EAC Minutes 07/03/2002 RJuly 3, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County Commission Boardroom
Building "F", 3rd Floor
3301 Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34104
9:00 AM
MINUTES
JULY 3, 2002
Chairman Tom Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
ATTENDANCE:
Members: William Hill, Ed Carlson, Thomas Sansbury, Alexandra Santoro, Alfred Gal,
and Ken Humiston.
Collier County: Stephen Lenberger, Kim Hadley, Ray Bellows, Stan Chrzanowski, July
Minor, Marjorie Student, Patrick White, and Maura Krauss.
-Michael Coe, Erica Lynne, and Sorrel had excused absences.
II
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Ed Carlson moved to approve the agenda, it was then
seconded by Alexandra Santoro; it passed unanimously.
III
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Carlson moved to approve the minutes of the June 5,
2002 meeting of the EAC, it was then seconded by Alexandra Santoro; it passed
unanimously.
IV Land Use Petitions
A)
Special Treatment Permit No. ST-2194
"Center Point"
Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East
-Patrick White swore in all those who were testifying.
Speakers:
1)
Ray Bellows, planning services, presented the planning overview for this petition.
-Mr. Bellows stated the site was located on the NE section of Collier Blvd and US 41
-The site was zoned C3 and has an STE overlay
-The petitioner is requesting to construct an 11,200-sq. ft. drugstore and a 260-seat
restaurant.
-Since this is not a PUD, the ST issues cannot be addressed through the normal PUD
requirements, this petition is to remove the ST permitting process of the zoning map.
-The site is located in the urban residential district (this was a correction of the staff
report)
-The site is located in Activity Center #18, this allows for commercial uses
2)
Stephen Lenberger, planning services,
-Site is 4.02 acres in Size (Visual used to show site), Collier Blvd (County Rd. 951) is on
the West side of the property, US 41 is on the Southern side of the property
Page 1
July 3, 2002
-Currently there is a fruit stand on the corner of the property, the Western -2/3 of the site
is cleared, the eastern portion is a forested Wetland (contains: Cypress, Oak, & Red
Maple)
-The site is an ST permit, if this petition is approved it will allo~v development in it,
rather than removing the ST overlay (Mr. Lenberger made a correction to the statements
of Mr. Bellows)
-Jurisdictional wetlands total -1.3 acres of the site and located in the Eastern portion of
the property
-Mr. Lenberger stated that the petitioner wishes to impact most of this and has paid off-
site mitigation to Panther Island Mitigation Bank for 1.86 credits
-The petitioner is required to retain 10% of native vegetation ( 0.18 acres); the native
vegetation is the forested Wetland on the Eastern portion and -1/2 acre of Pine Oak &
Cabbage Palm on the Northern portion
-Retention area will be left at existing grade (-0.23 acres or 13%) of the native vegetation
-No listed species were observed
-Mr. Lenberger reviewed the regulations and intent of the ST overlay; "directed towards
the conservation, protection, and preservation of the ecological and recreational
values .... These areas include but are not necessarily limited to mangrove and fresh water
swamps, barrier islands, hardwood hammocks...and lands and structures of historical
significance. The purpose of this overlay designation is to assure the preservation and the
maintenance of these environmental and cultural resources and to encourage their
preservation and at the same time to permit those types of development..." He also read
a paragraph pertaining to the ST establishment section: "the overlay district classification
is used for those lands of environmental sensitivity and historical and archeological
significance when the essential ecological and cultural value of the land is not adequately
protected under the basic zoning regulations established by code or ordinance."
-Mr. Lenberger stated that they do not feel that an 82% impact to the wetlands on site is
in accordance with the code, they also feel it may be inconsistent with policy 6.2 & 6.47
of the Growth Management Plan
-Mr. Carlson questioned if these were recent and hard-fast jurisdictional lines
-Mr. Lenberger replied that the Water Management District has already permitted the
project and that they are hard-fast jurisdictional lines.
-Mr. Sansbury questioned if there were Malucca on the grounds
-Mr. Lenberger replied that there were some in the interior and some Brazilian Pepper on
the fringe of the grounds
-Mr. Hill questioned the staff report statement that the site was already impacted due to
the construction of the Falling Waters project neighboring this site
-Mr. Lenberger replied yes, but he would not label this as permanent impact
-Mr. Hill and Mr. Lenberger clarified that the impact on this site (which was being
spoken of) are secondary impacts from the Falling Waters Project, and that there would
be a minor impact on the Northern portion due to this site plan.
