Loading...
EAC Minutes 07/02/2003 R ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3ra Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM July 2, 2003 July 2, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Members: Tom Sansbury Alexandra Ellis Ken Humiston William Hughes Alfred Gal Ed Carlson Erica Lynne (left at 9:55 AM) Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Stephen Lenberger, Marjorie Student Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Wednesday, July 2, 2003 AGENDA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 2, 2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor II. III. IV. V. Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of June 4, 2003 Meeting Minutes Solid Waste Program Overview Land Use Petitions Ae Bm Ce Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2944 "Royal Palm Academy" - Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 "Botanical Place" - Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158 "Coconilla" - Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Conditional Use No. CU-2002-AR-3537 "Stewart Earthmining" - Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East VIII. IX, X. Old Business: New Business: A. Consideration to schedule a separate meeting date in October to hear the Cycle 3 LDC amendments Council Member Comments Public Comments Adjournment Council M embers: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 27~ 2003 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (732-2505) 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 2, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM. A quorum was established. Members: Alexandra Santoro, Tom Sansbury, Ken Humiston, William Hughes, Alfred Gal, Ed Carlson, Erica Lynne -Michael Sorrell and Michael Coe had excused absences. -Erica Lynne noted that she would need to leave the meeting -10:00AM. Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Start Chrzanowski, Stephen Lenbergcr, Marjorie Student II. Approval of Agenda -At the request of the petitioner item 5C, "Coconilla", was rescheduled for the August meeting of the EAC. III. Approval of June 4, 2003 meeting minutes -Mr. Carlson moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2003 as written. It was seconded by Alexandra Ellis. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. IV. Solid Waste Program Overview -Denise Kirk, Waste Reduction and Recycling Manager - Waste Management Department, gave a PowerPoint presentation to the committee. (Copies of the presentation were not provided to the court reporter). The various parts of the solid waste management operations are collections, disposal & landfill operations, yard waste processing, recycling centers, outside contractors, environmental compliance, operational permitting, public education, and customer service. There are three recycling center drop offs for businesses and residences. The county has contracts with Waste Management and Immokalee disposal. The integrated solid waste management includes the disposal of solid and hazardous waste: the Naples landfill, Immokalee landfill, hazardous waste disposal and the hazardous waste infrastructure. The Naples landfill currently has available line-capacity until May 2005; 15+ years to be updated annually by air surveys. Immokalee landfill is scheduled for closure in 2004, at which point it will be converted to a waste transfer station and a recycling center. Future landfill options are existing cell Page 2 July 2, 2003 remediation or altemative waste processing methods, which are being researched. Some of the methods being researched are clean gasification, pyrloysis, and converting landfill gas into energy. The county is in the process of permitting and building artificial reefs made out of construction and demolition debris. 100% of the construction and demolition materials are diverted. Increased recycling and waste reduction efforts are diversion efforts to extend the life of the landfill. -98% of the 70,000 yard waste per year collected in Collier County is reused as slide slope erosion control or is composted by R&D Soil Builders. The Solid Waste Management Department and Waste Reduction Team provides educational presentations to the community, as well as residential composting presentations. The Waste Management process has cleaned wood-ways to create marketable, valuable mulch. In March 2002 the county began working with Immokalee disposal and Waste Management to increase the participation in Multi-family recycling; this has created the probability of the diversion of-24 tons of recyclables per week. In order to spread the word on recycling the Waste Management Department has a multi-media public education campaign. The department is in the process of creating an education center at the Naples Recycling center. This will be used by schools and other community groups. Public drop off points for cardboard recycling are very well utilized. The department has a tire grant from the state, which they usually receive yearly. This grant is used to resurface playgrounds, walkways, etc... The department also received