BCC Minutes 03/19/1999 W (Density Reduction; Clustering; Environmental; Transportation; CP Amendments) March 19, 1999
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 19, 1999
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of
Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special
districts as have been created according to law and having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
James D. Carter
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Workshop on Density Reduction, Cjustering Natural
Resource & Agricultural Preservation Policies, and the
Proposed Remedial Amendments in Response to the State
of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
Finding of Noncompliance.
M~ch 19, 1999
9:00 A.M.
, AGENDA
I. Opening Statements by Staff and Introduction of Consultants
II.Density Reduction PrOposal
A. Brian Blaesser, Esq. - Robinson and Cole
B. Dr. James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. - University of Florida
III.Transportation Analysis - URS Greiner
IV. Cjustering and Conservation Standards
V. Public Comment
VI.Stipulated Settlement Agreement
A. Staff Presentation
B. DCA Comments
VII. Public Comment
VIII. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process A. Staff Presentation
B. County Attomey Comments
IX. Public Comment
X. BCC Discussion
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order the workshop of the
Board of County Commissioners. And let's see, let's -- it's not an
official meeting so we don't have a prayer to open with, but it would
be appropriate to stand for the pledge of allegiance and then we'll
begin our meeting.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe we should pray.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was going to say. I personally have
prayed. I hope a lot of you are praying, too.
We'll start out today with the opening statements by our staff
and the introduction of consultants and Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning
Services Director. Morning.
Today, we will present to the board and to the public in
attendance and watching on television the staff recommendations,
along with the consultants' recommendations relative to the density
and cjustering initiatives, as well as the recommended settlement
agreement with DCA on various noncompliance issues.
Just as a little bit of retrospective, staff has been working on
the density reduction and cjustering proposals in earnest, anyway,
since October of 1997, although there were previous discussions
before that by the board.
We have been negotiating with the Department of Community
Affairs since notice of the noncompliance was received on Christmas
Eve in 1997. In addition to our meetings with the DCA, we also
entered into formal mediation and we traveled to Tallahassee on a
couple of occasions for full-day meetings with the department, and
they traveled to Collier County on several occasions.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposals that we'll be
presenting to you today, coupled with the consultants'
recommendations, will fully address the board's policy initiatives
and will result in a beneficial impact on the transportation network,
enhanced protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat, improved
stormwater management and opportunities for retrofitting to improve
stormwater management, and a clearer vision of future development in
the areas referred to as the rural fringe and the true rural area.
Staff has worked very hard on these proposals. In particular,
I'd like to just direct the efforts of Barb Cacchione and Bill
Lorenz.
At this point, I'd like to ask Vince Cautero to come up and
introduce the consultants who will make their report. Thank you.
Page 2
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Bob.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Good morning,
Commissioners.
Our two consultants that the board had hired several couple of
months ago, Brian Blaesser and Dr. James Nicholas, have -- briefly,
I'll give you a little bit of their background for the record. Mr.
Blaesser heads the land use and development group in the Boston
office of Robinson and Cole, where he practices in the areas of
commercial real estate development and leasing and multi-family
residential development. He has extensive experience in state and
federal trial and appellate courts in real estate and land use
litigation. And one of his most recent books is Discretionary Land
Use Controls Avoiding Invitations to Abuse of Discretion. Mr.
Blaesser holds a JAD degree from Boston College.
Dr. James Nicholas is a professor of urban regional planning and
an affiliate professor of law at the University of Florida, a
position he's held since 1985. Prior to assuming that position, he
was with Florida Atlantic University as professor of economics, and
acting director for joint center for environmental urban problems.
Dr. Nicholas is an expert in impact fees and has written several
books and publications along those lines, and represented both local
governments in the State of Florida and the private sector.
I'd like to introduce Mr. Blaesser now, and he and Dr. Nicholas
will present their report to you on density reduction. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. BLAESSER: Good morning, members of the Commission. Very
glad to be here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Welcome back.
MR. BLAESSER: Thank you very much.
I apologize, I had to be out in the hallway a minute ago, but I
assume some information was given as to what we were doing with the
material that was submitted to you awhile back.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just the most basic introduction.
MR. BLAESSER: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you should start at the beginning.
MR. BLAESSER: The purpose of our study was to do an economic
analysis and a legal defensibility analysis of the Board of County
Commissioners' proposed density.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Excuse me, I had to ask John if it was just
my cold or if it's hard to hear. John said it's not just my cold.
MR. BLAESSER: Can you hear me now?
Page 3
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A little bit.
Check on the system, Sue?
MR. BLAESSER: Is this a silent mick or -- you know what I mean.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll check on it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It appears to be today.
MR. BLAESSER: Can you hear better now?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not much, but they'll work on it. Go
ahead, please.
MR. BLAESSER: They'll work on it, okay.
In any case, the purpose of the study was to do an economic
analysis and a legal analysis or a legal defensibility analysis of
the amendments that were proposed by the Board of County
Commissioners in June of last year. By economic, that meant looking
at the land values, the impact on land values, looking at the fiscal
impact, as well as looking at the housing costs. On the legal side,
it meant looking really principally at the Burt Harris case, Burt
Harris Act, the Property Rights Protection Act under the state law,
and the implications of the proposed density reduction amendments for
that.
Let me quickly outline just what that Act says so we have that
as a framework, because that really was the impetus for much of this,
to make sure that what the county proposed could be understood in
terms of its potential consequences.
The purpose of the Act is to protect private property owners
from laws, regulations and ordinances that inordinately burden us, an
important phrase, private property rights, without amounting to a
takings under the constitution, either of Florida or of the state of
the United States.
The Act provides for relief, including compensation when a
specific action of the governmental entity has inordinately burdened
an existing use or a vested right to a specific use of real property.
Now, the definition of existing use is very important here. It
means that it's either an actual present use or activity, or ~- and
this is the critical one -- a reasonably foreseeable non-speculative
land use which is suitable for the property and which creates a fair
market value greater than the actual specific use at the moment.
And the term "inordinate burden" is defined also, and it means
specific governmental action that has permanently prevented the
property owner from obtaining the reasonable investment expectation -
- investment back expectations for the existing use. Again, keeping
in mind what we mean by existing use, or a vested rights use. Or it
Page 4
March 19, 1999
could be a situation where it leaves the property owner with a use or
a vested right that is simply unreasonable and, therefore, also
forces that property owner to basically carry the burden that the
public or the society at large should be carrying.
When we spoke about the Board of County Commissioners' proposed
density reductions, we also looked, of course, at what your
objectives were. And as we looked at the minutes and the debate over
those proposed amendments, the salient objective here was really to
reduce traffic impact, reduce the need for flyovers. And, clearly,
one of the main objectives in the discussion was how can we encourage
or incentivize (sic) development to design itself in a way that does
not have the impact on traffic. Those are the objectives as
described.
And then the proposed amendments, we're trying to address that.
I'm going to focus primarily on the key elements of it, rather than -
- of the amendments that are proposed by the board rather than go
through all of the details, which we can get to at a later point.
Specifically, what the board was proposing in the urban area,
the urban designation area, was to amend the density reduction rating
system so that it goes from 4 to 3 in the ag. properties that were
200 acres or greater, allowing someone to get back up to that fourth
unit through traditional neighborhood design; the design idea of how
you design/development to encourage a certain compactness.
The second was to reduce the density band around the activity
centers from 3 to 2, and also, reduce the density bonuses for
residential infill from 3 to 2. That's all in the urban area.
In the rural area, they wanted to go in the policy proposal from
1 to 5 acres in density to 1 to 20. That in a nutshell is what
really would be the essence of the board's proposal.
I'm going to put up Table 2 here from our report. And when we
look at the impact of the proposed amendments as proposed by the
Board of County Commissioners, and with the economic analysis done by
Dr. Nicholas, who will amplify on this after I've gone through my
portion here, the impact really is approximately $7,500 per acre in
terms of the impact on land value.
The -- when we look at what the board proposed as a way in which
you could get back that additional unit, the -- basically the
traditional neighborhood design, and we look at also the 200-acre
threshold, it was our judgment that it is probably, given the market
here and given the untested aspect of TND, although it's got a lot of
Page 5
March 19, 1999
merit to it, is not the way in which you really should be tying your
policies to allowing someone to get back to density.
One of the -- one of the aspects of the Burt Harris Act is that
they require that the government, when a claim is made within 180-day
period, really make a settlement offer to try to resolve the matter.
And that can be a settlement offer that increases the density, based
on the claim that's presented, that transfers density, also purchases
the property. There are a number of things that can be done.
And so one of the concerns that we had as we looked at these
proposed policies and the reduction amendments was to say, well,
would really have the effect that is intended under the proposed
amendment. And we determined, based on land sale values and looking
at actual parcel sizes, that the 200-acre threshold, there really are
not that many parcels out there, so the impact would be relatively
limited.
Traditional neighborhood design, while desirable, would be far
better off in terms of performance standards rather than the very
highly design oriented TND that you have -- at least was being
discussed. The actual impact of the number of dwelling units
actually reduced in terms of population reduction was only 1,706. So
the impact was really not that great.
And when we look at trying to fulfill your objectives, while
also giving you a defensible position under the Burt Harris Act, one
of the watchwords here is that you really have to make sure that you
can give back -- let someone get back to their density by some
reasonable means consistent with the Burt Harris Act, whether it be
transferred density or increase in density. And the only way to
encourage that to happen is to set the density lower than, in fact,
the average density is in the county in the urban land market.
Again, with the analysis that Dr. Nicholas did, we found that
average density to be really at three units to the acre. So the
incentive to go back to four is not that great. The incentive to go
from 2 to 3 is there. And that creates in turn the incentive for
someone to seek to do what you would like for them to do in the
market, which is either to do performance standards, which we've been
recommending in terms of addressing the way a development is
designed, or requesting that they, to gain that additional unit of
density, get up to four, for example, to purchase a conservation
easement so that that quiets acreage in agriculture or conservation
areas.
Page 6
March 19, 1999
So in order to mitigate a claim under the potential Burt Harris
Act, you want to make sure that you have the ability to provide that
density regaining situation, and also get the kind of result in terms
of policy that you want.
The key is a planning policy that has some flexibility and also
allows someone to realize the results under the market.
If we look at the results then of our recommended amendments,
I'm going to show Table 6, what we recommend then is that you lower
your acreage threshold to 50 acres, and there's a map in the report
that indicates there are a considerable number of parcels that are 50
acres or greater, and go down to 2. And that results in the acreage
and -- combination of acreage and the limitation of going back from 2
to 4 to 6,894 units. So you're gaining much more of a density
reduction that you've been looking for.
So that what we tried to present here in our report is how can
you accomplish your policy objectives, at the same time do it in a
way that is defensible under the Burt Harris Act? And we believe
these recommendations do accomplish that.
If we were to summarize what our recommendations are, I'm going
to do this very quickly. In the report, again, there is a chart that
lays out our proposed adjustments to your original policy, density
reduction amendments. But essentially on the urban areas, instead of
going from 4 to 3, we recommend that you go from 4 to 2 at the 50-
acre and above threshold, allow someone to get back to the third unit
by performance standards.
In other words, these standards are listed in the study, but
they're geared to making sure that there's interconnection of roads,
that there's consideration about how a development is designed. But
it's not the dwanee (phonetic) neo-traditional concept. That's too
restrictive. We don't think that necessarily is a proven solution in
the market. But you can accomplish much of what that is intended to
do by having performance standards and letting the market decide how
to meet those performance standards.
Getting 3 to 4 would be done through the use of a voluntary
system. It's not a formal TDR program, it's simply the ability of a
property owner to purchase a conservation easement in which would
retire acreage in the agriculture or resource protection area or
conservation area in exchange for getting additional density, that
additional unit of density.
This accomplishes your objectives. The incentive, we believe,
is there, at least to go from 2 to 3 and in some cases from 3 to 4.
Page 7
March 19, 1999
Density band. The question was to -- whether to reduce it from
3 to 2. We agreed with that. But again, getting from 2 to 3 should
be possible through one of two ways, either the performance standards
or, again, the acquisition of a conservation easement.
In the activity centers, we agreed with the proposal to go from
16 to 12. We don't really think that there'll be much impact there,
given the limited amount of residential density in that area.
On the roadway access bonus, we again argued and suggested that
you do not take away that bonus. The way it's being proposed in your
policy, which we think makes sense, is to actually give that bonus if
you provide a collector between the two arterials.
Affordable housing. We did not agree with the idea of reducing
the bonus from 8 to 5 or 6 units, but rather indicated that we
thought you ought to keep the bonus where it is.
Residential infill. Don't reduce the existing bonus at all,
keep it at 3.
In the rural areas, the proposal is in the conservation area to
go from 1 to 5 to 1 to 20. We thought you could, given the land
values there -- again, I'll let Dr. Nicholas explain more of that --
go to 1 to 40.
In the Camp Keais Strand and the special areas, it was proposed
going 1 to 5 to 1 to 20. We suggest again you can go to 1 to 40.
We'd retain in your proposal the 1 to 5 acres within the one
mile of a major road corridor. We suggest you do not do that. This
is -- for two reasons. One, it encourages sprawl, and two, we really
don't see the market there for the 1 to 5.
West of Golden Gate you want to retain the density of 1 to 5.
We agree with that.
And lastly, on the question of establishing an Immokalee TDR
receiving area, it makes sense to do that, perhaps if we modify the
boundaries. But as is currently defined you wouldn't have a
receiving area that would work for a TDR program.
That in sum is what we concluded. I'd like Dr. Nicholas now to
go a little bit more into the numbers, speak about fiscal impact, and
also about the housing cost.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any board members have questions?
I have one, just to ask for -- just to restate, be sure I
understand as simple language as possible, because it seems a little
illogical on first blush, and that is, it's your recommendation to us
that a reduction of density from 4 to 3 units poses a greater private
Page 8
March 19, 1999
property rights compensation threat than a reduction from 4 to 2,
that 4 to 2 is less of a potential litigation problem.
As I understand it, the reason for that is because the market in
this county, there's not a market for the fourth unit that's readily
available, so that there wouldn't be a great desire to go back to 4.
And that that would, therefore, eliminate the requirement of Burt
Harris Act that there be a way to return to your original densities.
MR. BLAESSER: Well, you've got --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Try to say that better than I did, please.
MR. BLAESSER: You've got it partly right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. BLAESSER: What we did was examine the policy as proposed in
its own start terms is where we saw the risk under the Burt Harris
Act.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The 4 to 3.
MR. BLAESSER: 4 to 3. But only allowed someone to get that by
doing what has been, at least based on the minutes and we understood
was the objective, much more of the neo-traditional neighborhood
design kind of a concept for development.
By saying that is the only way you can get back that additional
density, in our view, that created far more of a risk than going down
to 2; whereas, you said the market has got incentive to go back up to
3, but let them get that density through one of two ways: The
performance standards geared toward a design of a development that
would accomplish part of what your -- a lot of what you're saying in
terms of neighborhood design, but geared around more generic
standards that allow the market to decide how to meet those
standards; or the conservation easement.
So without those ways to get back up and ways that we think are
far more legitimate, particularly under the Burt Harris Act which
defines these as ways in which you can mitigate, without those, then
you're vulnerable.
With them, going from 4 to 2, but providing the way to get back
to 3 and then to 4, this fits very well with what the Burt Harris Act
provides.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we went from 4 to 3 with both of those
ways to get back to 4, we would still be at risk of a Burt Harris
claim because?
MR. BLAESSER: No, then you're fine. But you won't accomplish
much, because the market isn't going to go to 4. It's going to --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I thought that --
Page 9
March 19, 1999
MR. BLAESSER: -- probably stay at 3.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- meant -- I thought Burt Harris required
us to accomplish something, is that was part of its test, too, is
that there had to be a public policy reason for the reduction.
MR. BLAESSER: Well, yes, that's a very good point. You need to
have legitimate objectives. And if your policies and your proposed
amendments don't really accomplish that, I think it's questionable
what you're really -- you could be challenged on that basis, but the
real question is, has someone who's been told they can only go to 3
on a specific case, would they really be able to show loss of fair
market value?
And that's a case-by-case question, but I think the numbers
overall would suggest that they're on average, that the market is
about at 3. So if you're letting them go to 3 anyway, how many
people would have a lot of incentive to bring a Burt Harris Act claim
is the question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the affordable housing item, you
mentioned you did not recommend going down from the eight unit bonus
to, I think, five is what had been suggested. Can you explain a
little bit why?
MR. BLAESSER: Well, in our judgment it does not -- if you're
going to pick an area to reduce density, from a state policy
standpoint, from an overall planning policy in what's going on in the
state in terms of what is under the Enabling Act, to reduce the
incentive to get affordable housing seems inconsistent with what
should be your overall policy objectives.
You can reduce population density, or at least the density on
paper, by not going after the affordable housing segment. It simply
was, in our view, not wise policy, and it's hard to recommend that
you would reduce the bonus to encourage what, in fact, your planning
policies really are calling for.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I probably should have asked you
sooner when we had our other meetings, but in regard to purchasing a
conservation easement, do we have any conservation areas within the
urban boundary that could be purchased, as opposed to going outside
the urban boundary?
MR. BLANSSER: We have some, I believe, don't we? Maybe we can
put the map up and I'll let staff speak to that one. Or do we have
none?
Page 10
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so.
MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge, we do not. And the policy as
proposed would not authorize purchase within the urban area to
transfer those rights. There is a -- there is currently a policy in
the Comprehensive Plan that allows you to do a transfer of
development rights within the urban area, exclusively within the
urban area.
MR. BLAESSER: Yeah, that's what, I guess -- you're not --
you're already there in that respect. What we're proposing is that
it be something that could be done also in the agricultural rural
area.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All of this then assumes that the people
who have the potential to sell their rights would do it. Otherwise,
if I'm in the rural area and I choose not to sell, then no matter
what the performance standard is, I can't get back there if I don't
have a willing participant on the other side.
MR. BLAESSER: That's true. I think the question would be if
those who would be able to sell a right, whether they themselves
would have much of a market incentive to try to develop and whether
they would find it more advantageous to sell that right and to still
continue doing what they're doing already. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions, board members?
MR. BLAESSER: I'd like to let Dr. Nicholas now go forward with
his presentation.
DR. NICHOLAS: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Morning.
DR. NICHOLAS: Pleasure to be back with you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
DR. NICHOLAS: Let me start with what I have labeled as Table 3,
which looks at the development that has occurred in Collier County
since 1981. We've got a long sweep.
In here we're looking at your planned unit developments and
we're looking at the density in which they have been developed.
Overall, you've got a density of 3.23 units per acre. And then
we break -- I just broke them into two time frames, early and late.
And of course, the later is the one we're more interested in, because
that's what's happening now. And you see the developed density today
is running just over three units to the acre.
Page 11
March 19, 1999
So what I conclude from this and what we took from this was that
you -- if this is going to work, this policy is going to work, you've
got to get down into the range at which the market is operating.
At the moment in Collier County, you've got a residential market
which is low density, but is also for a type of development that
maximizes your traffic impact. And so now the question is how can we
use those market forces to mitigate traffic impact, to bring design
factors into play so that it would be profitable to interconnect
developments, it would be profitable to use non-vehicular means of
transportation, other variety of techniques, of design techniques
that are available, which would, of course, include traditional
neighborhoods design, but not to the exclusion of.
And right now, the fact that they're not being used clearly
indicates that they're not profitable. So now it's the question of
how can we attempt to make it profitable. And so this is where we
begin.
And we know that if we simply drop the density from 4 to 3, any
effect here would be at best marginal. So it's largely futile.
And also, if we look at staying at the 200-acre threshold,
you're basically at the same position, because if you accumulate the
issue of the market being for 3 and only for 200 acres and above, you
have almost no units that would be subjected to the density, and
again, engaging in what in essence would be a futile exercise. It
might look very good on paper, but in terms of the accomplishment of
the what I would argue is more of the design rather than reduction,
because the design factors would, in fact, bring about the reduction
in impact which you're trying to accomplish.
So that's what -- where the economic factors that led our
reasoning in the direction in which we went.
So we begin with what's happening in the marketplace today and
then how can those market forces be used in such a way that lessened
impact is profitable.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have to just briefly interrupt to say
that the English translation, the simple translation of that is,
there's no objection to reducing from 4 to 3, because nobody is
building more than 3.
DR. NICHOLAS: That's correct. You know, if the shoe doesn't
pinch, you're not going to complain.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And we're not getting to the traffic
reduction impact.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're doing nothing.
Page 12
March 19, 1999
DR. NICHOLAS: That's correct, Commissioner. That -- it would
appear to my analysis, I believe, our analysis, that if that's what
you did, you would have no observable effect of your policy.
Now, obviously we're recommending going far beyond that in order
to get the economic forces to work, which would mean you will have an
anticipated effect here in the urban area to begin with on property
values, developmental values, which, of course, are very important,
both from a general perspective and a Burt J. Harris Private Property
Rights Protection Act perspective. And I've summarized this on Table
2 on Page 7.
What this table does is it looks at the properties that have
been developed as PUDs in the urbanized area, excluding properties
that would be gulf frontage, or -- that would be G-U-L-F, not G-O-L-
F. Recognizing, of course, that that's a very different type of
market area. And here we're looking at how does the market evaluate
density units.
Now, there's a bit of a contradiction here, Commissioners,
because I just told you that the market isn't building to 4, and then
we turn around and analyze 4. Well, I sort of had to use a worst
case scenario here, because to say there would be no effect at all by
going from 3 to 4, perhaps strange credibility, so I have to consider
that that is a potential.
But I think the real issue is not the 3 to 4 -- 4 to 3, it's the
4 to 2, which is what I would really like to focus on, because I
think we would all agree, and I would imagine you're going to hear a
great deal about it that, yes, that in face has a significant market
force here.
My analysis would suggest that the raw land value, that's all
we're talking about here, would decrease by approximately $17,000 per
acre for the properties situated in the urban area. Now, here, of
course, we're looking again at just the land value, not what lots
would sell for, because obviously the lots have to be developed and
all the costs to incur on that.
Now, this, of course, is an average figure. Obviously different
parcels will be affected differently. But to give you a sense of
what that means, approximately $17,000 an acre, that would be
approximately 20 percent of the value of the property could be
potentially affected.
Now, whether or not one would conclude that that is an
inordinate burden under Burt J. Harris, of course, obviously would
have to be discussed and debated on its own merit.
Page 13
March 19, 1999
However, our goal, and we understood your goal, was to create an
inducement and incentive to reduce impact. So now it's a matter of
how can these market forces be used for somebody to come back and try
to restore these values either to 3 or 4, whichever is the highest
profit potential for them.
And so this shifts the subject then to how to restore. And as
you well know, we have two methods or techniques to bring forward,
which is the design factors and the conservation factors.
Commissioners, if I might, for a moment, we're well aware that
some of these parcels, it will be impossible for them to implement
the design. And in our analysis and in our report, we have I hope
very clearly set out for those properties where it is impossible that
alternatives would be opened up. They would not be precluded.
Whether that be by some type of variance, some type of alternative or
substituting conservation in lieu of design because certainly each
property is different. And as we get smaller and smaller, it becomes
more and more difficult to accomplish these things.
So I wanted to say that from the beginning, so hopefully we have
that clear in our minds that that's incorporated in it.
Also, while I'm doing disclosures, with regard to the
conservation issues, no one, certainly not I or anyone else, can
guarantee that there, in fact, will be willing sellers of
conservation easements. And it seems to us, and again, within our
report we underscore this, that to the extent the commission goes in
this direction, you have to assume the obligation of monitoring and
to see that conservation easements are readily available at
reasonable prices. And if it turns out that they are not, then
clearly that has not worked and you would have to go to Plan B,
whatever Plan B might be.
Now, this approach has been used elsewhere, and the problems
have not occurred elsewhere, so that there's some basis for optimism
that it would work here. But nonetheless, those are not Collier
County. This is Collier County. And it has its own unique
circumstances.
So that, again, is an obligation that this board and subsequent
boards, I think, would have to carry and be prepared, if necessary,
to be reactive.
Now, with all of that said, our analysis suggests that market
forces would encourage developers to use the design factors that
would reduce impact, and then the question comes, how much does that
cost? Well, that's a very difficult question to answer. In part,
Page 14
March 19, 1999
it's a matter of the nature of the parcel of land in which it would
be highly variable. An argument can be made for many parcels of
land, the cost would be minimal, if any at all. Because you're
talking about doing things somewhat differently, but doing basically
the same things you would be doing otherwise.
For other parcels, that would not be the case. You're talking
about shifting to a different type of road construction. You're
talking about the use of curb and gutter and sidewalk rather than
swales. And, of course, that is more costly.
Given that we can't go and design every piece of property there,
I've tried to come up with a generalized per unit cost increase. And
my estimate would be something in the neighborhood of $2,500 per unit
in added development costs to meet the design standards.
Now, again, having to try and average this, there will be many
in which there will be none at all. There may be some that will be
in the four to $5,000 range. But to give you a sense of the type of
numbers involved. And then in terms of what's the cost of
conservation easement, to the extent someone wished to do that.
Well, again, it's a very difficult number to get. However, we
have seen a number of purchases of conservation easements here in
Collier County, in South Florida and around the country. And here
we're looking close at properties that would be conservation, largely
wetlands. And those experiences would suggest that at the ratios
we're talking about, the cost could be approximately $2,500 per
dwelling unit for a total cost impact of this policy of $5,000 per
dwelling unit.
On Table 12, I have summarized for you the effects or potential
effects that these would have on affordability of units, both rental
and ownership, using the same numbers here, and winding up with a
monthly cost of 30 to $40 increase in housing costs, something to
that effect. We could, of course, do it per year or for anything
else. But to try to give you a sense that if all of these costs
ultimately are borne by renters and homeowners, what would be the
magnitude of those costs?
Now, Commissioners, let me step back a point here for a moment
and say that when we're talking about shifting the costs, it goes one
way or the other. They either go forward to the homeowner/renter as
higher prices, higher rents, or they go backward to the property
owner as lower land value. Now, in theory, you can split them, but
what you don't do is you don't do them both at the same time.
Page 15
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I thought you did both, so I appreciate
your clarifying it. I was adding them as total cumulative. And it's
either/or?
DR. NICHOLAS: It's an either/or. And it would depend in
particular market circumstances --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, okay.
DR. NICHOLAS: -- whether they're passed forward or absorbed
backwards.
Now, a Burt Harris type of issue is always premised on it being
absorbed backwards by the property owner, which means that is not
going forward to the buyer or the renter.
Now, again, it's always possible to have 50/50, something like
that. But I think it's important in these discussions that when --
we classify these things properly. Here, the assumption is if that
$5,000 per unit cost is passed forward to the renter, purchaser,
these would be the effects of it. Obviously if it's passed backwards
to the property owner, it would have little to no effect on rents or
prices, and that would -- effect would be absorbed as a negative
property value impact on the property owner.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry to be slow about this, but
it's as simple as either the property owner is going to have loss
profits, or the property purchaser and renter is going to have
increased costs, but not both. DR. NICHOLAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think, Commissioner, the market will
drive that process, and it's my business experience that the end user
will pay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, and I mean, the market will absorb it
in this county, so what's going to happen is the buyer and renter is
going to pay 30 to $40 more a month.
DR. NICHOLAS: Certainly I think this board has to consider that
as a very distinct possibility, and in terms of, you know, the
precise amount, how could we know? But, Commissioner, I think
experience has definitely shown that costs do tend to get passed
forward. And that this is my analysis of potential impact of that
type of a cost effect. You might be getting some other estimates,
also.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet we will.
DR. NICHOLAS: The other aspect I was asked to look at,
Commissioners, is the fiscal, potential fiscal aspect of this.
Clearly, as you well know, in Florida the fair market value is
Page 16
March 19, 1999
supposed to be the beginning basis for taxable values. Now, of
course, you also know that agriculture properties are assessed at
their agriculture use value or their classified value as distinct
from their fair market value.
Looking exclusively now at the urban area, I have suggested that
there will be a reduction in the values. Now, here we're coming back
now. We're passing it backwards to property. Okay, sort of taking
the worst case scenario. Now, if it gets passed forward, it should
have none of the effects. In fact, it would then have an increment
in taxable value if it gets passed forward. If it gets passed
backwards, it would be a reduction.
So in Tables 8 and 9, we are assuming that these price effects
get passed backwards in lower property values.
And let me apologize, Commissioners, on Table 8, the column
headings are reversed. I do apologize. It doesn't affect any
changes or any conclusions, it just looks a little odd. So there's -
- again, the 50-acre, 200-acre should be reversed.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought I was just math stupid again, but
thank you.
DR. NICHOLAS: No, we were all, I guess, headingly challenged in
creating our headings there.
But again, let me be clear that all of the assumptions that are
behind this is we're looking here at if these properties are reduced
in fair market value by the amount set out, what would be the
potential effect on the taxable values of Collier County, and also
tax receipts?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the table number again?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: 8.
DR. NICHOLAS: Tables 8.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's on Page 32, or 25.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
DR. NICHOLAS: And here is just simply working through the
numbers we've already talked about, except now how many acres are
potentially affected by these reductions in the urban areas, the 200-
acre threshold, 1,706 acres are potentially affected. At the 50-acre
threshold, 3,000 -- approximately 3,500 acres are affected by
approximately $2,500 per acre. So that we can calculate what would
be the reduction in fair market value again passed backwards to the
land.
Then we shift to the rural areas. And I've given you basically
two scenarios to the rural areas. First, we needed to look at what
Page 17
March 19, 1999
were the values prevailing in the rural areas. And where is that
table? Table 7.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's 7.
DR. NICHOLAS: We went to the Collier County property
appraiser's tapes and sampled a goodly number of rural parcels of the
type that would be affected by these changes; classified them first
into agriculture and non-agriculture properties, and then further
subcategorizing or basically pulling out grove from the agriculture.
Now, the assumption in pulling out --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You pulled out grove because it's so much
more valuable than typical ag?
DR. NICHOLAS: It's so much more valuable than typical ag., yes,
Commissioner. And also, I think that the -- any kind of value for
those grove lands, market, sales, taxable, would be invariant in
regard to the density, underlying density. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see.
DR. NICHOLAS: So that potentially, at least, it is a very
different type of land. So I wanted to take a look at it separately.
And then people can look at it one way or the area other, whichever
way they wish.
But here are the values in the agriculture area. The taxable
properties for all of them on a per acre basis is roughly $850 per
acre. Again, of course, agricultural use classifications.
Now, if you exclude the groves, it's $285, call it $300 an acre.
So that roughly two-thirds of the values out there are of grove
property and much of the other property is pasturage, which goes on
the tax rolls at the least amount.
All right, then we look at the non-agriculture values. And this
is simply property out there that are in a conservation or
agriculture zoning classification. Zoning classification, that are
not assessed for agriculture purposes. We get a weighted value of
approximately $1,100 per acre. So these are the numbers that we're
going to be using.
Now, Commissioners, I think a strong argument can be made that
the agricultural values would not change with density, simply because
of the nature of agriculture assessments in Florida.
With that said, I went ahead and made some reductions anyway,
because I think it's incumbent upon us not to have rose-tinted
glasses on in looking at this. And then looking, of course, at the
non-resident ~- non-agriculture properties in the same areas, trying
Page 18
March 19, 1999
to come up with a picture of what would be the reduction in taxable
values, what would be the reduction in revenues.
My conclusion is it would be very minor, simply because of the
nature of these properties; less than one percent.
Now, one of the reasons for this is, is if you recall your
beginning recommendations, in which we are concurring, is the rural
properties to the east of the urbanized areas are not to be changed.
So there is no change on the properties abutting the urban area, and
those are the properties, of course, that have the greatest
development potential. So that any type of change in densities would
certainly have an effect on those properties, but you have excluded
them from this policy; therefore, there could be no effect.
So the only properties we are looking at for these potential
reductions are those that are remote, that have little if any
development potential, but the market will always evaluate property
as having some development potential, and this is what we're building
on here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a question on that point, because as
this has been discussed, people have talked about -- I don't know in
what time frame, but in a some day time frame, we're doing a lot to
try to encourage economic diversification and development in
Immokalee, and if Immokalee were to -- if we're successful in those
efforts, then the development, you know, residential development
potential of those lands that right now seem extremely remote are
more real. Is there a factor for that?
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, ma'am. In fact, we address that in our
report. At the moment, it does not appear that there is any
observable market pressures in the Immokalee area, but again, it
doesn't mean there won't be. And certainly that's the type of thing
you want to encourage.
Therefore, our recommendation was, we'd go ahead and allow for a
cjustering of densities in the Immokalee area. If the market doesn't
demand it, you've lost nothing. If the market does demand it, you
are there able to accommodate it. And you can allow this cjustering
at a variety of different densities, so that if the properties
themselves are reduced to a 20-acre minimum lot size, it doesn't mean
that you couldn't allow the continuation of 1 per 5 for purposes of
cjustering.
And in fact, the conservation easements assumptions that we're
working on do differentiate the amount that can be used for in effect
transfer and the amount which could be used for on-site development.
Page 19
March 19, 1999
So I think that is a very viable option available to you and one that
we would recommend.
At the same time, my analysis -- our analysis indicates there's
no short-term potential. But again, I can't see any downside to it,
so why not be prepared in the event that your programs are
successful. Certainly it would add to the credibility of your
efforts that you already have something in place to implement it if
some developer would be interested.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make sure that I understood you
correctly. You said that your recommendation is to have in the far
rural area to go to 1 to 20 with the provision that if cjustering
were proposed, you could regain 1 to 5. Is that what you said?
DR. NICHOLAS: In the Immokalee area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In the Immokalee --
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that's what I meant by far rural.
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, sir, that would be it. And with all of the
provisos on that. So that in terms of a density, you could almost
argue that they had little effect. Although again, you would never
be able to say that it had no effect at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate you clarifying that, because I
hadn't understood that, that the proposal in the 1 to 20 areas is 1
to 20 unless you cjuster, in which case it's 1 to 57
DR. NICHOLAS: I beg your pardon?
MR. MULHERE: Not -- no.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that what you just said?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, that's what he was saying you could
allow it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I thought you said.
MR. MULHERE: Not in the rural areas where we're proposing 1 per
20 would remain at 1 per 20. There is the potential to look at a
transfer development rights within the Immokalee urban area. I just
wanted to let the board know that there is a very high amount of
unused development in the Immokalee area. It's a very large urban
area. The population's only about 35,000, maybe 30, 35,000 high
season. And there's the potential to build a population of between
125,000 and 150,000 already in the urban area in Immokalee.
DR. NICHOLAS: Okay, Commissioner, we don't see much potential;
however, we don't see any downside either.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, we're trying to -- you know, the
property owners out there certainly see some potential. And I guess
Page 20
March 19, 1999
they see the potential for that in a 30-year time frame or something,
because it's not the present time frame that I can see.
DR. NICHOLAS: We certainly wouldn't want to interfere with
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In your analysis, did you factor in, if I
freeze agriculture at 1 in 20 and I want to borrow money to expand my
groves or I want to do row crops, the lenders are not looking I don't
think at what you've given me, but they're looking at the potential
for development of some sort. Have you factored this into the
process? Because I think landowners have a major concern about that.
DR. NICHOLAS: It's not in this report, Commissioner. It's
something we've dealt with a great many times and a great many
places. It's a matter of concern always.