3) Tony Pierce, with the law firm of Woodward, Pierce, and Lombardo, here on behalf
of the petitioner.
-Mr. Pierce requested that Re-Anne Boylan be declared an expert in the area of
environmental science, environmental engineering, wetlands, estuary, and ecology,
vegetation and habitat mapping, environmental impact assessment, environmental
Page 2
July 3, 2002
restoration and mitigation, hydrology, and land use planning. Mr. Pierce places her
resume into the record. (A copy of Re-Anne Boylan's resume was not given to the court
reporter)
-Coastal Management element 6.2 states that "there should be no unacceptable net loss of
"viable" naturally functioning marine and fresh water wetland."
-Policy 6.2.10 states "any development activity within a viable naturally functioning
wetland, not part of a continuous flow-way, shall be mitigated in accordance with South
Florida Water Management District rules"
-Mr. Pierce stated that there is secondary impact from the Falling Waters project and that
the current project therefore is unable to be a "Viable" wetland. Also, he stated that it is
not part of a continuous flow-way due to the previously mentioned activity. This has
been mitigated in accordance with South Florida Water Management District Rules.
-Mr. Pierce makes the Water Management Permit part of the record. He also submitted a
letter (dated June 5, 2002) that was submitted to the staff and had the data of permits and
mitigation listed. (A copy of the letter and a copy of the permit were not given to the
court reporter)
-Information in the letter included: advisement's of biologists and environmental
consultants that the drainage used has been severed by past developments in the projects
vicinity, that Falling Water's secondary impacts to the site required that the site follow
mitigation rules, it also included the fact that South Florida Water Management District
determined that this site is no longer a viable wetland functioning system due to
secondary impacts.
-All being considered, Mr. Pierce requested approval of this ST Petition.
-Mr. Pierce made the site photograph part of the record. (A copy of the photo was not
given to the court reporter)
4) Re-Anne Boylan, president of Boylan Environmental Consultants, gave a little
background on her experience. She has a degree in biology from Stetson University
1979, Masters of Environmental Engineering Sciences from the University of Florida in
1982, worked for the Department of Environmental Protection, also worked for the South
Florida Water Management District, in 1989 she established her company, and she stated
that she has been doing this work in South Florida for over 20 years and that she has been
qualified as an expert in numerous administrative and court proceedings.
-Mr. Hill moves that Re-Anne Boylan be accepted as an environmental expert, Carlson
seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously.
-Re-Anne Boylan reviewed the site map and the adjacent properties, she then places a
copy of South Florida Water Management staff report of December 21, 1999 into the
record (A copy of this report was not given to the court reporter). She stated that Falling
Waters had wetlands in proximity of their wetlands, these were determined as candidates
for impact and off site mitigation was appropriate.
-During the Permitting process of Falling Waters, the secondary impacts on the wetlands
of the Center Point site had to be mitigated for. On page 7 of the staff report it estimated,
that a functional assessment of this five-acre wetland will lose 20% of its value or the
equivalent of 1 acre of impact.
-Re-Anne Boylan stated that this shows the site is getting no water from the north at this
point in time. She stated that there is no in-flow from the West, and that the wetlands
does extend into the East (off-site) but there still is no water from the Falling Waters
Project that flows into these wetlands.
Page 3
July 3, 2002
-She stated that somewhere in the staff report, it is indicated that the Henderson weir
canal controls the US 41 canal at five (dry season) and 3 and 1/2 (wet season), which is
not conducive to wetland preservation.
-The elevation in the wetland is 3 and 72 and then goes up at higher elevations in the fill
areas.
-She feels that the hydrology of the system was compromised by the Falling Waters
project and is out of the control of the applicant, and that it cannot be maintained at this
point.
-She maintains that the applicant cannot be responsible for this wetland preservation
because due to outside activities this site no longer contains a viable wetland system. She
refers to an excerpt from the South Florida Water Management District staff report for
Center Point, the permit was issued October 11, 2001, On Page 5 of staff report that the
district indicated that on site preservation was not feasible in the long term.
-Mr. Carlson asked what future water depths were in the proposed reserve area. Re-Anne
deferred to the engineer as to depths in the actual wetland itself and that they had
provided mitigation for all of the wetlands on the site.
