Loading...
EAC Minutes 07/03/2001 RJuly 3,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL NAPLES, FLORIDA, JULY 3,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, 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: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson William Hill Alexandra "Ali" Santoro Barry Stone Alfred Gal NOT PRESENT: Erica Lynne Chester Soling ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 3, 2001 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of June 6, 2001 Meeting Minutes IV. Land Use Petitions Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2001-AR-383 "Park Central North PUD" Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Growth Management Update VIII. Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee IX. Council Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 29, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. July 3,2001 (Proceedings commenced, Mr. Hill not present.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara, is anyone else coming, or is this it? MS. BURGESON: Mr. Hill should be here. Probably we can get started if you want. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: One, two -- we've got enough for a quorum. Why don't -- why don't we get started. Okay? Okay. Shall we call the roll to determine if we have a quorum this morning? MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Hill. (No response.) MS. BURGESON: Erica Lynne has an excused absence. SANTORO: Here. BURGESON: Stone. STONE: Here. Santoro. MS. MS. MR. MS. BURGESON: MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. And Soling also has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. All right. Approval of the agenda. Do we have any additions, revisions, corrections? Yes, sir. MR. COE: One thing I would like to put on old business. I'd like to see if we can get a report from either Barb or Stan or one of the staffers on anything that may have come up since we met on the ATVs on the beach and the Ritz-Carlton and all that sort of business. Page 2 July 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: minutes of the June 6th meeting. Would someone like to approve them? excuse me. MR. COE: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: MS. SANTORO: I second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (Unanimous response.) Okay. All righty. We have the We have any addition, revisions? I move to approve them, Is there a second? Second. In favor? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. Okay. Land use petitions. Why don't we do a swear-in right now. Anyone that's going to testify on this particular land use petition regarding Park Central North, please rise, and we will be sworn in. (Oath administered.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, counsel members. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request to rezone property that's currently zoned C-1 and C-1-ST that's office commercial and rezone it to the PUD district, and it's located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. The existing Park Central Development is here and this is the property immediately adjacent to the north (indicating). The proposed uses and the PUD are generally consistent with C-1 office commercial uses. The purpose of the rezone is to allow the buildings to go to 45 feet in some locations as opposed to the 35 feet that's currently permitted in C-1 in order to allow a smaller building footprint because of the shape and size of the wetland on site. And that's the conceptual master plan you see in green, the size of the wetland, and there was some encroachment-- there is proposed encroachment into the wetland here to allow access to that upland tract in the northwest comer. Page 3 July 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hold on for a second. Just for the record just note that Mr. Hill has joined us. Okay. MR. HILL: My apologies, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: And to orient you further, down here at the bottom of the visualizer is YMCA Road which is going to be the access for the project. This is the exiting Park Central, and the access will be from an easement across the Park Central property into the proposed Park -- Park Central North. The project will have no access from Airport Road and no access from Cougar Drive, the entrance to Barron Collier which is not a public road. It's a school board easement and the school board did not see fit to grant access to the petitioner. The site is located in Activity Center No. 13 and, therefore, the commercial rezone is consistent with the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan, and Stephen Lenberger is here with the environmental issues. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Lenberger. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services. As Fred mentioned the subject property is located in the northeast quadrant off Pine Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling Road immediately south of Cougar Drive. The property is right here on the aerial I have on the wall. The site is vegetated with a mixture of-- with pine cypress. It also has pine flowerets which occupy most of the eastern portion of the site. And there's about a one-acre cypress stand in the southwest portion of the property. Wetlands on-site, there's about 1.6 acres of wetlands, and the petitioner will impact about 25 percent of that, about .4 acres. The subject property borders the existing Park Central Development. The Park Central Development also has a special treatment overlay, and it is located here in this green area (indicating), and as you can see the -- the ST area on the Park Central Page 4 July 3,2001 North property is just an extension of that preserve area and that cypress slough. Petitioner will preserve about 1.2 acres of wetlands on site, about .09 acres of uplands totaling about 1.29 acres of preserve. That's roughly about 32 percent preservation onsite which exceeds the Land Development Code requirement. There was a protected species survey done. There are no protected species on site, at least none that were observed. Most the property in the area is all developed, so the likelihood