Remember the properties of course we're dealing with are
properties that are remote. These are not properties that have any
observable development potential at this time.
When individuals are -- or banks, financial institutions -- are
making loans, they, of course, are required t6 look at the fair
market value. In order to establish fair market value what, of
course, they have to do is bring in comparable sales. And these
comparable sales would have to show significant development potential
for the properties before that would become even relevant.
In addition, you've got some U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm
Credit Service recommendations -- or rules, pardon me, in regard to
what can be loaned upon in basically trying to restrict the loans to
agriculture, agriculture usages. Which basically means you want to
give a loan to an agriculture operation, if the agriculture operation
can pay off.
If you give it too much loans, the agriculture property --
operation cannot pay it off, which means it will have to go bankrupt.
So that you've got a variety of forces here coming into play, all
economic forces that have mitigated against this.
Now, many parts of Florida, I believe you know, have agriculture
densities of 20-acre minimum or larger. In Okeechobee County, it's
50 acres or larger for that. And in Lee County, they're using a 20-
acre minimum.
They have not run into this problem, or at least if they have,
there has not been much notice given about it. In Dade County, they
also have, I believe, in some places up to 1 to 40.
Perhaps it's been most frequently studied in New Jersey where,
of course, they refer to themselves as the Garden State, where they
Page 21
March 19, 1999
have very, very extensive truck farming operations. And for most of
the properties in the truck farming area of New Jersey, they went
from one unit per the acre to one unit per 40 acres. And the studies
that followed up on that, there were no foreclosures based upon the
decline in property value associated with that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
DR. NICHOLAS: That concludes --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions?
DR. NICHOLAS: -- my comments, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you very much. I'm sure we'll have
more for you before the day's out.
And now the transportation analysis, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I just wanted to mention briefly that
we do have copies of the agenda available in the hall. I don't know
if everyone's aware of that. In case they wanted to look at was the
agenda was, it's available in the hall on the table.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And let me just briefly tell you that it's
broken into three sections. First we're going to talk about the
density reduction and transportation, then we're going to talk about
the stipulated settlement agreement with DCA, and then we're going to
talk about the comprehensive plan process.
There on the agenda are three -- there are opportunities for
public comment at the end of each of those. I personally find that
confusing and don't know how to tell you when you get off the
subject, frankly, under the -- if you come up for comment under those
three. So if you're registering to speak, I hope that you'll
register under particular topics, and maybe we can find a way to get
it organized better.
I'm struggling still with that agenda, Bob, about how to tell
people what the topics are as they come forward to talk. But anyway, transportation.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I think our intent was to not have
individuals who wanted to speak, for example, on the consultant's
recommendation, have to wait until the entire presentation is done
for the opportunity to speak.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hope it works that way.
MR. MULHERE: Gavin Jones, our Transportation Planning Manager,
MPO Coordinator, will give the board a summary of URS Greiner's
analysis of the density reduction on the transportation system.
MR. JONES: Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, good morning. I'm
Gavin Jones, the Transportation Planning Manager with the MPO staff.
Page 22
March 19, 1999
URS Greiner did the modeling work for us in this exercise. They
were given four land use scenarios and asked to produce traffic
volumes for them.
Normally when consultants like this do modeling work for us,
what they return to us is a network that is designed to serve a
particular land use scenario. That was not Greiner's task in this
exercise. They were asked to put together land use data sets for the
four land use scenarios, model them on one network, produce traffic
volumes on one network, and return to us a set of tables that would
show those traffic volumes across each of the four scenarios.
Now, two of those scenarios were an investigation of the effect
of making a reduced assumption of build-out in Immokalee. And those
were scenarios 1-B and 2-B. And what the -- and 1-A and 2-A,
scenario 1-A was the -- our best estimate of what build-out would be
at maximum density, and scenario 2-A was build-out with all of the
density reduction measures being discussed here today.
The broad measures that staff looked at with the numbers
returned from Greiner were chiefly whether volumes went up or down
across scenarios, and what the sum of all the volumes did. And it
became apparent quickly that it made little difference whether
Immokalee was assumed to build out at 100 percent or 50 percent. And
so there wasn't much further analysis or discussion on those two
scenarios.
And the focus turned to the differences observed between the
traffic volumes in scenario l-A, you know, full build-out county-
wide, and scenario 2-A, build-out with density reductions.
And again, the two broad measures were the sum of all the
volumes across all the links, and which ones went up and which ones
went down. Sort of like the stock market at the end of each day,
they'll tell whether the Dow went up or down. That's a broad measure
across all stocks. And they'll tell you if winners outnumbered
losers, and vice versa.
From scenario 1-A to 2-A, the market went down slightly. The sum
of all volumes went down about 5 percent. And 85 percent of the
links model showed reductions in volume. So by those, you know, two
broad measures, there is an improvement in traffic volumes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is 2-A the 4 to 2 reduction or 4 to 3
reduction?
MR. JONES: 4 to 2.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 4 to 2. You show 85 percent of the --
Page 23
March 19, 1999
MR. JONES: 85 percent of the links had a reduction in traffic
volumes on them. The amount of reduction varied. And I believe the
report includes tables that have three collections of road links:
One collection of links where the drop in volume observed was between
0 and 5, one collection of links where the drop in volume observed
was between 5 and 10 percent, and one collection of links where the
drop in volume was greater than 10 percent. And then -- Page 59.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 59. There. Do we have a map anywhere that
shows us, you know, which intersections showed improvement at what
rate and that kind of thing?
MR. JONES: We didn't analyze intersections. Staff essentially
stopped at the production of those tables. Since they were included
in that report, we also looked at -- you know, of those links that
had improvements which were within the urban area and which were
outside the urban area, that's not included as part of the report.
And the understanding always was that -- with a decision on, you
know, what our build-out -- what our build-out future was going to
include that we would return to Greiner, and they would return to us
a network that would serve that particular scenario, the way they
normally do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically this just generally says -- it
looks like if you cut the traffic -- cut the build-out from 4 to 2,
you're being to go see improvement on 85 percent of the county roads.
MR. JONES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Gavin, is this -- how do we adjust for
season? I mean, all this troubles me, because we've got like a four-
month season.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Adjusts for what?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've got a four-month period where -- how
does this come all come together? I'm thinking about, you know,
where do our people work and where do they go to work? Where do they
live, and where do they go to work? MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. JONES: Correct. And the volumes that are shown there are
peak season weekday traffic volumes. The assimilation model that we
use is set up to include the homes that are occupied in season, and
the traffic volumes that come out of it are peak season weekday
traffic volumes. So they would be -- those volumes would be less out
of season.
And the consultant just modeled what we handed to them, and that
was prepared by Comprehensive Planning Staff.
Page 24
March 19, 1999
One of the reasons that there is little effect observed on the
sum of all the volumes, when you choose two different assumptions on
build-out in Immokalee is that as you add the extra land use into
Immokalee you're adding both dwelling units and employment activity.
And given its isolated location in the county, those trips -- the
trips produced by the homes in Immokalee tend to get satisfied or get
attracted to economic activity within Immokalee. So as you build up
Immokalee, you don't see so much of a change in traffic volumes on
all the county roads, because the traffic -- their trip-making needs
are being satisfied within their community.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, frankly --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the case right now.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's my concern. And I don't want
anyone walking out of here today, if this happens, what we're talking
about, to assume that they're going to drive down Pine Ridge Road
next week and assume that the traffic is going to be reduced. That
isn't going to happen. And it's going to take some time.
But it stands to reason that if you do reduce the number of
units at a period of time obviously there will be a reduction in
traffic. But that doesn't mean that the traffic we're experiencing
today is going to be reduced. You're still going to have -- the
number of people that are here already are still going to experience
traffic problems.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it really just --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that not correct?
MR. JONES: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It really just means that the growth in
traffic problems will be slowed. I mean, we'll continue to have --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- more traffic.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And if we've already got problems, this
isn't going to really solve the current problems. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say, following up
on your question, I mean, it's only logical to do it with peak season
numbers, because we don't get a lot of calls about traffic in August.
Now is the time where we get the concerns and now is the time where
we realistically have to see what the picture is.
MR. MULHERE: I just would like to add, I think that that was a
very good question. It's important that we understand that those are
Page 25
March 19, 1999
peak season weekday numbers. The purpose of that is to allow us
ultimately to develop a transient -- a transportation plan that will
address those peak season numbers. And I think that was basically
your question, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And also, I want to look at the arterials.
No matter what we do in this, depending on where people live and
where they're going to work, I'm not sure -- I'm not understanding
whether this is going to help that scenario at all.
MR. MULHERE: According to the modeling, this will improve that
scenario on 85 percent of the segments of varying degrees. Some
higher, some lower. But it will result in an improvement.
I think Commissioners Berry's point is very accurate, though,
people that are experiencing dissatisfaction with the level of
service on the roads today are not going to see any change as a
result of this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Although, it's -- there's a little more
detail there on Page 60 that 76 roadway links will show an
improvement, you know, a decreased volume of over 10 percent. That's
noticeable. Because 10 percent, isn't that our threshold for
development? If they're going to have that level of impact, they
have to do some improvements.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Only 5.
CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: Is it only 5, John?
So 10 percent is noticeable. And that's supposed to happen on -
- you know, 76 roadway links. Less than 10 percent on 34, and less
than 5 percent on 54 links. That's noticeable.
Other questions on the transportation issue, boards members?
Well, if not, let's try this divided public comment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you want to have a little board comment
before we begin, to kind of set the tone?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure, sure. Does anybody have just some
general comments they want to make before we go to public comment?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine and I have
been talking about some sort of density r'eduction since 1993, I
guess. Isn't that right?
And, you know, I'm glad to see something coming forward. But,
frankly, I guess I might as well just say, that what I see here is
there are some good proposals for density reduction, but what I also
see is that this seems to have evolved into an exercise in imposing
Page 26
March 19, 1999
more regulation on the environmental side on some lands. I don't
think that's what I ever intended.
I think I have some really serious concerns. And I'm sure we'll
get into them later in the day. But I might just say that some of
the cjustering ideas are great, but I think we're going to have to go
into them with a lot -- you know, with a sharp pencil and start
taking a look, because it seems to be more of an environmental
suicide than it is having anything at all to do with density
reduction. So, you know, we're going to have to take some good looks
at that.
To give you an example of what I'm talking about, some of the
set-aside criteria for cjustering. First of all, it says in
objective 6.4 -- this is on Page 69, excuse me. Objective 6.4 says
that these properties -- and we're talking rural agriculture, are --
actually, this would be the rural fringe, excuse me. It says that
they shall cjuster. Well, you know, I don't think that's really what
we want to do. What we want to do is encourage them to cjuster.
Right now, I think out there, if I'm not mistaken, it's a 25 percent
set-aside under our current rules. Is that correct, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: There's no cjuster requirement in the rural area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I mean any development of a --
MR. MULHERE: In the urban area, it's 25 percent of the viably
functioning natural area. In the rural area, there currently is no
specific set-aside. Although I agree, though, that because of
jurisdictional reasons, normally there is a substantial set-aside,
but there's no actual percentage in our code.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, what has been proposed is 50
percent. Well, you know, you've set aside 50 percent and then you
can't count any portion of your golf course, and then if you are
going to actually put some homes on there as well, you're going to
have to buy some property somewhere to mitigate for that. I don't
think that's what we should be doing. I think what we should do is
carry the 25 percent or 30 or some figure like that and have
cjustering to be allowed, if they reach a 40 percent set-aside, or so
forth.
But also, it's hard to argue that a golf course, for example, is
not green space. It's very hard to argue that. It's very hard to
argue that it's something that wildlife won't take advantage of.
Because anybody that plays golf in these areas sees wildlife all the
time all over; dear, bear.
Page 27
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Panther.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've even seen panthers on the golf
course. I really have. And wild turkeys, all sorts of things.
There's a federal program that pays landowners to open up
corridors between vegetative communities so that wildlife can move
from one vegetative community to the other. And that's exactly what
a golf course does.
So to tell people that a golf course is not a green space and
that it's not something that can be set aside I think is wrong. I
think we need to look at some percent of the actively managed portion
of golf courses to be able to use in the set-aside criteria. Now,
what percentage that is is -- you know, we'll have to take a look at
that as well.
But the situation that we're going to put people in is they have
to set aside -- the way it's written right now is you set aside 50
percent of your property, 25 percent of it goes, let's say, to a golf
course, and then if you're going to develop any more, you're going to
have to buy property to mitigate for it. That's just not right. I
mean, that is too onerous to do. We need to work on this some.
And the other thing is, I don't think it's any secret that I've
never been a fan of NRPA'S. And so I'm going to look pretty
seriously at what we're doing with these NRPA'S. I think I've heard
some suggestions from the private sector on what we might do
differently. That's been proposed that I might be willing to look
at.
But, you know, I think we're -- in the urban area, I think we're
pretty close to what we need to do. In the rural fringe, I think we
need to look at our cjustering criteria a bit. But out in the rural
area we may need some more work. That's basically where I am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, this sort of makes a point,
Commissioner, about how it's going to difficult to stay of the
subject, because I certainly wouldn't hush you up, Commissioner
Norris, on the topic. But I do hope when the public comes forward,
we'll try to limit our discussion to this point, to the density in
the urban. But I do see how they're tied together and it's hard to
talk about one without the other.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Madam Chairman, if I overtook
my latitude here, but I believe we'd covered all of those areas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, actually, cjustering is going to come
up under the settlement agreement.
Page 28
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's as it pertains to the
settlement agreement. But see, we've already --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, you don't have the revised agenda. He
needs a revised agenda.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess I do, too, because that's not the
way --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you get everybody up here a revised
agenda?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I will.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairman, I won't comment basically
until I see the revised agenda.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe we're not all on the same page.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Literally.
Commissioner Constantine had some comments while that's
happening, please.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and we'll get into the
stipulated settlement agreement and some of the issues there. But I
don't know that we're -- I think we're right -- closed in on the
urban areas as well (phonetic). I think there needs to be some work
on the other but I don't think it's maybe as bad. There are parts of
that that work very well.
There are parts -- I agree with you, we've talked about all
kinds of these things since 1993. We've declined to do a number of
these things in the past. And so I think there are parts of the
density reduction that are excellent. I think there are other parts
that are things that this board has heard in public hearings and
declined before. And so I want -- as we go through it, we'll just
get into more detail on those. I won't get ahead of ourselves.
But the one thing I wanted to ask was, Dr. Nicholas I think
along the way had indicated that there may have to be some leeway on
some of those things. And I'm wondering if you didn't mean or if you
couldn't use that same reference to what Commissioner Norris was
describing. And that's when we talk about the proposed -- which I,
too, think is flawed -- but the proposed 50 percent set-aside and all
that goes with that. It sounded like what you were describing, and
I'll let you speak to it, but it sounded like what you were
describing was a recognition that all properties are not the same.
We don't have cookie cutters here. And each one's going to have an
individual situation and we ought to allow ourselves the ability to
address that. Please.
Page 2 9
March 19, 1999
MR. MULHERE: Madam Chairwoman, I'll take the responsibility. I
was under the assumption that the revised agenda had been distributed
to all of you.
The reason that we requested to revise the agenda was we thought
that many people waiting in the public would want to speak directly
to the consultant's presentation rather than waiting. However, it's
up to the pleasure of the board. Bill Lorenz is prepared to go ahead
with his presentation on the natural resource elements, both as they
relate to the density reduction and cjustering standards and
comprehensively with the settlement agreement. So at the pleasure of
the board, we'll either go to the public or Bill can make his
presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's hear from Dr. Nicholas first.
DR. NICHOLAS: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Constantine,
absolutely correct, especially in the type of area you're dealing
with here in Collier County, the environmental sensitivity of the
property. You're going to have to have a high degree of
responsiveness to the nature of an individual parcel, and it's going
to be very, very important that you arm designers, environmental
designers, urban designers, with the tools to do the job right. And
of course, designing those into your regulations to begin with is
very important.
But I think also, Commissioner, you can look at Burt J. Harris.
In fact, that's really attempting -- what it's exactly attempting to
do. Because a property owner will bring a complaint of inordinate
burden in regard to an individual parcel and requiring then a
settlement offer or response from the local government. So you can
see really those two things coming together here.
I feel confident to discuss that with you, because I sat on the
Property Rights Commission and we wrote the statute. That was
clearly what we were trying to do is to be able to get down to a
parcel of land, which is what gets developed, and be able to be
responsive to the situation of that parcel in terms of its owner and
in terms of the market and in terms of the conditions of those
properties. And trying to integrate those into your regulations, of
course, is something that is a highly sought after goal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. I think it would be best to try
-- because this is such abroad spectrum of issues, let's try to stick
to this revised agenda that the staff prepared for us and have just
comment at this point on the density reduction proposal.
Page 30
March 19, 1999
Before we do that, do we need to take a break? Let's take five
minutes. We'll be back at 25 after.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order,
please.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chair is calling the meeting back to
order, please.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for that booming voice. I won't
go there.
Attention, people, sit down, be quiet, so we can get back to
work. How's that? It's a mommy thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, please. Thank you.
In keeping with the woman's prerogative of changing her mind,
everybody who came up to me during the break said that they didn't
know how they could bifurcate their discussion on cjustering from the
density reduction. So based on that, we're going to change the
agenda and have Mr. Lorenz make his presentation, and then we will go
to public comment on those two combined issues.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So we're back to the original agenda?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we are.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The only concern I have is that there may be
some frustration in that I have ordered the speakers by the different
categories, and so the order may be a little different from the order
in which they were turned into me. Other than that, that's all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can work with it.
Mr. Lorenz? Surprise. Sorry.
MR. LORENZ: Out of breath a little bit, just rushing around.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources
Director.
What I've provided to the board is a series of handouts I'm
going to use on the visualizer that kind of steps us through the
presentation. And what I'd like to be able to cover is number one,
is the DCA's, the Department of Community Affairs' objections to our
current comp. plan. Because a lot of the objections that we had in
the past is driving some of the detail that we'll get into.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just quickly, do we have each of
these objections in writing?
Page 31
March 19, 1999
MR. LORENZ: Yes. On page -- the handwritten number is 91
through 93 in your workshop packet.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this the same one that we just received?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: So what I'd like to do -- then I'd like to outline
the strategy that basically staff is using to bring us into
compliance with the settlement agreement, and then working through
that settlement language that we have negotiated with the DCA. So we
can get into the details, as well as seeing the bigger picture.
For purposes -- just for purposes, too, is what I've tried to do
is, in areas where we want to refer back to the language in your
workshop packet. You'll just see REF, reference, in those pages.
Those are the handwritten pages in your workshop packet.
So with the first -- what I'd like to have is from the control
room to put the visualizer on for me for the audience.
The first handout basically is the DCA objections that we have
been working for -- or working towards. No. 1 is they didn't see the
information to justify what we were talking about as an NRPA program,
since that was still part of the original Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically we have said we would adopt them
and then we never did?
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
Secondly, wetland protection, just overall wetland protection.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to correct that. I
think we said we would consider them individually one at a time, and
we have done that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see. I'll refrain.
MR. LORENZ: And that's -- in the letter from DCA, the Roman
numerals there, that's the title or the section in the DCA letter for
the objections.
Wetland protection was a much more extensive type of objection
that DCA had. And I'll work you through some of that specific
language, and in 9J5 criteria.
Listed species protection was also a problem with our Growth
Management Plan.
And also, coastal resources protection was also listed as an
objection from DCA. But, quite frankly, a large part or mostly all
of that fix was simply to adopt a lot of our standards that we have
in our current Land Development Code and put them directly into the
Growth Management Plan.
Page 32
March 19, 1999
But again, as I go through the presentation, I'll walk you
through the language for the settlement agreement.
In terms of the planning considerations that staff kind of
worked through to develop this package -- and it is correct, there's
-- to a large degree there's an integration of the density reduction
that the board provided staff at several public hearings, together
with the DCA's finding of the plan in noncompliance.
So we did link these together because the overall strategy for
environmental protection basically supports that. And I'll walk --
again, I'll walk you through that kind of justification.
The board specifically, in its past direction, recognized that
as we proceeded with the density reduction in the rural area, the
board specifically listed the three areas that I have there, the CREW
lands, Camp Keais and the Okaloacoochee Slew, as deserving some kind
of protection. The board didn't provide any details on that, but
they did identify those three areas.
The board also directed staff with another --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question there?
MR. LORENZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are none of those areas getting any
special attention from anyone right now?
MR. LORENZ: Those areas are not getting any special attention
from the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. That's the issue with
regard to DCA.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's only duplicative of what some
attention someone else is giving, I'm wondering what the necessity
is.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we'll get to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope so.
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, I'll walk through the justification as we go
through the presentation.
The board also -- through the TwinEagles project, the board
directed staff to work with The Conservancy to refine the cjustering
criteria that was used for the TwinEagles PUD, and to propose
language that would go into the comp. plan to regulate or provide
guidelines for PUDs outside of the urban area. So again, that was
one of the factors that staff used in developing its negotiation
strategy and presentation of information to DCA.
In terms of other board directions, the certain other ordinances
such as a valid (phonetic) protection ordinance that the board
adopted, various sections that have been developed in the Land
Page 33
March 19, 1999
Development Code from prior efforts, these are all, if you will,
prior board policy directions and adoptions that we also used to put
into the Growth Management Plan to satisfy DCA's objections.
Specifically, in terms of DCA's noncompliance, we've also -- we
went -- staff went through -- it was about a week-long administrative
hearing with DCA. A lot of testimony was presented on the record and
information to show -- further expound upon the concern that DCA had
in the interveners, so this information, of course, was used by staff
to try to plug the holes, the gaps that we have in our existing plan.
One thing, there is a very distinct, what staff considers, a
philosophical shift from the original 1989 plan, and that is the --
this -- the quantification. The more specificity of performance
standards has gotten a lot more, and through DCA's demands.
So that is -- that was one area that staff basically had to work
through with DCA to try to get as specific and measurable as
possible, yet not go too far and commit the county to too specific
standards.
Because the downside of it is even though we've incorporated a
lot of the standards that we have in our code into the Growth
Management Plan, once it's in the plan, then of course to change any
of that would require a comp. plan amendment and DCA approval. So
that is the downside of incorporating prior board policy into the
plan.
Wetland protection was a very key issue with DCA. Back in 1993-
94, 9J5 requirements were changed so that the criteria that you see
up here were basically incorporated into the rule. And this was an
area that we were pretty much found in noncompliance with DCA, that
we don't have any specific policies -- and again, the key phrase here
is "specific measurable policies" that would specifically direct
incompatible land uses away from wetlands.
Staff had a problem working with DCA on this initially, because
when you look at Collier County, roughly 73 percent of the county is
in wetlands status when you're looking at some of the land cover
data, that's the best data possible. So to some degree you find any
site, you're always going to have wetlands on-site. And to say that
you can't have these land uses on any site is just not realistic.
So where we kind of worked through it was the criteria does
consider the characteristics of the land use and the condition of the
wetlands when we create that scheme. And so when we start talking
about what kind of land uses are we directing away from wetlands, we
Page 34
March 19, 1999
are making a fundamental decision as to, if you will, a priority
ranking of wetlands in the county.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Bill, can I just interrupt you to say,
this is part of the answer, I think, to Commissioner Constantine's
question about duplicative regulation, that when 9J5 was changed to
require this level of specificity in the comp. plan, even if there
are federal and state regulations, the state law now requires that
there be county regulations. And I think that's sort of how staff
found themselves in the position of --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's accurate. I
don't know that I agree with that interpretation.
MR. LORENZ: If I may make a kind of a qualification. The state
does not require us to have a duplicative wetland permitting program.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know that.
MR. LORENZ: The state does not require us to have more
stringent wetland regulations than the state. But 9J5 does require
us, at a comprehensive planning process level, to direct incompatible
land uses away from -- away from wetlands to some degree. And so you
do that with classifications of land uses, classifications of
densities, and you look at the quality of your wetlands. So that is
a 9J5 requirement, and that's what we're attempting to do.
Again, I'll walk you through the settlement language for the
wetlands policies. And there are some places where we do have a
couple of standards that, if you will, are more stringent than state
permitting standards. But to a large degree, what the foundation for
our protection mechanism for wetlands really is to identify these
large functioning wetland systems and direct incompatible land uses
away from those large systems.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or if we're taking some areas through
mitigation, you want to expand those areas?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. LORENZ: If we're taking --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If we take some small wetland area away,
but through mitigation we want to expand the primary wetland areas,
is that the process?
MR. LORENZ: Well, that would be an important -- yes. I mean,
that's a valid, if you will, biological environmental objective in a
mitigation process. And so that -- to some degree, that's allowed in
state permitting.
To some degree, if you will, through our cjustering criteria,
very detailed here, but we are looking at trying to have a
Page 35
March 19, 1999
flexibility of moving some areas that will be destroyed with regard
to a preservation requirement, but allow the mitigation to occur
adjacent or within an NRPA.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: So we've kind of discussed somewhat both elements
of, if you will, a general protection strategy that we formulated.
And at the regional or landscape level, we're looking at
location of very sensitive areas. And through our 1989 plan, we've
adopted the term NRPA's, Natural Resource Protection Areas. These
are the areas, if you will, that have some type of conservation
status or conservation objectives with regard to the utilization of
those lands.
At the project or site scale level, the board, again through the
TwinEagles criteria, directed staff to look at more specific
standards in the rural area of the county to address environmental
protection issues. Of course, those standards have been at a project
site-by-site level.
So these two -- these are the two prongs of the strategy that we
basically worked through with the DCA and basically tried to convince
them that working together, given Collier County's environmental
conditions, that these would be appropriate.
And at the moment, at least our understanding is, is DCA has
approved, if you will the settlement language. Not formally
approved, but have certainly given us that degree of understanding
that what we've proposed to date works towards their fundamental
objections.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are both those things in your
understanding consistent with past board action -- MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- both those positions of staff?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Commissioner Constantine, obviously the
commission way back when, you know, directed staff not to continue
with the NRPA program. But as a result of the DCA noncompliance and
the board's direction for density reduction, to look at those three
areas that I've noted as deserving special attention, we are simply
using the NRPA term to cover that board's direction. So I feel that
it's -- to that degree, it's consistent.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically, the board said when you're
looking at density reduction, direct density away from these three
environmentally sensitive areas, and then you have put the label NRPA
Page 36
March 19, 1999
on those. I mean, that's basically the way I see what's happening
here.
MR. LORENZ: Of course the board left the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me -- I'm not trying to
be difficult, but can you help me remember exactly when the board
said we want to stay away from these basic areas with density?
Because we talked about density in numbers and went into great
detail, but I don't recall the specifics, saying okay, we want to
stay away from these particular environmental areas?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where I recall that, and staff can probably
do a better job than I, but when Commissioner Hancock was here and we
were talking about the receiving areas and the transfer areas, and we
wanted to have -- potentially we talked about receiving areas in
Immokalee, but we said oh, but for God's sake, nowhere near these
slews and these environmentally sensitive areas, we don't want to
have any transfers into those, we want to have less density in those
conservation kinds of areas. Am I -- MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- basically, that was it?
MR. LORENZ: In fact, those three areas were specifically named.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. Okay. Sorry, go ahead.
MR. LORENZ: So kind of as the working definition, if you will,
the NRPA's are really what we're talking about, these large areas
that have significant ecological functions. And of course, they're
working at this regional level, not -- when you look at Collier
County, which we'll go through the maps, you'll see that there are
these very large areas that as you look at a distribution of wetlands
and quality of wetlands and listed species concerns, that these areas
to a large degree just jump out at you as saying that these are some
of the -- the more important areas for the county to consider in a
comprehensive planning process.
Right now, the existing plan, we have conservation as a future
land use designation. And what we're proposing is that we break that
conservation designation up into two subcategories, if you will: The
NRPA public subcategory, public lands that are called NRPA's; or
NRPA's that are in private land. So again, it's an element of the
conservation designation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there property in any of the private
NRPA's that's not already designated conservation?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
Page 37
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Because I'm going to want to see
what that is as we go through the process.
MR. LORENZ: Again, in the -- at that landscape level, one of
the functions of the Natural Resource Protection Areas again will be
to limit land uses and densities that significantly impact these
areas. And there again, that's where we're coming back to the DCA's
fundamental objection with regard to wetlands protection, is that
that new 9J5 criteria requires the county to direct incompatible land
uses away from, if you will, significant wetland systems.
Now, if you can refer to Page 115, the handwritten page number
in your packet, this is where we've -- as a policy, we have
established the criteria for what an NRPA is. And these are some
working criteria to help guide us to determine how we will identify
the NRPA's.
And what we're saying is basically they're large connected
wetland systems, and they have listed species concerns, endangered or
threatened species, within these areas.
A third criteria is that they also function to connect other
preserved areas. If you look at the existing future land use map, of
course, we have a number of conservation areas that already exist.
Basically, the Big Cypress, Fakahatchee, Panther Preserve, kind of to
the -- on the southeast in Collier County. And then CREW, the CREW
lands to the north. And so these areas will then help function as
connections to these large conservation areas.
And we also kind of looked at it because again, Collier County
is 73 percent wetlands. And we know that there are a lot of wetlands
in certain, if you fill, urbanizing areas, such as North Golden Gate
Estates. And certain wetland systems are connected -- or are
fragmented by road networks.
We also wanted to recognize that not every place that has
connected wetlands deserves an NRPA status, but to the degree that
they're not fragmented so that they lose a lot of that connectivity
functionality, if I can use those two words together. That's kind of
the criteria that we used as well.
So for instance -- without having a restoration plan in place.
So for instance, north Golden Gate Estates is very fragmented, and it
did have a lot of wetlands, but their functionality is, quite
frankly, shot.
And staff does not recommend that those systems -- that at one
point in North Golden Gate Estates that were connected deserve the
attention or deserve the significance as an NRPA.
Page 38
March 19, 1999
One of the things that -- of course, we have to use the best
available data and analysis to forward to DCA eventually when we
arrive at the final language for the settlement agreement; we have to
pull together certain informational sources that we've used.
For the wetland classification and other habitat
classifications, we're using a land cover system by the South Florida
Water Management District. That's basically is a GIS -- in a GIS
format taken from aerial shots in 1994-95.
The Water Management District basically considers, for instance,
for wetlands, is that you've got a resolution of two acres. For
other land use classifications, the resolution is good at five acres,
and you have about a 90 percent classification accuracy.
This is the best information that we have available to go
through and make some of these proposals to you, but that's the
information that we are using.
We also pulled information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service data basis for listed species occurrences. The Panther
Preservation Plan, I think, is a key document that we'll get into.
Another key document is the report called Closing the Gaps in
Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. This was developed
by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in 1994. It has a series
of maps. Next slide now, please. It has a series of maps that will
depict habitat quality for a variety of listed species.
Another map that they have is called a regional biodiversity hot
spot, and they also propose strategic conservation areas.
These are all the areas that the Game Commission considers
important for Florida to have sufficient lands to maintain
biodiversity in the state.
I think it's important that the report also states that the
purpose of this information is for land use planning, and does state
that these areas are not in violent zones where no development
occurs. So the report does provide those conditions on utilization
of these maps. And certainly we're not, as staff, proposing that no
development should occur as a result of using this type of
information.
Again, the cjustering standards, the NRPA still allows
development to occur, but we're constraining it, providing different
standards for it.
Let me just go over some key information, because it will be
important. And for the audience, too, to know that we've got a
number of series of maps that we can bring up here. I've tried to
Page 39
March 19, 1999
select the information to kind of help make the point and be
consistent. But we can show that -- we'll show the satellite image
so you can get a feel for what these areas look like in terms of a
satellite picture.
Again, we're using the South Florida Water Management District
cover data that the -- the Game Commission maps and so forth. So,
Bob, if you can just put that first map up.
This map is a little difficult I know for some people from the
side, but we'll have it available for people to look at later.
This -- the lines that you see on the map basically are the NRPA
lines, and they reflect both the public and -- public and privately
designated NRPA's. Also, right down here, this is not an NRPA at
that point, but that's the Belle Meade subdistrict that I'll talk
about in a little bit more detail later.
But you can -- you can see that for the most part, just from a
photograph standpoint, these areas that we've picked out are a large
measure, kind of the -- if you will, the green areas, the native
vegetation type of areas. And, yes, indeed, there are other types of
land uses embedded in those large areas. But to get a connected
system, this was the areas that, again, from the board's direction,
reflect the CREW, the Camp Keais and the Okaloacoochee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the impact when it's -- if you
put that back for a minute, Bob, thanks -- when private property is
declared NRPA?
MR. LORENZ: The Future Land Use Element will restrict the
densities to 1 to 40. And this is in terms of the density reduction
presentation. These are the areas that we're showing here under the
conservation NRPA designation. Densities will be lowered to 1 unit
to 40 acres.
There's also a list of allowable uses that are within these
areas, such as residential uses. But the list of allowable land uses
would be the most restrictive list that we have in the comp. plan.
And again, as I go through the standards, I can refer you to the
pages that we have a list of those areas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically, the biggest one is that instead
of 1 to 20, you're 1 to 40? MR. LORENZ: Correct.
This is the -- a -- maybe you can zoom in.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you zoom in a little bit?
MR. LORENZ: This is the South Florida Water Management
District's land cover data. And what is basically in green is the
Page 40
March 19, 1999
wetlands classifications. And again, kind of to walk through here,
this of course is the area, Big Cypress National Preserve, which is
already a publicly owned area, and it's a conservation designation
status. The Fakahatchee State Preserve, the same way.
The two areas that we're talking about, or the three areas we're
talking about in terms of NRPA's would be the CREW, the Camp Keais
and the Okaloacoochee, again, showing the distribution of wetlands in
there.
And as you notice, it does make sense, in the sense of if this
is all agricultural impacted areas without the wetlands and this is a
1 to 20 density that's being proposed on the density reduction
proposal, that if we're looking at density and looking at a spectrum
of densities across urbanization through conservation or areas that
serve significant ecological functions, the spectrum then would
indicate that this would be -- needs to be treated at a, if you will,
more restrictive land use level to provide additional degree of
protection, recognizing those areas have greater degrees of
environmental sensitivity.
Now, I think this is a key figure here. This is the Game
Commission's strategic habitat conservation areas for Collier County.
Everything that you see in green are areas that the Game Commission
considers are private lands that need some degree of conservation
standards to apply to those lands to meet those biodiversity
objectives that were listed out on the report.
Again, these are maps as well, as we've gone through the DCA
noncompliance discussions, and through the administrative hearing
process, these are the maps that were used for the testimony to
provide where Collier County fits with regard to its wetland and
listed species protection.
But I'd like to make a couple of points on this. One is you can
see that in staff's assessment, the proposed boundaries for the
NRPA's are much less than the conservation areas that are proposed by
the Game Commission. And we feel that this is appropriate. And
you'll see some other information as you walk through the maps. When
we start looking at some additional species information of why that's
appropriate.
You saw the wetlands maps, and you can see that a large part of
these areas, quite frankly, are just in an agricultural status and
not in -- in wetlands with the previous map.
So from staff's prospective -- it also shows that, of course,
you know, I guess for the good and perhaps for the bad, that Collier
Page 41
March 19, 1999
County is very important with regard to listed species. That's just
-- that's the reality. This is the information that's available.