-Mr. Carlson stated that there was a dual purpose, the retention area was also the preserve
area. He also stated he believed that there would be substantial surface water because of
elevation and controlled structure on Henderson Creek. He believes that there could be a
viable wetland. He wanted the Hydrologist to elaborate on the future water levels in the
preserve area. He doesn't see that if the district claimed this as jurisdiction wetlands,
how it is possible that they don't avoid these wetlands saying that they cannot avoid them
and must go to mitigation. He also has an issue that mitigation banks were not
established to buy your way out of avoidance.
-Re-Anne Boylan stated that the district felt that this was not a practical case for
preservation and mitigation is due to long-term preservation is outside of the control of
the permitee.
-Mr. Sansbury clarified for the record that Panther Island Mitigation Bank was mentioned
and that the principles of the firm in which he is employed are also the principles of the
firm which is a parmer to Panther Island Mitigation Bank, yet in no way is he involved or
profit from Panther Island Mitigation Bank and does not feel there is any conflict with his
involvement in this discussion or voting on this item.
-Re-Anne Boylan enters the district staff report for Center Point into the record (A copy
of this report was not given to the court reporter).
5) Mike Landy, of Landy Engineering represented the petitioner.
-Stated the project was required to water management under a 25yr/3day-storm plan
-Existing grades of the wetlands are in the 5.2 range and he expects them to go up 3.5 feet
and then bleed down a couple days after (This would be a major storm event)
-They established a controlled elevation at 5.0, the controlled elevation at Falling Waters
is 3.5
-He would not expect standing water in the dry retention area, but after rains similar to
the recent ones he would expect it to be a little muddy, he feels that this project would
isolate the hydrology and help the system they are preserving
Page 4
July 3, 2002
-Mr. Sansbury questioned if there was anyway to complete this project without placing a
burm near property lines, and on the next neighboring project do the same, so that a
viable area could be preserved. Mr. Landy stated he did not know the answer to this.
-Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Lenberger if he had been on the site, Mr. Lenberger stated he has.
Mr. Carlson then asked, based on the natural indicators what is the wet season water
level, pre-construction. Mr. Lenberger replied, "I can't tell you, I know the answer to
that question, I did ask the applicant to provide that" what they came back with was the
information with the control elevations, because they did not shoot elevations for the wet
season water table. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Lenberger agree that this is important
information and that it should be seen.
-Alfred Gal asked if the project was still viable if forty parking spaces were not created. It
was determined that the project was not viable less forty parking spaces.
-It was re-stated that along with Re-Anne Boylan's opinion, it is not believed that the
petition was inconsistent with 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.4, 6.4.7 and that they are comply with
requirements of the land development code.
-Re-Ann Boylan then stated that they are not inconsistent with 6.2, 6.2.10, 6.4, and 6.4.7.
She stated that she does not agree with staff that they are inconsistent with 6.4.7 because
they are looking at the project in the long term.
-There was no public comment.
-Mr. Hill stated that it is unclear to him if the opinion stated by Mr. White in a
memorandum to Miss Murray is the same at this time. Mr. White stated that his opinion
stands and that is the reason for this hearing that rather it would have been an
administrative review only.
-Alexandra Santoro asked Stephen Lenberger to clarify his position. He stated that they
believe it is a viable wetland, that there is hydrology there, and that this will be viable.
-Mr. Hill's concern is that they are chopping away at a wetland piece by piece and that he
saw no secondary impact from Falling Waters, and if this is approved the next
neighboring site will have the same claim and they will lose the whole six acres.
-Mr. Hill made a motion for staff to be recognized as an expert in all the same respects as
Re-Anne Boylan. It was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor, it passed
unanimously.
-Mr. Carlson made a motion to support the recommendation of staff and recommend
denial of this project, it was seconded by Alexandra Santoro, all were in favor, it passed
unanimously.
-Mr. Hill stated his vote was based on the same questions Mr. Carlson had in respect to
the hydrology of the land.
At 10:15 AM a five-minute break was taken.
B) Planned Unite Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2491
Page 5
July 3, 2002
"Arrowhead PUD"
Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East
Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East
-Patrick White swore in all those who were testifying.
-Mr. Hummiston declares that he has a disclosure and in accordance has filled out the 8-B
form due to his contractual arrangement with Turrell & Associates and that he will be
participating in the discussion but will refrain from voting.
A) Ray Bellows, planning services, stated that the petition was an "Arrowhead amendment
to the PUD".