a $50,000 grant from DEP to begin their electronics recycling program in July 2001. Since this time, they have collected 117, 418 lbs of electronics for recycling. As directed by the BCC the department is currently working with businesses in the community to encourage recycling. The non-residential recycling ordinance is currently pending. Staff has visited 150 businesses and performed follow up phone contacts to see how effective the visits are. The DEP state figures report that 60% of the municipal solid waste taken to the landfills is generated by businesses. -Alexandra Ellis asked when curbside recycling would be available for businesses. Denise Kirk informed her that residential curbside recycling is franchised through the two haulers, but businesses have an "open" business decision as to which hauler they choose. Page 3 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Hughes asked if solvents were collected at the recycling centers. Denise Kirk informed him that they are not. Mr. Hughes then asked if the collected paints were contained. Gary Morocco replied that they are contained. -Mr. Carlson asked where the waste would go once the Immokalee center is closed. Mr. Morocco stated that it would be transferred to the Naples landfill. -Mr. Carlson asked what the county would do when the Naples landfill is full. Mr. Morocco stated that they are looking into gasification and other programs. Currently they have 20 years of air space. The department is also considering diverting 120 tons per year of solid waste, which would bring them up to 25 years of air space. Another option is to raise elevation. -Mr. Sansbury asked if anyone was considering the resource recovery operations. Mr. Morocco stated that incineration is not being considered. Mr. Sansbury felt that Palm Beach County would be a good place to do a study on the benefits and disadvantages of resource recovery operations. Public Speakers A) Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County Group, stated that they have been active on the solid waste management issue for the last 15 years. He noted the possibility of a pyrloysis operation in Collier County. This operation is one form of incineration, and there are concerns about emissions. Mr. Krasowski stated that he would email the committee website links that discussed the various concerns and scientific studies on pyrloysis. He added that Collier County has increased their recycling efforts since 2000 and now has a good infrastructure of personnel and abilities. Mr. Krasowski felt that if the county maximizes potentials for recycling and diversion from the landfill, then they could avoid the need for a pyrloysis facility. Mr. Krasowski stated that they have been asking the BCC to bring in some of the experts, who spoke at the zero waste workshop, to do a comparative analysis for the county. B) Ralph Brookes asked about the use of open burn flames to burn the gas out of the landfill. He explained that there was a company willing to pay all the expenses of this process in order to convert the gas into energy. He also asked if any confirmation had Page 4 July 2, 2003 been made that ground water near the landfill had not been violated and if there was a current monitoring program to ensure this. -Mr. Morocco stated that there is a current monitoring program and that they are in compliance with all the groundwater standards. Mr. Morocco added that they have been considering the option of the recovery of the landfill gas, but nothing has been decided at this point. -Mr. Carlson asked if the discharged effluent was being tested during high periods of rainfall. Mr. Morocco stated that it was and added that the stormwater and the leech-aide are also tested. -Mr. Hughes asked how much cubic feet of gas was being released per day. Mr. Morocco stated between 1400 and 1500 cubic feet per day. C) John Mansika, Zero Waste Collier County Group, stated that they are looking at gasification and they feel that it does not work. Rather than spending the money to further consider this option or educate others on it, Mr. Mansika agreed with Mr. Krasowski that the money should go to bringing in the experts, who could do a comparative analysis. He requested that the EAC review the videotapes of the zero waste program workshop. -Erica Lynne asked if there was any movement on charging residents based on the amount of curbside garbage. Denise Kirk stated that they are investigating this. Mr. Krasowski stated that this is one of the key strategies of the zero waste program. -The EAC committee decided that they would like to review the zero waste workshop videotapes and the videotapes in use by the county. They decided to circulate them through the committee members and review the tapes individually. Mr. White stated that this was fine as long as the committee members did not discuss the tapes until an EAC meeting where this item would be placed on the agenda. Denise Kirk stated that they would gather the tapes and distribute them among the committee members. V. Land Use Petitions A) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-2944 "Royal Palm Academy" Page 5 July 2, 2003 Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East -There were no disclosures reported. -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -Wayne Arnold, Grady Minor Engineering, introduced his team for this project. The project is located west of the existing Royal Palm Academy campus. The existing academy is -10 acres. The project site is -162.7 acres and they are proposing a mixed- use project that would consist of a K-12 private academy, as well as residential components. Mr. Arnold used the masterplan to point out the residential components, access points to Livingston road, 50 acres of campus facilities, and the preserve areas. The county Transportation Department asked that the applicant make provisions for an easement that would connect to Madira's easement. Mr. Arnold pointed out the location of the easement and stated that their intent was to provide access to their residential tracts and not to impact the wetlands, until such time that the county chose to permit the public road network. There are -84 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site, most of which are infested with Brazilian Pepper and Malucca and impacted by the road extension. 40 acres of preserve are being set aside on the site, which fulfill and exceed the native vegetation/retention requirement. All mitigation for the impacts will be on-site. Mr. Arnold noted that language was placed in this document to allow the 25 feet setbacks from principal structures to be reduced to 20 feet setbacks. In these locations, they demonstrated to staff that this change will work and there will be no impacts to the vegetation. In regards to Water Management: they will create a flow-way system that is approximately 50 ft wide and they will be taking a small upland area and creating a filter marsh system. -Fred Reischl, Planning Services, stated that this project was found to be consistent with the GMP and compatible with neighboring uses. -Stan Chrzanowski stated that in Section 6.6.A, where it reads: "...of the applicable permits and plans which have been approved by Southwest Florida Water Management District will be provided..." they will now underline the new language: "...plans which have been approved by Southwest Florida Water Management District will be provided .... "There were no objections to this. Mr. White added that the text that follows in this recommendation will be inserted as the new capital letter C for 6.C. Page 6 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Hughes made a motion to approve. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. B) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 "Botanical Place" Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East -There were no disclosures reported. -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -At 10:03 AM a five minute recess was taken. -Jeff Davidson, Davidson Engineering, stated that this is an affordable housing project located on Bayshore Drive. The site is -20 acres. The water management system will be mainly in the preserve area. There is a ditch on the east side of the project which will collect the outfall from the site and then the water will flow into Henderson Creek. -Mr. Carlson asked if the preserve area was serving as a retention area for another project. Mr. Davidson stated that it was set up this way to meet the native vegetation requirement. There are also some small lakes located on the front side of the project that will be part of the water management system. Mr. Carlson stated that this was unusual and asked if it was because the project needed very little fill. Mr. Davidson stated that the owner of the property has the fill from the Botanical Gardens south of the project. -Geza Wass de Czega, Southern Biomes, stated that this is a small site completely isolated by development and canals. The site has a dense stand of heavy Malucca on the west-side, a Java Palm infested Pine Cypress area that extends through the middle of the site, and a mixture of Pine, Palmetto, & Brazilian Pepper on the sides. There is evidence that the site may have been cleared at one time; approximately 30-40 years ago. The applicant proposed the preserve area in the center of the site because it works with the plan and contains the best wetlands, which will provide potential for restoration. The dense Malucca areas will be -100% cleared and re-vegetated with native vegetation. -Ray Bellows clarified that there are 218 units proposed for this project and 64 units will be affordable housing units. -Alexandra Ellis made a motion to approve. Mr. Carlson seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Page 7 July 2, 2003 C) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2202-AR-3158 "Coconilla" Section 17, Township 48 South Range 25 East -At the request of the petitioner this item was rescheduled for the August Meeting. D) Conditional Use No. CU-2002-AR-3537 "Stewart Earthmining" Section 19, Township 46, Range 29 East -There were no disclosures reported. -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -Stan Chrzanowski, Development Review Department, located the project on a map. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the project is in a Citrus Grove area, near Blueberry fields, and farming activities. The site is away from "signs of civilization". The petitioner intends to dig a 200 acre lake on -220 acres of land. This leaves a -50ft perimeter or buffer on the outside edge. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the petitioner wants to dig to a depth of 85ft. He explained that the LDC uses the "fetch formula", which is based on the distance that wind blows across the surface of a lake, builds up a wave, and causes the lake to overturn. As you go deeper in the lake, the colder water is denser and the wind overturn cannot overcome this density. These conditions are known as chemo-klines and thermo-klines. In this type of situation the top of the lake will overturn, but not the bottom of the lake. The "fetch formula" is designed to allow the entire lake to overturn. The petitioner will be attempting to prove that this factor is not important. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the Water Management District informed him that there were lakes in Lee County that were 95-100ft deep. -Alexandra Ellis asked what an acceptable depth would be for this project if the "fetch formula" was used. Mr. Chrzanowski informed her that it would be -50ft. -Pamela Stewart, representing Stewart Mining Industries, stated that the LDC says that depths must be 20 feet, or in accordance with the fetch formula or the petitioner must do a comparative quality water study that proves the proposed depth will not have a detrimental effect on the groundwater resources in the surrounding area. Stewart Earthmining chose to prove that there would be no detrimental effects and proposed a lake depth of-85ft. Brian Bowman, associate professor of agricultural engineering at the Page 8 July 2, 2003 University of Florida, and Freddie Langford, President of Langford Aquatics were present to give presentations that showed that there would be no detrimental effects from an 85ft deep lake. -Freddie Langford used various photos and charts to demonstrate the quality of water in lakes created by the excavation of sand. (Copies of the photos and charts were not provided to the court reporter.) Mr. Langford referenced a photo of a sand lake that had been created by the excavation of sand. The lake was a 10 year old lake, the grade of sand had a quality of grade 1, the visibility was 112 inches, and there were no algae or plant life growing. He explained that the biggest influence on water quality in a lake is from the water that runs into the lake. The mn-off that will enter the proposed lake will be filtered through the sand. Mr. Langford believed that since the runoff flowed through the grade 1 sand rather than soil, the lake would have excellent water quality, just as the 10 year old sand lake. He added that there was no difference in water quality ofa 50ft or 100ft deep lake because the water quality is determined at the surface level. He stated that there will be no detrimental effects of the proposed lake to the groundwater. -Mr. Gal asked if the 4/1 slope would change if they dug an 85ft deep lake instead of a 50ft deep lake. JeffDavidson, engineer for the project, stated that typically lakes had a slope of 4/1 for 3ft and then 2/1 beyond that. He added that there is no change to the slopes based on the depth of the lake. -Mr. Carlson asked where the referenced 10 year old sand lake was located. Mr. Langford informed him that it was a lake in Polk County, but the nature of the sand is the same as the proposed lake. Mr. Carlson asked if cores of the sand had been done to determine if there was sand 85ft down. Mr. Davidson stated that the cores were done and they have the borings available to show that this is a good location for sand. He added that the sand is primarily to be supplied for beach re-nourishment along the coast. -Mr. Sansbury asked what lives in this type of lake, since there are no nutrients flowing into the lake. Mr. Langford stated that there is an amount of chlorophyll and therefore an amount ofphytoplankton and zooplankton. He added that there are small fish in some of the sand lakes, but not fish to the extent that there would be in a more fertile body of water. Page 9 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Carlson stated that the land proposed for the sand excavation has been Orange groves since the 70's. This led Mr. Carlson to believe that there may be different conditions than in the lakes it was being compared to. He was also concerned about ignoring the fetch plan. If the fetch plan needed to be removed from the code or if it needed to be rewritten, then he believed that this was not the committee's decision to make. Based on what he had seen in the presentation, he did not see anything that compelled him to approve the plan under the third option. -Nick Stewart, Stewart Earthmining, stated that there is a central Florida Ridge of high quality sand that runs through Florida. The tail