of protected species is pretty low, perhaps wading birds and alligators that would visit the canal occasionally. Do you have any questions? I'll be glad to answer them. The petitioner's consultants are here, engineering and environmental staff, and staff is also here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions of staff?. MR. HILL: I have one, Mr. Chairman. On page 2 of the staff report, first paragraph, I'm not sure of the implication there. It says -- it reads (as read): "Because of the size and configuration of the wetland, the footprints of the building are limited." It says, "Therefore," apparently they will be allowed to increase the building height. What's the rational between those two statements? Is that an automatic? MR. REISCHL: requesting the rezone. No, it's not automatic, and that's why they are A rule of thumb, which is not in code but it generally works out that way with parking and stormwater, is that for every acre of land that you have, generally 10,000 square feet of commercial space is developed. So here you have -- there is 3.78 acres and they are developing approximately 36,000 square feet. So it -- with the increase in height they are keeping basically the same rule-of-thumb amount of commercial that they would if there were no wetlands on site. MR. HILL: Okay. Is -- is part of this based on the school Page 5 July 3,2001 board's petition for 45 feet out there? MR. REISCHL: Actually, the petitioner had asked for 45 feet across the whole site. We asked them to change that so that adjacent to the north portion where they are closer to the residential tract to the north, we asked them to limit that to 35 feet, which is the height that a residential structure could go, so it steps up as you go closer to the Sports Authority. MR. HILL: Thank you. It wasn't an environmental question, Mr. Chairman, but I wasn't sure about the relationship between those statements. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I have a nonenvironmental question. What's the maximum height allowed in a PUD? MR. REISCHL: In a PUD there is no maximum height. It's whatever the board would approve in that PUD. Maximum height in C-1 -- which is the current zoning of this property would be 35 -- but, for example, the First Baptist, I think, allows some of their structures to go -- just from memory, I think it's 80 -- 80 feet, something like. So it can be unlimited. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further questions? MR. HILL: Does this have to -- the adjoining or adjacent or property owners within, what, 600 feet? MR. REISCHL: Three hundred. MR. HILL: Three hundred, have they been notified and are aware of the variance? MR. REISCHL: They are about to be for the Planning Commission hearing. There's no public notification for EAC. MR. HILL: They will be notified about the request for the building height extension? MR. REISCHL: Yes. MR. HILL: Okay. Page 6 July 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Petitioner like to comment? No. Anyone from the public like to comment? Okay. Discussion, Council. MR. CARLSON: Let's go to 80 feet and save all the wetlands. No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. That failed for lack of second. What's the pleasure? MR. COE: Motion to approve as written. MR. CARLSON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion to approve by Mr. Coe, second by Mr. Carlson. Discussion. Hearing none, all in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed the same sign. Passed unanimously. Okay. All right. Old business. Mr. Coe had requested an update on what happened before the county commission regarding the ATVs on the beach. Is that what you -- MR. COE: No. I want to ask either Barb or Stan to give us an update on what's happened since the board made their approvals and everything. And I want to see if the Ritz-Carlton has been in compliance with what was passed. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. Staff went out and did a site visit a week ago this past Monday to the Ritz. It was brought to my attention by my supervisor that she had gone out there and seen turtle nests adjacent to stacked chairs and wanted to know if that was appropriate. So I went out with Alex Sulecki with code enforcement. These pictures show two nests that are adjacent to the area that they have been storing their beach furniture. One is approximately three inches from the stack of chairs and the other one is Page 7 July 3,2001 approximately three feet from the stack of chairs. We brought it to the Ritz's attention that that was not an appropriate storage area. The area that we approved through their variance identified a different location for storage of beach furniture, so they are in the process of bringing that into compliance and readdressing where the furniture should be stored. Just to let you know where that location is, if you happen to go out to the Ritz, on the left here (indicating), this is just the edge of the -- the towel area where they have a table there where they hand out towels. We've asked that the storage box in the back, which they had said was dilapidated and was in need of being rebuilt, that's going to be built or is, I guess, in the process of being rebuilt right now up flush and adjacent to this other structure. And then all of the beach chairs that they're going to be storing on the beach have to be stored back behind that. And that storage box is going to be built flat down to the ground so that turtles cannot get stuck underneath that. And then this is just a picture of the one nest that was closest to the stack of chairs so that they will be carefully removing all of that furniture and should have done already by now and storing that behind the rebuilt storage box area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Questions. MR. HILL: Barb, are you saying that the area they stored the chairs is not in compliance with the directive or as far as specific location for storage, or is it in violation of the area around the nest? MS. BURGESON: Well, it's in violation of a CCSL variance that was issued about six months to a year prior to this nesting season beginning. It should have been rebuilt at that