-The site is located on the South side of Trafford Road, -1 mile west of state route 29, -1
mile east of Lake Trafford
-The PUD is 307 acres, currently approved for 900 residential units, it also allows for
mobile homes, and 15 acres of commercial use that allow for -130,680 gross lease-able
floor area.
-The proposed amendment will eliminate the mobile home uses, will re-configure the
commercial tract, modify the mix between single and multi family, and increase the total
number of dwelling units.
-(Immokalee Future Land Use Map was used to show the subject sight): Two land use
classifications: 1) 259 acres located in the low residential district, eligible for a density of
4 units per acre and would allow for a maximum 1,036 units; 2) allows for a mix of
commercial and residential uses, maximum density of 12 units per acre, 33 acres of this
project located in this area which would allow for an additional 400 dwelling units
-Petitioner requests that the density is consistent with the density allowed by the
Immokalee area master plan and staff has also deemed this consistent with the Immokalee
master plan
B) Klm Hadley, planning services, stated that the majority of the project site is pasture for
grazing cows and that the remaining is upland, live oak hammock, mixed wetland
hardwoods, two cypress heads and catapalms.
-The ground cover and mid-story vegetation has been impacted by the cattle grazing.
-The site contains 48.67 acres of wetlands.
-The applicant is proposing 0.08 acres of impact to the wetlands.
-25.73 of upland buffer habitat surrounding the wetland acres will be retained, the total
exceeding the 25% preservation requirement.
-Mr. Hummiston verifies that the total acreage is 307 acres. He questions how 48.67
acres of wetland and 25.73 acres of upland make 25%.
-Kim Hadley explained that it is 25% of existing vegetation not of the entire 307 acres.
c)
Robert Dwayne, of Hole Montes & Associates, represented the petitioner.
-Stated he is not an expert in environmental planning, but has Tim Hall from Turrell &
Associates and Jeff Head from Hole Montes & Associates, both available for questions.
-Stated the project did not have a district permit, however they have filed their application
for a permit
-They have no disagreement with the stipulations recommended by staff
-Mr. Carlson questioned how the Waste/Water Management Treatment in Immokalee
going to handle a project this large.
Page 6
July 3, 2002
-Mr. Dwayne stated the sewage is going to be treated by the Immokalee Sewar and Water
District and they will be provided fees to help treat the capacity of this project, and they
are required by the DEP to fill out forms for permitting purposes
-There were no public comments
-Alexandra Santoro moved to approve with the staff's recommendations included, Mr.
Hill seconded this motion, all were in favor, it passed unanimously (Mr. Hummiston
refrained from voting on this subject due to the previously mentioned conflict)
V. Old Business - There was no old business for discussion.
VI. New Business
A) Discussion on Beach Raking
-Mr. Sansbury asked if he should fill out the appropriate form due to the fact that his employer
owns part of a beachfront property that may be affected, Mr. White advised he waited to see if
conflict arose after hearing the concerns, Mr. Sansbury agreed.
1)
2)
Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director, stated the EAC requested there be a discussion
concerning beach raking and Mr. Lorenz advised that the Coastal Advisory Committee
had also requested that county staff advise them about what was occurring with the
county's operations concerning beach raking. Presentations are being made to both
parties, today's presentation is to provide the EAC with information on beach raking and
begin a discussion, which may develop action later in this year.
Maura Kraus, principal environmental specialist for the Collier County Natural
Resources Department, gave a presentation on beach raking and its environmental
effects, she provided a pack of information as well.
-Collier County began raking the beaches in 1990 on Marco Island. They used an ATV,
a tractor with a chain link fence behind to smooth the beach.
-In 1995 they upgraded to a forked rake, this penetrated the sand 2 inches, with the chain
link fence following behind to smooth out the beach.
-In 1996 they used a beach rake to provide routine maintenance, clean up after storm
events, and restoration to beaches of Marco, Naples, Park Shore, and Vanderbilt beaches.
The DEP issued a permit to rake on an as needed basis, it was not the intent to rake for no
reason.
-Environmental effects of the large machines to the beaches and dunes are removal of
sand and shell, removal of seed sources and seedlings, reduction in the integrity of the
beach, dune and root systems.
-The EPA conducted a study in Maine, showed beaches that were raked had 25% less
root mass, rhizomes coming from the dunes. The closer to the dunes the more damage
done. It also removes nutrients from the dunes that act as natural fertilizer, it eliminates
natural re-development of the dunes.
-Mr. Carlson questioned dragging versus raking and to what extent their uses are.
