Loading...
CAC Minutes 06/13/2002 RJune 13,2002 Coastal Advisory Committee County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES June 13, 2002 ATTENDANCE Members: Chairman Gary Galleberg Vice Chairman David Roellig John Strapponi Ron Pennington Robert Stakich James Snediker Ashley Lupo Anthony Pires (1:45 P.M.) Collier County: Ron Hovell, P.E. City of Naples: Dr. Jon C. Staiger Others: Bruce Anderson, David Somers, Bill Moss, Ruth McCann, Roy Anderson NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARDROOM, THIRD FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (ADMINISTRATION), AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA AT 1:30 P.M. ON JUNE 13, 2002. AGENDA o Roll Call Additions to Agenda Old Business a. Approval of minutes for May 9, 2002 b. Beach Cleaning c. Project Updates d. Project cost-sharing e. 10-Year Plan Update New Business a. Hideaway Beach Renourishment (10502) supplemental grant application b. Hideaway Beach T-groin Replacement grant application Audience Participation Schedule next meeting Adjournment ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISED THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. June 13, 2002 II. III. Chairmen Gary Galleberg called meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Mr. Hovell called the roll. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Ron Hovell noted a deletion to the agenda of item 4b, Hideaway Beach T-groin Replacement grant application. He would explain the reasons later. Mr. Snediker wanted to add to the agenda a discussion on the coarseness of sand. Mr. Galleberg stated they would cover this after item 5. OLD BUSINESS a. Approval of Minutes for May 9, 2002 There were a few corrections. Page 1, paragraph 1, last sentence to be deleted, paragraph 2, change "it's" to "its", and paragraph 5, change "45" to "45,000". Page 4, paragraph 1, change "overtime" to "over time" and paragraph 6, change "passes" to "passed". Ron Pennington moved to accept the minutes as revised, Robert Stakich seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Hovell noted that the meeting was not being filmed today, only tape recorded. Beach Cleaning Mr. Hovell has attempted to get Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, Planning Services, Code Enforcement, and Public Utilities Engineering Department to come together to come to grips on what would be established as an overall county policy, but they have not completed this effort. He added a problem could be that there are 3 jurisdictions. One suggestion to deal with some of these issues was to review to see whether there was a need to continue raking since the distribution of trucked-in, rock-free sand. Mr. Hovell noted that one of the beach rakes is in the process of dying and they are not planning to repair it, which leaves the county with only two rakes, thus decreasing the frequency of raking. Another recommendation was to not rake below the mean high-water line unless it was specifically requested and there was a reason to do this. There was no specific policy on this issue. Mr. Pennington commented that they have a letter addressing the desires of Marco Island, but they have a need to get similar information from the City of Naples. He suggested that the term basic standard be used rather than regulation, so that it could be deviated from by the individual entities. He noted that the committee felt very kindly towards the Conservancy's recommendations and felt this would be a good place to start from. 2 June 13,2002 Mr. Snediker felt that beach raking ought to be controlled under one operation or the other, not half and half. He questioned who was taking on this management role. Mr. Hovel! believed they would have more than one entity involved, and he has asked to have the Parks and Recs to take on the management role, but it would still be at the direction of the Public Utilities Engineering Department. Mr. Snediker thought this might be confusing to have two different bosses. Mr. Snediker mentioned the ATV vehicles and wondered if there was a decision. Mr. Galleberg believed that the committee wanted to head in the direction of using ATVs for trash pick-up, yet there are no policies in place. He felt the City of Naples was in agreement with the committee, but it still needed to be formalized. They could have different schedules based on the different jurisdiction's desires. Mr. Hovell stated that since they have three operators and only two rakes, they are planning to rent a mule to use on a rotation basis, at least on Naples beach, Vanderbilt beach, and Park Shore. Mr. Snediker felt the ATV could do a very effective job on most days. Mr. Roellig believed the ATV would be fine since it would limit the frequency of beach raking. Mr. Strapponi stated they were only going to rake inland from the high-water line and he asked up to how close would they rake to the dune