And of course, it makes it more difficult or makes it more
challenging to arrive at some proper balance between property rights,
property utilization and environmental protection. And I think what
I'm trying to propose here is that this is staff's first cut of that
balance.
This is another Game Commission map. This is the -- what they
call the biodiversity hot spots. This is the colors -- the orange
is, if you will, the hottest color or the greatest degree of what the
Game Commission called focal species. These are listed species that
they consider important for this analysis. So the yellow has greater
than seven focal species, the red has five to six focal species.
Again, I think the point of the map here is unlike the previous
map where you saw the strategic conservation areas that included a
lot of this information, a lot of area right in here. Again, staff
has somewhat constrained the NRPA boundaries to the areas that have
the greatest hot spots that form a connected system. Again, with
using -- bouncing back to the criteria that we established for what
an NRPA is.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Bill, excuse me, can you tell me what might
those species be? Let's say in the orange area.
MR. LORENZ: Well, let's see. Certainly panther, some wading
birds. There's a list of species I could get to you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't you get that for us?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd just like to know.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just making sure I understand before
you remove the graphic, that bottom three-quarters that's orange and
yellow and a little bit of blue, when you talk about striking the
balance between private property rights and the environmental
sensitivity, that bottom three-quarters is exclusively set aside for
environmental sensitivity; is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: Talking about the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. LORENZ: -- current conservation lands, the Big Cypress,
Fakahatchee?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
Another figure that again kind of shows the -- a similar
pattern, and it's kind of what we're looking at is to some degree
Page 4 2
March 19, 1999
patterns in the big picture of Fish and Wildlife Services data -- I'm
not going to go into all of the points, but the red points is
basically the panther data. And that becomes for us a key measure in
terms of the listed species protection.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so I understand, a red dot means
a panther ran over that spot once?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's correct. But I think the
fact that other areas do not show the red dot provides a pattern for
where the panthers are moving.
And again, I'm looking at trying to develop the staff as
developing this pattern for these areas that we've talked about as
being -- having some degree of additional -- additionally sensitive
in having some degree of different land use.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, you know, staff deserves some credit
here for trying to balance all of this out. Because there are people
in the environmental community who would say that where there is a
red dot there shall be preservation, because a panther has left a
track there. And I think what Bill is just showing us, that this is
one of the factors, but I don't think that he's saying that if a
panther crossed the land, we've got to put it in NRPA.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly not intended to be a
criticism to Mr. Lorenz. I'm just making sure we clearly understand
what the map says.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But it also would indicate to me that
panthers don't like to wade around in the water either, so --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What a concept, huh? They don't swim, huh?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So there's got to be a compatibility here.
MR. LORENZ: They have fallen off the map up here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Glad to see it.
MR. LORENZ: Again, I wouldn't belabor it too much, but here's
information concerning wading bird habitats where again the highest
concentrations are in the red and orange, which again would lead to
show that those areas that we've bracketed as NRPA's, they pretty
much are falling in those areas.
This is a map of a panther preservation plan.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whose? Whose plan?
MR. LORENZ: I guess it's the Wildlife Services -- Fish and
Wildlife and Game Commission Panther Preservation.
This is the map of the priority one and priority two habitats;
priority one is the most important habitat.
As you can see, our NRPA's --
Page 43
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which color is priority one?
MR. LORENZ: Okay, sorry. The pink is priority one, and the
light blue, if you call it a blue coming out on the printer, is a
priority two habitat.
So again, we weren't so much a slave to these lines as we kind
of work those lines that we developed somewhat independently of all
the other information. But after we've gotten through and taken a
look at how this matches up, this is how the preservation would --
the lines would match up with regard to the panther preservation
land.
We can use this map now or at a later date to zoom in a little
bit closer up on our NRPA's. But again, if you look at this map
where the green is the wetlands, the kind of the pink or tan would be
agriculture areas, the red is basically urbanization, you know,
house, urban, and the yellow are the, again, those panther clots that
we saw at a higher scale. This map here then, again, shows where our
NRPA boundaries are.
I'd like to make a couple points. Again, when we're looking at
the patterns, a general pattern, I think, you know, it's hard for
certainly me standing up here as a Natural Resources Director to say
that these large broad areas are not important in terms of the --
don't have any -- do not have the same environmental sensitivity as
other areas in the county, because they do have greater environmental
sensitivity.
To the degree how we treat that ultimately becomes a policy
direction from the board. And of course staff is proposing the land
use density reduction of 1 per 40 and restriction of land uses in
these areas.
But when you get down to the detailed level, I know that one of
the things we tried to do as staff was to try to eliminate a lot of
the farm fields that were in these areas without having to, if you
will, make a disconnection or have a system that's then unconnected.
Because if you look at some of these areas, if we try to just go
around the wetland, you're not going to have a connected system. Yet
we also know that from a wildlife corridor perspective, you know,
they've got to get from -- for some species, from one wetland to
another. Some species, of course, like the panter, you know, use the
upland fringe which is important as well. So to the degree it's got
agriculture farm fields in these areas, yes, that's true.
One could also look at and make the case on the other side that
in some places we've kind of -- right in here, one may argue that you
Page 44
March 19, 1999
could close this line up right here and put this area in as the NRPA.
Because what we're doing is we're saying that this area is 1 per 40,
this area is 1 per 20.
Now, to the degree that you have cjustering criteria, if anybody
wanted to develop those areas, there's always a possibility of, you
know, acquiring a conservation easement, even through a formal land
development -- transfer development rights -- informal transfer of
developments right program, or from again our cjustering criteria,
which we'll talk about later.
But certainly someone can make, you know, the argument that
perhaps you could just draw the line straight across and create that
as an NRPA.
Again, the detail of where the lines actually go, you know,
different people are going to make different decisions on, you know,
a zig and a zag. But again, for the major pattern, we feel that this
pretty much accomplishes certainly the -- addresses the criteria that
we have set out for the purpose of the NRPA's and how we're going to
propose to protect them.
So let's talk a little bit more in detail of the protection
mechanisms. Again, the reference pages in your packet, you know,
Page 111, 115 and 116.
We've talked before about the residential density is 1 unit per
40 acres. Again, that's the proposed proposal for the NRPA's, both
within the private areas and of course the conservation areas. Right
now the conservation areas are 1 in 3; one unit for three acres in
the conservation areas, is that your current density? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 1 to 5.
MR. LORENZ: So we're proposing that within the publicly owned
conservation areas they go to 1 to 40. I mean, that's less of a
significance than, of course, the private areas.
The land use restrictions, also if you turn to Page 111, under
B, Natural Resources Protection Areas, is private ownership district.
There's a list of only the following uses may be permitted in this
district. And this is quite extensively culled from all available
land uses permitted in other areas of Collier County. Again
residential at 1 unit per 40 acres. Agricultural is still allowed to
be used, so there's no use restriction on agricultural uses. And oil
extraction and related activities.
I know that there has been some discussion. We did cut out, for
instance, earth mining within NRPA's, because as a use it is so
cumulative in terms of its impact, its direct impacts are so great,
Page 45
March 19, 1999
that we're recommending that within the NRPA's that earth mining not
be allowed.
If you kind of flip back to Page 110, that underlined strikeout,
those underlined strikeouts, if you will, kind of reflect the changes
that were made to the existing comp. plan of what would be allowed,
you know, in these areas before, and then you see the changes that
have been made to what is on Page 111o
Again, on Page 116, the -- you know, this is -- again, this is
the settlement language that we're proposing. To some degree, we --
sub-policy 613 and 614 are pretty much kind of outlining the
rationale for the NRPA -- the NRPA that we've just talked about, what
their purpose is. That to some degree provides for the DCA to
basically say yeah, your policies are directed at directing
incompatible land uses from wetlands and, of course, the NRPAs as a
category of wetlands for the wetlands that are already in the NRPAs,
you know, are our highest function or our highest functioning
wetlands. We consider those our priority wetlands.
The other restrictions within an NRPA is that any development
that would -- any nonresidential or -- excuse me, development would
provide a stormwater standard that would be consistent with
outstanding Florida waters.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How different is that from what Water
Management District's requiring out there right now? MR. LORENZ: I don't know.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to know. Because I know it's so
highly regulated out there right now, I just want to know if that's a
higher water standard.
MR. LORENZ: We also have basically a standard that would look
at any development that would come adjacent to an NRPA, so that we
can provide some degree of protection from development within the
NRPA.
And to a large degree it's more kind of siting criteria to
ensure that the most intensive land uses for that property that's
adjacent to an NRPA is located as far away as possible from the NRPA.
And DCA also wanted to see that we have Land Development Code
regulations, or adopt regulations that would implement these
standards in our land development codes. That's the reason for
Policy 616.
There's another item here that I want to talk about, and that's
the Belle Meade subdistrict. Bob, if you can go back to that first
colored -- the second colored map.
Page 46
March 19, 1999
The Belle Meade subdistrict is located right here for purpose of
the future land use map. You can see the -- again, the green in this
-o the green is wetlands. The light blue is forested.
Now, one of the things we looked at as staff is to some degree
our forest cover maps out from the land use category has the
potential, and maybe, if I put odds on it, maybe a 50-50 chance of
being actually a wetland type of classification. But -- so blue is -
- can be -- in some cases, could be a wetlands system.
What we wanted to do with this Belle Meade subdistrict is
because it -- of course, it has a lot of -- you can see it's
virtually all wetland coverage. We wanted that -- to provide it on
that spectrum, if you will, from urbanization to NRPAs as somewhere
in the middle, but closer to the NRPA.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why is it -- why isn't it just an NRPA?
MR. LORENZ: The fragmentation with 75 --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you back up the map so we can see?
MR. LORENZ: This is 75 here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: That was a discussion point that we, as staff, you
know, kind of worked back and forth on. But what we arrived at was
that we would have the land use restrictions to be the same, if you
will, as those of an NRPA. In other words, have -- again, earth
mining was cut out of that. I know that's going to be a topic of
discussion later on, but that was an area that was cut out of that
particular -- this particular subdistrict, which is now mapped on the
land use plan, proposed land use plan, as a subdistrict.
But because of the fragmentation, we maintained the density of 1
per 5, so it doesn't get the 1 per 40 that an NRPA has.
Secondly, it's also west of the Estates. So to the degree that
it's in that area that the economic analysis would suggest would not
be appropriate to go to 1 to 20. They didn't think it would be
appropriate to propose 1 for 40.
Then a third reason, too -- and again, we tried to maintain to
the degree that we think is objectively supportive of the board's
direction in terms of those three areas, that certainly when you look
at the map before would justify what we're calling an NRPA.
So the Belle Meade subdistrict again is similar to an NRPA in a
sense that it has the same uses. It's different in that it has a 1
per 5 density instead of the 1 per 40 density.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically because it's west of the Estates
and 1-75 cuts it off?
Page 47
March 19, 1999
MR. LORENZ: Severed by 1-75. So we didn't feel that it could
go to the 1 per 40.
If you can refer to Pages 119 through 121 in your settlement
agreement. In an area where we've got problems with DCA in terms of
the noncompliance, and certainly, again, through the testimony that
the administrative hearing was developed, is that we weren't
quantifiable and did not provide sufficient measurable standards for
wetlands protection. So we've worked through these policies with
DCA.
And also recognize, too, that for wetlands protection at the
site -- at the landscape level, the regional level, you know, we are
directing the most intensive land uses and densities away from the
larger wetland systems, which are contained within those NRPA's. And
also through -- and we'll talk later about some of the cjustering
criteria. We have some standards there that helps to push
development away, cjuster development away from important natural
wetland system areas as well. But we still had to come up with some
standards in the plan for specific wetlands protection.
The first objective is the modification from the current plan in
that -- and this is what I'm just dubbing as the no net loss
objective. This is on Page 119 at the very bottom of the page.
Again, no net loss of marina fresh water wetland functions.
I'm using the term "functions" in there, because when we talk
about areas, there are mitigation requirements, and it's very
difficult to talk about, you know, hard to quantify or measure that
objective, if you will, if you talk about areas. So we talk about
functions.
And one of the reasons why I am talking about functions is
because its stated policy from the federal and state agencies have a
no net loss of wetland function. And mitigation, of course, is a way
to get that function back up to a no net loss condition. That's the
reason for mitigation.
So we've provided this objective. It passed DCA's muster.
Again, I think with some exceptions that I'll walk through, one of
the things that staff did -- and there's one particular policy that
says it -- is that we really do not want to be involved with a
duplicate permitting program, because that has passed board
direction.
There are a few standards in here that are different from
federal and state requirements, and I will walk through them. But
from a standpoint of having to go through the county to get a
Page 48
March 19, 1999
wetlands permit, no, that's not the case, and that's what we've
stated in here.
To the degree that if the board were to accept these policies
and these standards, a development goes through and doesn't meet
this, of course, that development would be inconsistent with the
Growth Management Plan. So we don't envision a full-blown permitting
program at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically the regulation that you're
proposing would just be incorporated into the land development regs
like the open space and the landscaping and that kind of stuff, but
you're not proposing an environmental permitting process for Collier
County?
MR. LORENZ: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's important.
MR. LORENZ: We're using -- on Page 120, using, for instance,
definitions, the state definitions. So for purposes of the county's
comp. plan, we're not going beyond the delineation, the methods for
delineations or defining wetlands for that. That's for that policy.
Policy 6364, and basically policy -- well, Policy 6364 is, to a large
degree, a statement of the purpose of how we're protecting wetlands
with regard to natural resource protection areas, and also a
recognition, again for the state to make sure they understand that in
the area of critical state concern, which takes into account, you
know, a large portion of the county, of course, obviously a large
portion of already conservation areas, but there are also stringent
standards within that that the county has already adopted that would
apply in those areas. So again, another level of wetland protection
that the county has adopted, which is what the state requires.
Policy 635 recognizes the NRPA's, and the 1 per 40 density is a
wetland protection mechanism. We also recommend that any of the
lower densities is 1 per 20 is a recommendation for that area to
provide for wetland protection. Asphalt plants are currently listed
in the future land use plan as not appropriate within wetlands.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's good.
MR. LORENZ: And then we have some other language than gets us
into the -- gets us into the -- satisfies the DCA's objection.
The areas that I indicated that need to provide to show that is
somewhat different is on Page 121. That's one of the areas where the
county currently requires -- and this is Policy 639, currently
provides for exotics removal. Requires exotics removal because the
county currently requires exotics removal. The operating, I guess,
Page 49
March 19, 1999
policy that the staff has is that that does not -- invasive exotics
removal does not qualify for mitigation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's a current policy, right?
MR. LORENZ: It's not a stated policy but is a current practice
by staff.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. LORENZ: Therefore, we have reflected this in here that to
the degree that you have a mitigation requirement, the state
permitting program would allow for certain infestations of melaleuca
to go below a 1 to 1 ratio. So to the degree that this is 1 to 1 or
more is different from the state rule. So I want to flag that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically, am I understanding this, if you
want to get credit for mitigation for exotic removal, you have to
also do some restoration, you can't just jerk out the melaleuca and
consider that to be mitigation, there has to be some restoration?
MR. LORENZ: Correct. The state would, in that case, depending
upon the degree of coverage of the melaleuca, 50 percent is one
function, one threshold, 75 percent is another threshold, would have
different mitigation ratios, and some of those ratios fall below 1 to
1.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So there is restoration?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There needs to be.
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In our proposal, not in the state.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the state recognizes that as mitigation, but
less than 1 to 1.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because we don't restore, it doesn't do
much good to set it aside.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Am I right?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It would just come back.
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I mean, who's -- even the wildlife is not
going to limit it, right? They're going to move.
MR. LORENZ: But we do require restoration. But your statement
is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So there's a cost factor here, obviously.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So who pays for the exotic removal?
Page 50
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The developer seeking the permit to develop
the property.
MR. LORENZ: Unless it becomes such a phasing that in some cases
it gets passed on to the homeowner's association.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about when they purchase mitigation
property and that has exotics on it, then who pays for that?
MR. LORENZ: Mitigation --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A conservation type purchase.
MR. LORENZ: I think, if I'm -- can you ask the question again?
I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's say that a property owner is
required to purchase some number of acreage as mitigation, and that
purchased property has exotics on it, who pays to clean out the
exotics?
MR. LORENZ: Well, if it would be dedicated -- I mean, that can
be worked out.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There are different ways.
MR. LORENZ: There would be dif£erent ways.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I haven't told this story
for awhile.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who's going to pay for it?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It depends. And it's negotiable at this
point, the way I understand it, that, for example, CREW manages some
of this property that's put into mitigation, and it is constantly
fund-raising to try to find a way to do better management so that we
can remove some of those exotics.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to tell this story, though.
I haven't told it for awhile. This is one of the those programs
that's very well intended but in practice, I think, that we are
throwing an awful lot of money away and forcing the private sector to
throw money away.
I was out in -- personally out in the middle of nowhere in one
of these mitigation lands. And there was a team out there with the
ribbon around a certain section where they were cutting down
melaleuca.
And as I watched the team, what they would do is cut it down,
take it over to the edge of the river and throw it over and discard
it, and didn't necessarily remove it from the area. So what do you
suppose is going to happen six months from now? You're going to have
all kinds of new melaleuca sprouted. But somebody spent a pile of
money on their little section clearing melaleuca.
Page 51
March 19, 1999
So either A, the enforcement of how that's done isn't
appropriately enforced, and B, everyone is throwing their time and
money away. It's a wonderfully intended program, but in practice
it's not doing what we hoped it would do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I didn't think I'd hear you propose being
more restrictive and trying to get more --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think you did hear me say
that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think that that's what I heard.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought maybe I did. It's not working
the way it is, so we better get more restrictive.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I said at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know it isn't.
MR. LORENZ: The other point that I would like to simply make is
Golden Gate Estates, there are policies that we address north and
south of Golden Gate Estates on Policy 6310 and 6311. Wherein 6310 we
are proposing that any residents that impact wetlands must get a
federal and state permit before the county issues its building
permit.
In North Golden Gate Estates, we will inform the residents that
they may be impacting the wetland and may require -- be required to
have a federal and state permit. And it will also alert the federal
and state agencies as to which -- what permits are going in for North
Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't do that now?
MR. LORENZ: We currently do that for North Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of a burden does that put on
your southern Golden Gate Estates people, though, if they want to do
something on their own property and you've got an individual
homeowner trying to build a $75,000 home and they have to go --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He has to get --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask staff this?
They have to go to get all their federal and these other things
before we'll even deal with them at all.
MR. LORENZ: Before we issue a permit, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems kind of onerous on the
little guy out there trying to build his own home.
MR. MULHERE: Very -- I think we -- our records indicate only
seven permits in the last few years in the Golden Gate Estates. It's
a very, very small volume, especially with the Estates efforts to
purchase that area.
Page 52
March 19, 1999
It is currently required by the state and federal statutes that
those permits be acquired prior to construction. We could review the
building permit, but what we're proposing is that we not issue it
until they demonstrate that they have that permit.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because it may give people, you know, a
false impression that they're ready -- if you get your county
building permit, you may think that it's -- that you are going to be
able to build a house there when you've got a lot of hoops yet to
jump through with the reds and the state. So it could be misleading
to people is my concern, if we go ahead and issue our local permit.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know, that whole issue seems so
contrary to what we heard the other day. If we're issuing any
permits at all --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have to.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You have to issue the permits, when they
talk about coming in and taking property by eminent domain? Why in
the world would you issue a permit for somebody to build a house and
then come back and tell them in two or three years, I'm sorry we're
coming in and taking your property?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they have to take it today if we
don't let them use it today. You have to pay for it today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It might be more fair.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And because when you heard that two
weeks ago --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that was the first time they've
publicly acknowledged that it wasn't strictly a voluntary program --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're right. Because up until --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in 15 years.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, are you wrapping up?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It doesn't make sense.
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, we're going to get to the cjustering
criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Because you're losing us.
MR. LORENZ: We refer to basically the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just sort of get to what are the cjustering
criteria, because I think that --
MR. LORENZ: Okay, Page 122, 124, Page 126.
Page 53
March 19, 1999
We broke up basically the cjustering criteria in two areas: The
urban designated area and the ag. rural area. The first policy up
there, 641, for the most part it contains the same information that
we have in our code that has been adopted, except for the definition
of viably naturally functioning which we're proposing to be not less
than 90 percent invasives.
Policy 642 is where we're getting into the agriculture rural
criteria, cjustering criteria.
Again, this is based fundamentally on the TwinEagles criteria.
We worked with The Conservancy, we flushed it out. Through the
negotiation process with DCA, the DCA provided some additional
requirements. But we can go through the criteria.
And on Page 122 at the bottom, for any -- for the uses that are
listed there, less than 40 acres, we're looking simply at 25 percent
set-aside.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So everybody keeps saying a 50 percent set-
aside, they're assuming that's property greater than 40 acres?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's how we've got it listed.
That's the set-aside of the total project size, not simply the
percentage of vegetation, native vegetation on-site.
One of the rationales we're saying, 50 percent, of course it's a
TwinEagles criteria, but when you think about it, this is development
that we're permitting in the rural area. To the degree that this
area should maintain a rural character, staff is recommending that at
least half of it should be preserved in a rural or natural unimpacted
state.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What if they were to build a golf course
and not put any homes around it?
MR. LORENZ: The golf courses, if it's greater -- which of
course would be greater than 40 acres -- would be required to set
aside 50 percent of the total project site in a preserved status,
either on-site or adjacent to or within an NRPA.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To me this is the question of is it going
to be a meaningful urban boundary or not visually? I just had to
throw that in. Are people going to be able to tell when they're in a
rural area or not?
MR. LORENZ: On Page 123 we have, reading down again, the
guidelines for what constitutes a natural area. Again, we have
incentives for retaining native vegetation, and that incentive, quite
frankly, is that if in your project you destroy any native
Page 54
March 19, 1999
functioning vegetation, again the 90 percent definition, then you
would have to mitigate that at a 2 to 1 ratio.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I go back to your last comment?
And I need some help with that. If this is how we're going to decide
whether or not we're going to have a meaningful rural area visually,
then why are we allowing the buy-out? Okay, but you can knock the
trees down and put in more if you want to buy land somewhere else.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you put it in at 2 to 1 --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- then --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The green mail, I call it. I mean,
either we want to preserve it visually, or we don't. So I don't
understand that. When we say this is a meaningful way of how we're
going to preserve this visually, unless you want to spend a little
more money, that just --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And frankly -- well, Bob, explain it,
because I know that's not really --
MR. LORENZ: Well, the 50 percent -- if you will, it's a
transfer. If you look at the available acreage out there, somewhere
in the rural area you're going to have to preserve 50 percent so we
maintain that that is a constant under these criteria, whether it's
at that particular location or someplace else. So broadly speaking,
we're giving the flexibility of doing it some place else. The
alternative without having that would be the mandated on-site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but to somewhere else, it's a
NRPA or something anyway, so it's not a -- realistically you're not
going to have a golf course pop up in a Camp Keys Strand, you know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It would be pretty wet if you did.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to clarify. The objective as
written would not allow -- you would still be required to preserve 50
percent of the project size.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even if?
MR. MULHERE: Either way you would still be required to preserve
50 percent. So we're not lessening that and allowing you -- we're
not allowing you to impact 60, 70 or 80 percent, it still stays at 50
percent. But of the 50 percent that you're permitted to development
as written, if that's natural, you have to mitigate 2 to 1 elsewhere.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, okay, thank you, thank you, because I
thought that was it. 50 percent of each site remains natural, or
even is restored to native natural condition, if it doesn't exist.
If it's a tomato field today and then --
Page 55
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me. You said restore a tomato field
to its natural condition?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no. To its native condition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As of when?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you know what its native condition could
have been?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we picking -- yeah, are we
picking 1950 as native, 1900 as native, 1400 as native? What is
native?
MR. LORENZ: We -- our language basically would allow the
developer -- they have to maintain that area exotic free. If the
cost of maintaining that area -- like we have to require it in any
place in the county. The cost of requiring that area exotic free,
the least cost in terms of a total cost analysis, would be to go in,
remove some berms, maintain some flow ways, then that's an assessment
by the developer that that's the best way to do it. If they maintain
it exotic free and it grows up to whatever it grows up, as long as it
is exotic free, we're saying that that's fine for the purposes of the
rural areas. So we're not saying that you have to maintain -- you
have to get back to some preexisting condition.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I wish we were saying, but I
guess we're not. We're not suggesting -- I overstated then when I
said that at 50 percent you have to restore your tomato field.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because that means you're probably out
there planting sand spurs, and I don't think anyone wants to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, but the 50 percent just means it has
to be maintained exotic free.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, the preserve area would have to be maintained
exotic free.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: Just like we have in all -- that's what we require
now for all of our developers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, if I could for a minute,
here's a point that I'm struggling with a little bit. Let's take two
extremes. Let's take a section of land that is 100 percent
agriculture, tomato field, and let's take a section that's 100
percent native vegetation of some sort and has not been disturbed.
On the one hand, you're saying -- well, on both cases you're
saying take half of it and set it aside. And of the half in the
disturbed farmlands, you're saying that needs to be restored native -
- or allowed to go native might be a better way of putting it.
Page 56
March 19, 1999
Okay. Now, that leaves half of the tomato field that you can do
whatever you want to with under the criteria that's here, because
you're not going to impact any more native species or natural
species.
But on the other hand, on the other side, you're saying that you
have to set aside 50 percent of it to begin with, and then of that
native habitat or area that you're going to impact, you've got to
mitigate 2 to 1 for it. That's just not fair.
MR. LORENZ: This is the TwinEagles criteria that we worked
with. The incentive is to try to keep the development on the
impacted areas already to the degree that -- so to the degree that
you're impacting natural vegetation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I understand that. But it doesn't --
you know, I said a long time ago when we were getting started on this
process, that if you pick a number like 50 percent and make that the
hard and fast number, you're going to come into situations where this
won't apply properly. Sometimes it will perhaps, sometimes it won't.
But, you know, what we're ignoring here, if we continue on this,
is that the owner of the property that has kept it in native and has
never disturbed it all these years is going to be punished under this
relative to the property owner that has been farming his property for
some time. I just see a disparity here that we need to think through
a little more, and that's all I'm saying. That goes along with the
comments that I made earlier about the cjustering policy.
The -- you know, anybody who's going to go out and develop home
sites on a large tract of land out there is far more likely to want
to cjuster than to divide it up into five-acre ranchettes (sic) or
something like that, a grid five acres. They're not going to want to
do that. It's much more marketable and economically feasible for
them to cjuster it.
So what we ought to do is start lower and encourage them to
cjuster by granting them the ability to cjuster, if they will
continue to set aside to try to reach a certain amount, whether it's
40, 50 or whatever, you know, we can discuss. But I think the point
is, is that we should start at perhaps 25 percent and encourage
cjustering and allow cjustering by gaining it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Like if you preserve more, then you get to
cjuster.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Because right now it's not written
that way. It says you have to cjuster. You don't have any option,
you've got to cjuster, and you've got to set aside 50 percent. Well,
Page 57
March 19, 1999
you know, there's no incentive for anybody to really have their heart
into preserving anything under those circumstances. So what we need
to do is devise a system in here, maybe alter it a little bit, keep
the same thought going as we want cjustering and we want
preservation, but approach it a little bit differently from what
we're doing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think, too, we have to consider different
properties. Now, I don't know how you write a rule to do that, but I
think you've got to look at the different properties that are
involved here. And I think John made the perfect case for this, for
the two different -- the one that's in the natural state already
that's already treed and whatever.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Headlines tomorrow, John is perfect.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Don't bet your life on it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A lot of misinterpretation of
comments up here today.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think that definitely is the case in
point, that it's -- again, the one size doesn't fit all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was the question I had asked
before, was there's got to be some variable here, because everything
isn't --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe -- Dr. Nicholas, I believe you
made that point earlier when we were talking about this, that we're
going to have to allow looking at some of the variables here. And I
think this is an example of one of those situations.
MR. LORENZ: And staff recognizes that. That was -- as I said,
the direction was the TwinEagles criteria. We've flushed it out,
come back to the board, and there are certainly areas that can be
fine-tuned and tweaked and have a little bit different style to them.
Just in closing, in shortness of time here, the rest of the
information that was in the settlement agreement for the most part is
contained in the Land Development Code that we basically just put in
for the listed species. This is on Page 126 and 127.
We do have the wildlife information for cjustering-type
criteria, but I think that needs to be looked at under the fine-
tuning situation as well. You can look at that.
Page 58
March 19, 1999
And then the coastal resource protection information that was
the fourth objection from DCA on Pages 127 and 128, again, we've
basically incorporated all Land Development Code standards in it and
it passes the DCA muster, as far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. Okay, let's have 10 minutes of
public comments.
Barb, do you have something you need to add?
MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, Barbara Cacchione of the
Comprehensive Planning Staff. I will be extremely brief.
There are other elements that the DCA objected to and found it's
not in compliance on. And also, I should mention there are three
interveners in this case: The Collier County School Board --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, Barb, we're not there yet. You're
talking settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aren't we there yet?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, we're at Item 5, public comment under
cjuster -- we haven't done the settlement agreement yet, guys.
MS. CACCHIONE: We've done portions of the settlement agreement
with Mr. Lorenz's presentation, and it was my understanding we're
going to go through the agenda and take public comment? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. We just finished Item No. 4. You got
the wrong agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, this is the new agenda that we
threw out.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're back to the revised. We're back to
the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're back to the old agenda. So I'm going
to stop you, because we're not doing the settlement agreement yet and
it's going to be confusing enough, so the public has been waiting so
long, let's start with some public comment.
And Boards Members, be thinking about if you want to order out
some lunch or stay here if you're going to take an hour break.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First two speakers are Reed Jarvi and then Ellie
Krier.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, if we order food, we can starve them
out.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Joyceanna J. Rautio.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come on up, Reed. Jog up here, let's go.
Page 59
March 19, 1999
MR. JARVI: Hi, my name is Reed Jarvi. I'm talking today as
vice-chairman of the Chamber EDC Coalition Committee for
Transportation.
And if you can remember back to much earlier this morning when
we talked about the transportation section, I have some questions
that I'd like to bring out in relation to the county report, or what
I call the report, which was presented earlier today. And those
mainly have to do with the density -- or have directly to do with
density reduction.
First question I have is, does it really reduce the traffic
impacts to the county roadways?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which it says yes as to 85 percent of the
segments.
MR. JARVI: That's true.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. JARVI: It reduces the volumes on -- to some extent on at
least 85 percent of the roads, according to the report. Okay.
Has there been a before-and-after analysis completed? Meaning
that with the density reduction as it is, as related to the required
transportation network that we're going to buy at some time in the
future, has that been compared to the population without density
reduction and the transportation network it will need to buy in the
future? And what are those costs? Basically, how much is it going
to cost per person or per unit in both cases?
I don't think it's clear, or at least it was not clear to me, is
if the transfer of density or the transportation demand management
techniques have been modeled in that reduced network. If we take the
transfer densities and put them back into this system so the units go
from 4 to 2 and then back to 3 and 4, is that the system that we
heard about that has the 85 percent reduction, or is it some other
system? Has that been done?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. JARVI: Is that not the pure 4 to 27
MR. MULHERE: Shall I start with the first question?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, go.
MR. MULHERE: The first question is no, in answer to the first
question.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What was the question?
MR. MULHERE: I think the first question was did we model the
existing transportation system and compare a cost set build-out
between the density reduction? No, we did not.
Page 60
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not yet.
MR. MULHERE: Second question was, does the study that Greiner
prepared for us factor in the potential to go back up to four
dwelling units, and does it factor in the benefits to the system that
might be associated with travel demand management? The answer to
that question is no, on both cases. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. JARVI: And I also ask, has the transportation system or
network then modeled with as it was brought out, that we are
developing at three units plus or minus per acre at the current time?
If we continue with this type of development as we had talked about,
what's that model? What does that do to the transportation network?
Does it cause a reduction, does it not cause a reduction? We don't
know that.
The last question I have is, does this density reduction, the
modeling we have and the report we have, does it solve the issue of
flyovers? I know several years ago when this came out, that was one
of the main issues, that we did not want flyovers. Does this happen?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Our staff told us we're stuck with some
flyovers there. We've directed them to be creative about bringing us
some solutions, but we have already -- we've been told in previous
meetings that there isn't a solution to flyovers in this county at
this point in time, based on current approvals.
MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am. That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add for the record -- again, Bob
Mulhere, Planning Services Director.
I don't think that the staff has indicated and certainly is not
our intent to indicate that the result of the modeling is that we
have some very rosy picture. All we have stated is that there has --
the model shows a reduction based on the reduction in the number of
dwelling units as a result of the density reduction initiative.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll tell you what, Bob, we'll call
you up with questions if -- because otherwise we're going to be here
all day. Well, we're going to be here all day. Ms. Krier?
MS. KRIER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners, I'm
Ellie Krier from the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce.
And to begin with, I would like to say that although this is the
first opportunity for you to take public comment and hear from many
of us about these recommendations, I would like you to know and I'm
Page 61
March 19, 1999
sure, I hope you are aware, that we have been working very, very
closely through a long series of meetings at the invitation of your
staff on this issue. We have been participating, we have been
raising questions, and we have been sharing our concerns, actually in
a very formal manner since August.
On behalf of the Chamber, I just want to reiterate three points.
We presented them to you in a letter in August. The first is our
ongoing concern, as I know it is yours, with private property rights
to make sure that you have protected yourselves and private property
rights of owners as well.
The second is transportation. And as Mr. Jarvi pointed out, and
I think that perhaps Commissioner Berry said it best, that a five
percent reduction over the network does not mean it's going to get
better. And what we would urge you to do is as this process goes
forward, to please continue with your appropriate transportation
planning and infrastructure. These solutions that are -- do indeed
include flyovers take a lot of planning, a lot of dollars, and you're
facing those as a lateral issue that needs to be paid equal attention
to.
And finally, our support for the affordable housing density
bonus. Obviously we need a service economy here. We are driven by
it. And we would like those people to be able to live and work in
our county. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for your brevity.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Joyceanna Rautio and then A1
Perkins.
MS. RAUTIO: Good morning. My name is Joyceanna Rautio. I'm the
chairman for the Development Services Advisory Committee, and that's
the capacity which I present to you today.
I passed out a letter earlier that I drafted on behalf of our
committee, so I'd just like to read that into the record.
"As the current chairman of your 15-member Development Services
Advisory Committee, I appear today before you to advise you of the
action that the committee took on February 3rd at our regular monthly
meeting. The action relates to the process for consideration of
density reduction. Normally our advisory committee recommendations
are simply forwarded to you through channels. I do understand that
it was included in the executive summary. But only on rare occasions
does the committee direct the chairman to appear personally before
the body to deliver our recommendations.
Page 62
March 19, 1999
"After a lengthy discussion regarding the components of a draft
stipulated settlement agreement upon a motion duly made and seconded,
we voted unanimously to recommend that density reduction be the
subject of a separate normal comprehensive plan hearing process and
that it not be added to the compliance agreement over the
comprehensive plan that was adopted in October of 1997.
"On behalf of the committee, I strongly urge this board to
remove density reduction from the proposed compliance agreement and
take it through the regular comprehensive plan amendment process.