-Maura Kraus stated that original the beaches were only dragged until 1996 when the
larger machine was purchased in order to remove rocks and now the machine is regularly
raking the entire beach.
Page 7
July 3, 2002
3)
-Maura Kraus explained that the reason the larger machines affect the dunes is because
the root mass extends 25-ft from the dunes and the rakes go within 10-ft.
-Mr. Hill questioned that since the county has increased the scope of its raking, is it
therefor in violation of the DEP's originally issued permit.
-Maura Kraus stated she was unsure, that when she spoke to the DEP they stated it was
not the intent to rake the entire beach on a regular basis.
-Maura Kraus stated the environmental impact to sea turtles is that it can cause
compaction over a misidentified or false crawls, removal of sand and shell can cause the
eggs to become exposed, and removing of nesting evidence if raking occurs before
monitoring.
-Mr. Sansbury questioned if any of this has definitely happened.
-Maura Kraus stated that they are not aware if this is happening in Collier County, but
she provided the packets to show testimony of other areas, which rake, and the fact that
these dangers have been noted as occurring
-Mr. Sansbury stated he would like the dunes researched to see if the dunes are being
affected by the raking.
-Mr. Hummiston stated that this theory of the dunes ability to grow without raking is a
rational theory.
-Maura Kraus stated that there is also an effect to the macro-invertebrates, Mole crabs,
coquinas, removal of ghost crabs, and damage to crabs and their burrows due to their
proximity's to the rack line and the surface of the sand, since the larger raking machines
go as far as 2 inches down.
-There is environmental affect to birds and their nesting sites. She states example in
Marco. The nests, chicks, and eggs ca n be crushed, there is also a threat to some birds
who feed off the rack line.
-The rack line also provides habitat and food source to sport fish, therefor the removal of
beach rack will affect this.
-She would like the county to educate the public on the rack lines and their place in the
eco-system, work better with the adopt a shore program, look at smoothing or different
equipment, and feels they need to better determine when the shore should be raked versus
smoothed, keep better documentation of materials, and create a clear definition of the
necessity of raking.
-The entire maintained beaches are being raked, Maura Kraus used a map to show
specific locals being maintained. She stated that the state maintains that the rakes can be
adjusted to not pick up the sand and shell, but she has observed that even though there are
adjustments there has not been a change.
Ron I-Ioveli, coastal's project manager for Collier County, gave background on himself
and the program.
-started with the county last summer
-his program is 100% supported by tourist tax funds so they consider a lot of the input
from the tourist community
-offered a brief packet to cover some of the information.
-Review of the packet:
A) currently, since 1996, the county rakes Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples, and
Marco Island (Mostly in beach re-nourishment permit and beach raking
permit areas)
Page 8
July 3, 2002
B) They are currently using the Mechanical raking equipment primarily to
remove rocks. They have 3 sets of equipment and 3 operators. He feels that
the reason this program has grown is due to tourism and not looking at the
environmental side.
C) The Pelican Bay Services Division maintains their beaches with an old
tractor and about every six weeks has the county bring in the mechanical
rakes.
D) In the past 6-9 mos. these issues have been reviewed at the Coastal Advisory
Committee, the Conservancy, The EAC, the City of Naples, and Marco
Island. Marco Island wants to continue raking every day, Naples supports
reducing mechanical raking to as needed and picking up trash by hand, this is
also the view of the conservancy.
E) They have one set of equipment in need of repair, which they are choosing to
not do so, lower their equipment # to 2. The third operator is using a "gator"
to hand pick up trash. They also are now only raking above the rack line
unless they determine with natural resources that they need to do otherwise.
The goal is to remove the amount of shell and sand being removed. \
F) The requirements of the federal, state, and county permitting issues are that
the depth of raking not go below 2 inches and that ground pressure is
supposed to be less than 10/sq. inch.
G) The conflict: Original intent is to remove rocks and you can't do this with 2
inches depth.
H) The consent order: The re-nourishment in 1996 pumped up rock onto the
beaches, the county has been under a notice of violation from both the state
and the army Corp of engineers. Last summer the state changed this to a
consent order. A rock removal plan had to be submitted, raking was built in
to this plan, therefor if changes of raking are made, they will need to go back
and make changes to the rock removal plan.