line. Mr. Hovell stated it was ten feet and that won't change. They only go below mean high-water line if there is a specific request or event that requires them to do so. Mr. Strapponi asked if they were now raking as needed or if was still a routine schedule. Mr. Hovell stated that they are still on a routine schedule. Mr. Strapponi asked if the area between the mean high-water line and 10 feet from the dunes was lifeless. Dr. Staiger stated that the turtle's nests are often in this area and there are also ghost crab burrows. The rack line is usually near the mean high-water line, which is very important for seabird feeding. The name for this area is dry sand beach. Mr. Strapponi questioned when they have a restoration, what impact does it have to dump tons of sand on top of this area. Mr. Staiger believed that if the restoration was done by pumping sand, then any living thing would have to migrate through about 5 feet of wet sand. If it was done by dumping sand and then plowing it around, the layer is generally much lighter and more living things could get through. Mr. Strapponi asked if new life that is foreign to the area was brought in when they do restoration by hydraulic means. Mr. Staiger noted that when they did a past beach restoration, it brought in thousands of fighting conchs. It has a major impact on the stuff living in the sand from where it is mined. Mr. Strapponi asked if raking is more damaging than renourishment. Mr. Staiger noted that most living creatures are in the inner tidal area and that is where Mr. Hovell wanted to keep free of beach raking. June 13, 2002 Mr. Strapponi suggested that until they get the city's position and a policy recommendation from staff, they have the full-time beach inspector handle the schedule of the raking. Mr. Galleberg agreed, but he stated they needed to hear from staff before they make any policy changes. Mr. Pennington suggested that the turtle inspectors could note areas that need raking when they do their daily turtle checks. Mr. Roellig commented that if the city reduced its frequency of beach raking, then frequency in the county should not then increase. Mr. Pires wanted to give staff direction that the board wanted to move towards moderate beach raking. Mr. Galleberg requested that the staff provide something on paper at the September meeting discussing the committee's consensus to rake as needed. They also needed to let each jurisdiction make the decision on how they wanted to proceed. Mr. Pennington suggested they talk with DEP and request to do inspections and rake when they have found rocks. Mr. Galleberg thought this needed to be tied together with the other issues involved. Mr. Pennington moved that at the September meeting, staff comes back with a written policy proposal including input from the committee, the public, the Conservancy, the 3 jurisdictions, and the DEP, Mr. Roellig seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Roellig suggested that staff also get input from the major businesses located on the beach. Project Updates Mr. Hovell had a PowerPoint presentation for the following topics. He mentioned that Wiggins Pass was dredged in March and they put 55,000 yards of sand on Delnor-Wiggins State Park. Vanderbilt beach has had 60% of rock removal done. Clam Pass Park was dredged in February and dunes were planted in April. Park Shore had 9,000 cubic yards of sand placed by the seawall. Naples beach, north of Central Avenue, has had rocks removed and 46,000 cubic yards of sand has been placed. They still need to do planting of sea oats on Naples and Park Shore. Naples beach, south of Central Avenue, is reserved for the Parker Sand Web system. There were two applications with negative recommendations by the CAC, and both were denied by the TDC and BCC. For Caxambas Pass dredging, they will get on with planning to dredge this winter. Mr. Snediker asked if they had a report from Taylor Engineering. Mr. Hovell answered he has received it and they recommended the dredging of Caxambas Pass in the next year or so. Mr. Snediker believed the breakwaters were fine the way they are and he felt they don't need to spend the money. He suggested taking the sand from the dredging and placing it back on the beach up to marker 147. He also recommended that they apply for a grant from the state to get funding for the parking lot. Mr. Hovell stated that they send all projects to the DEP and typically they get very little assistance from the state. Mr. Pennington questioned whether the sand from Caxambas Pass would be placed back on June 13, 2002 dw the beach, and Mr. Hovell agreed and stated it would be about 75,000 cubic yards. Mr. Hovell stated the next update was the breakwater modifications. He felt they wouldn't want to spend the money and get a permit when they have a desire to do the sand bypassing from Caxambas Pass. He added they would not be actively pursuing the