course, we've got one gas station and a convenience store and General G smiling on the way to the bank every day. And I don't think that's right. I think America is the land of competition. You show in your program -- and I thought we would continue after the '91 -- '92 was the master plan was approved. And here in '95 with a tremendous growth we put a -- the screws on those commercial activity centers for -- for the year 2000. I think we should start tomorrow or yesterday because there are people. And I get the feeling. You don't have the feeling. I'm with the public all the time. I drive Golden Gate Estates two or three times a week selling the property. And if you're not there, you don't get that feeling. It's growing faster than I ever believed it would grow. You've got a 20-acre commercial zone in Orange Tree. If you notice on my map, the slowest growth is north of Randall. And I kind of beg -- I'm not -- I don't have actual proof, but in the real estate business you have consensus that Orange Tree is not growing as fast as they thought it would grow. The poorest -- the worst -- slowest sections is that area around Orange Tree. In fact, if you people would like to invest, I have a piece of property a person listed with me, an acre and a quarter, for $5,000, and it's been on the market for a year, and I haven't sold it, because there is no electricity -- very little electricity up there. The roads are not paved, et cetera. The biggest growth is south of Randall to the Golden Gate Boulevard. And in that area we have roughly 10,000 people with a 40,000 buildout in that general area that will all go to General G's store to buy their quart of milk or a can -- six-pack of beer. And I feel -- as I say, the 20 acres of the four-, five-acre section on Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard should be put back into commercial as of yesterday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DELLECAVE: Amen. And one other thing I'd like to say. It gripes me when I hear -- and some of these people, unless they're atheists, say there's too many churches in Golden Gate. If you believe in the Lord and you're going to meet him some day, I'd hate to say, Lord, I refuse you a church. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hoover. MR. DELLECAVE: I'm serious. MR. KELLER: I'm going to heaven. Don't worry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You boys duke it out in the hall. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover, Hoover Planning. I looked at the numbers that Mr. Dellecave's office has been tracking for since about 1987, and they originally got them from the property appraiser's office and updated them weekly. And I found something very significantly different from what he has as far as the number of units out there compared to what staff has in their EAR report. And what I -- I looked at the methodology staff used. They used the 1990 census data. And if you recall a couple years back or so, there was a lot of reports about underreporting in rural areas, and I -- I think what we got is some of that here. The -- if you look at some of the things I have there like table GG-15, I created a new heading with numbers underneath it labeled r-e-v for revised. Yesterday Mr. Dellecave talked to the property appraiser's office, and they have it on computer now. If you call for a section or a unit out in Golden Gate Estates, they can tell you how many homes are in the whole square mile. And what -- what the results show were that Mr. Dellecave's numbers were about 1.9 percent higher. But if you consider his tracking method, that shows that they're very accurate, because he's marking down his numbers when the building permit's pulled off the county records. But the property appraiser, the way I understand it, does not actually log that in until the certificate of occupancy is done. So that's where we're coming up with about 2 percent. Staff took the property appraiser -- excuse me -- the census numbers from 1990, increased those 4.2 percent for their 1995 projections. What this results in in study area two, which is the area closest to 951 there on the east side, they're missing 42 percent of the homes. Area three, 45 percent; in area four, 67 percent. Now, I've got a master's degree in planning and also done a thesis. And stuff like that will get you about an F. Now, staff -- it's not staff's problem, because generally the census data is considered a very reliable source. You take it like the gospel. In this case we've got reliable data down at the property appraiser, and I think that report needs to be redone. The -- and as we go to the year 2000, the projections become further apart. It makes me consider -- when you look at the commercial acreage that's needed, it's -- they're totally different because of this. And the Planning Commission was recommending the -- some of these neighborhood centers become active in the year 2000, and that's based on data that's reflecting only about 50 percent of the homes out there. And I think something that probably supports our claim the best is Golden Gate Boulevard. The traffic's increasing 11.2 percent a year since 1991. They didn't take counts in 1990. So in four years it's going at 11.2 percent. And if staff's report's right or the census data is correct, it's saying 4.2 percent. Well, now why are people driving almost three times as much? I've done enough traffic studies to tell you that something doesn't add up there. We're saying that the growth has increased 9.5 percent, and I got this based on looking at 1991 records for Hr. Dellecave and projecting a growth rate from that. As a professional land planner, I would suggest that we take the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard and activate this neighborhood center, because it's centrally located within the corridor, and it's almost all the growth in -- in this area is -- there's virtually no growth in 3-N. Eleven percent of the people in section 3 live north of Randall. So if you look on the second page of that handout, you can see -- you can see that almost all the growth and the people living there is within about 2 miles of Golden Gate Boulevard on one side or the other. So I think as a planner we're either going to have to create a community focal point -- we already have a commercial start at that center there. So if we only put one in, that's the logical place. It's not at Orange Tree where there's virtually no population within three miles around there. If we don't do that, we're going to end up having to six lane Golden Gate Boulevard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've used up all of your time now. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Cacchione, I'm going to let Mr. Perkins answer first, but if you'll be prepared at the end of the public speakers to respond, because I'm not sure all of that was accurate as to what staff had based their numbers on. MR. PERKINS: Hey, I'm tired, guys. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So are we. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we're perky up here. MR. PERKINS: Oh, right. We're going to go dancing. Sure. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade group, citizens for constitutional property rights. Well, these people have said it all. They've covered it good. I hope you were listening. So now, if you were a sailor or a soldier like everyone out in the field, I'd really tell you what to do, how you can hear real good, but as long as you're not -- they made their points. I hope they made their points. The people are oppressed. They need some kind of relief, and common sense says that that whole area is going to open up. Now, I want to answer some of the questions that the lady asked. She says -- I don't know her name, the little short lady back there, the cattle person. MS. MCDONALD: McDonald, Tina McDonald. MR. PERKINS: She says why, why us. Well, Mrs. McDonald, I'm going to give you three answers; gas, oil, and the fact that what Virginia Weatheral said at a meeting in Tallahassee when they were grabbing off another piece of property, she said to the committee, "Can we declare it surplus?" Oh -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, you know, it's 12:30 a.m. I'd appreciate it if you can keep your comments to those items that we're considering on the EAR. If you want to answer her questions, go back to the back of the room and answer those questions. MR. PERKINS: Okay. I'm just answering her questions, because if you take it and declare it surplus, you can sell it off. I won't live to see that, but it will happen. The big thing that I want to push for is the Everglades-Miller Boulevard extension, Sabal Palm, and to save some lives. Now, one of the things that I need to bring up, and you've heard it over and over and over again, if the park goes through, if it's dedicated to a park, that means people. When you have people, you've got all the problems that go along with people. And if you've been out there on a weekend like that, they can see it. Okay? It's just that simple. And when they said they were going to flood it and they were talking about horseback riding, I had a remark. I've never ridden a horseback with scuba gear, just that simple. Anyhow, that covers it. But I think -- by the way, the county did get sued for some of the deaths out there because they took down all of the signs. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Beardsley. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the final speaker? MR. DORRILL: We've got one more after Mr. Beardsley. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good evening -- good morning. Gary Beardsley speaking for myself and also Eco-Swift. I hate to say it, I -- I have no excuse for the state and how slow their process is moving forward, but I have a real problem with people that supposedly don't have the information. Golden Gate Estates has been a problem from day one. They had a redevelopment study in the '70s. I was on a biological team that mapped the whole estates, and they were trying at the time to try to solve problems. So, you know, people that bought down there and they're still buying there coming from Hiami now, they have an unrealistic expectation of what they can do with their land. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like get to it. MR. BEARDSLEY: No, not get to it. You can get to south estates. You can get to north estates. The problem is back in the '70s -- and the commissioners at that time had a real problem, didn't want to accept it. The whole Big Cypress watershed was adopted as a state area of critical state resource. And then the federal government came in and tried to buy it. The commissioners fought it. Finally the state threw in money and the federal government threw in money, and the commissioners finally realized that maybe it was in their good interest. And the City of Naples said we get our water out there, let's protect it. They declared it a Big Cypress area state critical concern state, some portions of it. They also said in that language when they declared it that they would like to add to, because their ecological, hydrological connections that need to be added to. You're talking about the south blocks as one of those ecological connections. That's the criticism of the coastal and conservation element doesn't use the GAAP's map. It doesn't use about seven different documents that definitely say that south estates and also north estates and also the Belle Heade are unique in the State of Florida. Now, I blame the commissioners -- not you folks. I blame the past commissioners for not getting the information out. And I tell you, there's legal battles. You remember Don Segreto's (phonetic) name. I mean, this settlement agreement was not something forced down by DCA. The county sat down and negotiated with DCA because Don Segreto and his lawsuit got thrown out on a technicality was looking at the whole estates, and there's a lot bigger issue there. I really caution you not to throw out the settlement agreement. I mean, it's all right to come back to them and say we'd like to do something because you're not buying it up. I agree with that. But let me tell you you're going to open a can of worms that's going to be a bigger can of worms than the one you got now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: I believe Mr. Townsend is left -- has left, so Mr. Doerr will be your final speaker. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Isn't the idea is to force the issue, to force the state to do something? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The term I'm thinking of I won't use. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHIEF DOERR: Chief Doerr for Ochopee Fire Control. I just want to bring out a few points. I talked to you a few -- a while ago about. Monday we had fires with high winds, and we had one hell of a time getting in and out. When we called for mutual aid from Marco, Isles of Capri, East Naples, most of the time Miller extension is the only way to get in. There's got to be some way, legal or illegally -- I don't care -- that we can get this road filled. You know, a few of the holes I think were accidentally filled, but it's hard on the trucks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean like with cars? MR. DOERR: Right. The big hole that you saw has disappeared, but there's -- there's just some bad holes in there. And East Naples will not take their tanker in at 4,000 gallons because they're going to break their wells. Well, I want all the commissioners to know we go in. So unless I'm told different, we take our trucks in that way. We go Scenic Drive, but sometimes Miller extension is a quicker way to get in. There's got to be some way or somehow we can do it. But with the fires that day, different agents were complaining. I said don't complain to me, just write letters, that's what it's going to take, try to get something done with the road. Also, I was sitting back there