time, and as far as any other violations from the new ordinance, they would have been required since they were having an event that evening, they were -- were required to have put fencing up around that an additional 30 feet out since the state hasn't given us written language for a lesser Page 8 July 3,2001 distance yet. And when we brought that to their attention they did go ahead and do that, put that taping out so that that nest was buffered with that additional 30 feet. MR. HILL: The chairs were stored prior to the establishment of those nests? MS. BURGESON: Right. Right. MR. HILL: But that still was in violation? MS. BURGESON: Of their variance, right. We have also put together a letter -- just yesterday Kim was working on that for me -- and created a proactive letter that will go out to everyone that we've issued vehicle-on-beach permits to stating that they will need to get to us the calculations for the PSI as well as a photo once they've gotten -- we're giving them -- I'm sure what the time frame is -- maybe it'll be ten days or maybe it'll be 30 days -- to get the aluminum lettering attached to the back wheels of the vehicles that they're using during nesting season so that we have that tire tread identification, and then they need to provide that photo to us for our files. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I don't have any other comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No other comments? Okay. Growth Management update. I understand we have a report from the Growth Management Subcommittee. Do these go hand in hand or-- we don't have a separate Growth Management update? If we don't, I will turn it over to Ali. MS. SANTORO: I'm coming down here to see what you look like from this angle. We had-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The last time -- the last time, I think Mr. Hill will tell you, that a member of the council went down before and made a presentation he got in trouble, didn't you? MS. SANTORO: Too late. I'm down here. Page 9 July 3,2001 MR. HILL: Now that you've seen us you might want to come back up here. MS. SANTORO: We had a Growth Management Subcommittee meeting on June 27th attended by Bill Hill, Ed Carlson, Bill Lorenz, and myself, and what we'd like to propose is a wetland policy. Now we have incorporated some of the EAC's recommendations such as including all the jurisdictional wetlands as set by the Southwest Water Management. Considering wetland classifications, you use Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3. But actually those were -- we said that all wetlands are Class 1, and then they were classified otherwise by the degree of loss of functionality of the wetlands, so we are using that premise. We're also incorporating the percentages that were discussed, Class 1 being the best using 0 to 5 percent of impact. Class 2, 6 percent to 25 percent of impact, and Class 3, 26 percent to 50 percent impact. So I'm kind of reviewing what we discussed at other meetings and what you've approved. From there the committee looked at factors that affected the functionality of the wetlands, and actually you also looked at functionality with the categories across the top of the chart that we had looked at before. We agreed to use, absent of hydrological value, lack of wetland plants including percentages of invasion by exotics and lack of wildlife. Now, I think the committee had talked about not using the exotics, but our committee was influenced by Ed Carlson and his biology and Bill Lorenz, the hydrological function. So we are using three more premises. Ed said that based on research 0 to 10 percent invasion of exotics would not affect the functionality of the wetland. He also mentioned, which was interesting, that if you have a very, very great degree of invasion, you can actually get a wetland desert, so to speak, with no wetland plants and no wildlife. And with Bill's influence, we also said that no matter what, if the wetland has -- shows a lack of wildlife, lack of Page 10 July 3,2001 function, a lack of plants, we still don't want it disturbed or impacted more than 50 percent. So those were three premises -- additional ones that the committee came up with. We then used the wetland rapid assessment procedure, better known as WRAP, and selected similar categories to the ones we just said, the wetland hydrology matrix -- and these are attached-- the wetland plant matrix, which may be a combination of the one that you have, the wetland over-story shrub canopy, and also the wetland plant matrix for ground cover. But basically the difference is if you look at that second one, the plant matrix, we've added percentages of exotic invasion. And also as you look at these three, the WRAP uses three as being the best of that category and zero being the least functioning in those categories. So if you look at the three sheets, each of which go from a zero to a three, we've said that if you add these points using the WRAP, the best wetland would be a 9.9 and the worst wetland, using these three valuation factors, would be a zero. Now, the staff on my chart -- I gave you kind of an outline -- but staff has given you an actual final better-looking graph. You'll notice that on the left side you have percentages of allowable impacts with 50 percent being maximum and along the bottom has got the WRAP scores. Now, there's two things to consider. Staff has used 5 percent. In other words, if it's a 9, it's a very, very good functioning wetland. They're saying that up to 5 percent can be impacted. The committee can decide if they want that at zero, but by using this graph and coming up with a WRAP score, it will indicate to developers the percentage of the amount that we would allow to be impacted. Some of the advantages -- we asked Bill Lorenz -- and this really was a committee without -- with all our input trying to take what the EAC has discussed and some other ideas and putting it together. Bill Lorenz felt that a quantitative method is workable and supportable Page 11 July 3,2001 and that EAC would only be involved if they felt that the data and scores were invalid or faulty. Also local developers and local engineers often have used the WRAP in