project, but he didn't know how to handle this procedurally. Mr. Snediker thought they could straighten out the bookkeeping after they made their final decision. Mr. Galleberg said they could take it off the list the next time the committee does the approval process. Mr. Hovell was concerned they would drop the money out of the budget, so he felt it should be more official. Mr. Hovell stated the need for various incremental beach maintenance activities, many of which were already discussed. The next update was on the Hideaway Beach access improvements. The staff's recommendation was to defer executing the project until they have a better understanding of where the sand is going in that area. Mr. Snediker stated that this area was very well protected by Sand Dollar Island and there was very little erosion around the mangroves. He believed they would need very Tittle sand to fill in the area in question. He also discussed the proposal to build a small bridge over Little Clam Pass to get a nice area to walk from Tigertail to Hideaway Beach. Mr. Hovell noted the countywide sand search was already in progress. He stated the Beach Emergency Response Plan's goal was to understand what impacts they would have from storms, how they would respond to them, and how they would budget for this to fix beaches. Mr. Pennington wanted to know where they were going with the sand search. Mr. Hovell answered that a grant application has been approved. Mr. Pennington expressed that the committee should be advised more on this, including the process and objective. Mr. Hovell said he would provide this information. Mr. Pennington questioned about the stockpile of sand, but had never been acquired by the county. Project Cost Sharing Mr. Hovell went through a slide show with aerial photographs of the county's beaches. He pointed out the public accesses and beach distances for each section. In summary, Mr. Hovell calculated there was 110,000 feet of developed beach in Collier County; 42% within the city of Naples, 17% within the city of Marco Island, and 41% in the unincorporated county. Mr. Pennington noted that he just recently learned that the county owned significant beachfront in the Pelican Bay area. He suggested they should gain an easement through Pelican Bay for public access. Mr. Hovell questioned what kind of budget estimate do they need to have in reserves in case of a catastrophe. He noted that FEMA won't give any June 13,2002 IV. assistance for beaches that have not been maintained, and currently the county only maintains about 25-30% of its beaches. Mr. Hovell estimated it would take about $10-15 million to recover from a catastrophe. He noted that they have lost about 10% of their 1 O-year plan budget since the interest has been diverted from the funds into the general revenues, which had already been in their budget equating to a $5 million loss over 10 years. Mr. Hovell stated they have not yet received approval from FEMA for the damage caused by Tropical Storm Gabfielle, for which they had $3 million in the budget. Upon speaking to the engineer, he did not get the impression that they were going to get approval. Mr. Galleberg suggested they discuss this at a future meeting because he thought this money was a given. Mr. Pennington was concerned that $10 million for reserves may not be sufficient for a large storm. Mr. Hovell added that other beaches could need additional maintenance, as well. There was also the desire to improve public beach accesses and parking. There are additional, unanticipated costs that are not part of the 1 O-year plan; to replace the T-groins at Hideaway beach which is estimated at $2 million, and the countywide beach fill is about $3 million more than expected. He discussed public access verse private property fights and who was paying the bill. Mr. Hovell noted that in the Growth Management Plan in the section on Conservation and Coastal Management, one of the goals is for the county to ensure that access to the beaches remain available for the public and to continue with its program to expand accessibility in a method to fund its acquisition. He also read that if existing access points are not sufficient, than the county shall acquire additional access points as part of the renourishment project. He recommended they do benefits analysis and cost sharing with the adjacent property owners. (There was a 5-minute break at 2:50 P.M.) 10-Year Plan Update This topic was addressed in the Project Cost Sharing discussion and later in the meeting. NEW BUSINESS a. Hideaway Beach Renourishment (10502) Supplemental Grant Application Mr. Hovell asked for the Coastal Advisory Committee to recommend a grant of $55,000 to do a benefits analysis, which would make recommendations on the sharing of costs in relation to public and private benefits. Humiston and Moore have done this type of benefits analysis for other projects. They would obtain the ownership and property value data for each beachfront property, look at computing the storm impact from storms, look at benefits from having better storm protection, and also look at the recreation and public benefits analysis. 