thinking, it's kind of unique that in Big Cypress National Preserve, which I lived there way before they were even thought about, none of the roads was ever depressed, county or private -- like Miller extension, we'll say, is private. Nothing was never cut back off on all the years until this day, Burns Road that I'm on, I think I got with Neil and he was over me at that time as division. We dropped off the end of Burns Road, the last little end of it. I suggested to the road and bridge crew that nobody lived on the end, so they just quit grading the far end of Burns Road. But outside of that, Loop Road is still kept up very well. It is very unique that here Miller extension -- everything in the world is done to keep the county from getting it dedicated or anything. I mean, and here in Big Cypress all the roads are just like they were before Big Cypress and never been depressed by -- now, we're talking about federal there; we're talking about state on this other situation. But, I mean, that's something to think about. Now, why is it happening with Miller extension? I know it's not county dedicated right-of-way, which it can be, but look at all the depressing by the state or something. So anyhow I just wanted to suggest that. I know Miller extension is getting to be an old name around here, but maybe we should rename it and start over again, I don't know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it? Okay, let's go through these one at a time then and give our recommendations. First one -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neighborhood centers, nay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Neighborhood centers, we have -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's three. That's four. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One point -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1.2.5 is next. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It would be nice, but no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1.2.6. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 1.3.2. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we got to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion that we eliminate policy 2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to totally eliminate policy 2 and all the objectives there. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we get a report on that before we take action on them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm in favor of it, but I want to know what the ramifications are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we got three. I'm a firm vote. MS. CACCHIONE: That would be goal two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. I'm sorry. Goal two. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll join. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The ship's going down. You might as well be on it. (Applause) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem eliminating goal two, because I think the state's way out of line but, you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can amend our comp. plan, and that's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just saying that we have a whole 'nother segment of the population as well that we need to look after as well. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's wrap this up then. We'll go back to the start, and I need a motion to adopt those elements that we have already agreed upon being aviation housing, recreation and open-space element, intergovernmental coordination element, capital improvement element, sanitary sewer subelement, and potable water. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve those in accordance with all our straw votes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute, gentlemen. We set aside -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We didn't get to that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for -- Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Solid waste and natural groundwater, you also -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. MR. LITSINGER: Solid waste and natural groundwater. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have not gotten to those yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, not in this motion. We're going to take a couple of motions here to get all this done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm just trying to go in order so that we don't get lost and miss one for the record. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? There are none. Those are -- those are adopted. The drainage subelement we had some questions to bring back; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we will not adopt that one tonight. Okay. Solid waste subelement we -- we can adopt. We need a motion for solid waste, natural groundwater aquifer recharge. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve that pursuant to our agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Traffic circulation element, mass transit element. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion will include all of those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My second will. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the Golden Gate area master plan as we've agreed to. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As we've adjusted it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second for all of those. All of those in favor, signify by saying aye. And those opposed? There's none. So we will bring back at a future meeting -- perhaps April the 2nd we will bring back the future land use element, the Immokalee area master plan, and our drainage -- MR. WEIGEL: You'll need to be specific, or you'll have to readvertise. MS. CACCHIONE: And the conservation, those portions of the conservation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the conservation, only those -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only those -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- items that we didn't finish tonight, though. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, do we have to give a time certain on that? MR. WEIGEL: If you -- if you're going to the April 2nd regular meeting, to be a part of that meeting, become a part of the public hearing element section of that meeting, so I need to know. MR. DORRILL: The deadline for the April -- the second meeting is just six working days from now, and we will endeavor to do that, the 2nd being the shorter of the two. But if it appears that the staff has not had time to do the work in the interim, then we may want to go to the 9th immediately following the regular board agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Grab that gavel. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Having no further business, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:42 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine Whitfield and Barbara A. Donovan