Maximum participation from all interested parties, especially
impacted landowners and the general public, can then be obtained
during the normal hearing process.
"Thank you for your opportunity to address the workshop today on
behalf of the committee."
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Cautero, I assume that if we had had
our Environmental Advisory Council in place, it would likewise have
had the opportunity to do this review. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is A1 Perkins and then Rodolfo
Tomarchio.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen
of the audience, and you people at home.
You've got a hot subject here, but I'd like to take and clear a
few words. Some of the words are "mediation." That translates to me
as extortion. Ask Reverend Mallory, if you don't believe me.
If you're talking about melaleuca and removal of it and the
forced removal of it, up until the time the State of Florida and
Collier County removes the melaleuca from their properties, and if
they force an individual homeowner or a property owner or acreage
owner to remove it, that puts them in jeopardy, because they're the
ones that brought them here for the sole purpose -- the State of
Florida is the problem, not the people in the out there in the
Estates.
We spend a small fortune on bugs to eat the melaleuca. What a
joke that turned out to be.
Federal permits. Any more money -- any more burdens to want to
put on the people, especially the people who can least afford it?
We talk about wetlands protection, okay? Right, save our water.
Well, Collier County had a study on the water, and we've got all the
water we need to have right down underneath of us. All we have to do
is go get it. You're going to hear Clarence Tears with the South
Page 63
March 19, 1999
Florida Water Management say cheap water. Well, now, do you want to
take the property, remove it from the tax rolls from now and forever,
or do you want to leave that in place and go and use that money to go
after your deep water? It's just that simple. But now problems are
very profitable. Very profitable. They love them.
I heard a whole bunch of stuff here come up. The panther. God
bless the panther. Fish and Game shipped them out to a canned hunt
in Texas. Canned hunt is where you take and pay a lot of money and
you kill the animal for a trophy on your wall. Our state, they
refused to talk to -- CNBC out of Miami aired it on TV.
We heard about wading birds this morning. Well, nobody ever
talks about the walking catfish. Well, they don't count, they can
swim. But that panther can't swim forever, nor can the dear, nor can
any of the animals across the ground.
Now, in case you don't know it, the panther feeds on those other
animals. So you eliminate them, you eliminate the whole dog gone
chain. That just goes to show you how brilliant the people who are
running this state and this county could be as far as staff goes.
They don't take and ask the people who are environmentalists to the
tens.
Where are the Indians? I don't see them here. What's the
matter? They were here before, and they will be here after we're
long gone. They have lived through the swamps, the alligators and
especially the mosquitoes. If you can handle that, you're going to
take and go right on through it.
I hear environmentally sensitive. I want to know, do you
consider the beach, Coastland Mall and our schools environmentally
sensitive? Where are your priorities? Do we spend a lot of money --
and that's all I heard here, money, money, money, money, money -- to
put a burden on the people who are actually better keepers of the
land than most of the people in Collier County or in the state?
Any fool who lives on five acres of land and is willing to take
care of it and preserve it and keep the fires off of it has to be
nuts enough about the land, the birds, the animals and all the rest
of it to be willing to live remote and take care.
Now, if you notice the color of my skin, this is suntan. And if
you look at a lot of these people telling you oh, how wonderful it is
to put a burden on the people out there, you're going to notice they
look like a quart of milk. They haven't been out in the sun in
years.
Page 64
March 19, 1999
And when you hear them talking about taking care of animals --
and I make this part of the record, I spend over $20,000 a year
feeding animals. That doesn't include labor or anything else.
That's just money out of pocket to feed the animals. And I have
rabbits and birds and all the rest of it right down the line, in
town.
Do I get five minutes for the other portion or not?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, sir.
MR. PERKINS: I have spoken -- I have three chits in there
because you changed your mind.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, we're going to stay with it the
way we've got it now.
Let's hear just a couple more speakers, and then we'll take an
hour break for lunch.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Rodolfo Tomarchio and Emilio
Baez.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you're here, come up quickly or we are
going to --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Repeat it again?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Emilio Baez is the next one.
MR. BAEZ: I'm going to waive my rights.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Then Justo Morera. And after him is Lupe
Morera.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: After these two, we'll take our lunch break
for the benefit of the audience.
MR. JUSTO MORERA: I'm not going to be here long. I'm just
going to say something briefly.
One time I was driving out to our property and I saw a big fire.
And I got worried, you know, so I stopped and I asked the
firefighters, you know, how bad was the fire and when was it going to
be turned off? And they told me, oh, we intentionally put the fire
on, because this would make the fires -- you know, will make it
better for later on, you know. And I asked them, you know, what
about the animals? The animals are burning. They said, "Well, we
don't care about animals, we care about people."
And now you're all saying that you care about animals. I don't
understand this whole thing. But I just had to say this so people
know. You go out there and you burn the woods that you say you're
trying to protect? Does that make any sense? Think about that.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
Page 65
March 19, 1999
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Lupe Morera, and then Russell
Priddy.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, we're going to break after this
speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
MR. LUPE MORERA: My name is Lupe Morera and we own 10 acres on
Sabal Palm Road. And the state -- it's actually five miles from 951.
The state wants to condemn our land. They had told us that it was
voluntary to sell our land. Now they have lied to us again.
It's very sad when you have a family and you have children and
you work very hard to try to buy land, and here they want to take it
away from you. What rights do we, the people, the landowners, the
voters, what do we have? Nothing. No rights.
Last Sunday I was stuck out there. They would not let us cross
Everglades Boulevard over 1-75 because of the fires. We asked the
officer, what do we do, where do we go? There were families out
there. "Well, you have to go Jane Scenic, that's the only way out of
here." There was other families out there that were crying that
didn't know any way out.
We need your help. And thank you for sticking up for us. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to take a one-hour lunch break.
We'll be back here at 1:15. That's a long hour.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ladies and gentlemen, let's come back into
session for this workshop of the Board of County Commissioners. I
have said to many of you who have stayed around that between the
parking lot and here, all I heard from people was, let's hear from
the DCA before we take the balance of the public comments. Everybody
wants to hear from DCA. I'm told that that's going to take about a -
- we have about 10 minutes worth of staff, 10 minutes from DCA, and
about 10 minutes from interveners in order to get that presentation
made. So unless the board objects, let's continue to be flexible and
go with the third part of the agenda at this point. That would be
staff, then DCA, then interveners.
Sorry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I said, if we were any more flexible, we'd
be in a puddle.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'd be contortionists.
Page 66
March 19, 1999
So, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. Actually, Barbara Cacchione was going to
make this presentation. And I'm sure she's on her way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barb.
MR. MULHERE: I'll do the best I can in her absence with respect
to the actual issues of noncompliance.
The first one -- these are found on Page 82 of your executive
summary packet. And --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is this that we have on the visualizer
now? Thank you. Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What are you talking about? There's nothing on
the visualizer.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not a thing.
MR. MULHERE: As you are aware, the Department of Community
Affairs issued a notice of intent to find the plan not in compliance
on Christmas Eve, 1997. And the elements that were found not in
compliance are intergovernmental coordination element, public
facilities element, specifically the natural groundwater protection
sub-element, recharge sub-element, public facilities element, the
drainage sub-element, the housing element, the Golden Gate area
master plan, and the conservation coastal management element.
Now, Bill, in his presentation, went over all the issues on the
conservation coastal management element, so we'll focus on the other
ones. The last was the Future Land Use Element and map.
We believe that as proposed in your package, we have addressed
the objections of the department, and that at least from what we
understand the proposed changes that we are making will address the
department's concerns in all of those areas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob, a question.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is everything that we've heard so far this
morning a part of this settlement agreement with DCA?
MR. MULHERE: That's an excellent question. Everything
excluding the urban density reduction.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the DCA doesn't care -- forgive me, but
doesn't care for purposes of this settlement agreement about the 4 to
2 density reduction. They do care about cjustering. They do care
about the 1 to 20 and the 1 to 40. Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And I can let them speak to the
issues, but just to summarize, the purpose of including the rural
area density reduction cjustering in NRPA's is that it goes to their
Page 67
March 19, 1999
concerns in the conservation coastal management element with
directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and having adequate
conservation policies. So those are the issues and the reason why
that is tied together.
Item no. 1 was the intergovernmental coordination element,
Policy 1.2.6, to establish guidelines or criteria to ensure that
schools are located proximate to residential development, and to
identify wetland uses may be incompatible with schools. The --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you want to stretch for a second, here
comes Barb.
MR. MULHERE: Good, we succeeded.
The school board intervened in this matter and in fact
participated in the mediation and negotiation discussions with the
department and the recommended amendments as proposed by staff, have
addressed the department's concerns and are acceptable to the school
board. So really that issue I think is resolved, unless the school
board has any objections with that language.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Doesn't look like it. Maybe you could go
ahead and pop out the easy ones, and then the groundwater protection.
Bill already told us we incorporated the LDC. Leave us with the -- MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione
with your Collier -- with your planning staff.
The water and sewer areas was also an issue that hadn't been
discussed. And I'll put that map on the visualizer. Can you see
that?
The board's direction was to also look at some areas for central
water and sewer that may be provided into the rural fringe area.
This map here would modify the existing water and sewer boundaries.
On the north area, it would go out to north -- it would go out
to Orangetree and come back in and taking in probably four of the
Estates units in that area. And coming down along one mile east of
951 where it jogs out by the interchange, that is already currently
in our water sewer service district.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that jog is not an extension?
MS. CACCHIONE: No, it is not.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MS. CACCHIONE: The second area where it jogs out is along U.S.
41 to Collier Seminole State Park. The reason these two areas were
selected as being appropriate in staff's opinion for water and sewer
provided by the county is because Orangetree, the county is planning
by the year 2010 to take that plant over, and it would make a lot of
Page 68
March 19, 1999
sense to extend the lines along that corridor, rather than doing well
and septic or private package plant.
Along the southern boundary, we have a water line that currently
goes to Collier Seminole, and that would be another area that we had
thought would be appropriate for water and sewer.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barb, when I first saw this, I thought, oh,
my God, this is just really an extension of the urban boundary,
without calling it that. But in reality, it's not, because the
density -- this extension of water and sewer doesn't change the 1 to
20 and 1 to 5. In other words, these areas would be in the water
sewer district, but not subject to urban densities.
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. The density would still be one
unit per five acres, and the cjustering criteria, in whatever form
it's developed, would also apply in this area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So this really defines for us where that
line is --
MS. CACCHIONE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- as I see it. It says this is it.
MS. CACCHIONE: And in those areas, it did make sense, because
there was an investment in public infrastructure, especially in the
southern end where the existing water line already is. And rather
than using well and septic, especially if you're going to do some
significant cjustering, it would be better to have much smaller lots,
which you have the ability to do when you have a central system.
The settlement agreement also includes density reduction for the
agricultural area and for the conservation area. It does not include
any urban area reductions as you see it today.
There was no intent to modify the agricultural uses. I think
one use was omitted, which was recreational camps, which should go
back in there. And we also added another use, which was neighborhood
commercial within a PUD. That would be able to accommodate
commercial demands in the rural area without having to make trips
into the urban area.
The schools, I think Bob went through that pretty thoroughly.
We're limiting areas where schools are permitted.
The groundwater protection area, there were several objections
to that issue. And what it basically came down to is there wasn't
enough specificity in our comprehensive plan regarding how we protect
groundwater.
Even though we have an ordinance in our Land Development Code
which is 20 pages long, much of that criteria was found in the
Page 69
March 19, 1999
ordinance and there wasn't anything in that comprehensive plan that
provided the guiding principles for how we would protect our
groundwater.
So we have excerpted parts of our groundwater protection
ordinance and placed that into our plan. And that takes care of
several objections that the DCA had. We also were required to map
the well field protection zones on our future land use map series,
and that map will iljustrate that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Again, that's just out of our ordinances.
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes.
There is one area that we're more restrictive and that is in the
area of solid waste facilities. And rather than requiring just a
conditional use, it was -- we changed it to a prohibition of solid
waste facilities within the well field zones. And that is more
restrictive than our current ordinance.
In regard to drainage, they wanted -- the concern there was that
there wasn't enough specificity with regard to the criteria for how
we were going judge the drainage and the stormwater runoff. We added
an appendix, too, which explains the criteria we would use and also
put that criteria into our plan.
In regard to housing, the main objection was with regard to farm
worker housing. There was a question of the data analysis we were
using. The DCA had talked about using the Shimberg (phonetic) data;
however, we are aware of a recent study by the University of Florida
Fritz Roker is preparing, and we felt that those numbers would more
accurately reflect current conditions for farm workers.
So we've included a couple of policies that say we would like to
evaluate that study and then come back with some recommendations on
farm worker housing.
In regard to the Golden Gate area master plan, we included that
as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest. The big objection here
is the -- within Southern Golden Gate Estates, within our current
plan, there is a limitation on how much of the site you can alter.
And that limitation is 10 percent. And that is similar to our area
of critical state concern regulations, which applies in that red
area, outlined in red on the future land use map. We took that out
of our comprehensive plan.
And instead, this proposal here is to -- if still privately
owned, the density is one unit per two and a quarter. When the state
purchases the property, it would then go to 1 unit per 40 and become
part of the Picayune Strand State Forest.
Page 70
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In other words, we're not going to down
zone it and reduce what people are going to be able to get from the
state until -- you know, it will be get down zoned after the state
owns it, but will stay with its more intense density while they're
calculating how much to pay them for it.
MS. CACCHIONE: The final issue was in regard to the coastal
high hazard area. There were some issues in terms of what was to be
used for the definition of the coastal high hazard area. And it's the
Category 1 zone as determined by the hurricane evacuation plan from
the Regional Planning Council.
And that area is depicted on your map. It follows along this
boundary on the southern end here. It's a little bit difficult to
see. And comes up along U.S. 41. So that boundary has been modified
and the definition has been modified to reflect the Category 1
storm/zone by the Regional Planning Council.
The final map that we had been asked to include was with regard
to public facilities in the coastal high hazard area. And we were
required to show that in our plan as well.
Also, in Appendix E regarding hurricane evacuation was in our
support document and we needed to resubmit that to DCA.
That concludes my presentation, unless there's any questions.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a quick question. The items that you
just went over, these were included in the original comprehensive
plan?
MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. These were the areas of contention. The
DCA found us not in compliance on seven elements of our comprehensive
plan. They issued that notice in December of '97. What we have
proposed to you today are things that we feel would settle those
issues with DCA.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But when was the plan first submitted?
MS. CACCHIONE: First submitted in July of '97.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you know what, Barbara, I think the
answer to that question is really that these are items that were not
included in our comprehensive plan, and because of that, DCA objected
to it and said you're not in compliance because you haven't done this
natural resources protection stuff. You haven't protected well
fields, you haven't protected -- in your comp. plan, you haven't
protected natural areas and directed development away from pristine
natural areas.
Page 71
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if DCA would speak to that for
us.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They're next.
Any other questions for Barb?
So in response to their objection now, the stuff shows up. So
let's hear from DCA. Old home week for Mr. Goutbier.
MR. GOUTHIER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. It's been many
years since I've stood here, and actually I used to stand over there.
My name is Charlie Gouthier. I am employed at DCA. Also let me
introduce Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel. We'll be both
making some remarks.
Let me start off just briefly on some procedural discussion.
Then after Shaw, I want to talk a little more substantively. And
please, ask questions any time you want.
This draft settlement we're talking about today is certainly,
you know, a very important settlement to the future growth and
development of the county. It's also complex. I'm not surprised
there's a lot of discussion, and I think we're going to have a
follow-up process with even more discussion.
Finding a way to settle it is also complicated. The actual
legal procedures and the logistics is something that Shaw will follow
up on.
I think it's also ~- it's good we're finally here having this
discussion, because it's been going on too long, in my view.
Since the original comprehensive plan, state law has changed on
several issues. In 1993, the Growth Management Act was changed
regarding the natural resource protection and land use planning
requirements. The next year, the rule, the administrative rule, 9J5,
was changed about incompatible uses and wetlands. Those changes are
to be brought into local comprehensive plans during the evaluation
and appraisal report process.
You know, a year and a half ago, a little more, perhaps, the
county transmitted a proposed amendment to their plan. The
department did, you know, offer some very specific objections. The
county adopted it. Very regrettably on Christmas Eve we ran a notice
of intent finding many aspects of the plan not in compliance.
We did attempt to negotiate after the notice of intent, I'm sure
you're aware. Those negotiations just weren't very productive. We
ended up in a situation where an expedited hearing was demanded by an
intervening party. And in May, we did have that week-long
Page 72
March 19, 1999
administrative hearing. As we stand here, we're still waiting for
the recommended order from Judge Meale.
Since the hearing, though, I think we have had a productive
process. And first with a mediator, then just face-to-face
negotiation with your staff and with the -- you know, some degree of
involvement by the interveners, and that's yielded what you have in
front of you today.
Something else that has changed recently for us, of course, is
we have a whole new administration in Tallahassee. We have a new
secretary, Steven Seiberg. I'm sure that some of you might know him,
a former Pinellas County Commissioner.
One thing that Secretary Seiberg asked me to assure you, that if
the community needs more time to work through the details, to revisit
some of the concepts, we're certainly open and available to assist
with that.
The thing -- one thing I'm concerned about is, enmeshed as we
are in this legal process, what time frames have we really got to
address these things?
And with that, I guess I'll ask Shaw to get up and talk about
our legal position and possible pathways. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. STILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am Shaw Stiller.
I'm an assistant general counsel with the Department of Community
Affairs and have been so for about two and a half years, and have, in
fact, been the department's attorney for Collier County for about two
and a half years.
I know you don't know me, but I know you. I've twice in the
last year and a half been involved with administrative proceedings
involving Collier County. The first one involved the agriculture
exemption when we were aligned with the county.
I helped the county and Marjorie Student defend their position
before the administrative law judge. And ultimately argued
successfully before the district court of appeal for an affirmance of
the county's position.
My second administrative proceeding involving the county of
course is the one that has all of us here today.
I'm very pleased to finally get to meet and address you. We've
been talking about what to do an awful lot. And it's very nice to be
here. I also want to thank you because we've got a situation that
started with conflict and evolved very quickly to cooperation, and I
hope we're on the eve of consensus.
Page 73
March 19, 1999
And I also want to thank you for what I perceive as this county
holding true to the promises that were made in the 1989 comp. plan,
because a lot of that is what got us here.
The 1989 plan was a plan for a plan. It made some promises.
And quite frankly, it was -~ the department determined that some of
those promises needed to be fulfilled. And the document we're
talking about right now is the commitment to fulfill those promises.
And you should be commended for that and you should be proud of that.
And again, we have to balance that with property rights. But you
have to balance property rights with what's right for the property.
Because if you don't do what's right for the property, you end up
with a property wrong. And nobody in here wants that.
So as we get ready to take this bold step, hopefully a final
step to end this litigation, let's focus. And that's the real
message that on the legal side here I've got to convey and I've got
to hope that we can carry through.
The matter right now is before an administrative law judge who's
probably in his office typing the recommended order as we speak. I
do expect that that recommended order will be issued in the near
future. By that, a month, two months. Unfortunately the near future
for government isn't always the very near future.
But the recommended order from the administrative law judge goes
directly to the Governor and Cabinet. And that recommended order
says Governor and Cabinet, I reviewed what happened in that week-long
proceeding, here's what I think is wrong.
The Governor and Cabinet then take that recommended order and
order remedial actions to fix what has been identified as the
problems. Upon receipt of the recommended order, they have 45 days
to issue their final order, which will contain remedial actions for
this county to enact to bring its plan into line.
In about the past year and a half, I've brought three cases to
the administration commission. That's the hat the Governor and
Cabinet wear when they consider these things.
And I can tell you with a great degree of confidence that at
least the past late Governor and his Cabinet and their staff
encouraged settlement. They don't want to dictate from on high the
remedial actions that are right for this county. They don't want
anyone to dictate. They want everyone to agree.
And I can't tell you how excited we are and how excited
Secretary Seiberg would be if in our first appearance before the
Governor and Cabinet we were together saying we identified some
Page 74
March 19, 1999
problems, we unfortunately had to litigate these problems, but then
we worked it out, and here's what you have.
And I don't have any delusions that someone is not going to seek
to appeal that order to the First District Court of Appeal. I think
those people might be sitting right here. And again, I'd be in a
position of being with Margie to defend that order before the
District Court of Appeal.
So in conclusion, what I'm asking you is give us something we
can defend. You know, a lot -- there is room for compromise, but
keep in mind that when we go, if we go, and unfortunately, I feel
there's a very good possibility we may, when we go to the District
Court of Appeal, please, give us something that we can point to and
we can point to that record that we created in the administrative
appeal and defend it and get a favorable judgment and move out of
litigation once and for all. Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. STILLER: Charlie's going to address those details.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The devil part.
MR. GOUTHIER: Barbara Cacchione did a good job of quickly
summarizing several of the lesser issues of this case. I think the
primary issues for the department have been protection of wetlands;
that is the guidance of incompatible uses away from wetlands, and the
protection of habitat from listed species.
There were a series of other issues to do with school siting
criteria. You might be aware that legislature has actually increased
the requirements for school siting since this litigation actually
occurred in hearing.
Drainage and water well protection, there the issues were
specificity. Our rules tell us that a comprehensive plan is supposed
to be meaningful and predictable. It doesn't need to include the
detail of land development regulations, but it's got to give guidance
to those regulations. So finding the right balance of specificity, I
think, has been the matter on those areas.
Farm worker housing. Barbara described the I think now released
study through the University of Florida and the Regional Planning
Council and another group. And so we're going to work with the
county on housing issues with the focus on Immokalee.
I'm aware that that issue is very important with Governor Bush,
in particular, and he's looking for cooperative ways to continue to
address farm worker housing.
Page 75
March 19, 1999
On South Golden Gate Estates, there was an issue. Something that
has happened, there actually has been progress on land acquisition.
I think we have backed off our position on South Golden Gate through
this draft settlement.
The coastal high hazard area is an important issue. There
again, there was a change in the statute in 1993. I think this draft
now accurately delineates what's considered the coastal high hazard
area under the statutes.
So many of these issues were fairly simple to resolve, really.
I think it's unfortunate we ended up, you know, where we were with
those issues dragged into it.
On the more important questions of the wetlands and the
wildlife, I guess I'm glad Commissioner Constantine came back in the
room. I guess I'll start with the discussion of like planting versus
permitting. And we have this discussion around the state again and
again, it seems.
The legislature, I mean, without question is very clear in
Chapter 163 that through comprehensive planning local governments
cannot be required to operate their own wetland permitting programs.
They cannot be required to establish regulatory standards more
stringent than those of region or state agencies. But the legislature
also said that that does not -- that that does not limit or -- the
application of intensities or densities of land use. That
particularly through the future land use map, that those densities
and intensities of use should be distributed in a way with respect to
the sensitivity of natural resources.
Planning, you know, is like the avoidance or the prevention of
problems to begin with. So if we have a sensitive area, you simply
don't identify in your land plan, you know, inappropriately intense
uses, leading then property owners into a permitting process where,
you know, the answer may at times be no, but more likely is allowance
of impacts with mitigation. So it's a question of planning and
permitting avoidance versus mitigation.
The statute is clear that intensities and densities of use are a
burden on the department and local governments in preparing their
land plans. The -- I think that concept is fundamental to what we've
been arguing about for almost two years now. Is -~ you know, are
these densities of one unit per five acres, are the other uses that
have been allowed in the rural area appropriate regarding wetlands
and habitat for federally protected species?
Page 76
March 19, 1999
The settlement, that draft that has been prepared for your
consideration, does set up a system of density reductions. I think
it was sort of a happy coincidence for us that the county was
interested in density changes for other purposes. But it does, in
fact, flow directly in and is an appropriate approach on
environmental protection.
The basic scheme that is before you is the Natural Resource
Protection Areas, which are the most valuable, intact wetland system,
you know, being reduced to one unit per 40 acres. The overall ag.
rural area, you know, to one unit per 20 acres is a measure to
protect not only the rural nature, but the habitat and wetland
conditions. And, of course, the retention of one unit per five in
the rural fringe, all those with cjustering provisions. You know,
again, even with that remaining allowable development to direct it
away, to maintain protection of native vegetation.
So it's really an overall scheme that involves both the land use
assignments and the cjustering that in our mind achieves the purposes
of what the legislature and then the administrative code tells us.
It tells us to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands. It
tells us that a local government should have a classification scheme,
should look at the most valuable wetlands and give them the best
protection. Less important wetlands, isolated or graded, you know,
may be subject to impacts and mitigation, but actually have a
scientific basis to array wetlands' and protect them accordingly.
Then also on the wildlife habitat, I mean, you're in a county
here that is absolutely loaded with federally protected species. I
mean, it's remarkable on an international level. It's both a
terrific asset for you, but it's also a burden and it creates great
difficulties with the property owners. The requirements there call
for the protection, conservation and appropriate use of habitat
areas.
Bill Lorenz showed you the Florida Game Commission study. The
gap -- so-called gaps study, strategic habitat conservation plan,
that's something that came out in the early '80s, and it was an eye-
opener around the state. And since then, this has been an issue
around the state, finding the right level of land uses and
development controls to respond to that data, which becomes the best
available data.
So as far as where we go on all this, I mean, obviously I have a
clear sense from the commission that there are concerns about
different bits and pieces and maybe even the whole concept. I'm not
Page 77
March 19, 1999
sure. We are very open to some continued process, you know, through
your community. If there's better ways to achieve this, we sure
would like to find them.
We're not absolutely locked into this draft settlement, but
there are some basic purposes, you know, we're looking to accomplish.
My bigger concern is what kind of time frames have we really locked
into, given the administrative proceedings.
I guess I could stop now and just have questions and answers or
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris had a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Goutbier, you said that state through
the DCA cannot require us to enact more stringent regulation on
properties than otherwise would be through the various agencies. MR. GOUTHIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I notice in the plan here, though, that it
calls for the proposal, calls for those properties lying within 1,000
feet of a NRPA to have an additional layer of regulation on them. Is
that -- do you consider that a condition of the settlement?
MR. GOUTHIER: Well, that's certainly a draft condition of the
settlement. I think it's not a permitting type condition, it's a
land use control kind of condition. To orient the use is not just
like outside of the wetland or its valuable NRPA wetland system, but
actually away from it as well.
So it has nothing to do with like a specific impact on a wetland
and specific regulatory permitting requirements. It has to do with
guiding uses away from the wetland itself. So I see that as falling
in the realm of guiding your intensities and densities of uses
appropriately. But again, the specific details of it, we'd be very
open to, you know, refinements or adjustments or, you know, what
makes the most sense.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess we're having a little divergence
of how we look at that particular point. There's some others as well
as. But I just thought that would be a good example.
I'm sure that we are eventually going to come to an
accommodation, but like you I think we're probably going to do a
little bit of modification before we get there. MR. GOUTHIER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions for Mr. Goutbier?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You made a comment a couple of times, if
I'm hearing this correctly, there's room for compromise. You're
looking for -- as a planner, and I'm a strategic planner, I'm always
Page 78
March 19, 1999
looking for information. And in the process as we go through it, if
we uncover more information that will overall help us get there, what
kind of time pressures are we on from the DCA? What if we come up
with something that is better than anything we have in front of us
now or enhances what we have?
MR. GOUTHIER: In terms of just the information part of that
question, we're obligated to use the best available information. And
there is no obligation to create new or originate information, but
use what is best available. I guess you're asking if there's an
opportunity to do more detailed work, how long have we got to do that
more detailed work and originate information? I have to tell you,
I'm not real clear, and that's becomes more of a legal question and a
legal proceeding we're in. Maybe I can ask Shaw to try to answer
that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't you address that for Commissioner
Carter.
MR. STILLER: Thank you. The time line, I guess, maybe I went
over it --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, your name again for the record.
MR. STILLER: I'm sorry. Shaw Stiller with the Department of
Community Affairs.
The -- upon the issuance of the recommended order, the
administration commission has 45 days to enter a final order. So we
can add the time between now and the issuance of the recommended
order, which is a time uncertain, to 45 days, and that's -- that's
our time frame.
Quite frankly, we have a lot of information upon which we've
been relying. Mr. Lorenz gave you excerpts. The transcript, for
example, from this hearing, six volumes of people talking. You know,
a bunch of county staff folks and some folks we called.
So there's some good information there. If there's some more
information out there, I would venture a guess that it wouldn't take
that long to assimilate the information. I think what we're talking
about that might take more time is translating that information into
details.
One other point, Commissioner Norris, I wanted to kind of be
clear on kind of a legal question. The law says we, the state,
cannot require a county to go further. A county can elect to go
further than the state. For example, Martin County says you don't
fill any wetlands in Martin County, period.
Page 79
March 19, 1999
So while the entire state system as set up is minimum criteria,
and in some instances you exceed the criteria greatly, and so if
there are other instances where you exceed it, that's consistent with
state law. However, if you want to go right up the minimum, you get
our stamp of approval.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless there are any more questions for
staff at this moment, we could hear from the interveners, and then
from the public in general.
MR. GOUTHIER: Chairman Mac'Kie, there's one other point I
wanted to touch on.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. GOUTHIER: Even the DCA staff, we have some reservations
with the draft settlement. I think there's an area that needs
additional attention, and that is, there are certain areas scheduled
in the draft that stay at one unit per five acres rural fringe with
the cjustering opportunity. And in fact, along the Immokalee Road
corridor and along the East Trail with a new opportunity for central
water and sewer. Dr. Nicholas did a lot of work on the economics of
the potential changes. There was other work by Mr. Blaesser on the
legal risk assessment.
I guess it hasn't been clear to us how the different components
shape up in terms of the economic impact and the legal risk. I'm
referring mainly to there's an area on the map there north of
Orangetree development that's in the gray that would stay at 1 per 5.
Also, the area, sort of north Belle Meade area, and the area on the
East Trail. So we're looking for more sort of sorting out the -- of
the facts as to the justifications for those particular areas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the rationale --
MR. GOUTHIER: The obvious concern that we have is that
currently, at least in my opinion, if I were testifying, the Collier
plan does not allow cjustering in rural areas. I know that's a
contested issue. Now we're going to allow cjustering. And with some
of those areas, not all of them are with water and sewer. I'd be
concerned about a sort of perverse effect of actually inducing
sprawl. So I think we need to be careful about what we might open up
if we're not very, very careful.
I have Dr. Nicholas, professor at University of Florida, wearing
a very nice garden gold towel nodding his head. I don't know if
perhaps he could comment on that more later. But that was one area I
think we had indicated to the county staff is like where's the facts
Page 80
March 19, 1999
and logic justifying each of these rural fringe areas being retained?
And it's hard to pick out from the report the particular land value
changes area by area.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I ask Bob Mulhere, would you point to
it? Because the one I understand, the one north of Orangetree, the
grey area there, you have a question about.
MR. MULHERE: I think that --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you point out the others?
MR. MULHERE: ~- Mr. Goutbier is referring to the entire rural
fringe area, which is remaining at 1 per 5.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you, Mr. Goutbier?
MR. GOUTHIER: No, I'm not. I'm primarily concerned with the
area north of Orangetree development.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That piece?
MR. GOUTHIER: Also, the area on the East Trail where the water
and sewer area would be expanded.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you look at that TV there, the place --
would you point again, please. MR. MULHERE: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That one.
MR. GOUTHIER: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that one.
MR. GOUTHIER: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. Because I had, frankly,
the same questions on those, particularly the northern one being so
close to CREW, I didn't understand why it would retain a significant
density. Do you want to talk to that just a moment?
MR. MULHERE: I can. I think as well as so can our consultants.
Part of the reason, No. 1, the board's direction was to retain the
density of 1 per 5 in the area west of the easternmost boundary of
the Estates, which this area is within. Secondarily -- so that was
the board's direction.
Secondarily, based on the economic analysis of the values of
those lands -- you're going to have to correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.
Blaesser -- there's a reasonable investment backed expectation to
develop those lands at the current density of 1 per 5, based on the
purchase price of those lands, the market value of those lands. And
secondarily, I think if we're talking about the water and sewer,
those economic indicators and legal indicators ~- that there's a
higher risk of a Burt J. Harris Act in those areas -- indicate that
the development is likely to occur in the form or fashion of
Page 81
March 19, 1999
TwinEagles, as we've already seen, in that area. For that reason,
we're recommending expansion of central water and sewer in that area,
because the development is likely to occur. So then it's just simply
how do we handle that development.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But, Mr. Mulhere, we're not proposing to
expand the water and sewer up into that northern area there.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct, just along Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the water line already exists out the
East Trail, because we started going south.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the only justification for that most
northern piece is that board direction was if it's west of the
Estates, don't change the density.
MR. MULHERE: That, and the legal ~- the potential legal impact
based on market analysis under the Burr J. Harris Act.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the question I have, probably for DCA's
attorney, maybe for ours, is, can the DCA -- can the state force us
to take an action that we're advised would trigger a Burt Harris
claim that we would be required to compensate the property owners
for?
MR. STILLER: Charles Stiller with the Department.
No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. STILLER: We cannot force you. I will tell you that by
entering into an agreement with the county, we're virtually ensuring
our status as co-defendant. So you won't be alone. Burt J. Harris'
sabers that I hear rattling are directed not at just the county but
I'm sure at the department.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. So it's a bigger treasury than ours
at risk. It's all your money, I understand that. It's all taxpayer
money. There's no state money at risk? People are shaking their
heads at me. If you're co-defendants in a Burt J. Harris action and
we, as co-defendants, should lose and have to pay money, does the
state have to pay or does just the county have to pay?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Depends on how it turns out.
MR. STILLER: Charles Stiller with the DCA.
I -- without doing any research, the Burt J. Harris Act applies
not only to an action of a single government entity, it specifically
references a combination. So, in other words, the example that's
been used in seminars is a combination of local government zoning,
Water Management District permitting, Game and Fresh Water Fish
Page 82
March 19, 1999
wanting an eagle nest area set aside. All three could be put on the
-- potentially named as co-defendants.
There are theories of immunity for the state FISC (phonetic)
that may or may not apply. Perhaps that's something we need to
research in sort order.
But I don't know that there's any grant of authority in the Burt
J. Harris Act itself, or any grant for immunity in the Act for the
DCA, DEP. In fact, I know the Water Management District is -- at
least South Florida Water Management District has been one of most
frequently named defendants in the Burt J. Harris Act claims.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't have any judgments yet under it to
be able to say who's been required to pay.
MR. STILLER: Not to my knowledge. In fact, the second part of
the Burt J. Harris Private Property Rights Act, which contemplates a
special master proceeding, has been invoked far more frequently than
the, you know, Section 1, which is the monetary portion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we can move along with --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ready to hear from the interveners, if
you're finished, Mr. Goutbier.
MR. GOUTHIER: Thank you, yes, I am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then we'll go to the public at large,
finally.
MR. GROSSO: Good afternoon. I'm Richard Grosso with the
Environmental and Land Use Law Center, and I'm here today, I'm an
attorney representing the interveners for the Wildlife Federation and
Collier Audubon Society, and we thank you very much for the courtesy
of the recognition of the intervener status and opportunity to
address you specifically today. Thank you very much.
We think that your staff and your consultants and Mr. Gouthier
and Mr. Stiller ought to be commended for bringing to you I think a
very thoughtful and a creative and a positive approach. I've known
several of these folks for a number of years and have a lot of
respect for their work and have witnessed it firsthand in reading
through the documents and watching them in action today.