6 June 13, 2002 Mr. Galleberg asked if the $55,000 was an added expense, and Mr. Hovell said yes. Mr. Pires asked if there were other consultants who do this type of assessment. Mr. Hovell stated that they have 3 coastal engineers under contract; he spoke with two of them and they both recommended Dr. Strong at Florida Atlantic University. Mr. Hovell said there were other options to be considered other than doing a benefits analysis. The state's approach is to calculate the public accessibility of a beach segment and will consider this percentage to be eligible for cost sharing. Another approach would be that since the state will only pay 50% of what is eligible, the TDC should only pay the other 50% of what is eligible, leaving the remainder up to the private interests. Mr. Stakich felt that recommendation and action should be deferred for another meeting, especially in regards to Marco. Mr. Roellig stated his concerns about the need to have firm criteria for all Collier County beaches, and felt it was only fair to use the same type of analysis for all beaches. Mr. Hovell clarified that today they were only specifically asking to approve a grant application to fund this analysis, but they will work for developing a policy to do this analysis on all beaches, not just Hideaway. Mr. Pires felt there should be a presentation by the consultant so the committee can decide whether the methodology of this analysis could be used across the county. He felt it was worthwhile to look at this option and have the flexibility at another time. Mr. Strapponi asked if the $55,000 was specifically for the analysis of Hideaway Beach, and Mr. Hovell answered yes. Mr. Pennington felt they should decide on the philosophical issue of project cost sharing before they discuss any specific projects. Mr. Roellig stated that this type of analysis was something that has been done all over the country and they were not plowing any new ground in this discussion. Mr. Stakich noted that they had a tourist development tax which provided sufficient funds for their current projects, and he felt it was a waste of time to discuss this issue. He also objected to starting this analysis on Marco Island. Ms. Lupo was concerned that they haven't discussed this issue in depth and there wasn't a policy yet, but they were asking the committee to authorize $55,000 for a specific area. She questioned if where they were headed was for the condo and hotel owners to pay to pay for portions of the renourishment. Mr. Hovell said in essence, yes, unless it was publicly owned land. He added that the state views both publicly owned land and hotels publicly accessible. Bruce Anderson - Attorney representing Hideaway Beach Association Mr. Anderson stated that Hideaway Beach did not want to be a guinea pig for this analysis, and he felt that the money could be better spent to improve the access between Tigertail and Hideaway, which the BCC has twice approved. He noted the selling point of the tourist tax was that most of the money would 7 June 13,2002 be used to maintain the beaches. He asked for the committee to pass on this grant and direct it to enhance the access between Tigertail and Hideaway. Mr. Roellig was concerned with mixing shore protection to the property behind it with recreational uses of the beach. Mr. Galleberg clarified how the tourist tax is allocated and he stated that not all the TDC needed to go to tourism, but the tourist tax money could pay for beach renourishment. David Somers - General Manager at Hideaway Beach Mr. Somers urged the committee to not go with the economic study and to go forward with the two projects that were already approved by the BCC. Bill Moss - Representing the City of Marco Island Mr. Moss stated that if they want to develop a countywide policy on funding the beaches, they should focus on this issue rather than on one project. He noted that they seemed to revisit the issues of public policy many times. The city of Marco Island city council, Hideaway beach, the county attorney, and the Board of County Commissioners have all determined it to be a public beach, yet they keep asking whether it is really a public beach and deserving of TDC funds. He said if they wanted to do this study, it should be countywide and it should apply to future projects. Ruth McCann - Executive Director of Marco Island Civic Association Ms. McCann had similar concerns. She stated that decisions of this magnitude should not be made in a room with less than 10 people that wasn't even being televised. She added the BCC did not approve this analysis for Hideaway Beach. Mr. Hovell stated that they have initiated the engineering design because they