their environmental assessment, so they're familiar with it. The other thing is that recently the State of Florida has started proposing a similar WRAP method for determining the percentage of wetlands that can be mitigated. So all and all we felt we were on the right track with coming up with this proposal. If you approve it, the recommendation is then that the EAC would allow a month for public comment and then consider adopting this plan or this plan with modifications at the next meeting. I don't know if staff wants to add anything. MR. HATCHER: For the record, Mac Hatcher with the Natural Resources Department. Bill Lorenz just wanted to make sure that, I guess, you-all add this to the agenda for the August meeting so that we can get public input as well as the committee's input, and the schedule that he would like to shoot for is to propose policy language then for the September meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. So noted. I have one question on the 50 percent. If you have a wetland that completely lacks in plants, completely invaded by exotics and has no wildlife, what's the value of 50 percent? MR. REISCHL: It still serves a function for wetland -- I mean, for groundwater recharge and for stormwater storage and treatment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's assume, then, it has full -- full invasion by exotics, it has no wildlife and the hydrology has been altered. We still save 50 percent of it? MR. REISCHL: It's still going to provide for groundwater recharge. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm just quite -- I mean, what -- what do we do in that case, I mean, to encourage someone to go in Page 12 July 3,2001 there and clean out the exotics and redo it and things of that sort if-- in a condition like that. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Well, we've included in the handout that Ali gave out is scoring for hydrology wildlife and vegetative alteration, and our logic is what -- practically when we review projects what comes before us are these jurisdictional wetlands. They come before us, and they've been delineated as a jurisdictional wetland, and we're saying that even under the worst of circumstances, if you're a jurisdictional wetland, you're 50 percent protected anyway. That jurisdictional wetland designation gets you somewhere, and then the restoration would come from allowable impacts to the other-- other wetlands on site. MS. BURGESON: Just as a matter of record, on your question regarding the quality of the wetland and why it should be protected, aside from the stormwater protection and the flood control issues, we've done a little bit of study over the years in areas that have been as high as 80 percent exotic invaded that have retained those areas, for instance, down at Lely Resort. They have retained those areas, taken the exotics out, and five years later you could not tell that that area had not been a healthy pine flatwoods all along. So I would imagine we would see similar reestablishment of the wetland species in that area because it would be a requirement to remove all of the exotics. In that case, the hydrology may be the only thing that may be slightly limited or altered, but during the process of the permitting that probably would be something we would address to try to improve that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I think my point I think Ed answered is that, basically, we don't just leave the 50 percent; we use that 50 percent for as -- as mitigation and affect for destruction of other parts of it to come back and rehab. Just sitting there like it is probably is not good use, but if you come in and rehab it, I'm sure it Page 13 July 3,2001 would be very useful. Okay. Any other discussion? MR. HILL: One thing. The committee, you remember back in our discussions we had that three by six matrix. If this was impacted, it went from one to three, a rather complicated quantitative assessment of the wetland. So in our discussions we felt it's very difficult to rate the impact of the hydrology of the wildlife or the other species, and for simplicity combining the functionality of all three into a single evaluative or quantitative measure seemed to be the best way to go about evaluating the impact, rather than getting caught up in that three by six matrix which we had discussed before and -- pardon the expression -- the committee sort of in terms of entertainment industry, this is a wrap. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's a wrap. MR. COE: I would like to make a motion to approve the committee's report as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Now, what we were saying what we wanted to do is to agenda it for the next meeting, ask for public comment, and then move on it at that time? MR. HATCHER: Correct. Actually, we want to -- we want to -- right. Make recommendations in August, and then Bill will come back with policy language in September. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: That's what I was trying to say is approve -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. I won't let it happen again. MR. COE: -- approve as it is and then open for presentation to the public at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great. Okay. The motion is that we agenda this for the next meeting and do the public notice and be prepared to discuss it and hear public comment at the next meeting. Hear a second? Page 14 July 3,2001 MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: unanimously. Second by Mr. Carlson. Opposed? Hearing none, passed MR. HATCHER: If you could, I was a little slow on getting up on the growth management issue, and I have a little report for you on that. We presented the Rural Fringe Conceptual Plan to the Board of County Commissioners in early June and got their direction to work with the Rural Fringe Committee to develop policy language based on that conceptual plan and work out-- try and work out differences with the Rural Fringe Committee over the summer, and where we can't work out differences, then we will present both sides of the issues to the board in September. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions on that? Hearing none, thank you very much. Okay. We have any individual comments from the council members? MR. GAL: I have two comments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. GAL: First, I think the meeting for August is scheduled the 7th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's correct, sir. MR. GAL: Is there a way to have it rescheduled to the 1st, for the first Wednesday? MS. BURGESON: The first Wednesday is when it was rescheduled from because the Board of County Commissioners is using that room for a workshop that day. MR. GAL: Okay. So it's impossible. Page 15 July 3,2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I was just going to note Barbara's memo that it is the 7th, which is what day of the week? MS. BURGESON: That's a Tuesday. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tuesday. MR. WHITE: Isn't it possible, Mr. Chairman -- Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney -- that rather than have the meeting in these chambers, there may be an alternative location that you could have the meeting to accommodate Council Member Gal's request? MS. BURGESON: The only concern we have with that is it does need to be videoed or should be videoed. We've asked about doing other meeting rooms, and they really suggested that this be -- MR. GAL: Might want to try the telephone experiment again. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That was a -- it sounded like a great meeting when it broke, I tell you. MR. CARLSON: Does the -- can it just be videotaped without -- I think -- are we being broadcast live as we speak? MS. BURGESON: Yes, we are. MR. CARLSON: So it can be just videotaped with a camera? MS. BURGESON: I can ask. MR. CARLSON: Because if' it can, I have a meeting room at The Sanctuary, if you want to meet there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That would be interesting. Can we -- can we investigate that? MS. BURGESON: Yes, I will. MR. GAL: I appreciate that. MR. WHITE: And, Mr. Chairman, just the mechanics of it -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Mechanics of it would be that we'd need some direction that if it's possible to set it up for the 1 st, even if it's at an alternate location, we would need direction from the council to do so. Otherwise it would have to stay on the 7th. I'm interested personally Page 16 July 3,2001 because I plan on being vacationing after August 1 st so if I can make the meeting that would be great; otherwise, that's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson, why don't you articulate on what your thought is. MR. CARLSON: If we want to maintain the meeting date as the first Wednesday in August and have it on the 1 st, I have a meeting room available at the Blair Audubon Center for the meeting if technically it can be held there because of the videotaping requirement. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody have any objection to having it at Blair Audubon Center? MR. HILL: What's the seating capacity just in case we had a public? MR. CARLSON: Eighty to a hundred people. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think that will be a problem. MR. HILL: I move we consider and approve that based on the videotaping problem being solved. MR. COE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill, second by Mr. Coe. Yes, ma'am. MS. BURGESON: I'll just make sure that if that's available, if we can do that, and we may need to have staff come out for that taping. I'll get back to everybody as soon as I can, probably the beginning of next week. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If the 1st is not available, we will fall back to the 7th. Okay? Everybody agreeable? MR. HILL: Council gets mileage out to the -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Absolutely. And a guided tour by Mr. Carlson. Okay. MR. GAL: And I have one other -- one other issue. I think about a month and a halfback I saw an article in the Naples Daily Page 17 July 3,2001 News about a resolution passed by the Collier County Commission that adopted a Marco Island City Council resolution asking, I think it was, the Fish and Wildlife -- maybe it was the DEP -- to reconsider their -- their plans to protect manatees in the area, and that's all I know about the issue. But I do know that I didn't discuss it, and it didn't go before this board that I'm aware of, and I would like to know if it should have. MS. BURGESON: I don't know much more about it than you do. I actually happened to have caught a part of that discussion over the TV from my office. I understand from the presentations that I saw that they were asking the board to not support something that had already been approved, so it was a moot point. If you'd like, I can try to research that a little bit and bring that back to you at the next meeting. MR. GAL: If you could, yeah, because I think it's something that we should have some input on, and that would be nice. MS. BURGESON: I agree. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: Could we also ask for a report on the Ritz and Registry situation at the August meeting. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point out for the record that although today may be the day, we have yet to receive any notification from the Secretary of State with respect to the filing of the ordinance that contained those vehicle-on-the-beach and related provisions from this round of amendments, so just for the record we have yet to establish what the effective date of those regulations is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Any other comments? Yes, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Just on behalf of Ed and myself, I don't want to put Page 18 July 3,2001 words in your mouth, Ed, but I would like to thank Ali for her work on the Growth Management subcommittee. She's kind of held us together. We appreciate that. MR. COE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any comments from the public? adjourned. Ms. Santoro, thank you very much. Hearing none, I believe we're There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:36 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, COURT REPORTER Page 19