As interveners, we are not prepared today to say this settlement
agreement would be signed by us, we would agree with everything. Let
me tell you the three main areas of concern: That we have -- very
much share in Mr. Gouthier's concern about the rural fringe areas.
We do think it might have potentially an unintended consequence of
actually encouraging urban sprawl in some of those areas.
Page 83
March 19, 1999
I think I heard a comment this morning from one of the
commissioners, I don't recall who it was, that the ability to cjuster
and do an urban-looking development is a lot more marketable and
would encourage the development of some of those areas. We would
share that concern.
Also, you're putting people out there. I believe it was
Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was. They agree with Commissioner
Norris. Nancy Payton and John Norris agree.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's one in a row.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. GROSSO: You're putting people out there in a situation
where whatever your current intentions may be, you're putting another
political base, political pressure for additional services,
additional development that will create kind of problems that you or
the next commission down the line are going to have to deal with
later. So we do have a big concern about the rural fringe areas.
The next issue would be the uses allowed in the natural resource
protection areas. We do have a big concern with things like golf
courses, water and sewer lines, lift stations, active recreation use
in some of those areas.
We think the cjustering criteria are not strong enough in those
areas, and we think actually that the cjustering criteria might
should be not generalized, but differently tailored to each of the
particular Natural Resources Protection Areas, which might have
different environmental issues. Maybe in one the uplands are more
important, because the wildlife usage, than they are in another. And
maybe you could tailor them. That's something we would certainly be
willing to work with you on.
And then related to that, the third issue is school siting. I
think there needs to be a certain recognition. Obviously, if I'm a
school board, I want to be able to go where I can get the cheapest
land. It's a rational design. School boards all over the state want
to do that.
But we all then need to recognize the sort of growth inducing
impacts that siting schools have. Then it's you as a county
commission that has to deal with the development pressures then that
will follow this school. So we have a big concern about that aspect
of this as well.
Let me address some of the contextual issues here. On the
process, Mr. Stiller addressed it a little bit, whatever you would
Page 84
March 19, 1999
agree to in terms of a settlement, whether we are on board and agree
with it or not, the nature of the decision the Governor or Cabinet
would be making is Collier County, we direct to you make these
amendments to your plan.
None of this becomes part of your plan unless and until you
adopt an ordinance amending your plan. Anybody, us, a landowner, has
the opportunity, just like any plan amendment to bring that
challenge.
So I don't think it's fair, and I'm not wearing my advocate hat
now, I'm wearing my growth management attorney hat to say to you it's
not fair to say that you cut anybody out of the process. We couldn't
make that claim. Any changes here have to be by plan amendment.
Anybody has the opportunity to challenge that one way or the other.
The next issue I want to talk about is, you know, the notion
that I hear a lot of assumptions out there that good planning is a
bad thing. It's bad for the community. This is something that we
shouldn't be happy about having to do, and it's something we should
not embrace zealously.
Now, I'm not an expert on Collier County, I don't profess to
come here and tell you what's the best thing for your county, but I
think a few general observations are important.
You know, I do read the papers and you're not that different
than any other areas of the state that used to be pretty rural; a lot
of people moved here to get away from other areas, and now they're
unhappy because it's starting to look like Miami and all these other
places, and so I think a lot of your taxpayers are concerned that the
place is special now and they want it to stay special. And that
there's a lot of value in that; there's a lot of economic value in
that; there's a lot of quality of life value in that. You should
embrace good planning for its own reward.
The next issue is the economic one. I think the study that I
saw your consultants do was really good, but one thing I didn't see
addressed there is what taxpayer cost savings are involved in
reducing densities, either in the urbanized areas or in the eastern
areas. There may be an assumption that the property taxes generated
by some areas and the impact fees do in fact pay for all the county
required services.
In most places in the state that isn't true. I can tell you
I've done that kind of analysis for Collier County. But in most
places in the state, there's a certain taxpayer subsidy. There's a
certain amount that your taxes go up to provide services for all that
Page 85
March 19, 1999
new development. And so you've got to look at that side of the
ledger, where you're reducing development opportunities and
densities, there's taxpayer costs that the county's not going to have
to occur.
And when you're trying to decide, is this making good economic
sense, you've got to look at that side of the ledger too, because
there's a significant tax savings also. Don't just look at how much
reducing the taxable value of the county, because that's not free
money that comes into the county. You then have an obligation to
spend that tax dollar -- those tax dollars and more for facilities
and services; a new fire station, new police, all that. That's a
critical part of this decision. We would ask you to really consider
that side of the ledger as well.
Related to that is the Harris Act issue, as the chairperson
referenced. There's no appellant decisions out there that interpret
this Act. I thought I might have heard -- and I was very closely
involved in the adoption of that law, too. And I've studied it and
done some work on some cases.
If I heard an assumption that that act precludes a county from
reducing densities, I've got to tell you, as a lawyer, that's not
right at all. If you said that to a judge, the judge would say well,
if that's what it meant, it simply would have said that. That's not
what it means. It means you cannot inordinately burden somebody.
What the Act meant to say was there's some case law out there
under the constitution that said if you can reduce somebody's
property value by 85, 90 percent, then that's not a taking, I think.
And I'm not a fan of the Harris Act by way of disclosure.
But clearly, the Florida legislature was saying we don't like
that; we don't think you should be able to take 90 percent of
someone's value and that not be a taking. We want landowners to be
able to get some compensation where the take isn't that great.
But clearly, it means there can be some reduction in the fair
market value, some significant reduction, as long as it's not
arbitrary, as long as it's for planning purposes that make sense,
that are consistent with your comp. plan.
I think clearly the things you're talking about, even though
we've got some problems with a lot of it, fall within that category.
They're not arbitrary decisions. You've got some very thoughtful and
creative things here.
And I say that only as an important contextual issue because we
don't have a problem with the get-back of densities. I actually
Page 86
March 19, 1999
think that it's a TDR kind of a concept. It's not a TDR concept, but
it's smart. It's a fair, it's a creative, it's a smart thing to do,
and so we have absolutely no problem with that. So I don't raise that
issue for that purpose. But I do think it's important to understand
that don't feel like you have to give -- the law has hamstrung you.
The Harris Act has not taken away your ability to do creative
planning. And whether we're on board with all the details or not,
there's some good quality creative planning going on here, and you've
got the legal authority to do that.
In fact, in my opinion, the best part of the Harris Act -- and I
said I didn't like it -- but the best part of it is it gives you the
ability as a local government on a site specific basis where a
landowner comes to you and you've applied the general law. And in
that particular case, the landowner has demonstrated to you this
really -- my property is kind of different than the general sense.
This really has hurt me in a different way than all the other
people. It gives you the legal authority to change your mind there,
to fix how the general rules will apply to that particular landowner.
That's a good thing, I think, and it's a thing that should allow you
to have more freedom to write a general plan that really does what
you want it to do, because you know at the end of the day on a site
specific application situation, you can bend the rules and fix them
on any particular case where it would be an inordinate burden on any
particular landowner.
So that should prevent a situation where you feel like you have
to sort of weaken or generalize the rules so much to preclude any
liability under the Property Rights Act.
And as Mr. Stiller told you, most of the activity there has come
under the section of the law where it puts you in the position of
compromising. Not where they've sought monetary damages, but where
at the end of the day after the permits are issued and your decisions
are made, your staff then has to sit at the table with the landowner
and say okay, how can we fix this, how can we compromise so that
you're no longer inordinately burdened but we still have enforced our
laws. That's a good thing and that's what you can do later on down
the line. So I think that speaks in favor of doing a good job with
your comp. plans, because you can fix the site specific problems.
I think that my two clients, Collier Audubon and Florida
Wildlife Federation have signed up to speak in general comment later.
Nancy Payton and Mr. Cornell, Brad Cornell, will speak to you later.
Page 87
March 19, 1999
That's all that I have to say. I'd be happy to answer any questions
that you all may have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No question, just a comment. You knew I'd
have to say something about the schools.
I sat on the school board for 10 years, and we never just,
quote, looked at cheap land as a location for a school. You go, you
try to put the school where the kids are to cut down on
transportation for one part of it. So as far as looking for cheap
land, that wasn't the only consideration for placing a school. If
that had been the case, we never would have placed Florida Gulf -- or
Gulf Coast High School out on Immokalee Road, which is prime property
at this point in time. It doesn't even make sense, Mr. Grosso.
MR. GROSSO: I never meant to suggest it was the only
consideration. It's obviously a --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, but that's the point that you made -~
MR. GROSSO: -- rational consideration.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -~ and that -- I'm sorry to say, that is
just not being responsible, because that was not the case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I scratched down the same note. I
said schools lead to development? Maybe that's how -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Believe me --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it works in some other county, but
that's not how it works here.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- we did not go out and plunk a school.
Hoping that development was going to fill up the school in that area.
Believe me.
MR. GROSSO: Well, you know, I'm not here to address any --
(Applause.)
MR. GROSSO: I'm not here to address any previous decision. I
wasn't criticizing any previous decisions. But when we see the
schools may be allowed in areas where you don't have urban
development projected for future decisions --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Grosso, the state ~-
MR. GROSSO: -- we say that may not be right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me for interrupting, that was rude.
The state very much has to approve all plans and look at all
plans for the placement of schools and look at your numbers and all
those kinds of things before they will let you turn the first shovel
of dirt. So obviously the growth is there. It has to be there
because they won't let you speculate and build a school because they
Page 88
March 19, 1999
think growth may come. You have to have the numbers in place before
you ever turn the first shovel of dirt. So that is totally erroneous
information.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there any other comments or questions
for the intervener's attorney? If not, then let's go to -- thank you
very much -~
MR. GROSSO: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and we'll go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many do we have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We had originally 42. I think we're probably at
about 32 at this point.
Next speaker is Russell Priddy and then Jeff Fridkin.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Russell, a good photo in the paper there
behind.the barbed wire.
COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you. Russell Priddy, for the
record, and I'm here representing myself, my wife Allyse Price-Priddy
and my father-in-law, Johnny Price, Jr. I really signed up to speak
about one thing, but since then have come across several others.
Commissioner Carter brought up the point that I initially wanted
to make and that was about ability to borrow money. I don't know of
any bankers we have here in Collier County that would lend money
without looking at the underlying value of the property for
development. And, you know, maybe I need the name of the banker in
New Jersey that, you know, will lend us money down here that way, but
that is a legitimate concern. And that is not a concern that I asked
Commissioner Carter to bring up, so obviously it's a concern of more
than one person.
Looking at the information that's been presented here today --
and I'd ask staff to throw up any one of those maps about wildlife --
that would tell you that we need to start permitting rock quarries
everywhere. Because the area that is most used for wildlife habitat,
panther, wading birds, whatever map they threw up, there's been a
rock quarry in operation on that property for 50 years. Must be
good.
Who's going to buy out that existing rock pit if it can't be a
NRPA? Because your staff has drawn a line around a permitted rock
quarry that's operating today and calling it a natural area. I'd
question staff about who turned out the lights before they started
drawing the maps, because somebody got way off base.
Page 89
March 19, 1999
A lot of people here today. I'm going to ask everyone in this
room that has their name on a deed that is affected by zoning to
please stand up.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that would be anybody who owns a
piece of property in this county. Is that what you mean?
MR. PRIDDY: No, no, that would be affected by the density
reduction.
You know, we got all these other people in here talking about
the land that's owned by, you know, a handful of people and we've
never been consulted. You know, we've got people from out of state,
out of the county, everybody's talking about this land. And even
staff and these people, ask them if they've ever been on this land
that they're presenting expert testimony about. MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. PRIDDY: Because I don't think very many of them can say
they have. But yet they're the experts telling you what ought to be
done with the land.
The other point is if the attorney for DCA will take that map to
the Governor and Cabinet and say that these fine folks in Collier
County have already set aside 80 percent of their county for
protection -- and we had a big jump on everybody else in the state.
The federal government and state people and environmentalists 25
years ago had their choice of what land was important, and they came
down, picked it out, and bought it. The landowners are through
selling land. We want the 20 percent left for people and for
agriculture.
MR. PERKINS: Here, here.
MR. PRIDDY: The transfer of development rights is wonderful.
Did the consultants ask anyone if they would sell any of it? And
they only had to go to a list of about 10 people to find out. Not
one phone call was made. I think the answer is no. I only represent
9,000 acres, but I think the answer is no. We're through selling.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jeff Fridkin and then Whit Ward.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. A1, this is not a revival,
would you please stop saying "here, here" or any other comment?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Amen.
Mr. Fridkin?
MR. FRIDKIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. For the record, my
name is Jeff Fridkin. I've got a feeling it's going to be pretty
Page 90
March 19, 1999
boring after the last speaker. But I'm here as a chairman of the
Economic Development Council.
As you all know, our primary focus is creation of high wage jobs
and obtaining economic diversification in our county. Of -- our 175
members represent some of the largest employers of people in this
area. And I think it's important to recognize who they include.
They're software designers, they're manufacturers, they're people in
aerospace, they're people in health care, there are service
providers, financial institutions.
And my point is that I'm not here as a developer organization.
The EDC is much more of a community member than a mere developer
organization. We are here for our first opportunity to learn about
something that appears to be very important to the long-term face of
what our community is going to look like, for us and for our kids.
And I know sitting here, I've learned much. I think I've got a
lot more to learn. But I think that this process represents the best
chance we've had in years to really make a difference in a plan for
what this county's going to look like on a go-forward basis.
Now, our board at the EDC neither supports nor opposes what's
being discussed here today. And of course, we don't oppose or
support it because we don't know enough about it, and we need to know
more about it.
Good planning requires a good process. And in our
organization's area of concern, the area that we're most concerned
about is opportunities for the employees who work for our various
businesses to have good places to live. We need to know how this is
going to affect those employees, and we need a reasonable opportunity
to figure out what it will mean.
In order for good planning to require a good process, a good
process is going to require good public input. And I applaud the
statements that Secretary Sieford (sic) gave to Mr. -- if I'm saying
it right -- Gouthier. That's very encouraging that they are
encouraging community input. It's a show of good faith. I think a
further show of good faith could occur.
I heard a little bit about the litigation process. I know a
little bit about the litigation process in that what I do, my day job
is a board-certified civil trial lawyer and business litigator. And
I've been before Judge Meale before. And I'm confident that it's a
show of good faith that the litigants could stipulate and direct
Judge Meale to withhold any ruling during a reasonable period of time
when our community input could occur. If -- I would think that the
Page 91
March 19, 1999
secretary might be supportive of that, from the comments I've heard.
There's no doubt that these very complex issues deserve thorough
public discussion.
Now, I personally had to miss the front end of this meeting
because I have a day job and I had business. There were several
speakers from our organization that were going to be here. Mr. Ed
McNamara wanted to make a presentation to you, Mr. Ed Morton wanted
to make a presentation to you, Mr. Jeff Cecil wanted to make a
presentation to you. Their day jobs pulled them out of here. They
couldn't do it.
I am certain, though I don't know the number, that there is a
very large number of your citizens who are in the same boat that the
rest of us are that we'd like to have an opportunity to learn more
and we'd like to have an opportunity to get some input into this
process.
The last'thing we at the EDC are interested in is stalling this
process. We have no interest in causing you, any more than any of us
like to, to sit through meaningless meetings. But while these big
issues have in the general been available and been involved with --
we've talked as an organization with the commission about density
reduction.
The particulars of this particular plan are brand new. They're
so new, I'd like to remind you about how new by showing you some of
the memos from your staff. But the three I've seen, in trying to
bring myself up to speed, a daunting task, are undated. It's very
unusual.
Take a look. I've never seen that before. The three most
recent memos I saw don't have a date on them. Very curious. Hm. I
wonder why. The process is moving too fast, and why is it moving too
fast? Because we're trying to fit a litigation driven timetable on
something that is vastly too important to be -- to allow to be driven
by litigation.
And I again applaud Secretary Seiberg for seeing that point.
Good planning requires a good process. Public input is essential.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks, Jeff.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Whit Ward and then John Wiseman.
MR. WARD: Well, before I start, I'd like to know if I am
talking about density reduction or about the stipulated settlement
agreement, because I had signed up to speak on both and I have
different presentations to them.
Page 92
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're actually talking about both, the way
we changed the agenda now.
MR. WARD: Okay. My name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier
Building Industry Association. I want to talk to you just a little
bit about transportation first, and then I will jump quickly to the
stipulated settlement agreement.
Density reduction inside the urban boundary, it is, if you
recall, and I recall very clearly, that when we first started talking
about density reduction, we were talking about density reduction only
because it was going to reduce our transportation needs. That was
the very reason we were talking about this issue. I remember some of
the commissioners saying you don't even want to know what it's going
to cost you to provide the transportation if we don't take steps to
reduce the density now.
I'd like to point out to you from what I heard this morning,
that first of all we don't want, and I don't think you want, two
units per acre inside the urban boundary. You don't want that. You
have clearly left an easy -- relatively easy way to increase the
density back to at least three units per acre. And then if you want
to buy additional density, you can increase it back to four units per
acre.
If I heard -- if what I heard from the staff this morning was
correct, the reduction -- any reduction in density -- I'm sorry, any
reduction in transportation needs in Collier County is based on a
model that encompasses the whole county and is not specific to any
roadway. The reduction -- any reduction of transportation needs that
we're going to receive as a result of a reduction in density credit
is going to be on the other side of Orangetree, somewhere out near
Immokalee. It is not going to affect us inside the urban boundary at
all.
I would point out to you that in order -- as a speaker before me
pointed out very clearly, if we're going to sell transfer of
development rights, there has to be two things: There has to be a
willing seller and there has to be a willing buyer. If we're going
to reduce density inside the urban boundary to two units per acre,
but by changing the design of your plan you can get back to three
units per acre, and we're only building three units per acre now,
where is the buyer that is going to buy from a willing seller, if you
can even find a willing seller?
The point that I'm trying to make to you is, we may be creating
a transfer of development right credit that there's no market for on
Page 93
March 19, 1999
either side, no value to the people we're taking -- we're taking
density credits away from the people in rural areas, and there may
not be a market on either side, not a seller nor a buyer for those,
and, therefore, there is no value. We're not getting a value in
return for what we're taking from these people.
Now, I know my time's got to be running very short, so let me
jump to the stipulated settlement agreement.
We had -- I was here when we developed the Growth Management
Plan that we sent to DCA in '97. That plan was deliberated over for
a long period of time. There were a lot of people who had input,
there were committees, there were task forces, there were meetings
with staff and meetings with the commission. And I'll tell you, I
think we have a very, very good Comprehensive Plan in Collier County.
I think, as a matter of fact, DCA would be hard pressed to find a
county that has developed in a better way than we have here in
Collier County.
Not -- that is not to say that our county plan can't be
improved. However, I don't think that we should be in such a big
disagreement with the Department of Community Affairs. And I don't
think that we should -- and I thank you for the attitude that I see,
a cooperative attitude, which is what I think we need. Just like we
had with the Army Corps of Engineers, when they decided to come down
and tell us what to do. But we didn't roll over for them either. We
went through our own process and we did it our own way. And I think
Collier County will come out better as a result of it.
What I would like to see us do, I'd like to first see us remove
the density issue from the stipulated settlement agreement. I think
that's a totally separate issue, and I think we ought to remove that.
And then I think we ought to take whatever time we need, because if
you will look at this proposed stipulated agreement, you'll see that
they've crossed through and replaced just about everything in our
Comprehensive Plan. I would like to see us take whatever time is
needed to go through these proposed changes, the proposed stipulated
settlement agreement, and let's develop a plan that makes sense for
Collier County and let's do it in a united way. I thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just for clarification while the next
speaker is coming forward, Mr. Ward was referencing transfer of
development rights into the urban area. We're not contemplating
that, are we?
Page 94
March 19, 1999
MR. MULHERE: Not in a formal sense. We are contemplating
taking density from agricultural properties in conjunction with a
agricultural or conservation easement to reacquire that fourth
dwelling unit in the urban area, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. WARD: That means the same thing to me. If you could build
one unit in the rural area --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's not -- it's not the same
thing.
MR. WARD: Did I say urban or rural? Maybe I said it wrong,
but, okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We know what you're talking about. I do.
MR. FERNANDEZ: John Wiseman and then Ross McIntosh.
MR. WISEMAN: Hello, I'm John Wiseman. I'm here also
representing CBIA, Collier Building Industry Association.
I'm encouraged by two things: One is that you are all very
interested in preserving the quality of life that we have here today.
I think it's great. And I'm also encouraged by the fact that we
might see more birdies on the golf course. I like that.
A very serious problem that I think needs to be tied into what
we're talking about here is housing. And that's housing for our
middle income families. We have a lot of services that are required
in this area to support the community that we have. And a lot o£
that is done by the person who makes 30 to 50, maybe $60,000 a year.
And you have to ask yourself, where are these people going to live?
And the type of plan that I see being laid out right now is
going to further exacerbate that problem. And that we're setting
ourselves up for one golf course community after another, which in
some people's definition that might be great. But all those people
are going to be expect a certain amount of service in the community
that they live in. That we're trying to attract high wage jobs. You
heard the people from the EDC talk about that.
Every seminar I've ever been to where they talk about how to
attract high wage jobs, the number one question is, where are those
people going to live? And in some respects I think we might have one
foot on the gas and one foot on the brake. And, you know, I have a
very real concern about that.
And then you have the services that we're going to need anyway,
whether or not we attract additional jobs or not, and that's in the
banking, legal community, people who work at Collier County. Where
are they going to live? And if we're going to be bringing them in
Page 95
March 19, 1999
from Lee County or from Hendry County, I believe that they're going
to be part of our roadway problem and not part of the tax solution to
deal with that roadway problem.
And I think if we're going to take some time to study this issue
further over the next few months and work like we have talked about
in the past to come up with a good plan of right-sizing our
community, I think that's a very important component of this, is to
provide housing for all types of people.
I think you're required by the state to provide low income and
affordable housing, and a lot of people want to come here to live in
the high-end housing. But if you're missing that middle component, I
think we're going to see a diminishing of our quality of life, which
I don't think that any of you want, and I don't want that either.
I guess in closing, I would take exception to the intervener's
statement that we're start going to look like Miami. I believe I live
in the best place in the state or the country. And I appreciate
everybody. So, thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If people are going to insist on
applauding, I hope the next speaker will not delay and just come on
up. Because otherwise, you know, if we've got 30-some other speakers
MR. McINTOSH: Should I be disappointed if it doesn't merit
applause?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. McINTOSH: Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, for
the record, my name is Ross McIntosh. I'm an 18~year resident of
Collier County. I'm here speaking on my own behalf and behalf of my
family.
I think of the density reduction ordinance as a quality of life
issue. I think it's intended to address three components of our life
here in Collier County. First is congestion, second is the visual
landscape, and third are available lifestyle alternatives.
I agree with Commissioner Berry that it won't have any
significant effect on congestion as we know it. My personal
favorite, as I look over the list of roads which will be affected 10
percent or more, my personal favorite is the -- is Livingston Road
east-west, between Livingston Road north-south and Northbrooke Road.
All of you can visualize that, that's the one that flies over 1-75.
Page 96
March 19, 1999
I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie that a map would be very
useful so we could visualize where these impacts are going to be
reduced.
The reality is, I think, a future commission is not going to
build that flyover. And the traffic that was going to be on that
road is going to be routed elsewhere into the system, and much of
this surplus capacity that we're talking about this morning is going
to disappear.
In any event, I don't think that's enough reason not to proceed
with the density reduction ordinance. There are other components.
The other components are, of course, the visual landscape and
lifestyle.
Unfortunately, the consultants' recommendations, I believe, are
flawed in a number of respects. And I believe that the community
needs time to address those flaws and to bring their own ideas to the
table for our evaluation.
For example, let's look at the four-unit down to two-unit, plus
one unit plus one unit possibility, which, of course leaves us at
four units per acre. One of those units is being drawn from the
rural area into the urban area, which seems to me to be the reverse
of what it is that we're trying to accomplish.
The consultants indicate that 3,500 acres are affected. At two
units per acre, that's 7,000 units. They start with what I consider
to be an arbitrary 50-unit base -- excuse me, 50-acre base. I would
suggest that the base be zero, that every vacant tract in Collier
County be zoned three units per acre. That will more than double the
size of the pool. If the pool increases from 3,500 to, 7,000, then
at one unit per acre, we achieve the same end, but we achieve other
benefits.
We don't discourage the -- we don't turn our community into a
community of 49-acre subdivisions, because nobody wants to reach the
threshold to be moved into the next layer of regulatory knots. We
encourage people to group their properties. We encourage the
assemblage of properties at the larger projects, because in projects,
size does matter. The bigger the project, the more internal
amenities, the less reason for residents to leave the property, the
greater likelihood that we can implement TDR's.
In addition to that, of course, the larger project provides all
of the opportunities for greater flexibility for travel demand
management, including access roads, frontage roads, bypass roads, et
cetera.
Page 97
March 19, 1999
In closing, I'd like to note, in today's Naples Daily News, Dr.
Benton -- there was an announcement that Dr. Benton's project is
moving through the zoning process. Dr. Benton has acquired 99 acres
currently zoned for 650 units. He's rezoning it to 21 units. And
that reduction in the number of units to be built in Collier County
is 10 percent of what we're taking all this time to discuss.
In addition to that, between Medittera and the Collier Cypress
project on 951, 3,000 acres -- 3,000 units, not 12,000 units.
The market is driving us to lower units. There's a sense in
which we're crying that the sky is falling. Please, let's not take
our eyes off the fact that our problems are caused by an accumulation
of our failure to fund and build roads. We must turn our attention
to that. We must create, for good reason, a density reduction
ordinance which is fair to all and accomplishes our objectives. But
let's remember, we need to fund and we need to build those roads.
Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Joan Gust and then Roger Dykstra.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Dykstra here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, he had to go back to work.
MR. FERNANDEZ: June Mueller.
MS. GUST: For the record, I'm Joan Gust, and today I'm here on
behalf of the Affordable Housing Commission. I'm also addressing a
little bit about the density.
In relationship to the density reduction, keeping the density
program in place is very important, what you are doing. But what
needs to be done also, if you go ahead with this, is to increase the
intensity. Because it's vital that you have affordable housing.
The number of homes being built and sold that are under $80,000
has dropped dramatically since 1995, since you had the incentives of
down payment assistance. While the number of homes built and sold
that are over $80,000 a year has risen as dramatically. Fewer and
fewer affordable houses are being built.
I'm here to encourage two items to be included in your plans.
One is to have Dr. Nicholas write for this county a tiered scale for
impact fees, especially in relationship to affordable housing. And
the other is to take a serious look at the affordable housing
process. Too many employees in Collier County aren't living in
Collier County, don't have -- they don't have clean, decent housing
available to them. As we reduce the density, there is a
corresponding increase in housing costs, and low income employees
will have fewer and fewer places and choices to make. Thank you.
Page 98
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mrs. Gust.
MR. FERNANDEZ: June Mueller and then Jeff Perry.
MS. MUELLER: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I'm June
Mueller, the 1999 president of the Naples Board of Realtors. I'm
here representing 2,300 realtors.
And I would like to state to you today that we would like to see
more public input into the stipulated development settlement, and
we'd also like to see it separated as well from density reduction.
We would also like, if possible, to be a part of that solution, if we
could possibly be a part of that.
And I would also like to state that we are in the same position
as the Collier County Business Association -- Builder's Association,
and we have sent you, I think, a white paper position paper in this
regard. And thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jeff Perry and then David Guggenheim.
MR. PERRY: Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Perry, and I'm the
transportation planning services manager for Wilson-Miller. Thank you
for the opportunity to address you today on density reduction, more
specifically on the transportation implications.
I'm going to focus on three areas: First, the methodology used
to analyze the transportation implications, my interpretation of the
results of that analysis, and then I'll offer a few conclusions.
Regarding the methodology, it appears that although there was
some density reduction taken in the urban area, the significant --
the most significant portion of the density reduction was in fact
taken in the dens -- taken in the traffic analysis zones in the rural
area, and in fact the far east rural area.
That stands to reason, since the bulk of the lands within the
urban area, planned zones invested in some way, are really off limits
as far as density reduction; whereas, the bulk of the lands within
the rural areas are in fact undeveloped.
Unfortunately, there has never been any previous analysis of
rural build-out. And in order to measure density reduction in the
rural area, you first have to have density to be reduced. To do
that, the build-out scenario added 60,000 dwelling units to the rural
traffic analysis zones. It then, in order to create the alternative
or the reduced density scenario, took out 34,000, ran the computer
models, and then compared the results.
What I believe is most problematic about this kind of technique
is that in doing this, there was no effort to improve the roadway
Page 99
March 19, 1999
network to provide employment opportunities, to provide shopping or
business opportunities that would support that 60,000 dwelling units
that have been placed out in the rural area for the analysis. The
travel models generate an inordinate amount of travel demand on the
rural roadways as a result.
Let me speak specifically to the interpretations of the
transportation analysis. In the consultant's report to the
commission and the summary of the staff, the transportation related
benefits of density reduction is demonstrated by 76 roadway segments
with 10 percent or greater drop in volumes, about 40 percent of the
total network. Actually, only 21 of those roadway segments were
actually shown to be congested at build-out to begin with. The other
55 had no congestion problems whatsoever.
While the statement that 85 percent of all of the links will
have a reduced volume sounds noteworthy, in actuality only 40 percent
had a level of service problem, and only 7 percent were improved
after density reduction to operate at acceptable levels of service,
leaving 54 segments still operating at unacceptable levels of service
after density reduction.
By comparing the results of the two scenarios, 1-A and 2-A, we
see that of the 194 road segments analyzed, 164, that 85 percent
number, showed a decrease in volumes, as represented by the report,
while 30 road segments, about 15 percent, actually increased in
volumes, three of which -- excuse me, 51 segments at the end, 51
segments remained in unacceptable condition. In fact, three of the
segments were unacceptable before density reduction and were actually
made worse as a result of density reduction.
And what is not clear in the analysis, and probably the most
important thing that's been alluded to a couple of times before, is
the fact that the analysis does not represent the transfer back in of
the density from the rural area into the urban areas. You have to
realize that if you are presenting an analysis that shows that there
is a reduction in the travel demand on the roadways, reduced volumes
as a result of reduced density, that simply goes away, or at least
most of it goes away, when you transfer those units back in or allow
people to grow their densities back from the 2 to the 3 to the 4.
The numbers -- those 85 percent of the roadways, the bulk of
those 85 percent of the roadways within the urban area in fact may
not be realized as a result of this growing back of the density that
is simply allowed and in fact encouraged, according to the
consultants.
Page 100
March 19, 1999
I'd like to conclude by saying I believe that sound
transportation planning principles have been overlooked in the
application of the travel demand model when the 60,000 dwelling units
are put into the unplanned areas without roads, employment, service
opportunities to satisfy them.
Regarding density reduction in the rural areas, it is clear that
such reductions in east county have little or no measurable effect on
the level of service of the urban roadways. And while density
reduction in the urban TAZ's, Traffic Analysis Zones, does have the
effect of reducing volumes on the neighboring roadways, it is not as
significant as the report would have the reader believe.
And if one examines the financial implications of providing the
remaining needed improvements, those that are still needed as a
result of the density, one would probably find that the per capita
cost of making those improvements is probably going to be higher
under density reduction.
That concludes my remarks and I appreciate it very much. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Jeff.
MR. FERNANDEZ: David Guggenheim, and then Robert Duane.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Chairman Mac'Kie, Commissioners, good
afternoon. For the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I speak to you on behalf of
our 5,500 members families and nearly 700 volunteers.
The satellite map in my office has been getting a lot of mileage
lately. And I use that to display the fact that even from space,
it's obvious that something has gone terribly wrong on the southeast
coast of Florida. The problem is simply one of urban sprawl and one
where local planning has failed to deal adequately with sprawl.
That area is now facing the largest ecosystem restoration in
history. Today each hour Collier County's population grows by
another individual. A year from today it will have increased between
7 and 10,000. Each day, 7 to 10 acres of land in Collier County are
converted for residential development.
Where and how this growing population of people will live will
determine the quality, liveability, and sustainability of our
community, and whether we repeat the same mistakes of the east coast.
And the enemy is that S word, "sprawl." In Southwest Florida,
it is especially sinister, because it's not just a matter of losing
land to residential development in a sprawling pattern, but for us,
it is also about impacting multitudes of endangered species and
Page 101
March 19, 1999
impacting our water resources in a region where water and land are
inseparably linked. It is about the clean water that we drink and it
is about the liquid life support systems like Camp Keais Strand that
interconnect our natural areas, sustaining them with water. We can't
simply draw a line around areas like the panther refuge and expect
them to be protected. We must also protect the water systems that
feeds them.
We strongly support the county's density reduction initiative,
and we appreciate that we have been included in the process. We
commend your staff and your leadership and vision on this. I know
it's been very hard work.
But make no mistake, you are in tune with your citizens on this
one. We are getting the exact same calls and letters that you are.
The citizens desperately want this to happen. There's a growing
coalition of citizens, business leaders and civic associations that
are desperate to prevent the kind of sprawl we have seen on the east
coast. This plan will help dramatically to give us the community we
want by encouraging growth in the right places. It's an innovative
plan that is respectful of private property rights by its intelligent
use of transfer of development rights, and it's also a plan that
ensures that where growth does occur, it will adhere to the highest
possible environmental standards, standards that The Conservancy was
involved in in developing.
We've discussed in the past the TwinEagles criteria. We believe
the 50 percent criteria are reasonable. They're commonsense conserve
as you go criteria that put an appropriate burden on the private
developer.
We heard discussion of golf courses today. Golf courses are
specifically excluded. And while golf courses do have some wildlife
value, it is far different than natural areas. Just because we might
see a panther out there doesn't mean he can make a living out on the
golf course. We support 50 percent. We would not support anything
less than 50 percent.
Our position statement includes four points that we want to
emphasize: First, we believe that the purchaser of development
rights should be the only mechanism for increasing density. But we
should allow that to go either from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4. We think that
the traffic demand improvements should be a required element of the
LDC irregardless.
We also believe in adding two additional areas, the North Belle
Meade and the marshland north -- immediately north of Everglades
Page 102
March 19, 1999
City. We prefer all elements to remain in the DCA settlement and in
urban or rural areas. We just want to emphasize that development
should avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.
So as we look to that east coast, we have a clear vision of what
we don't want. This is really a historic opportunity to create what
we do want. We applaud your commitment and leadership and vision on
this issue, which I believe is the most important issue that this
county faces, and we urge you to stay the course. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, our court reporter's fingers
are aching, so after we hear from Mr. Duane, we'll take a 10-minute
break.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Robert Duane.
MR. DUANE: Good afternoon, for the record, Robert Duane from
Hole, Montes and Associates. I'll be very brief.
I have two points I want to discuss with you. The first is
pertaining to the cjustering provisions, and the second has to do
with some of the mitigation requirements that's contemplated in both
the cjustering provisions in Policy 6.39.