-Mr. Gal questioned if Marco Island or the City of Naples approval is needed or if the
county is just looking to them for input. Mr. Hovell stated that although they are 100%
funded by tourist tax fund, which is advised to the Board of County Commissioners by
both Tourist Development Council, (which has members in it that are from the city of
Naples and Marco Island), as well as the Coastal Advisory Committee, (which has three
members from Marco Island and three members from the City of Naples and three
members from the County), because they historically have maintained all the beaches
including beach raking with the tourist tax fund, it does become a joint decision.
-Mr. Lorenz showed a slide represented the cycle of time they would have to follow in
order to create change. He feels that there are two main components that they will need
to address in regards to beach raking. 1) establishing the county's protocol, in reference
to when and where raking should occur, identify beach grooming versus smoothing and
where these protocols can be adjusted to lower the environmental impact. 2) To what
degree do they have to make modifications to the Land Development Code. Some of the
items staff decided would need modification are: 1) marking tires on ATV's did not work
and needs eliminated, 2) need better definition of raking, grooming, smoothing; etc., 3)
need to look at beach re-nourishment and the requirements that will allow this.
-Alexandra Santoro requested the requirements for the beach re-nourishment be sent to
them prior to other discussions. -The staff is going to do so.
Page 9
July 3, 2002
-Public
4)
5)
6)
7)
comment
Jerry Therion, represented La Playa Beach Resort and the Naples Visitor Bureau. He
stated he is not an expert, but claims to be a "self-proclaimed" expert in resort tourism
due to his 35 years of experience. They are in support of the environment but that the
local residents and the tourist demand that the beaches be at least maintained. He said he
has had comments that the beaches "aren't what they used to be", the beaches "are nicer
and less expensive" elsewhere. He emphasized that the tourist level creates the tourist
tax, which pays for the beaches to be maintained. In his observation they are staying well
beyond the 10-ft dune line.
-Mr. Gal does not believe that ceasing to rake the beaches will cease tourism.
-Mr. Therion stated they are not against smoothing, that in the past dragging an old
bedspring drug behind did the trick.
-Mr. Carlson agreed and stated that smoothing is good for the turtles.
Chris Pataglia, stated that she lives in Park Shore and is on the board of Gulf Shore
Association of Condominiums. She stated that they are for all environmental concerns,
and as the speaker before mentioned they want to protect the environment but they do not
want the services to the beach to discontinue. They want the beaches to continue to be
manicured and that there are certain times for stronger maintenance, such as red -tide
events. Her organization, is for keeping the level of current services and do not want to
see a reduction.
Tom Cravens, has been coming to Vanderbilt beaches since 1979. He is now living in
Pelican Bay and walks on the beaches daily. He stated that when it is plowed it is sterile
land with "no critters" and that it is difficult to walk. He wants the beach raking to stop
and does not feel it will affect tourism.
Sharon Cromwall, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, stated that in
March she mailed a letter that stated their concerns, and again addressed the EAC in
April about their concerns. She stated she felt Maura covered the environmental aspects
thoroughly, but she wanted to add a few other things. She reported that during the fiscal
year 2001 1300 tons was taken to the landfill and so far this year 733 tons, consisting of
mostly sand and shell. She also stated she shoveled a five-gallon bucket out of the
dumpster to sample what was being raked. She stated that she is aware this was not a
very scientifically sound research, but wanted a general idea of what was leaving the
beaches. The five-gallon bucket she withdrew from the Naples dumpster weighed 44 lbs.
and contained 21 lbs. of shells, 9 lbs. of sand, 13 lbs. of rock, and a minute amount of
litter. They would like to see beach raking limited and see clarification of when it is a
necessity to rake.
-Mr. Carlson questioned if they were offering Sarasota County beach raking plan as a
model (listed in the letter). She stated it was an example of what other counties do to
regulate, and that they did not necessarily want those regulations, just specific policies
implemented.
-Mr. Gal would like to see studies that not only survey damages by raking, but also
surveys to see if tourist dollars are being affected.
-Mr. Hummiston said that we bring the sand and shells in at times and it is a detriment to
take it out, but that he believes smoothing is needed and that he believes that at some
point staff will bring this back with changes and they can consider things further then.
Page 10
July 3, 2002
-Mr. Lorenz stated that it will come back at a later point and that today was to bring
information before the board so they were aware of the discussions at the time and have a
chance to state some concerns.
-Mr. Gal and Alexandra Santoro feel that Marco Island may be a good testing ground to
stop raking and see what the affects are. Mr. Gal said that due to the political nature
possibly causes this not to be attempted that he was willing to lobby on behalf of trials if
it would help in the future.