feel it is a worthy project, whether or not who funds it. Mr. Pires felt that it might be better to talk about a policy rather than a specific project, but he felt in general they should explore this possibility of cost sharing. Mr. Pennington noted that the advertising of the tourist tax did not differentiate between public and private accesses. He stated that he was torn because he did feel there was a great need for more public accesses, but he didn't feel they should take one beach segment as a trial for this. He added that the mean high-water line is public on all beaches. Mr. Galleberg stated that cost sharing was just a discussion for today, but they needed to take action on the Hideaway Beach grant application. Mr. Stakich noted that the BCC has approved item 10511 to connect Tigertail to Hideaway Beach. Mr. Stakich moved to recommend to staff to initiate the design of the project 10511 to improve public access to Hideaway Beach using the option of the boardwalk with sand replacement for all other areas. Mr. Galleberg noted that this was not on the agenda and the item before them was item 4a. There was no second to the motion. June 13,2002 Mr. Pires motioned for the committee to make a negative recommendation to the TDC for the supplemental grant application of $55,000 for the cost benefit analysis for Hideaway Beach, Mr. Roellig seconded. Ms. Lupo and Mr. Snediker abstained from voting. The motion carried 5 for and 1 against with 2 abstentions. Mr. Strapponi voted against the motion. (Mr. Pires left the meeting at 3:50 P.M.) Mr. Snediker felt that they needed to move forward with the Hideaway Beach access improvements. Mr. Hovell noted that the design was budgeted for engineering services, but the engineer works sequentially. Mr. Stakich questioned how they could direct staff to go ahead with the initiation of this project. Mr. Hovell stated that he previously mentioned that they are not actively pursuing this project based on the fact that they are planning to do a projection of the sand movements in that area. Mr. Galleberg felt it was not an appropriate action for the CAC to recommend staff to proceed with the project, and since the decision was made by the BCC, he felt it was their jurisdiction. If they wanted to make a statement to the board as a committee, they should put it on the agenda at the next meeting. Mr. Roellig agreed. Mr. Pennington also agreed and stated they are an advisory committee and they have advised. Mr. Galleberg asked if item 3e on the 1 O-year plan had been addressed. Mr. Hovell stated that they touched on this, but he wanted to discuss it a little further. He stated they have begun the sand search for hydraulic fill and he recommended that all the major renourishments be done by hydraulic fill rather than by trucking. For Vanderbilt beach, there will be a truck haul for the dune restoration, but the main beach renourishment will be done by hydraulic fill in 2 or 3 years, as well as for Park Shore. Mr. Roellig asked if there were TDC funds coming in and they have a certain amount allocated for beach renourishment, if they don't spend that money this year, could the county spend it on other things. He recommended that the county attorney take a look at it. Mr. Snediker mentioned the BCC recommended they split up the money into allocated and unallocated, and he questioned if they were going to do this for the 1 O-year plan. Mr. Hovell stated that they had discussed taking the reserves and calling it unallocated reserves and catastrophe reserves. He said they would continue to look at this. (Mr. Stakich left the meeting at 4:10 P.M.) AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There was no audience participation at this time. a. Committee Comments 9 June 13, 2002 VI. VII. Mr. Snediker questioned whether they considered using leftover concrete for the T-groins underneath the water and then using attractive rocks for the above sea-level portion. He felt this could drastically reduce the costs. Roy Anderson - Engineering Director Mr. Anderson said they could take a look at this and report back the feasibility. Mr. Snediker questioned the difference between fine sand and coarse sand, and asked if they could use coarser sand so they would have more leftover after a year, compared with the fine sand. Mr. Hovell noted that they were using the coarsest sand at this time. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING There was some discussion as to when to hold the next meeting and what topics the committee needed to still cover. It was decided that they would schedule the meeting for September 12, 2002 at 1:30 P.M. in the boardroom. Mr. Galleberg urged that in future meetings, the committee needed to stay on point with the agenda of the day. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 P.M. COASTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., BY AMBER M. FREDERIKSEN, RPR. 10