First, let me begin by saying that I think there are some very
good components of the cjustering provision. I served as your
chairman of your Environmental Technical Policy Advisory Board. We
spent a long period of time trying to take the habitat protection
ordinance and blend that in with some of our other goals, objectives,
and policies. I supported that, for one, and I think some of the
requirements that we prioritized some of our habitat and look to our
wetlands flow ways and try to establish interconnections with
adjoining properties is important.
The problems I have with the cjustering provisions and the
mitigation requirements are as follows: You have picked 90 percent.
Mr. Lorenz touched upon that as the extent of exotic infestation upon
which properties that have greater than that amount of infestation
would essentially not be counted as habitat.
I would like to educate you or share with you that the Corps'
melaleuca rule, or the district's melaleuca rule, Mr. Lorenz briefly
touched upon it. They have different mitigation requirements
beginning at 50 percent infestation. In fact, the mitigation is as
low as a quarter to one, once you reach that level. When you reach
75 percent infestation, the agencies don't care about that. We have
a 90 percent requirement here. And I'm suggesting getting back to
reality. I think most people that are in the business of
Page 103
March 19, 1999
environmental permitting would recognize that 50 percent is a point
beyond which we are to recognize its lost value for habitat.
That's very important when I lead into my next point pertaining
to the mitigation. There's a fundamental shift in this new proposal
here where we're now calling for 1 to 1 mitigation. I want you to
recognize that there are a lot of mitigation that the district or the
Corps requires that is much less than that. I just referenced the
melaleuca rule.
What I want to avoid is a situation where developers come to you
with permits from state and federal permitting agencies, whether it's
a nationwide permit or a small isolated wetland, that can't be worked
into a project, and now we've got to meet Collier County's mitigation
requirements. To me that's duplicative of a process that's
cumbersome enough.
In fact, when we went through the environmental resource
permitting changes the last few years, we combined certain aspects of
district and Corps permitting just to avoid these kinds of conflicts.
And I'm concerned that the county getting into the mitigation
business is really not in the long-term interest and I'd rather defer
to experts in other agencies. And I'd like you to consider that in
your deliberations here. I wanted --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We could be like Martin County and just
prohibit.
MR. DUANE: Well, I think we need to be reasonable and I think
we have to be practical, and that's my point.
The cjustering provisions, here is an aerial photo of a property
that is presently in the planning process for of a golf course
community with one unit per acre. It lies on your urban -- part of
it is in your urban fringe and your rural area.
You will see that this property is by and large and largely
cleared. In fact, three-quarters of it is a farm field. Under your
new requirements, we're going to have to do 170 acres of either re-
vegetating on this property or going into a CREW lands at a cost of
seven figures or more. And then we've got to fit our golf course in
the half of the property that's left. We can't do it. We need 400
more acres to do the same development. And it's a project of less
than one unit per acre.
In all due respect to Mr. Guggenheim, in the 50 percent
requirement, as Mr. Norris referred to earlier, it's not reasonable.
I would suggest something in the neighborhood of 30 to 35 percent of
the existing habitat that you have on your site, and we try to take
Page 104
March 19, 1999
these performance standards and these cjustering provisions and try
to retain what's available without trying to impose burdensome new
mitigation requirements, whether there's 2 to 1 or 1 to 1. I don't
think the county should be in the mitigation business, but I do
encourage you to try to retain what natural habitats exist, and try
to plan for them accordingly on this properties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we take our break, Mr. Duane,
can you explain to me what that is on the wall? Because for me, it's
much more helpful to see real-life situations than it is theory.
MR. DUANE: This is 680 acres located about a mile north of U.S.
41 and maybe a mile and a half to the east of 951. Most of the area
has been previously cleared for agriculture. About 25 percent of the
property is in -- presently in native vegetation. Under the proposed
cjustering requirements, we've got to take another quarter or 170
acres, and we've got to either put vegetation here or we've got to
buy it in a CREW area or somewhere else.
If you take a number of $6,500 an acre, there's a million
dollars of mitigation to fit the farm field in. Now we have got to
try to put a 500-acre golf course community on a section of land
which is 650 acres, more or less. In order to do that, we cannot do
that on 300 acres. We need to acquire hundreds of additional acres.
In fact, each additional acre, of course, we add to the envelope adds
another acre of preservation. So instead of ending up, you know,
with one section of land at one unit per acre, we end up with over
1,000 acres to try to do our one-acre golf course community.
The problem with that is there isn't any land around this
project that we can grab or buy or purchase that much land. That
frankly, what is around it has been impacted a lot more severely than
what we have today.
I could give you more examples. I just thought we needed to
have one real live one. And that's for what it's worth.
I'd like to conclude my presentation by thanking you for your
time. Good luck with struggling with these NRPA areas. My
inclination is, while it's not part of your settlement agreement, I'd
like to see the private property owners, various interested parties
get together and agree on the boundaries of these areas before we map
them, and that's the time, I think, to put them on the map, not to
map them now and find out after we do more studies later that we've
got to come back and take the areas off the map. I'd rather take the
time and do it deliberately. Thank you for your time.
Page 105
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, no other questions, we'll take a 10-
minute break. Be back at five after 3:00.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Call the meeting back to order.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Hank Fishkind and then Wayne
Arnold.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fishkind?
MR. FISHKIND: Thank you, ma'am. I'm going to --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you are.
County room, please come to order.
MR. FISHKIND: If I could get the control room to turn on the
computer for me so we could show our pictures. Thank you.
For the record, I'm Hank Fishkind, Fishkind Associates in
Orlando, Florida. We just briefly have some extensive client
relationships here. I service financial advice I think to every
community development district in the county. We've helped our
clients with over 200 million dollars' worth of infrastructure.
On the development side, we represent WCI and Gulf Bay, among
others. On the building side we represent U.S. Homes. I'm on the
board of Engle Homes.
I want to briefly address some of the issues relating to the
density reduction amendments and some shortcomings, at least in my
mind. I think Dr. Nicholas did a great job with the assignment. It's
very hard. I think there are three areas: Density land values,
fiscal impact and the rural east county analysis that merits some
attention. And I'll share with you what I found.
I think Dr. Nicholas' analysis of the density and land values is
elegant. It's great. I think, though, the data perhaps leaves
something to be desired and that's something perhaps he didn't have
much control over.
The data analyzed was data on lot sales. But what we're talking
about is reducing densities for parcels of land, pods of land, and I
think there's a mismatch there.
Second, the data that was selected were not a random sample of
lots everywhere. We have some lots at four units an acre, largely
from East Naples and interior Marco, and I don't think that's a good
sample compared to three units an acre lots in more up-scale
communities. So I think those cause some issues that I'm concerned
about.
In terms of the data themselves, in the report the analysis
concludes in the blue bars these values per acre, roughly 54, 64 and
Page 106
March 19, 1999
75,000, but the average values in Appendix C are different from that.
Not that they can't be adjusted, but that made me nervous about the
analysis, because of the data.
In terms of the fiscal impact, cost and revenues of the density
reduction, the analysis is not complete. And it wasn't meant to be.
I'm not criticizing the consultants for that. And as others have
said, maybe there's a reduction of cost, too. But there isn't any
analysis of cost before you to make that analysis, and there's no
analysis of other impacts or impacts on employment, and this concerns
about housing.
Now, to assume that lower density means lower cost is not
correct in this instance, because many costs are lumpy. As you heard
from Jeff Perry, the transportation costs in particular are lumpy.
Gavin Jones of your staff was very helpful to us. He gave us the
list of the roadway links that might not have to be built with lower
population and lower density.
But the problem is that actually cost per person, as best I can
tell, are going to go up for transportation, and, therefore, about
8.3 percent, about 12 percent by 2020. Maybe costs you're willing to
live with. But those are significant cost increases per person per
year every year. So density reduction may have a real price for you.
The rural data also I think was problematic. The data set
includes few large parcels. The average value in Appendix C without
the state sales was $5,300. But in Appendix B in the conclusions,
they talk about a value of $1,000. Here's what the difference looks
like. I'm sure there's an explanation, but it just made me nervous
again about the analysis, and about you making final decisions for
density reduction on this basis.
Density reduction below one unit per five basically makes land
undevelopable (sic). I can't find many developments at that stage.
It's not economic to develop at much less than one unit per five
acres. You may be able to transfer and do other things, but to
develop is going to be virtually impossible at that level of density.
As a developer, I can tell you that.
So where do you go from here? I would suggest that you do
revise your Comprehensive Plan. Certainly, you have new population
totals, you've got a different situation, I know you're working with
DCA, but at some point you really want to think about not patching
the plan but revising especially the densities and especially the
fiscal impacts.
Page 107
March 19, 1999
You might want to consult with Jim about perhaps having
different impact fees at different density levels to encourage better
transportation usages, and that may help you with market forces to
move forward and to assure that your plan is economically feasible.
Thank you for letting me address you this afternoon. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Fishkind.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Do you have a copy of this?
MR. FISHKIND: Yes, sir. We'll be glad to make that available
for the record.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Wayne Arnold and then Bruce
Anderson.
MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Wayne Arnold. I'd like to speak
to you today about cjustering requirements that we're contemplating
today.
You've already heard from Mr. Duane and others that some of
these standards seem to be a little bit unworkable. And I think my
approach is that no one size can seem to fit all. We have a lot of
different parcels in a lot of different stages of environmentally
sensitive lands, whether or not they're farmed, whether or not they
just happen to be vegetated and undisturbed but not really high
quality. And I think with the approach we're trying to take with a
mandatory 50 percent set-aside, we really don't address the resource
protection issues that we're hoping to achieve.
The idea of cjustering is a great planning and environmental
planning tool, but it needs to be based on the resource we're trying
to product. The sake of setting aside 50 percent of your land for
the sake of setting aside 50 percent of your land may not accomplish
our objectives.
And I think that in light of what Mr. Duane said about
mitigation standards, for that first 50 percent you're allowing me to
impact anyway, you're asking me to go find two for one of each of
those acres off-site.
So what I've effectively done is the person that I represent who
has just assembled a couple hundred acres of land to try to put a
golf course on it is now told that he has 100 acres left to put a
golf course. You don't build an 18-hole golf course on 100 acres.
It's going to take at least 150 to 160 acres to put a quality golf
course project in there, let alone not even finding room to put
residences at a one unit per five acres density that might be
cjustered. And this is assuming that I don't really have any
environmentally sensitive land I'm trying to protect.
Page 108
March 19, 1999
I think that, you know, part of the problem is we're trying to
force these very specific standards into our Comprehensive Plan.
These are standards that we've always left to our Land Development
codes. It's one thing to have a policy and the objective to say we
want to retain and promote the cjustering of development and preserve
our natural areas. It's fully another to put standards in this plan
that we may not be able to live with. And I fully think we cannot
live with the standards as they're written.
A couple of the other things that I've observed in looking at
this is that, you know, we've excluded golf courses from the ability
to be developed without cjustering standards. Golf courses by their
nature are 100 percent open space. And we've now said you can't have
100 percent open space use, you can only have a 50 percent open space
use. And I think there's something wrong with that, because I think
that ~- I guess I'm mistaken, but I don't think that too many people
complained about Old Florida Club or Bonita Bay East Golf Course or
the new club of the Everglades, or any other that we want to list
that are outside the urban boundary and have always been permitted to
be developed outside urban boundary. They have extensive areas that
have been set aside, they have wildlife that coexist with the golf
course. They aren't in conflicting use with typically golf courses
and the wildlife, because the wildlife forge typically in the
evenings when people aren't playing golf. This typically isn't a
problem in our county. We seem to be making it one.
I think the other thing that needs to be said here is we've
embarked on a standard of naturally viable functioning habitat that
says if you have 90 percent exotic infestation you're no longer
native. Anything less, you are. There's as problem, and Mr. Duane
also alluded to that, that other agencies don't look at it that way
but Collier County has decided that we're upping the ante by at least
20 percent over what other agencies have decided is a naturally
viable functioning habitat. I think there's a problem with that.
We've again created another standard that we have to address.
There are also a couple of other things that need to be pointed
out. And I think we need to put in this text of the plan some
reference to why we're creating the rural fringe district. If you
read the text as presented, there is no intent section there, like
other portions of the plan. We haven't said we want this to be our
transition between the higher density urban areas and the already
higher density areas that we have in the states. This is our hole
that we're trying to fill here with the rural density.
Page 109
March 19, 1999
And I think, as I've told some of you, what you're doing is
precluding a future urban boundary expansion along our corridors,
because most of these areas have been identified immediately adjacent
to our urban boundaries. In a few years, the pressure is going to be
greater than they are today to take our urban densities and put them
past 951. You're foreclosing that opportunity into the future with a
decision to keep the density at 1 per 5. But you have to give people
an economic incentive to develop a project that can work in that
corridor. And I don't think we're doing that with the proposal we
have before us.
The other thing, there are a couple of minor standards, but I
think that, you know, the buffering requirements that we have
established, 200 feet, that applies to every project boundary. I
think the intent was the rural character issue should apply from what
we see as county roads, not deep inside the project, you're adjacent
to another golf course project, you have to now have a 200-foot
setback from some structure. I don't think that that's a workable
standard either.
But I think what I'm trying to point out, there are many of
these standards that need some further discussion and refinement. A
lot of this has been done without input from anybody from the
development community. Thanks.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson and then Emilio
Robau.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce
Anderson.
There's been a lot of discussion about the very aptly called
TwinEagles cjustering criteria. And those references need to be put
in the proper context. I know a little bit about the TwinEagles
project. I was the attorney for it.
First of all, the criteria that the developer of TwinEagles
originally agreed to was site specific criteria in the form of PUD
stipulations that the developer was willing to agree to in order to
maximize the number of homes that could be built by not having to
provide each homesite with a five-acre lot.
As you may recall, the TwinEagles PUD was challenged in court
and the property -- and rather than engage in a lengthy court battle,
the property was restored to its prior agricultural zoning. And the
property owner went forward to develop TwinEagles using the regular
agricultural zoning district regulations and subdivision regulations
with five-acre lots for each homesite.
Page 110
March 19, 1999
In so doing, the developer gave up a substantial amount of
density, approximately one-third on the plan of Phase I, because they
could not physically fit the same number of homes on the property
under the five-acre minimum lot size requirement.
The second major point that I would make about the TwinEagles
project and the individualized cjustering criteria that it agreed to
for the PUD, was that cjustering was an option, not a requirement.
That developer was willing to agree to in order to maximize his
density. It's one matter for there to be an incentive to cjuster,
but it's quite another matter to absolutely require it in all cases.
As originally envisioned and applauded by the county commission,
cjustering was incentive based and utilized a carrot and stick
approach to encourage landowners to cjuster dwelling units in order
to maximize density. The proposal before you today is all stick and
no carrot.
Not every project in the rural area can be or should be another
TwinEagles. TwinEagles is a very high-end premiere golf course
community. It's been said many times and it's true, one size does
not fit all. That is what PODs are for, to take into account the
site specific characteristics of the land and the particular land use
that is requested.
Now, you may recall in the case of the Fiddler's Creek
development that rural lands were added to that project and a site
specific Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved to allow some of
the urban density to be shifted to rural lands in order to preserve
important native vegetation that existed on the urban lands, and
encouraged that density to be shifted to already highly impacted
urban lands.
The -- I asked Mr. Duane to leave this example up on the board
here. You'll notice in the bottom right-hand corner, that's a
heavily lorested area. That is the urban area. The other three
cleared quarters on that map are the rural area.
I would encourage you to include a provision in the cjustering
language that would allow for the option to shift density from the
urban area to the rural area for a single project that includes both
urban and rural area lands, if there is native vegetation that is
worth preserving as we see here on this example.
All that language would do would allow the County Commission the
discretion to approve such a project if and when it came before you.
Page 111
March 19, 1999
In closing, I'd also like to confirm with the staff that the
proposed cjustering standards are not intended to apply to previously
approved projects in the rural fringe area. MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Emilio Robau and then Rich
Yovanovich.
MR. ROBAU: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Emilio
Robau of RWA Engineering. And I want to talk a little big -- I'm
going to beat a horse a little more that's already been beaten, but I
understand that you want some specific examples, and I'll try to take
just three minutes.
This is the golf course scenario I think that we've been talking
about. This particular project -- I'm representing John Tassy
(phonetic) by the way. And this particular project is about the end
of Sable Pond Road, the current paved section of Sable Pond Road.
And what you see over there is an aerial exhibit of the project
overlaid on the natural landscapes. And over here to the left is the
project as we want to go forward with it with a conditional use
application next week we'll be submitting.
Right now the plan on the left is allowed, according to the
Growth Management Plan. The benefits of it, there's 54 percent of it
is open space. The area that you see to the right of that exhibit is
-- will be turned over to the state's conservation easement as part
of our water management mitigation for wetland impacts, so on and so
forth. That land will still stay on the tax rolls. It won't be
purchased by the state. It's a good transition from the urban to --
or actually rural to the NRPA areas. And in this scenario that we're
proposing right now, it's totally on-site mitigation.
In the proposed regulations or the settlement agreement, this
particular scenario does not work. Of the 294 acres that the project
consists of, 135 acres of it is going to be development. And that
would incur -- well, you'd have to buy 270 acres of off-site purchase
in order to mitigate for that at the 2 to 1. I'm talking about the
cjustering provisions right now.
And one thing that a lot of people haven't mentioned that I
think is important is if a site is self-contained with respect to the
mitigation for wetland impacts, what we're really talking about is
upland mitigation, and correct me if I'm wrong. But the way I'm
looking at this is I think the county is potentially getting into a
position where they're actually going to require mitigation for
uplands.
Page 112
March 19, 1999
I keep hearing things about habitat and all of that, but this is
what we're talking about. Because when you have a self-contained
project where the wetland mitigation can occur on-site, the remaining
lands that you're going to develop are generally uplands. And we're
asking for a 2 to 1 buy-out somewhere else for those uplands, and I
think that needs to be pointed out.
What do we want? We want some relief. We think that this is an
onerous requirement. And we're willing to work with staff in order
to get, you know, the relief and write it into the rules.
And one other thing, the portion on the right of that project,
right here, would not be allowed if the settlement agreement goes
through, because we think that's a NRPA. We're not quite sure at
this point in time. That line keeps on shifting, depending on who we
talk to, et cetera. And we also want some clarification on that.
So to be brief, I think that's all I have to say. I think
there's a significant impact to this property in the scenario that we
think we can get through today, and the scenario that's going to
happen soon. Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Rich Yovanovich and then Cathy
Myers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
I don't want to repeat what everybody's already said, but
generally the clients our firm's representing support the cjustering
provisions. They need some revisions to the provisions.
As Emilio just pointed out, that's a project that the land value
already reflects, that a golf course will be there. The golf course
can no longer be constructed under the proposed cjustering
provisions. At that point, you're putting a land developer in a
position where they have no choice but to file a claim and try to go
on a case-by-case resolution with the county under the Burt Harris
Act. And that's not what anybody really wants at this point.
At this point we hope, and it appears that the dialogue has been
opened, that there will be further discussion about refining the
cjustering provisions and hopefully coming to a standard that will
work for the county's goal of preserving native areas and for
providing a property owner the right to reasonably develop their
property and make a reasonable return on their investment.
I don't think I have much more to add other than that. It seems
like the dialogue is there. And I'm getting the sense that there
will be further discussion and that there is nothing etched in stone
at this point. That's all I have to add.
Page 113
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Cathy Myers and then Jeff Walls.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is Cathy Myers here? She had to work?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Jeff Walls, and then Chris Thoemke.
MR. WALLS: Hello. My name is Jeff Walls. I have a drywall
contracting here business in town, Naples, been here for quite a
number of years, since 1980. I have 150 employees. So I put food on
the table of a lot of people here in Collier County.
One of my major concerns is, it comes right back to the fact
that what I see really coming out of this is the fact that we're not
getting -- we're not at all getting due process here if we have 45
days before we're going to have a recommendation back from the
governor what you are supposed to do about this problem.
Sounds to me like there needs to be a lot more issues looked at.
And this is going to impact a lot of people in this county for a long
period of time. And frankly, if we don't get some more time to look
at this and have some more workshops on it, I think we could all be
making a big mistake.
One of the other things that I want to bring up is, I read in
the plan that if you have land in NRPA, which is 80 percent of
Collier County, you can't even have a camp there. So that means if
you buy 10 acres in NRPA somewhere and you want to go camping, you
can't have a camp. See, these are the things that are snuck in
there, because there's no way we're going to be able to read and
decipher all these things in the next 40 days.
I think that you really need to look at what the whole thing is
going to do and study it some more and somehow buy us some time on
this. It seems like it's getting ramrodded to me. Thank you very
much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Chris Thoemke, and then Nancy
Payton.
MS. THOEMKE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Chris
Thoemke. I work for the National Wildlife Federation, but I'm a 20-
year resident of Collier County, and also spent most of my childhood
growing up in Fort Lauderdale. And if anybody would be able to tell
you from a firsthand experience that we are heading towards what
happened on the East Coast here in the West Coast, it would be me,
because I grew up in an area where my grandfather used to take me
fishing is now the City of Plantation that didn't exist when I was a
kid. And I've been here for 20 years and I've seen a lot of changes
Page 114
March 19, 1999
happen here, and we're seeing the same thing happening in this area.
And I can assure you of that.
Before I get to my comments, one thing that struck me kind of
interesting, and during the last break I talked to Charlie Gouthier
and Shaw Stiller and I asked them, I said, why weren't all of the
developers, the special interests, the EDC, the CBIA, why weren't all
these people involved in this process? Why are they waiting until
now to get to this process? And he said that they had full chance to
be involved in all these negotiations to be an intervener.
And I think it's a little strange that they're waiting until
now, and some people think it's the llth hour, to ask for more time
when they have never been precluded from being a part of the
discussions in the past. And I hope that you'll take that into
consideration in your deliberations.
Density reduction I think is a good thing. I'm here to speak in
favor of it. But I also want to let you know, in my opinion it's
only the beginning. We have a choice here in Collier County. We can
live with our environment, maintain our natural resources, and the
water that we depend upon from our natural resources, and allow this
whole system to function in a way that it provides not only the
ecological benefits for wildlife but also the tremendously important
economic benefits that a healthy environment brings to this
community.
Thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars can directly
be traced back to having a healthy environment here in Southwest
Florida. Think of the people that come to this area for bird
watching, for recreational fishing, or just to get out and enjoy
nature in any other form they want. We need to have a healthy
environment in order to have that type of economic asset for this
area.
The other option is we can let our natural resources decline.
And as you all know, I've been involved with the environmental impact
statement, representing the National Wildlife Federation and the EIS,
and I can tell you from speaking with the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Corps repeatedly over the past couple of months as we
wait for the document to come out, it appears as though that document
is going to probably provide some surprises and perhaps a lot of
disappointments to people. Because right now, unless things change,
it's probably going to show that we are already in violation of our
water quality standards and that any type of development in this area
is only going to make things worse.
Page 115
March 19, 1999
It's also perhaps going to show, at least at this point, the
initial hints are that it will, that the habitat for endangered
species, like the panther and the wood stork, also are going to
decline. And unfortunately, these declines occur even with the
greenest alternatives. And that's not a healthy situation to be in.
What it does is it puts EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Services, and the
Corps of Engineers in a very uncomfortable spot. And I'm pretty much
sure right now that they are in a very uncomfortable spot with this,
because they are going to be liable if this EIS does not actually
result in improvements.
So we have a situation where if we don't act, things are going
to get worse. And even if we do act, things might get even worser.
And that's not a word, and I know that. But that's the unfortunate
situation we're in.
I think that I see density reduction as perhaps slowing down
this process until the County Commission and the state government and
the federal government can come to grips and come to terms with a
rather serious problem.
Growth and development in this area, mainly in the form of
sprawl, is harming this environment. And even right now with the
best efforts that we're working on trying to generate and trying to
protect, those might not be even good enough. And that disturbs me,
because the alternatives, the solutions to that are ones that
probably aren't viable right now, not in the present political
climate in this area.
So I think we have a lot of soul searching to do, a lot of work
to do. And I would encourage you to continue on and enact as much
density reduction as you can. But also, don't forget that there are
going to be other serious problems that you, as a county
commissioner, are going to have to deal with in a few months or a few
weeks, whenever this EIS comes out. And that is related to
everything that you've been talking about today. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Nancy Payton and then Brad
Cornell.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Payton, and I'm
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I wanted to touch on
two points briefly: One would be golf courses and the other would be
school siting.
Mr. Grosso, in his comments, raised the issue of our having
concerns about golf courses, particularly on rural lands. And we see
Page 116
March 19, 1999
an internal consistency in the settlement agreement about whether you
can or can't have golf courses on conservation lands.
Our concerns about golf courses, I'll briefly say, that we feel
they have significant impacts on surface and groundwater resources in
Southwest Florida because, one, we have a sandy, porous soil, we have
a relatively high water table, we have a relatively high rainfall in
summer, we have high irrigation rates. And most likely those ag.
rural golf courses are going to be drawing from wells. And there's a
12-month management season; that is, those golf courses run year-
round.
In 1991, the State of New York did a study on golf courses and
found that pesticides were used seven times more on a per acre of
golf courses than any other crop or any ag. crop. That is, seven
times more pesticides per acre than any agricultural endeavor. And
that was a report that was done by the State of New York and issued
in 1991.
Also, the state of the art golf course uses three to 400,000
gallons of water per day. That amount is the same amount used by
2,000 people. And I think as we look at golf courses throughout that
ag. rural area, we have to deal with the impacts of those golf course
competing for water and competing for the quality of that water, or
impacting the quality of that water.
So I bring that up as something that we need to look at more
closely. And there has to be better science presented to support
golf courses. And remember that Collier County's entire area is a
water recharge area, so that is another consideration from our
perspective.
I wanted to touch briefly on the school sitings. And I have
been present at, I think, every meeting of the negotiations with DCA
and the county. And I also attended almost every hour of the hearing
in May. And during that hearing, Mr. Simms, Mr. James Simms,
representing the school board, under testimony did talk about the
need for cheap land, and that is why the school board looks out into
the rural lands for those less expensive parcels of land. That also
was stated and explained during one of the negotiation sessions. So
it's not a term that we fabricated. It is a term that you can find
in the testimony of the record of the hearing. And also, it was
discussed and used not by us but by the representative of the school
board. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me clarify the record. Mr. Simms is a
relatively new employee, and within the last probably five years of
Page 117
March 19, 1999
the Collier County public school system. And when he talks about
rather inexpensive land in the rural area, where else are you going
to go, okay? But he's the reason for siting in the rural area,
again, or anywhere out where there are, quote, children. You don't
just plunk a school down somewhere because you want to build a
school.
MS. PAYTON: That is not how it was explained to us, that it was
in terms of -- if I were closer, I would point to an area in the
urban area, because this was discussed. And the discussion was that
yes, you have students in the urban area and you have enough students
for a new school in that urban school. Rather than go and purchase
expensive land in the urban area, you would go deeper or go into
rural lands because it was less expensive and then bus those
students.
And our fear is that when you do that, that school that is
freestanding out there on rural lands, that there aren't a lot of
students yet, they are going to begin to get homes that are going to
be around that school. Then you start the cycle over again, that
that school gets filled up and there's a need for a third school and
you go deeper into the rural lands to find that cheaper land. And
that was the scenario that was presented to us.
And I -- I didn't know if he was one year or five years, but
that's what was said under oath.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it could well be the picture now,
because I'm sure that, you know, land within the urban area certainly
is expensive, if you want to look at it that way.
But one of the biggest problems, too, is to find contiguous
acreage that's great and good to establish a school site on. And
also, you've got to look at proximity to other schools. So there's a
lot of factors that enter in.
I don't know what the question was that was asked to him, so it
would depend on what the question was as to how he would state that
answer. But certainly, probably no different than any other
business, yes, if you have your choice over one piece of land priced
"X" number of dollars and you have another land, everything being
equal, it doesn't take a fool to understand that you'll probably go
with the lesser price. But that is not the main scenario that drives
you to place a school where you place it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, quick question
for you. You said as part of that, with all other things being equal
Page 118
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and did we, when you were on a
school board, or did you now, to the best of your knowledge, as a
practice, put schools where there aren't children?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. No, you don't. I mean, you're not
going to go out and plunk a school down, you know, just because it's
out and away and you've got a cheap piece of land.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Brad Cornell and then Ernie Cox.
MR. CORNELL: Hi, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm
speaking on behalf of the Collier County Audubon Society as its
president.
As you already know from previous input, we are not ready to
sign on to this agreement, although we are very happy to see some
very good proposals on the table. And we would like to see these
developed even further. We would like to see stronger language in
the stipulated settlement agreement.
As you also know, we don't believe that golf course communities
have a place in the rural parts of our county. Those are urban types
of communities, and we -- as we have said through our actions with
the TwinEagles development, that we do not believe that's a proper
use of rural lands.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a quick question, Brad?
MR. CORNELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sure the chair will extend
your time, if you need it.
Are you opposed -- when we preserve -- like the map over there
shows how much space we are preserving and the number's been thrown
out 80 percent; I think it's around 73 percent right now and growing.
But are you opposed to people actually getting to be in that and in
the middle of that and see it and appreciate it? And if not, how do
they do that right now? How can they do that?
MR. CORNELL: To appreciate natural areas?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To go out and physical experience it.
MR. CORNELL: Well, there are lots of opportunities in the way
of bird watching --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I mean, physically, how do they
get there? Because when we look at that 80 percent, how do you get
to most of that?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's trails through a great bit of it.
MR. CORNELL: Well, there's a Florida hiking trail that goes
through the entire State of Florida. There are lots of oil well
Page 119
March 19, 1999
roads in the Big Cypress that people bicycle and hike on. There are
obviously roads like 41 and Jane Scenic Drive and places like that.
What are you driving at?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just trying to figure out, it
seems like -- I mean, 41 doesn't seem like the way I want to see
environmentally sensitive land.
MR. CORNELL: Well, as a matter of fact, 41's just been declared
a historical and scenic highway --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has indeed.
MR. CORNELL: -- and so it actually is a very scenic way to see
those resources.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a little post office that
looks like an outhouse out there, too, and people take their pictures
by it.
But the point is, if we're trying to preserve land, we ought to
be able to get in the middle of it and enjoy it and actually
experience it. And I don't think U.S. 41 is probably what I would
consider doing that. I bet there's more runoff from U.S. 41 than
there is from any golf course in Collier County.
MR. CORNELL: Well, they're actually going to try to fix some of
those problems with flow ways underneath 41 with some of the
restoration efforts.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But his point is about access. And I only
recently saw some -- I think there's very little access other than
pedestrian or on horseback or something -- you know, there are trails
that are rough trails and you can't drive through there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point in all of that is, I think
it was Wayne Arnold that said something about -- he referenced two or
three of the golf courses, Old Florida -- and I don't know what else.
But they're kind of out in the middle of nowhere, they're carefully
done. I'm not sure I buy into Nancy's argument of a study that's
almost 10 years old. Because the practice of how you operate a golf
course and for that matter how you operate agriculture, A, is very
different in New York than it is in Florida, but B, has changed
dramatically in the last 10 years.
So I think if you look at Collier's Reserve, for example,
they've gotten all kinds of environmental awards. Sustainable South
Florida gave them an award for the way they operate that facility.
So there are ways to do that that are friendly to the environment and
work in cooperation.
Page 120
March 19, 1999
There are certainly examples where they don't work as well as
they should. But my point was just if you go to an Old Florida like
Wayne talks about, I suspect you actually get to see nature and be in
the middle of it and enjoy it. And what I'd like to think is when
people do that, they gain that much more respect for it than if
they're just driving down U.S. 41 at 70 miles an hour and see a bunch
of trees on both sides of the road.
MR. CORNELL: Well, to be sure. But we would counter that a
golf course like Collier's Reserve is very fine in its urban setting,
but not in a rural setting. So we think that there are less
intensive ways to enjoy nature and get into it, as you say, other
than to build a golf course community, which we feel is too much of
an intensive urban land use.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just disagree, but I appreciate
that.
MR. CORNELL: And I only wanted to make a more general point in
addition to what I just said, in saying that in the bigger context
for this discussion, you know, I think that local governance and
authority over protecting the interest of the local people would
bring us to take initiative for protecting natural resources. And if
we do not do that, if we do not take -- at the local level take that
initiative to protect our own resources through the planning process,
through our Growth Management Plan, our Land Development Code, then
any failures that result from that lack of initiative become fair
game, unfortunately, for outside agencies such as the Army Corps of
Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, et cetera, and
force us all to endure processes like the Southwest Florida
Environmental Impact Statement, which was only done because of
failures of both Lee County and Collier County's planning processes.
I think that the people of Collier County and citizens of
Collier County would fully support you in taking those sorts of
initiatives to in the planning process protect these kinds of
resources. This is what good planning is all about and this is what
we encourage you to do and hope to work with you on that. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, I promise not to keep
interrupting.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I knew that you wouldn't be able to let
that go by.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I take exception to the suggestion
that the EIS was done simply because of the failures of Collier and
Page 121
March 19, 1999
Lee County. It was done for a lot of reasons, not the least of which
the recognition with the improvements to the airport, the
International Airport. The expansion of that EIS study was going to
be required in the next couple of years, anyway, and we were looking
at things far beyond that, so we went ahead and did it now. It was
not due to simply failures of the local governments, so I think
that's a disservice to suggest that.
MR. CORNELL: I wouldn't say only a failure of local governments
but there are certainly opportunities for local governments to
mediate some of those problems, very definitely. That's what this
whole DCA thing is about.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ernie Cox and then Mark Morton.
MR. COX: Good afternoon. I know it's been a long day. My name
is Ernie Cox. I'm an attorney with Buffer, Guenster, Yoakley,
Gaddis, Foley and Stewart (phonetic).
I am here today representing the Eastern Collier Property
Owners, and that is an affiliation at this point of four property
owners: The Barron Collier companies, Pacific Land, Jack Price, and
Collier Enterprises. Together those four entities own approximately
150,000 acres in what has been referred to today as the rural area.
These are lands that are east of the Estates. Much of it is in
farming and much of it was the focus of the DCA's presentation and
the entire discussion of NRPA's.
I think it's important for the commission to know and for the
audience and the folks at home, that when the Comprehensive Plan was
developed, those lands were designated as rural at one unit per five
acres. They were not designated as being in agriculture forever.
And they were not designated as being in conservation. A lot of time
went into that plan and a lot of time went into the Comprehensive
Plan amendments pursuant to the evaluation and appraisal report
process. There were committees. People were involved. There was a
lot of public input. And amendments were then discussed. They were
transmitted to DCA. DCA gave its objections, recommendations, and
comments.
This commission then passed amendments that addressed those
concerns after a full and open debate. Those amendments went
forward. DCA said we don't agree. We think you should be doing
more. We, DCA, in Tallahassee know better how to plan your local
community than you do. And they've done this for years throughout
the entire state.
Page 122
March 19, 1999
I'll talk in a moment about a shift that we believe has occurred
in DCA. But very important for you to understand that. You went
through this process and you, as a local community, made decisions.
They then said we disagree with your decisions, we don't think you
did it good enough, we would have done it differently.
I'm going to speak on density reduction briefly. A local
government or a state government cannot identify lands that it would
like to acquire and then systematically reduce the densities. The
local government doesn't want to do that, but there are folks that
have been involved in this process with DCA that would like to see
that.
One of the statements in the conservation fund's position paper
references let's change some density on some lands we may wish to
acquire. That's something to be real careful about.