B) Amendment to the EAC Ordinance to delete the annual reporting requirement
-Bill Lorenz stated that the reporting requirement now in place, to report once every year, is
unique to the EAC, and that other advisory committees report once every four years. The
county management recommends that the EAC be on a similar reporting requirement. At this
point he just wanted the board to be aware and it will come before the board for advisement
closer to the point of passing it.
VII. Council Member Comments - there were no additional comments made.
VIII. Public Comments - there were no additional public comments made.
IX. Adjournment - the meeting adjourned at 12pm
Page 11
Jul-Ol-O2 01:29prn From-ColliIr County Attorney Office 941 7T4 0225 T-32~ P.002/003 F-840
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL_, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
~ST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME
HUMISTON , KEN
~ILING ADDRESS 5679 Strand Court
Humiston &~ Moore E.n. gineers
TY COUNTY
Naples, Florida Collier
%TE ON WHICH ~VOTE OCCURRED
_J...uly 3, 2002
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCil., COMMISSION, AUT~Omr'f'Y, OR COMMII'r'EE
Collier Co. Environmental. Advisory 'Coun(
TNE GO/J::ID, CQUNC:L, COMMIbS:ON, AUTHOEITY'. OR CO6,1MFi'rEE ON
~q"llCH I SEIRv~ IS A UNIT OF:
[] crl"Y '.i I~COUNTY [3 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
NAM E OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
COI',LT:ER COUNTY
MY PosmoN
~ ELECTIVE. ~ APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
;'his lorm is for use by any person servir~ at the county, city, or other ]oca~ level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
:ommission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a vo~ing
;onfiict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
four responsibilities under the IAw when faced with voting on a measure {n which you have a contlict of interest will vary greatly dependin9
)n whether you hold an elective or.aplao[ntive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
:ompleting the reverse side and filing the form,
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE W[TH SECTION .112,3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
person holding elective cr appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN fr~m voting cna measure which
lures tO his or her speciat private gain or loss, Each elected or appointed local officer also is pr~hlbited from knowingly voting On a. moa-
ute which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agencyl by whom he or she is retained (incfudin§ the
~rent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principeJ by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
the specie] private galn or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community' redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 16~.356 or
~3.3570 F.S., and officers of independent spec]al tax districts e!ected on a or',e-acre, cne-vo~e ~as[s are no~ prohibi,'ed from vo~ing in ',ha[
~pacity.
or purposes ,of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's fa:her, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sis:er, father-in-la,,',',
lother-in.law,,,son-in-law, ~nd daughter-in-law, A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying or3 a business
nterprise with the otfice~ as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of proper'b/, or corporate shareholder (wh~re the shares o~ the corpora(ion
re not listed 6n any national or regional stock exchange).
;LECTED OFFICERS:
addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disciose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by pub[ic[y stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN '15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by compIeting and filin9 this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
PPOINTED OFFICERS:
though you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may' psrticipate in these matters. However, you
ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the declsior~, whether orally or in writing and whether ma~de
, you or at yo,ur direction,
YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE M~ET[NG AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
kKEN:
You must complete and file this fOrm (before making any alternp: to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side}
'.' FORM 8~ · RI=V. 1/98 ~' '-,,.'7-5 1
Jul-Ol-02 Ol:30pm From-Collier County Attorney Office 941 774 0Z26 T-3Z$ P.O0~/O0~ F-840
AI~POINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO A3-1'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
' You mu~t disclose orally the nature cf your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within t 5 days after the vote occurs with the person, responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency,l and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, Ken Humiston , hereby disclose that on July 3, 2002 ._,19~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one}
inured to my special private ~aln or loss;
inured to the special gain or toss of my bus[ness associate
inured to the special gain or less of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of.
whom i am retained; or
XX inured to the special gain or loss of Turrell & Associate, s, Inc.
is the, parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has re~eined me,
Turrell & Associa%es ~s t~e Cqnsul~n% for "Arrowhead" Dro~ect and
Turreli & Assoc;ates nas n~re~ my rlrm, Humiston & Moor~, 5o be a
sub-consultant.on a project in Pelican Bay.
. which
Project
Signature
NOTICE; U~DER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §~12.3t7, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MOR~ OF THE FOLLOWING; IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTfON IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL3-Y' NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,
CE FORM 8B; REV. 1/98
PAGE
2