If you look at all of the lands that are out there and you look
at their environmental characteristics, environmental characteristics
are dealt with through a plethora of state, regional and national
permitting requirements. Many of them read like the new NRPA section
in the Comprehensive Plan.
The state, as admitted by their counsel, can't force you to
adopt those. They can strongly suggest, they can wish that you
would, but they can't force you to. And that's very important,
because if at the end of the day things are adopted because the state
strongly suggests that you do adopt them and litigation does ensue,
they're not going to indemnify the county, nor are they going to
defend the county. They may be a co-defendant, but they're not going
to be here saying we did it to you. They're going to stand back and
say folks, you had a choice, you made your choice and you went
forward. I've seen it done recently. Doesn't solve the problems,
particularly when we're dealing with the rural areas.
The problem -- I was here in April when we discussed density
reduction and the flyover difficulties and the traffic problems.
Those exist. Changing the density on the rural properties does
absolutely nothing to that. Doesn't change it one bit.
That area east of the estates is, from a traffic perspective,
very separate from the urban area. If there is indeed an intention
to invigorate the economy of Immokalee to make it its own place and
to spend money and time and effort to make that a better place, then
the traffic will go into that area that you're going to spend time
and money to make a better place. It's not going to have an impact
upon the urban traffic problems. Reducing density in the rural
Page 123
March 19, 1999
areas, the eastern property, is not going to minimize the amount of
time that you wait on Airport Road.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sir, nobody's suggesting that. I was
hoping you'd just make that point and move on. But that's not the
point in Eastern Collier County. The urban densities are the
transportation driven changes. The eastern or rural densities are
direct growth away from natural areas driven. Nobody said that
that's going to help the traffic in the urban area.
MR. COX: Well, that's not what the report that was provided by
your staff. I don't mean to get into an argument with it, but you
have to understand, those are two separate areas. So from a traffic
perspective, we recognize that. If it is an environmental issue,
deal with it through permitting.
One thing you don't want to get into as a local government is
putting all of your Land Development Code regulations in your
Comprehensive Plan. It makes it much more specific. What that then
means is that every time you wanted to change something, you have to
call the folks at DCA, bring them down and hope they agree. You don't
want to do that.
You also don't want to open yourselves up to consistency
challenges on every single piece of property that somebody comes in
and asks for a use. And that's what happens if you put them in the
Comprehensive Plan.
In closing, I think there is a solution. And I can tell you
that our clients are here to work with you on that solution, and we'd
like to do that. We believe there is a planning exercise. A1
Reynolds and George Varnadoe are going to talk with you about it in a
few moments. We would like to be involved in that.
Finally, as to time, there are solutions as to time with the
DCA. The first of which someone suggested earlier, which I think is
great, everybody enters into a stipulation and asks Administrative
Law Judge Meale don't rule, just wait. Secretary Seiberg would
support you on that, I believe. And you can then take the time to do
it right. Because one of the worst things that could happen is to
operate under a perceived time deadline and then do something you
shouldn't do.
Lastly, if it does go to the administration commission, you have
an opportunity to go there. That's the Governor and Cabinet. And
believe me, they, along with Secretary Seiberg, want local
governments to plan local government issues, not the State of
Florida. Thank you very much.
Page 124
March 19, 1999
MR. FERNANDEZ:
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have to take exception to the
suggestion that this will have no impact on transportation if we do
things in the rural area. I mean, 10 years ago when you were
developing the Growth Management Plan in Collier County, I suspect
there were people who couldn't fathom that County Road 951, this
little two-lane, 10-foot wide each lane road, the property on that
was going to have any major impact. Even as much growth as we'd seen
in the '80's, that County Road 951 is going to have any impact of any
consequence on the transportation network in Collier County.
And so while it may not today, I think if we see all that go on
long-term, while it's less intense, even under its current zoning, it
can and will and would have an impact on the transportation network.
And I think the study does show that. It does say that, but it also,
I think, goes into some detail showing where and how and by how much.
MR. COX: I think perhaps further study, looking at where those
people are, which roads they are using and where they would be going
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
MR. COX: -- I think would be a great idea.
MR. FERNANDEZ: After Mr. Morton is George Varnadoe.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two more after Mr. Varnadoe. And then
we have two speakers that have signed up to speak on the final
subject of process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MORTON: Good afternoon. Mark Morton. I'm with the Barron
Collier Company, and also the Eastern Collier property owners.
Also, I was your chairman of your land development ad hoc
committee many, many, many years ago that dealt with the Land
Development Code, which was a response to the comp. plan. And I also
participated in the original comp. plan committees. Also, I was an
alternate member for the EIS Alternate Development Group.
And you're wondering why I'm involved in all this, it's because
as a large landowner, we find that there's a continuous stream of
regulation and study and more regulation, study of our property.
We started as families owning most of the area that's now all in
public ownership, the 80 percent you're talking about. In fact,
donated or sold at discounted prices a significant amount of that.
Page 125
March 19, 1999
One of the things that's really been bothering me, as somebody
who has gone through a tremendous amount of permitting throughout my
entire career, is I can't -- I fail to understand when I read what's
in the settlement agreement what is supposed to be guiding uses away
and standards for doing that. You know, I challenge anyone to read
those. It's anything but permit requirements. They read like
permitting requirements, they are permitting requirements.
Now, maybe through a process of working with the community and
people that go through a tremendous amount of these permitting in
bringing forth additional, better available information, we can, you
know, fine tune that, look at it and make sure it isn't just
duplicative. And in some places, I can tell you, it conflicts with
those process.
It makes it very difficult for us in the future going through
another permitting process and then finding out that either we went
with what the county was directing us to do and now conflicts with
the other permitting process, or going through that permitting
process and finding out it's conflicting with the county's permitting
process. So it's kind of -- it's never been very simple, and the
devil is always in the details.
As far as the settlement agreement goes, I was never lead to
believe by anyone that the settlement agreement would turn out to be
in the form it is in terms of these type of permitting requirements.
And when I started understanding that about a month ago and started
talking to staff about it, what I continuously heard was we're still
negotiating with DCA, we got -- every time we go up, they ask for
some more things. We give them some things, then we think we have a
deal, we go back, they ask for some more, we think we've got a deal,
they ask for some more.
So I don't know how many sometimes we've paid to fly people up
to see the DCA or they fly down to see us, but I'm encouraged to hear
now that they support that we get more better available data and
information from a community in Collier County that's been always
willing to do that. I've never seen this community do anything but
embrace whatever, a policy, a goal or where do we want to head, and
get behind it and try to see how to make it work.
I would just say that I think what they have now would not stand
up to the criteria of it not being permit requirements, and I really
think there's an opportunity to really work together. And I can tell
you as your ex-nDC chairman, I'll spend more of thousands of time --
hours of time, whatever it takes, you know, working with other people
Page 126
March 19, 1999
from all stakeholders, any side of the table, to work with our
community to try to get a better product. Thanks.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is George Varnadoe and then Alan
Reynolds.
MR. VARNADOE: Good afternoon. It's been a long day. I'm
George Varnadoe. I'm not from Boston, I'm not a professor from the
University of Florida, and I'm certainly not from DCA down here to
help you plan our community. What I am is a third generation
Floridean who's lived in this county since 1976. I'm here today
representing Barron Collier Corporation, Collier Enterprises, Jack
Price, and Russell Priddy, and Pacific Land.
As you heard from Mr. Cox, they own over 150,000 acres in the
rural area as described in your consultants' report; that is, east of
the Estates. If you'll look at the map on the wall over here,
there's the estates. That's Orangetree. And our clients own
everything in tan. So you can see they own vast majority of the land
in the rural area.
As you can imagine, they are deeply concerned about the changes
of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the rural area,
particularly the down zoning from 1 unit per 5 acres to i unit per 20
and 1 unit per 40 acres.
Different than you've heard the consultants talk about in the
rural area. This property today is zoned one unit per five acres.
It's not where we have to come in and say please give me two units an
acre so I can make it four units per acre. It's zoned one unit per
five acres. So when you're talking about changing densities out
there, you're talking about down zoning. Let's just all understand
that to begin with.
The -- I think it's pretty clear from what you've heard that we
don't think, and the public doesn't think, that's an adequate
analysis of what this entire exercise is going to mean, particularly
in the rural area. Our clients have not been involved in the process
or asked to participate in the process.
People say why. Well, you did an EAR amendment that we were
perfectly happy with. We participated in that process during your
adoption hearings that went through. You adopted it. We didn't have
any complaints. Other people did, they challenged it. There was no
reason for us to be involved. After that and only after that did
density get into this issue. Density was not part of our EAR
amendments.
Page 127
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but George, I've going to call you on
that one, because, you know, you had, on behalf of all these property
owners, the opportunity to intervene as soon as DCA said they're
going to find us not in compliance.
MR. VARNADOE: They did not find us not in compliance based on
density. They found us not in compliance on preserving natural
areas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But how do you preserve natural areas
except for reducing density?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, there's a lot --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Preserving means less.
MR. VARNADOE: Not necessarily. You'll understand, I guess,
that the Corps of Engineers and DEP and South Florida Water
Management District all have programs to preserve natural areas. Not
one of those programs has anything to do with density. Not one
program.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess 20/20 hindsight, you know, it's
easy to see.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am, I guess it is.
I think we're the only people that are standing here today,
though, that have a potential alternate solution for you. All I've
heard today is people complaining about what's going on one way or
another. We think there's a better way to do this, we think there is
a way based on sound data, scientific analysis to determine what
happens in Eastern Collier County.
We also think that's in compliance with the Growth Management
Act that says you've got to provide a way for rural lands to be
something other than that in the future, and that you've got to use -
- encourage innovative plans. And they talk about sector plans, they
talk about new community, they talk about a lot of different ways.
We want to describe to you a process that we think would be
important to get from Point A to Point B to really understand what's
out there, to understand what's important to the environment, to
understand what's prime ag., to understand what water recharge areas
are, to understand what might be used for something other than ag.
lands and ag. in the future.
I'd like for Mr. Reynolds to go into that, but I do want to
point out one thing that I know is important to the commission, and
that is, that would take a considerable amount of time to do. The
GIS work, getting all the data is going to take a considerable amount
Page 128
March 19, 1999
of time. Then you've got to go through the Growth Management
Planning and adoption process to amend our comp. plan.
I've been asked, what happens to that land during that interim
time period? Right now there's no pressure on that land for
development. The pressure is in what is so-called rural fringe area.
Number one, the way to protect this land from being developed is not
to put the cjustering requirements or the cjustering option on this
land.
But number two, beyond that, our clients are agreeable to the
land you see in tan. There will be no residential development on
that land during the potential two-year time period it would take to
go through, study the land, determine what should be there, and the
Growth Management Plan amendment process. So we would say no
residential development during that time.
Now, let me distinguish that from agriculture development.
They'd still continue to farm the land, they need to build farm
worker housing, they need to build a farmer's house. They'll do
that. But there will be no residential development. They wouldn't
be out there getting that at 1 per 5 or attempting to cjuster and put
developments on there during this time period.
I'd like to have Mr. Reynolds to go through what we think the
appropriate process would be in some detail so you can see why it
would take the time period we think it would. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before he comes, could I ask you a question
about the process, George? Because you're a lawyer familiar with
this. Do you think -- what do we do about the hearing officer and
his recommended order in the meantime?
MR. VARNADOE: Let's get to the bottom line. If the interveners
and DCA don't want to cooperate with us, let's go see the Governor
and Cabinet.
This is good planning, Madam Chairwoman. This is the way it's
supposed to be done. You're supposed to understand what is out
there, what the natural features are, not drawing some square
boundaries around proposed NRPA's, when we know that's not what
nature does that. net's understand, do the proper planning.
And I'll be glad to step in front of the Governor and Cabinet
and say give us the time to do this. I can't image they're going to
tell us no. I can't image that Steve Seiberg is going to tell us no.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
Page 129
March 19, 1999
MR. FERNANDEZ: Following Mr. Reynolds is our final speaker,
Mike Bruet.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No starting the time clock yet. Wait till
he gets there.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. My name is Alan Reynolds. I
can't tell you how long I've been in Collier County. It's a long
time.
Please, if we could go to the visualizer. Thank you. Let me go
through this very briefly. I've given you a copy of the notes that
I'm putting on the visualizer.
What George has talked about is what we would consider to be a
very effective, thorough planning process to look at the eastern
Collier properties. We've identified three objectives that we think
are important in doing this. The first is that we prepare both the
strategic and comprehensive long-range plan for the future use of
eastern Collier County through an initiative of these private
landowners.
Secondly, to accurately identify and protect important
environmental resources in the northeast area of the county that are
depicted on the exhibit that you can see up on the board. And this
is predominantly north of the Florida Panther Refuge and the Big
Cypress National Preserve.
And then the third objective would be to prepare and obtain
appropriate Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policy and map
amendments to implement to ensure that the protection of important
natural resources, private property rights and properly manage the
future growth of eastern Collier County.
Now, how do you do that? What we've done is given you a very
abbreviated overview of the process. We're talking about a land area
that's 150,000 acres plus. That's, to give you a comparison, larger
than some counties in Florida, and it's roughly twice the size of
your urban area today. It's a large piece of land.
What we would do first is we would start a process to inventory
the land, do the resource mapping, provide the land use analysis and
develop a strategic long-range plan for the property using the latest
technology. And I think that's very important that we use the latest
technology and the latest expertise.
We're going to focus on data collection of natural resources and
physical conditions as a first step. We're going to use the GIS
mapping techniques that we have available to us, using aerial
Page 130
March 19, 1999
photography and using GPS ground truthing, which is very important,
and I'll show you why in a minute.
We do have these tools. We do have the expertise, and we do
have the resources to undertake the process. Your county
unfortunately lacks at least some of those tools not having an
operational GIS system or a GPS system to be able to do these kinds
of things.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we certainly don't have the money to do
it.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's true.
The primary elements of this planning process, and this is not
about doing a master plan for single use, it's important that we have
all of the essential uses considered in the planning process. That
includes critical environmental resources, viable agricultural uses,
compatible non-agriculture uses, and looking at the long-term
economic sustainability and enhancement, which is very important,
private property rights, and ensuring the future uses are planned in
a manner that will not encourage urban sprawl.
It's important that we have public input into this process. It
will occur at various stages through the process and particularly
during the review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that will be
required to implement this plan.
What I think I'll do is rather than go through the step-by-steps
on the details, generally what you have is four stages of work. The
first stage is the data collection and analysis process. The fastest
you could do that on a piece of property this size is six to nine
months, and that is using GIS remote sensing and ground truthing of
selected areas only. And I've given you a list of the kinds of
things that would have to be done in that process.
The second stage, land use research and analysis, is going to
take approximately four to eight months. That involves looking at
all the various land use parameters, utility services, groundwater
resources, identifying what is your prime agricultural land by type,
making sure that we've provided for the ongoing use of agricultural
uses that makes sense, matrix of potential land use alternatives, and
particularly looking at compatibility relationships.
And when your DCA talks about making sure that you're protecting
environmental lands from a planning point of view, they're talking
about compatibility of those uses, they're talking about all of the
ingredients, including how you handle stormwater management.
Page 131
March 19, 1999
And I will tell you, you don't have to do that with a meat ax
approach. You can do it through a very refined process of looking at
the types of uses and the compatibilities, and that's what we're
talking about doing here.
The third stage is impact analysis. That has not -- you know,
none of these things, frankly, have been done on this property yet to
any degree. Impact analysis requires looking at all the elements.
Once we have some alternates to test, we have to look at the fiscal
impact, we have to look at the environmental impact, transportation,
water resources, on and on.
And then finally -- may I go on?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
Finally, the last stage is planned preparation and review. You
really shouldn't do an amendment to your plan until you have a
blueprint of what it is you're trying to amend. This gives you the
data and the alternative. Then you take it through the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment process. That involves all the public input that is
required to make sure that that's been looked at properly. It will
require LDC amendments, potentially. And it will involve the DCA
certainly in their review of the Comprehensive Plan process.
But I will tell you that there was a lot of discussion today
about innovative planning. I can't give you another example in the
State of Florida where anyone has had the opportunity through this
kind of initiative to look at 150,000 acres of land and to do it
right.
Two years sounds like a long time. I will tell you that it
takes two years to just do a simple, relatively small-scale project
to get it through the process. That's not a long period of time, but
we are going to put the resources to it to do it right. And I firmly
believe that at the end of the day, you are going to have a much
better basis to make some important land use decisions that are going
to impact us not only next year and five years, but for a long time
to come. This is the last piece of our county, let's do it right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And during the entire process you describe,
that's the -- the entire process, the property owners commit to
nothing but agricultural, you know, and associated ag. uses.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. As George described what they are saying is
that they will forego the residential use of the property -- of any
of these properties except for housing that's related to the
agricultural uses that are allowed there today.
Page 132
March 19, 1999
Frankly, I would suggest that one thing you can do is to
eliminate the cjustering provision presently in your settlement
agreement that could apply to the rural area. Take it out. Because
if you can't cjuster out here, as it's been pointed out previously,
developing this land on five-acre tracts or less is economically, you
know, impossible.
And Madam Chairman, can I spend just one more minute? I just
want to show you one piece of information. I'll be very quick.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While he's doing that, I've got a
question, Madam Chairman. I thought that we had set aside funds this
year and the next budget year to end up with a GIS system. Am I --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- correct on that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, you are correct. We are on the road
to having a system that --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: When it's finished, could we transfer what
they do to our system?
MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, we're about three years ahead of you right
now in terms of our GIS.
But let me just -- I just want to give you an idea of why it's
important to do this right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you'll put that back up there, they're
getting it back up on the screen for us.
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm going to flip over, though.
Outlined in black is the 150,000 acres of land that we're
talking about. This is a GIS data base map. You see a whole lot of
lines on here. All of those lines purport to represent the same
thing, which is the critical environmental resources. None of the
lines are the same. They're all different. In some cases,
substantially different.
Let me just take this area right here and give you an example.
Just this corner. What we did is we zoomed in on that corner. That
land right there represents 24,000 acres of land. Every one of those
numbers is a square mile, so you get an idea of the scale we're
talking about.
That blue line is the area of critical state concern. That
green line is the line that the DEP has suggested represents the
Page 133
March 19, 1999
environmentally important lands. The red line represents what your
staff has proposed to add and adopt as part of your planned amendment
settlement agreement.
Let me show you on an aerial photo just very quickly. It's hard
to hold a mike and do this at the same time.
Thanks, Bob.
Now, what you're going to see here, this is a digital aerial
that we can pull on our GIS system. Let's just pick a couple of
places where some lines don't make sense. You're going to see a lot
of farm fields that are outside of the red lines that are your
NRPA's. They're supposed to be your environmental protection areas.
Okay, you're going to see -- basically what you're going to see
when you look at the aerial is none of the lines match. You have
inconsistencies in this area upwards of 20,000 acres of difference.
I would suggest to you before you make these kinds of decisions,
it's real important to get the science correct. We would never think
of proposing a plan to you until we have spent the time to get
accurate information, to look at it thoroughly, and to do the proper
work.
I understand that the time constraints that everybody has been
under to put this thing to you, but you have to take the time to do
it right. And this is just one example of how the information that's
the basis for these decisions is inaccurate. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Reynolds?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's some questions.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: How does what you're proposing here, you're
calling it strategic planning, but how does this differ from
basically a comp. plan for the eastern -- or northeastern part of
Collier County?
MR. REYNOLDS: Very good. The strategic plan really is a much
more involved product, in my view, than the -- the Comprehensive Plan
is the end result. That's the implementation device.
Once through this strategic planning process we've said here are
the critical resources, here are the areas that should be
agriculture, here are some of the other compatible uses, here is the
economic viability of those, here's how the transportation system
needs to be adjusted. That's all the strategic plan.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment then will turn that into the
guidance policies in your plan, because you're not going to -- you
Page 134
March 19, 1999
know, in one shot you're not going to be able to make all of your
decisions about the ultimate land uses. What you're identifying is
the range of options and the tools to get there. But implementing
your plan takes years and years and years, so it's important that
your comp. plan sets forth policies and the guidance but doesn't try
in one snapshot to determine everything that's ever going to happen
and where it's going to happen. So those are the differences.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But this would certainly lead to that?
MR. REYNOLDS: This would lead to that. That is the last step
of the process, is once we have completed the strategic plan, then a
comp. plan amendment is initiated and goes through the Comprehensive
Plan review process.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because we have -- you know, obviously, we
have a comp. plan for several areas in Collier County. They have one
for Golden Gate, in the Estates areas, which is --
MR. REYNOLDS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- a part of but it's separate from, you
know, the comp. plan.
MR. REYNOLDS: That's right, you've done this before in other
parts of the county. In a different way, but you've done the same
kind of a -- Marco Island did a planning process.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. And I think this makes perfectly
good sense to sit down and really analyze and take the time to set
out on this plan. I like the way it's laid out. I certainly would
like to endorse this kind of an effort in regard to that, rather than
just passing something that's a blanket agreement on this.
This makes some sense, particularly when you take a look -- and
I'm not going to point any fingers at anybody. You know, it doesn't
do any good. But when you look at what you have pointed out there in
terms of the way the NRPA lines were drawn and what it is in reality,
that doesn't make sense. And so we need -- it demonstrates, though,
that we need give it a little more time and sit down and take a
little closer look at this.
I don't know if you're looking for direction today, but I'd like
to propose that this be one part of something that -- and be a part
of this whole process. And furthermore, I'd like to, if I could, be
a part -- in some way, shape, or form, I'd like to be a part of this
particular process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Should be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: An oversight -- as an oversight committee.
Page 135
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, then Norris, then
Carter. Everybody wants in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You keep referring to when we do
this, when we do that. Who is "we" you're talking about here?
MR. REYNOLDS: "We" is the eastern Collier County property
owners. It's the Collier Enterprises ownerships, Barron Collier,
Jack Price and Pacific Land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No offense intended because I've got
nothing but the utmost respect for you and all of the folks that have
been here on your team. But the accusation that will obviously occur
is isn't this the fox guarding the hen house? This is the group that
has this huge chunk of property out there; as you've pointed out,
it's bigger than some counties, and here they are putting the
information together. Can we count on that? How do we respond to
that?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think you respond in a couple of ways. The
first way is that the methodologies for documenting, for example,
what's out there in the ground are very well established by
protocols.
Frankly, despite what the map indicates, wetland lines can be
established by rule fairly definitively. We can identify where they
are. So from the data collection point of view, that's factual
information that can be verified and is done through a certain
protocol.
The second is that before you make decisions about
implementation, you have to look at alternatives, and you must have
public input. It would not make any sense, frankly, to undertake a
process like this to not make sure that we have gotten input from
stakeholders. Because at the end of the day, if we have not done
that, we will not have people standing up and supporting the
amendments that are going to be necessary to actually implement that.
And I think Commissioner Berry's suggestion is a great one,
which is we would welcome the idea of some kind of an oversight
perhaps led by Commissioner Berry that will make sure that we are
following the process, that we're doing it right. We're not going to
have anything to hide here. It's important that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I think that's where, perhaps, you
know, yes, it is in my district, but also working with staff and
having them point out to this group these are the things we're going
to be looking for, let them go ahead and do the work and produce the
product for us.
Page 136
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, you guys got -- oh, I'm sorry.
Commissioner Carter was next.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Commissioner Norris had something
in front of me.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's okay, it's getting late.
Well, as I've said before earlier, I think this morning -- it
might have been this morning, it might have been a week ago, seems
like just a few hours ago -- but we're dealing with three distinct
pieces here, the rural area, the rural fringe, and the rural.
The urban I don't have a lot of disagreement with. I think
we've done a very good job there. The rural fringe, going to need a
little work, like I talked about before. This I think needs a lot of
work. I see some merit in going through this process.
Two things that really give me comfort that would be okay to
delay this one portion for some time and that is, first of all, there
is no market pressure to develop that far away at the present day and
in probably in the foreseeable future.
But secondarily, on top of that, the group is willing to commit
to not allow any residential development other than that that's
ancillary to farming. So those two things give me the comfort to say
that well, yes, maybe we should separate this piece out since it's
such a large piece and 50 years from now will be a very important
piece. Maybe we should take the time to do the study and do it
right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with everything that's been said
here. And as a strategic planner, I think this is an excellent
opportunity to get this input, number one.
Number two is your developing, it seems to me, becomes part of
public record. So to refer to Commissioner Constantine's concerns, I
think with the oversight people with all of this being generated,
everyone has access to it. So it's no secret about what we're doing,
and it gives us a great opportunity to do a long-range plan so that
we don't make a mistake and have the opportunity to look at all the
variables that may come out of this so that we come up with really
the truly best model as part of a comprehensive planning process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my comment is, I like this idea of a
more thorough study of the rural areas. I worry -- I don't
understand how, even though I agree that our -- the issues can be
Page 137
March 19, 1999
divided into three; the urban density and transportation issues, the
NRPA rural issues and the cjustering.
How can we do density reduction when the way you get your fourth
unit back in the urban area is by buying a conservation easement in a
NRPA that's not going to exist for a couple of years? How are you
going to untangle this web? I mean, it sounds good. And if I were
your client, it would seem like a clear line in the literal sense
because, you know, my land can be separated. But what do we do about
that piece?
MR. REYNOLDS: Would you like my personal observation?
C}fAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. REYNOLDS: I've been a planner for 21 years now. I have
never yet seen a working example of the kind of TDR process that has
been suggested here, particularly when you have not engaged either
side of the equation in the design of the process.
I don't believe, as many people have pointed out, that with the
exception, frankly, of an important segment of the housing market.
You know, most of the clients I'm working for are developing at
fairly low densities. They're using traffic demand techniques in
their plans.
As you know, the several most recent projects I've brought
before you have had a lot of emphasis on those. And I would applaud.
I think that's good. You know, it's important that we do that. But
the idea to me of buying density just isn't a workable one. I don't
think density is a commodity that should be bought and sold.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What you're saying is that it didn't --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear that exact same
question addressed to the folks who put that report together and made
that suggestion, because Alan may not have heard of that. I'm
assuming if you all have that suggestion in your report, you have
seen that work somewhere, and I'd like to know where.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And also, if -- I just want to understand
Alan's answer. Alan's answer, as I heard you, is that the fourth
unit buy-back wasn't going to go work anyway. Is that true?
MR. REYNOLDS: I don't believe so. And let me one thing, too.
I think Commissioner Constantine, frankly, who started the ball
rolling on this process had really hit the nail on the head with the
importance of us focusing quickly on how we're going to get our hands
around urban design techniques, density being one of, you know, a
whole menu of things that can help us get there.
Page 138
March 19, 1999
And I think, you know, that process needs to continue and it
will continue, is my understanding. We still have to look at that,
but I do think we need to broaden the view a little bit and not think
that we're going to rely solely on a density reduction process to get
us there. And I think if we can step back just a little bit from
that and look at some other mechanisms that can be implemented in the
urban area, I think we can get to some of the things that you've been
trying to get to.
MR. VARNADOE: Madam Chairman, George Varnadoe.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: George, real quick, because then we have
one other speaker.
MR. VARNADOE: Real quick, because I want to ask your
consultants this.
When I read the report, it was very interesting. Jim Nicholas's
report says density is building out now at just in excess of three
units an acre. So as Whit Ward asked you, and it was a very good
question, you've got to have a willing buyer and a willing seller.
This was a voluntary program. If we're developing now at three units
an acre, who's going to buy the fourth unit?
Number two, you've got to have a willing seller. We represent
150,000 acres out there. Our people are not in the business of
selling development rights.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Priddy was pretty clear on that.
And now if we could hear back from Dr. Nicholas and then we'll
hear from our final speaker.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think the word was adamant.
DR. NICHOLAS: Very briefly, Madam Chairman. I would like to
point out for the record, though, I think my tie is red and yellow.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not crimson and gold?
DR. NICHOLAS: The -- if it be the direction of the board, I'm
sure we could very easily work out some type of an interim mitigation
program that would accomplish the purpose on an interim basis until
you've completed the whole project. I don't think that would be a
difficult thing to do at all.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question was very specific,
though. And I'm assuming you have seen this work somewhere.
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, sir. This is simply what's called an
informal TDR program, or a negotiated TDR program. It's used
extensively in Aspen, Colorado with Pitkin County, it's used in
Jackson Hole, Teton County. It's used extensively throughout
California, especially in the coastal management area of California.
Page 139
March 19, 1999
Montgomery County, Maryland's very famous TDR program began as
an informal negotiated TDR program that worked so well they wanted to
formalize it. In Palm Beach County, they still do an informal
negotiated agricultural preservation program where you file a plat on
a piece of property, agricultural property, showing no development on
it, and then get some credits that are incorporated into the approval
of a PUD someplace else.
My home county of Alachua County does exactly the same thing in
the Crosscreek area, the Marjorie Kimmon Ruins (phonetic) area. So
you've got a great number of these things.
Now, many of them are involved simply in negotiation, which I'm
sure you have done many times. That in lieu of -- you know, if
you'll approve this, we'll preserve that. In fact, the federal
government, we're working out the deal with Deltona on Marco Island,
swapped development rights for a huge parcel of property in Phoenix
for these lands here. So it's really very commonly done on an
informal negotiated basis, and sometimes it works extremely well and
goes into a formal -- most of the time it doesn't, because those are
really responsive to two different issues.
Now, with respect to is there any demand here, I hope I was very
clear with you that it didn't look like there was a great deal.
However, what's the downside of allowing somebody to go back to the
four if they want to, and by this means? And again, clearly this
board and -- would have to live up to the commitment. But if this
did not work, you would have to look to other means of achieving the
same thing.
So, I assure you that if this is what you want to do on an
interim basis for that two-year period, it would be very easy to set
up some type of a mitigation system for those that wanted to avail
themselves of it, if any, that it would be available. And who knows,
maybe in that two-year period you'll find out it's not a viable idea
and then look to Plan B.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and there may be people. I
mean, George points out the average is a little over three, but that
means some are above that, some are below that. So there may be some
folks who want to do that. And frankly, if not, then mission
accomplished. If nobody's doing it at over three units an acre,
great. That's one of the things we're shooting for here. So that's
not necessarily a bad thing.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what I heard is that the proposal of
the eastern property owners to have a two-year study period doesn't
Page 140
March 19, 1999
obviate the whole process by which we do density reduction in the
urban boundary. You're saying there's a way we could create a
transfer anyway.
DR. NICHOLAS: I don't see that those are inconsistent. You
could go ahead and set up and implement the urban density management
system, as we've discussed, and continue with your strategic plan for
the rural areas. I just don't see they're inconsistent at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the question then will come back to DCA
on whether or not they see a way to cooperate in that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a quick question for Dr.
Nicholas.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You mentioned Aspen, Colorado and Jackson,
Wyoming. Do you think that this particular process had any effect on
the cost of housing in those two areas, which is out of site?
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, ma'am. It brought it down.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It brought it down?
DR. NICHOLAS: Brought it down to less than what it would have
been, yes.
It was cost reducing, because it allowed for cjustering of
development, which simply means smaller lots, in the urban areas of
Aspen and in Jackson Hole.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Understanding, of course, that most of the
work force does not live in either one of those places.
DR. NICHOLAS: In both of those circumstances, half of the
transfer density had to be used for worker housing. So only the
other half could be used for market housing. They've both been very
popular programs in both of those communities and they're the only
effective programs that have brought about any affordable worker
housing in either of those two communities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it's not really located within --
DR. NICHOLAS: Yes, ma'am, it is. It must be within the City of
Aspen, must be within the City of Jackson.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It designated areas as worker housing?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Boy, I'd like to know where.
DR. NICHOLAS: Well, I mean, we could go out and look at it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd love to.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've been to Aspen, those must be some
kind of worker houses.
Page 141
March 19, 1999
DR. NICHOLAS: They have them. They have them in Aspen, they
have them in --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only reason I'm saying that is it seems
like every -- when I have vacationed out in that area in the
summertime and then also in the wintertime, one of the chief
complaints is that the housing for the workers out here is totally
inadequate, they can't live in close and accessible. Everybody is
traveling into those areas in order to work. That's my concern. And
that's the reason I'm very shocked because this has been the human
cry for quite a while.
DR. NICHOLAS: Certainly they want more. Of course they do.
They don't have enough. I've been privileged to work with both of
those communities on these programs.
And in Jackson -- perhaps you're familiar with a development
called Rafter J. Rafter J is one of the major recipients of this
density transfer. And there are a number of units in there that are
set aside for employee housing; specifically the type of school
teachers, police officers, firefighters, this type of thing. Now, of
course, not all of the development is. My last count on it, there
were a number of units, several hundred units that had been provided
through this mechanism.
In addition, they have dormitories for the short-term employees.
Aspen uses exactly the same approach as does, for instance, the City
of Sanibel here in Florida. Those programs are almost virtually
identical, and they all have borrowed from each other.
Now, again, for instance, in Sanibel, you have 49 units, where
they would like to have many more than that. However, they do have
49. So it depends, of course, on where that glass is viewed.
But that's what they've done and that's how they've used them.
Now, they did it always on an informal basis, as again they did on
Sanibel. Totally informally. It was negotiated and then they worked
out how it was supposed to be.
In terms of the effect on housing, if it had any effect at all,
it would be slightly to reduce.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's get our last speaker now.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker is Mike Bruet.
MR. BRUET: Thank you. For the record, Mike Bruet, Collier
Enterprises.
Madam Chairman, fellow Commissioners. I'll be very brief. I
didn't plan to speak, but you got talking about golf courses, so I
said I had to stop up.
Page 142
March 19, 1999
I appreciate Commissioner Constantine's comments about Collier's
Reserve, because it is truly a quality course.
And I'd just like to point out for Nancy and her colleagues here
that all golf courses certainly are not a detriment to the
environment. Collier's Reserve has received many awards over the
last few years, and of them, two of them have come from nurseries and
plant societies, the Native Plant Society, and one from Florida -- or
excuse me, Audubon International. Not to mention the most recent
award that we received just last month from the governor's council
for Sustainable Florida leadership award. And Commissioner -- and
Chairman Mac'Kie had some help in us obtaining that award, and we
appreciate that very much.
But that's in the environmental division. And I'm quite certain
that that is the first golf course community to ever receive that
award. So it's truly not the case that all golf courses are not
environmentally friendly.
Just very quickly, Collier's Reserve has over three miles of
pretreatment swales, 50 acres of upland preserve, 30 acres of
wetlands preserve, and only 76 acres of turf. So we also do a lot of
things that are well beyond what you normally have to do through the
permitting process relative to monitoring. We have done floral and
fauna studies throughout the project, identified every bit of plant
life on the project, we've done pre and post-bird studies. And we
also take constant water monitoring samples.
So I'd like to at this time invite Nancy and any of her
colleagues to be our guest at Collier's Reserve and see what a true
state of the art golf course can do to the environment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why don't we have all standards --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, on the record, guys.
MR. BRUET: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, no more public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two other speakers that have asked to
speak on that process question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we're yet to have our presentation
from staff on the process. Yes, we will take a break before that.
Shall we take it now for 10 minutes?
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to call the meeting back to
order.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, we want to be disorderly.
Page 143
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can be disorderly, Commissioner. Some
people might accuse us of that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Being disorderly?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, if the room could kind of come
back to order.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, thank you.
Ellen Rowles (phonetic) mentioned that this is near and dear to my
heart, and I appreciate that.
I first issued a memo to the board in 1995 on this item, and it
was driven quite simply by the public's concern about growth and
about how big we are going to get. And we can talk about
transportation issues and all these different issues, is it going to
affect 85 percent of the roads, how much is it going to affect all
those roads?
But I do, and I suspect each of you do, too, between January and
Easter every year I do about 70 speaking engagements with homeowners'
associations and civic groups and so on. Since 1995, all of those --
multiply that out times four years, however many years that is -- I
have yet to meet anyone who thinks 400,000 people is a good number.
Forget about whether it's a five percent impact on a road or a 10
percent impact on a road, they don't want 400,000 people here. And
that's where this idea originated.
And so the vast majority of that portion of what you've put in
here, Bob, as far as the raw density reduction and what the
consultants and everyone have composed is great, because it achieves
that. We're looking at numbers closer to 300,000 instead. And that's
a great first step toward what we've taken three and a half years to
get to, what this board has asked for. And that is the other end,
our community doesn't want to be that big.
And I have a number of issues with the settlement agreement and
then some issues within the density reduction, the 2 for I issue, the
arbitrary -- seemingly arbitrary 50 percent regardless of the value
of the property, environmental value of the property. The prohibition
of the golf course, I think there are ways I think -- I don't know if
it was Mike started to say, you know, you might be able to have
certain requirements on -- that they adhere to certain standards for
that.
But I have a lot of concerns with the NRPA's. And I think A1
Reynolds' map was very helpful to show that the lines seem to be
different all over and we need to tweak that. But I don't want to
Page 144
March 19, 1999
take two years from now. We've already taken three and a half years
to get to the point we're are at. I don't want to take two more
years to get to the point where we say yes, okay, the number we're
looking at in 2020 or beyond is 300,000, 320,000.
I think I would love to spend the next 90 days or whatever the
time frame it is to do intense work on making this right, on making
it something that we're all comfortable with and the DCA is
comfortable with. But I don't want to just take that rural area and
wipe it off the slate for now and say well, we'll work on this and
maybe in a couple of years we'll come back with something. I'm just
not comfortable doing that.
When you look at the numbers and how many people are scheduled
to go in over that 20-year period in that area, a big chunk of that
100,000 people, a huge chunk of that 100,000 people, comes from that
area. And so I don't think we should be waiting two years, whether
they say we won't develop our 150,000 acres or not. I appreciate
that offer.
But I think they need to be part of that process in that 90
days, and we need to make sure those lines are appropriate and not
going through farm fields and doing all those things. But I would
like to have some realistic time frame. This summer I think we ought
to be able to say to our public this is where we're going. We've
worked, by the time we get to it, almost four years on it, and this
is the number that we're at. We're going to have 70,000 fewer people
or 100,000 fewer people than if we did nothing.
I don't want to wait till 2001 or 2002 or 2003 to make that
decision. And so I hope the board will stay firm and make sure that
when we go through this process in the next couple of months that we
get those answers and make sure those details are where they need to
be.
net's not put this off on a long-term delay pattern.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My thoughts, you know, I gave you guys when
we first came in this morning this proposal about the 90 days that we
take and do what we've done in this county before rather
successfully, extremely successfully, and that is diwy up the work
among the people in the community and seriously roll up our sleeves
and work on the issues.
I had divided up the issues into three sections: The urban
density reduction and transportation, the rural fringe cjustering,
and then the third one was the eastern county natural resource
protection issues. I'd even showed that to Mr. Goutbier and Mr.
Page 145
March 19, 1999
Stiller and told them, you know, that I was going to be asking the
board for that.
I wonder, and again, I'm just thinking out loud, but I wonder if
that kind of a proposal isn't still the way to go. Although, at the
end of the -- at the end of the 90-day period with regard to eastern
Collier County, then we -- during that time we ask the consultant to
be preparing this interim negotiated transfer program, and at the end
of that 90 days, we decide whether or not we have sufficient data to
do more in eastern Collier County or if we have to stop and do the
two-year program. But it seems to me that dividing it up those three
ways might still be the way to go.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, we don't have a lot of
disagreement on the urban issue. And we may even be able to just
break it into the other two when we look at the urban, the rural
fringe.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have any disagreement?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear any, but that doesn't
mean -- I've missed things before.
But the other two -- and I think you're right. I mean, your
names on here are like Alan Reynolds and folks that know what they're
doing and know -- and we had -- some of the folks we had get up today
are some of the folks I respect more than anybody. You've got your
Wayne Arnolds, your Bruce Andersons, your David Guggenheims, who this
is what they do and do it very well. And so I respect those
opinions, and each one of them would tweak this thing some.
And I think if we take three months or four months, or whatever
reasonable time frame it is to put those people who are willing to,
to work for our community, we're going to come out with a good end
product. But I don't think that needs to take two years. So I like
your suggestion a lot.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- I like your suggestion. The only area
that I disagree with Commissioner Constantine on is the two-year
process. I do not see that as a problem. I see that as a process.
I think that can be incorporated into a long-term solution to this.
If it took us this long to get here to figure out what we're going to
do, incorporating another 24 or 36 months into a rural area of which
I've not heard any of the experts talk before, that when they were
dealing with this that they had four or five people that represented
Page 146
March 19, 1999
150 or 60,000 acres of land. I mean, that to me is a golden
opportunity to do something with that and make sure we do it right.
I have no problem with the urban. I think we need to fine tune
this rural fringe cjustering. I've got questions on that. I would
like to see us work through that in a shorter period of time. But I
would like to see us incorporate the longer range part of that in the
rural area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I can go along with the urban part of it.
But I'm going to hold fast on the time, whatever time it takes to do
it right on that eastern section.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe it would be appropriate to hear from
DCA just what your reaction is to that kind of a proposal, that we
would spend 90 days studying and clearing up the details on the
cjustering. Primarily, it sounds like, that's the primary issue that
we would study. And that -- that we would also develop an interim
plan for the transfer of development rights to allow that fourth unit
in the density reduction to be purchased. Our consultants have said
they could give us an interim plan for that purpose while we do a
two-year study on the eastern reaches of the county. Do you have an
initial reaction to that?
MR. STILLER: Yes, I do. Shaw Stiller for DCA.
Mr. Goutbier and I spoke during the break, and let me basically
tell you, there are two concepts that I think could incorporate some
of the suggestions we've heard today from Mr. Varnadoe and Mr.
Reynolds, among others.
The -- essentially from our issues we're looking at three
different large pieces of land: The rural fringe lands, the lands
owned by the eastern folks, and then the rural ag. lands not owned by
the eastern folks. While they own 150,000 acres, there are areas,
for instance, I believe, north of Immokalee, that they do not own.
So one suggestion is that we spend the next few months
concentrating very hard on reaching agreement on the rural fringe and
cjustering, and that whatever we agree upon, that becomes the
settlement agreement for the rural fringe.
For the 150,000 acres, the settlement agreement would be a
policy saying -- and I'm sure these folks would write it, but would
say we don't do anything except agriculture until the plan is
amended. And perhaps even the two-year deadline would not need to be
in there, because they might have it done in more, it might take a
little less. But if they would be agreeable to say we're just going
Page 147
March 19, 1999
to keep doing what we're doing until we come back to amend the plan
and everybody gets to review it.
The troublesome area in that scenario is what do you do for the
agriculture rural lands not owned by these folks who are here today?
I can do nothing but bring back what you might suggest to Secretary
Seiberg for ultimate decision, but there seems to be two
alternatives. One -- three alternatives. One, depending on how many
landowners, they could be approached and see if they wanted to also
agree to not do anything with their land and participate in the
strategic study. Unless the ownership is severely fragmented, which
it may be, I would presume that they would want to do that and take
advantage of this new data.
The second would be for you to impose a moratorium on them,
similar to what these folks are voluntarily agreeing to.
The third option would be to down plan those areas as currently
contemplated, but then also contemplate that that down planning could
get altered at the end of this planning process.
So that's -- alternative one is fix everything except the rural
ag., keep it the way it is, and then revisit it at such time as the
study is complete.
Alternative two is spend 90 days tweaking the details of what is
proposed, adopt that, including the down planning, but then also have
a commitment to come back and visit -- revisit these policies at
whatever time that we're able to go through this process.
The only thing I would -- I mean, that would give us something
right up front to react to Commissioner Constantine's concern, that a
product be delivered and that -- I hate to use the phrase again, in
the near future.
One thing I would add to this strategic planning effort is I
would hope that we would be able to embrace DEP, the Water Management
District and hopefully the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. I
know the direction from our secretary is that multi-agency
participation would be a good thing if there's going to be a chance
for more input.
And that's basically where we are. I will tell you that the
urban issue, not being part of the settlement agreement, is not one
that we've looked at except in the context of the TDR. And we'd be
certainly willing to work with these folks in making that happen
sooner rather than later.
But again, what we hope we can get from the board or in the next
couple of days through you or from you through your attorney's office
Page 148
March 19, 1999
is some proposal, hopefully, in writing, or maybe we can jot some
notes here that we can quickly take to the secretary, because time is
not on our side.
Just one more matter and I'll sit down is, there is the
possibility, as was mentioned by Mr. Cox, that we ask Judge Meale not
to enter his recommended order. I will tell you, I'm not very
confident in that. I don't -- I'm not sure that the intervener
Wildlife Federation and Collier Audubon would join in that. And I
will tell that everyone except, you know, an intervener agreed to
continue the final hearing in this matter, Judge Meale said, sorry,
folks, we're going forward. I have the feeling that that may be the
same outcome if we ask for an extension of the recommended order. I
don't know that it would be granted.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we may not have control over that, even
if our two parties agreed. We would have to get the agreement -- MR. STILLER: Correct. Just the history of this litigation.
But who knows, people change their minds.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so I understand clearly, once
that recommended order comes, if that action isn't forthcoming
immediately, what happens, we go to the Governor and Cabinet?
MR. STILLER: Yes. And I will tell you that while the Governor
and Cabinet, I mean, it's a statutory requirement that they issue
their order in 45 days. There have been instances where it's taken
considerably longer, due to negotiations.
I'll also tell you that they don't like -- at least the last
administration didn't like matters continually appearing on their
agenda, being continued and continued. You probably have the same
problems here. When it comes up, you want to address it right then.
So I think and I feel confident, you know, hearing all the
different viewpoints here, that we can get something together in
short order that we could present to the Governor and Cabinet so they
could abide by their statutory deadlines, we could abide by our
statutory deadlines.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I tend to agree with Mr.
Varnadoe, there, if we go to the Governor and Cabinet, so what? If we
do, we do. And we'll deal with that. But if -- and I suspect the
administration would be pretty reasonable and rational as far as if
we get on the agenda, we'll deal with that, great. But as far as if
we're all working towards something, extending that as need be ~- MR. STILLER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so within the confines of the law.
Page 14 9
March 19, 1999
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, for
the record.
Madam Chairwoman, I had a question for Mr. Stiller on process.
And that would be if Judge Meale were to issue his recommended order,
could we not, if we got to the Governor and Cabinet level -- I know
there's a statutory 45-day requirement, but could we not ask them to
retain jurisdiction over the matter, with the idea that we're trying
to, you know, come to terms and work out something, or perhaps get
there more quickly with a plan amendment that would talk, as you
suggested, where nothing would occur for this time period to allow
further development? And that would, I think, get us there quicker.
But I guess the basic question is could they not retain
jurisdiction for longer than that to allow us a little time to work
on that some more? Because it's very complex. It's not your usual -
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You just said that, didn't you?
MS. STUDENT: -- settlement thing.
MR. STILLER: If you're saying -- Shaw Stiller, DCA.
If you're saying retain jurisdiction in the context of not
issuing a final order, I don't want to -- I'm not the Governor's
attorney and I don't want to represent that the Governor and the
Cabinet would view the statutory 45-day requirement one way or the
other.
As far as retaining jurisdiction, it's typical in the cases that
go before them involving growth management that when they enter a
final order saying, please do these remedial actions, they retain
jurisdiction to make sure the local government does them. I know
they've done that with your neighborhood in the north, in Lee County.
And after the remedial actions are accomplished, we write them a
letter saying everything's been done, please relinquish jurisdiction,
and they do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the answer is, we would be able to work
something out along those lines.
And board members, I'm hearing -- it sounds like almost
unanimous support even for going forward with the reduction from 4 to
2 in the urban area without the need to have further study or a
committee to look at that. I heard some transportation issues being
raised on that today, so, you know, we may want to consider if that
one bears study. But that we would spend the next 45, 60 days
refining the cjustering criteria and the rural fringe and asking our
consultant to come up with an interim transfer -- negotiated transfer
Page 150
March 19, 1999
plan to allow the fourth unit in the urban density reduction to be
purchased. And that we would agree with the eastern property owners
that if they will impose this two-year restriction on their further
development out there, that we go along with the proposal that Mr.
Reynolds and Mr. Varnadoe made.
I guess the open question there is how many property owners are
there out there that you don't represent, George?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't there a total of about 14 or 157
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can't you get them to hire you? Yeah, call
555.
MR. VARNADOE: I don't know. We could certainly explore that.
You will note, as Mr. Stiller pointed out, that most of the area
is, that we don't represent, is either contiguous to Immokalee or
north of Immokalee where this, actually, as everyone knows, no
pressure for development at the present time. And that's why we
didn't think it was really critical to have them in this process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I know nobody wants to say the M word,
you know, moratorium, but maybe we could come up with some other way
to describe, you know, the fact that we would say no development on
these areas.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Restriction.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'll tell you, first off --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because there's no market pressure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly right. But can't we -- if you're
going to look at 90 days for some of these other things, certainly in
the next 90 days we can find out who owns these parcels --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: ~- of property --
MR. VARNADOE: We'd certainly --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and then contact them?
MR. VARNADOE: We'd certainly take the lead, if you want us to,
on seeing what the other landowners that are in the rural area, what
their position is. You know, whether they'd have it go, where they
have the ability of TDR's or whether they'd like to go along with
this program, or just exactly what they would want to do --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they could --
MR. VARNADOE: -- or at least get them here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- opt into the interim, you know, fourth
unit purchase plan.
Page 151
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I very much appreciate this group's
willingness to do that, but I have no interest at all in putting a
moratorium, whether it's on the moon.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I don't want --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, it doesn't matter to me. I
don't have any interest at all in terms of telling somebody, we're
not sure what the plan is, we're going to spend the next two years
looking around, you can't use your property in that time frame. I
have no interest in that whatsoever.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Varnadoe, do you think that your
group could take the lead in obtaining agreement with the other
property owners to join in your efforts?
MR. VARNADOE: I have no idea. And frankly, if you do have
fragment owners, it's going to make the planning process much more
difficult. Here we have four willing landowners that are -- I
understand is going to shake out where some of their lands are not
going to be equitably treated in terms of a per acre basis. If you
get fragmented smaller landowners, they may not be willing to do
that. I don't -- you know, I'll tell you that it won't work for all
those areas out there.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we should spend this next study period
that we're all discussing to determine the scope of that problem. I
mean, we don't know how big that problem is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I misunderstood you, George,
but it almost sounded like maybe those people shouldn't have the same
voice you all should. I understand that they have a smaller piece or
it's fragmented, that they may have a different approach to it, but I
didn't follow the logic here.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me explain it more. Use an example is
probably better.
There may be a fellow out there that owns a section of land. We
have the mapping on it. That might be 90 percent needs to be
preserved. He may not agree with that. We have people that own
150,000 acres of land. A section here, a section there is not as
important. And they understand that it may impact that specific land
more in this area than it does Barron Collier or Collier Enterprises.
When I get smaller landowners making those gross decisions of their
behalf, it has much more of an economic impact on them.
That's all I was trying to say. I'm not trying to say don't
have as much voice. But I'm just saying, if I was a small landowner,
Page 152
March 19, 1999
I may not want to go along with this. I might want to be able to do
something different with my land and plant it by myself. That's all
I was suggesting to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We really need a survey and find out what
they want to do.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I think that you -- as Shaw pointed out,
you've got some alternatives. You could go forward with the plan
that was proposed by your consultants on that property, you know, or
they can -- if they want to join in, we certainly would welcome then.
I was just pointing out there may be some practical difficulties with
that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I guess, you know, that would be
something we could do that would be less than imposing a moratorium
on this --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's kind of a key to me. Would
you like to join this other group, or would you like to go along with
what we're proposing, and see what they think. And if it's only 15
or 20 landowners or more, well, that shouldn't be a monumental task
to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe, you and Mr. Reynolds
had mentioned up to I think was the phrase used, up to two years to
accomplish what you want to accomplish. I'm wondering how you
arrived at that time frame and how comfortable we are. Because then I
heard Commissioner Carter say, well 24 months, 36 months.
And one of the reasons I'm concerned and I'm not real
enthusiastic about that idea is with government these things have a
tendency to expand. A case in point, the Army Corps. I promise 18
months, I absolutely -- why is it going to happen, because I said
it's going to happen. And we're not going to meet the 18 months. And
these things have a way of taking on an extended life. So how do we
know this doesn't become three years, four years, five years?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just went on your -~ you had a parameter
after each one. I took the max, it was 36. I think the minimum was
24. That's where I got the two to three.
MR. VARNADOE: This is a question you're going to have to pose
to Mr. Reynolds, not to me, Mr. Constantine. He came up with that
timetable and it's his organization that really is stuck with these.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Punt.
MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Carter was correct. There are time
frame ranges on each one of those steps, and if you do the math,
Page 153
March 19, 1999
you'll see it's a 24 to 36-month process. But you'll also note in
there that we have a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process included in
that. Some of these time frames we don't control.
So, you know, we've -- this is a big undertaking. And to say
that -- you know, that we're going to say, you know, you have to be
finished, you know, in 18 months or whatever, would be very
difficult. But I think that the time frames I've put in there are
reasonable time frames. We've looked at them. And it's about a 24
to 36-month process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So three years?
MR. REYNOLDS: Potentially, yeah, it sure is.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Constantine, just -- and I'm not trying to
sell you, because I've never been very good at that, but the -- what
you have done, I think, is address the two issues we're worried
about, is development during that time frame, and basically what
happens to the sensitive environmental areas. Because you basically
have frozen the activities and limited them to the ag. and ag.
related activities.
Second, I think something that we really need to focus on and
didn't come out today, when I read that traffic report that your
consultant did and he looked at the worst case scenario for the
county in terms of a road, the worst case scenario was when Immokalee
was 50 percent built out, and things got better when Immokalee was
100 percent built out.
And there's a reason for that. Because then Immokalee becomes
an attractor rather than trips going there. And I think that that's
what we're trying to plan in eastern Collier County is have -- I
don't know the way it's going to be, how it's going to turn out, but
perhaps Immokalee becomes a center, we have more activities in those
units that are now 1 per 5 acres all over the place, becomes centered
in that area so they're part of an attractor and not part drifting
into the urban areas.
I think that -- and transportation impacts as part of the
analysis, I think you would be very pleased. You know, you may not
lose a lot of density out there, you may not lose any, but if the
traffic impacts aren't in the urban area, then we would accomplish I
think the goal we all set out to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not sure that's true. And
I've heard that repeated several times. For me, anyway it's not just
a traffic issue. It's a population number which goes to all
services. If we're looking at 400,000 people here or 300,000 people
Page 154
March 19, 1999
here, the public that I represent very, very clearly unanimously
chooses the 300,000 number. And there are traffic impacts to that
and utility impacts to that and so on. But it's that population
number that drives all of those things, ultimately. And if it's a
small difference, then it may or may not. You can plug in and
depending on your models, it may not work. But when you're talking a
difference of 100,000 people, it's pretty hard to argue that you're
not going to have a reduction on your own network or on various
things.
MR. VARNADOE: I would suggest to you that you could come up
with a scenario, if it works, where Immokalee would be a thriving ~-
of an economic base, that you would actually could reduce the number
of trips in the urban area, because those that live in the fringe, in
Barbara's area and your area, that live in the Estates or close to
the Estates, would have another place, an opportunity for employment.
It would actually improve the urban traffic network. And I believe
that or I wouldn't be standing here saying that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We ought to have this debate sometime other
than --
MR. VARNADOE: And that's at --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- right here.
MR. VARNADOE: -- that 24-month process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you don't mind, we'll stop on that
debate. And let's try to fashion some direction for staff. And I'll
take a shot.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have some speakers, two speakers left.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have two speakers on process?
MR. FERNANDEZ: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who are they?
MR. FERNANDEZ: William Hill and Jeff Cecil.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you here? That's the good news.
The direction that I'd like to propose is that we ask
Commissioner Berry, working with A1 Reynolds, George Varnadoe, some
environmental interests, I think, would also be appropriate, but to
spend the next 30, 60 days, whatever you think is necessary, to come
back to tell us just what we can do to allow this two to three-year
study to go forward.
Is there consensus or is there some refinement we need on that
particular element? Or do you want to -- because the other piece
that I would have to suggest is that if nobody has a problem with the
four to two in the urban area, and I certainly don't, then let's have
Page 155
March 19, 1999
a committee to work with our staff for about 30, 60 days to refine
the cjustering and rural fringe issues, and then bring both of those
two pieces back in the 30 to 60 days, whatever it takes to accomplish
something.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairwoman, when do you anticipate
giving the staff direction on what we want the committee to develop?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess what -- my vision of the committee
is that they would bring recommendations to us.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already had that and weren't
satisfied.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we had that from consultants. We
didn't have that from the community.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we did have actually our
development services, community development committee, whatever
they're called, they have gone through the process. The first time
they went through it they sidetracked it in the sub-committee and
said they didn't want to deal with. Then we made them go back and do
it. And they did go through that process. So I'm not sure what
they're going to do.
I appreciate the direction and I agree with you, let's move
those two ahead, but I think we need to be a little more specific --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think more specific direction's in order
and I'd be glad to start, if you'd like.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, try.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You just happen to have something written
out you're looking for here?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just my notes from what we talked
about before.
My comments from this morning were that I don't want to see 50
percent as a number, a hard and fast number. I think to start at the
level of 25 and only allow cjustering if you reach a certain figure -
- and I'm going to suggest 40 percent set-aside, at which point you
can cjuster, you are allowed to cjuster.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to base that a little bit on
the environmental value of the property, too, because --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's the other thing that we
haven't even talked about today is what do we do about the naturally
functioning systems or the lack thereof on any specific piece of
Page 156
March 19, 1999
property. I think that that ought to be integrated into the
discussion that the committee gets into as well. Because if you have
a pure tomato field, what are you doing? What are you trying to say?
So if on the other hand, like the example we talked about
earlier, if it's fully a natural section of land with no impacts,
then you've got a completely different situation. So maybe we're
going to have to work a blend of that.
My personal opinion is that we should set -- allow some
percentage at least of golf courses to account as set-asides. Because
it is, after all, green space.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe if we had some particular restriction
similar to what you have to do to be an Audubon coerce, they might be
worth looking at.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that we can ~- we can even add
incentives to do that. If you -- if you -- here again, it's
incentives. If you do go to the highest standards, like Collier
Reserve does, for example, then you can set aside "X" percent. If
you go to a very good standard but maybe not that high, then you get
"X" percent and so forth. But give them incentives not to just go
out there and make a cow pasture pool hall.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Cow pasture pool hall. Wait till that hits
the news.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the quote of the day. That should
make the Daily News tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's a good one. Cow pasture pool hall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other part of this is that -- and a
lot of speakers today got into this subject, but I'm pretty
uncomfortable about the county coming in on top of the Corps and DEP
and Lord knows who else, requiring mitigation. There's enough people
requiring mitigation without us lumping another slug of it on top of
it. That's my suggestions.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Just to sort of go through and then
I guess the record of our discussion here will give some direction to
this committee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just see if there's consensus
on that?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's where I was going to go.
My personal -- I agree with most of what John said, in theory.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, my, this is another record breaker.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, in theory I do, because the theory
sounds good. And depends on, you know, the devil being in the
Page 157
March 19, 1999
details as we see it come back. But I like the idea of giving
incentives for golf courses to be Audubon-certified kinds of golf
courses.
And I like -- I don't like the idea of anything less than 50
percent on preservation, because I think that that is what will make
the urban boundary line distinctive, so that there will be a
difference between urban and rural development in Collier County. I
think if we don't have that 50 percent, you're not going to know
TwinEagles Golf Course from Pelican Bay's golf course. It's going to
look the same. And if we have a 50 percent, I'd like to at least
keep that as a goal.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll tell you what we could do,
Commissioner. We could go out and we could plow up the roads, and
then you'd know when you're leaving the urban area -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's it. That works.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and approaching the rural area. Because
it would take it back to the natural way. We could go back to shell
roads and then you'll definitely where you are.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm opening up the swamp buggy
dealership.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I want the pasture pool hall. I
think like that sounds like the greatest.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any -- who else has comments about the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I agree with virtually all of
John's comments. And I think for reasons that were outlined today, I
don't think the arbitrary 50 percent's a fair thing. Because I don't
think any number is unless you take into consideration the value of
that property. If you've got a bunch of tomato fields, you can't
just randomly say okay, you can't use half of that, because it still
doesn't achieve what you're saying there. If you drive by and it's a
tomato field, that's not -- that preserves that natural look that
we're trying to achieve.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, just to be clear, I think you
know you're in the rural area when you drive by a tomato field. I
think that is a positive. I'd like for us to continue to have farm
fields in the rural area.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you think maybe we should require
if somebody develops, that 50 percent should stay as tomato field?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Should stay as natural, what its condition
presently is.
Page 158
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then maybe you need to offer an
incentive to keep them in the farming business. Now ~- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- is the public ready to step up and foot
the bill for keeping farmers in business?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is, if we're trying to -- if
the purpose is to have natural preserve areas, then we need to look
at each place. And I think the vast majority of them will be able to
do that, but there are certain cases where it doesn't work. Person
after person from groups of all different persuasions get up and say,
one size doesn't fit all. I think that's absolutely true. I don't
think we can pick a number and plug it into everybody.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And this was the rural fringe that we were
talking about, not the tomato areas. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, rural fringe has tomato areas. I
mean, it does have --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we're in the rural fringe.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: TwinEagles was a tomato field.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, it wasn't. It was a cow pasture.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was a field.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It was a pool. It was a -- what was it?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Pasture pool.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pasture pool.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What about staff --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Cow pasture pool.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- do you feel you know where we're going
at this point?
MR. MULHERE: I have a couple of questions, if I --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just two?
MR. MULHERE: -- could have the opportunity.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, actually, it sounds like there are
two of us who have generally -- I mean, there are three people who
generally agree in concept with what this committee should explore.
I hope that we're not going to give them such clear direction that
they know they go away and come back with a 40 percent rule instead
of a 50 percent rule, that they're going to come back with something
creative.
MR. MULHERE: I think to some degree I understand. I do have a
couple of questions, if -- whenever you're --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't you ask them.
Page 159
March 19, 1999
MR. MULHERE: The first question I would have is I think I
understand what we're talking about, is depending on the quality of
the environmental area, we would look at a preservation standard that
acted as an incentive to cause people to avail themselves of
opportunities for cjustering in golf courses, and based on the
quality of the development, they may get more for cjustering more.
They may be allowed to do more based on what they preserve on a
percentage on a sliding scale. Is that an accurate -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Something to that effect.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They may get more credit for open space for
their golf course.
MR. MULHERE: Carrot instead of a stick. I understand that.
I feel that on these committees that we really need to have
staff participation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. MULHERE: I didn't know if that was clearly understood.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: For the ag. land one?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All of them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think for all of them.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm speaking for that one in particular,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you need it in ag., I think you
need it in the rural fringe, we need it in the urban area, to come up
with a urban design plan. I know that the Greater Naples Civic
Association is coming at us in that direction.
I would certainly volunteer to, as a commissioner, to work with
that group if the board chooses that direction for me, to make that
happen, to look at all of this and come up with some refinement or
some ideas that will help this process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I hadn't thought about that, but that
community character committee is the one that will do the third
piece, you know, if we go forward with it, and that would make a lot
of sense.
MR. MULHERE: But that would be -~
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to go ahead -- no, go ahead
with the four to two, but refine that through the community character
committee.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think one of the key words, too, and
we've used it just in the one area, but I think the incentive kinds
of things, I think that is a key word to use, whether it's the urban,
whether it's the rural fringe, or even what we're talking about. I
Page 160
March 19, 1999
think if we can come up with incentives, I think that that is a real
plus. And that way it's not -- it's just not defining, you know, and
making it the one size fits all. You can look -- as a planner, you
can look at the piece of property and you can say gee, here's what -~
here's some things that, you know, if you do this and this, here's
what you get for it.
MR. MULHERE: And beyond the -- whatever cjustering standards or
preservation standards we do develop, beyond that, if I understood
your direction correctly, there would be no additional mitigation
beyond that which jurisdictional agencies might otherwise require.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I didn't hear that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John said he wants to get out of -- doesn't
want the county to get into the mitigation business.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I agree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's three.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's four to one.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I have a tendency to say I'm not
sure that I would totally eliminate mitigation, but it's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we're not, because they already have
mitigation, Jim. That's what we're saying. We're just not saying
that we don't want another layer of mitigation. They're still going
to have to do whatever is required. That's there.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to make sure I understood clearly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we both know where we're going, Bob,
that's okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Jim can still disagree, but I didn't want
him to misunderstand and we're saying no mitigation. We're not
saying that at all. We're just saying we're not going to add another
layer.
MR. MULHERE: Beyond what the jurisdictional --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right.
MR. MULHERE: -- agencies might already require.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, so that's direction.
Page 161
March 19, 1999
As far as creating that committee, do you want to try to do that
on Tuesday?
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I'd ~- just what I'd like to address and that is,
you can create the committees. They would require a formal creation
as an ad hoc committee existing under a year, a mere resolution would
do it, could be done as a created agenda item on Tuesday. Any
committee or committees created for these purposes would require to
meet under the Sunshine Law with a notice, et cetera, just as we've
done in the past as far as that goes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the concerns we heard along
the way here was people not having notice either on this whole plan
or on various things. This is going to be a fairly big item for a
lot of different groups. And I think you're going to have a lot of
people that might want to participate in that committee. By rushing
it on the Tuesday's agenda, are we risking missing some of those
people? Is it that harmful if we're going to have a two or three-
year process here to wait two extra weeks and make sure that --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Coming around, Tim. Coming around.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm talking on the cjustering --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- we don't have a two or three-year, we
have 60 days.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you are. But my point is just
is two weeks going to kill us to make sure we get everybody who wants
to be involved?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we can defer it to the one after.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 13th of April, then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because Monday is the only business
day in between, otherwise.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, you're right.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairwoman?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Just one other unsolicited thought here and that
is, that if you wish to still go forward on Tuesday to start the ball
rolling to create a committee, it will take shape and everyone,
including the public, will see the kind of representation that would
be appointed at that time. If there are additional interest groups,
parties, landowners that would come out of the woodwork after that
that say I think we need a voice on there, too, you can always
increase that committee. It's not a voting committee, it's an
Page 162
March 19, 1999
information and advisory committee coming back to the board. So two
weeks later, or at whatever point later, you can put more interests
into that committee, if you wish to do so.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just a warning to people who are considered
applying, this is not a glory committee, this is a real working,
roll-up-your-sleeves-get-down-to-it committee. So don't consider it
for glory.
Yes, sir?
MR. MULHERE: I've got one more question. With regard to
notifying other property owners in the rural agricultural area, we
can obviously very easily get a list of property owners and notify
them and perhaps inquire as to whether or not they would be willing
to participate in this process. I think the concern I have, and I
just want to make sure that I understand clearly, I think one of the
options the board has here is over the next 90 days or 60 days or 90
days as we develop this settlement agreement, that we'll have part of
what we're talking about here.
One of the options is to put a policy in there that indicates
that nothing will happen out there until -- you don't have to put a
time frame on it, but until we develop this strategic plan and come
back with Comprehensive Plan amendments. I think I heard support for
that, but I just want to make sure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Commissioner Constantine was dead
set against that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wonder if, you know, as we have
Commissioner Berry running the rural issue, if we might want to ask
Commissioner Constantine, since this is sort of more his district in
the rural fringe --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- because we need a leader here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion on Mr. Mulhere's
last question before we get into that.
Why don't we try to contact these property owners outside of the
group, see if they will join in voluntarily. Those that don't,
perhaps we could have a policy of everything except the group goes to
1 to 20.
MR. MULHERE: That was another option.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was another option. Maybe we could
do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right.
Page 163
March 19, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If they don't want to join in, we'll just
MR. MULHERE: We'll have that answer for you in 60 or 90 days.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 60 days.
Did you have a comment?
MR. STILLER: Just one. Charles Stiller for DCA, and I'm
getting really tired of saying that. I need a name tag.
And please don't take this -- this is not at all meant nor is it
a negative comment. But as a lawyer -- and Mr. Goutbier was kind
enough to remind me I'm still a lawyer, even though it's after 5:00 -
- we are in a litigation position here.
And from what I'm hearing here, what these committees will come
up with will then evolve into a proposal from the county to the
department. To that end, you know, we will be not involved with the
committee work except to the extent we're asked to, you know, at a
staff level, review drafts of certain things. And, you know,
whatever product comes out of this committee will then be sent to the
Department, you know, subject to the secretary's --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why won't we want you to participate at the
committee level?
MR. STILLER: I don't know that, quite frankly, we have the
travel budget to send people down here for all the meetings. And if
under Section 31.84 -- 163.31.84.16-C if you are engaged in
settlements negotiations for active growth management litigation, you
have to ensure that all parties are present.
So we'd have to be there, the interveners would have to be at
every meeting, the school board will have to be at every meeting, and
I think it would be a bit burdensome. It sounds to me that the
issues you're talking about to the extent that there are some radical
departures from 50 percent, that there are some radical departures
from 2 to 1, these folks know our phone numbers. And we'd be glad to
give our initial reactions, but all that will build up to a formal
proposal that would then come to us.
I don't want to say cut us out of the loop, we don't want to
hear anything, but I don't know that we can commit to be involved in
every meeting from, number one, a resource point of view, and then
number two, I think under the law it might get a bit burdensome and
it might inhibit the kind of what I hear to be informal community
involvement that you want to foster.
Page 164
March 19, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Although we don't want to get too far
afield and then find ourselves at the end of the day without
something that we can go forward together on.
MR. STILLER: Absolutely. I would expect as a revised --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that's staff's job to keep you informed,
to keep the interveners informed. You'll have to do that.
MR. MULHERE: We can do that. But I think what Shaw Stiller is
saying here is that if we get too -- we're not getting necessarily
the commitment. If things get too far afield here, the Department
may not agree with it but we're right where we were before. We're
back up to the Governor and the Cabinet, so --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. And we'd like not to do that, if we
can avoid that, and so I'm saying that you facilitate -- MR. MULHERE: No problem.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the discussion so that the parties --
MR. MULHERE: We'll keep them informed.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- stay informed.
Are we ready to go home? It's happy hour somewhere, I know.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's right here. Happy hour.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything else? If not, we're
adj ourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:35 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~]AMELA S. M~~MA/q
ATTEST:
Page 165
March 19, 1999
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ~U~-~/3,/~ , as
presented / or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 166