of the ridge is located at the proposed site. He explained that this is very coarse, high grade silica sand that is used in the manufacturing of concrete, mason sands, and beach erosions. The top 15 ft is fine sand that does contain some clay material. Any nutrients that would be in this area would be in the top 15ft and therefore removed as a fill source. This is a dredging operation; it does not require any de-watering. The material would be pumped through a processing plant. -Mr. Carlson was concerned that there may be clay-lense or aquacludes that could affect the recharge. He noted that the nutrients from surrounding groves would also affect the quality of the lake and its recharge. Mr. Carlson was uncomfortable making a decision on this, since they did not have enough information on the topic and they were not experts in this area. Mr. Humiston noted that he was also concerned about the nutrient recharge, because with no wind blowing across the top layer there will be a gradual gradient where the temperature drops the further down one goes. The cold, dense layer can cause low dissolved oxygen levels on the bottom of the lake. He believed that this was a good basis for the reasoning behind the fetch formula and noted that he would be uncomfortable voting in favor of something that went against it. -Mr. Langford referenced Dr. Reed's book: "Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries", which explains that the density gradient is a self perpetuating barrier to the mixing of water. He felt that the information provided, demonstrated that the fetch formula was incorrect. -Mr. Sansbury stated that he was concerned that if they dug that deep, they may "punch" through something that would have a cause and effect someplace else. He then asked if Page 10 July 2, 2003 this was within the Eastern Lands and if it was an SRA. Fred Reischl stated that it was within the Eastern Lands, but it has not been designated yet. Mr. Sansbury felt that if they built a larger littoral shelf, they may create a "win/win" situation, where the lake could be dug to 85ft and the land will retain developable value in the future. -Mr. Stewart stated that they permit the entire track as-seen, but ultimately this is probably not the way the lake will end up. He explained that they are property owners to the lake and they recognize the back-side value of properties, but they do not want to create the appearance that they are a developer instead of an earth mining business. -Mr. Hughes agreed that test cores needed to be done in the area to check for aquifers and sink-holes. Mr. Hughes then asked the petitioner if he would be willing to donate the property to the county after their primary uses had been completed. Mr. Stewart stated that it may be possible, but he could not say for sure because of what they may add to the tract in the future. Mr. Hughes stated he was alluding to the 20 year plan for fresh water supply for Collier County and the potential for this site to be a reserve emergency water supply. Mr. Carlson noted that if it became a surface water reservoir, it could be dangerous by affecting the water levels of Lake Trafford. He reiterated that this is an example of why they should not be making a decision on this matter without professional studies to follow. -Mr. Carlson asked why staff recommended approval if the fetch formula was "law". Mr. Chrzanowski informed him that there is a third option, which says that if the petitioner can prove that the proposed lake will not degrade the water quality, then it will be allowed. Mr. Chrzanowski added that he spoke with Terry Bengtsson at the Water Management District, who was not concerned about the depth. -Mr. Gal stated that there is no basis to deny the petition because the petitioner presented their side of the story and there was no one saying otherwise. -Mr. Chrzanowski stated that there used to be a Dr. Daniel Jackson on this board and the Dr. Reed, referenced earlier, used some of Dr. Jackson's work in his book. Mr. Chrzanowski asked Dr. Jackson if he had a problem with this and Dr. Jackson would not say that it was a bad thing. Mr. Chrzanowski added that he couldn't find anyone to tell him that it was a bad idea. Page 11 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Carlson and Mr. Humiston felt that the petitioner had not presented a thorough comparative water quality study. Mr. Stewart stated that the closest similar lakes, that were not lakes owned by their competitors, were in Polk County. The 10 year sand lake that they used in their presentation is in Polk County, but it is the closest lake of a comparative nature. -Mr. Sansbury asked about the permitting requirements of the district. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he did not believe they had a depth requirement, but he noted that this project will have to go through the district for their review. Mr. Stewart added that they also have to receive an environmental resource permit from the state of Florida and they have to get industrial waste permits. -The committee asked Mr. Chrzanowski if they could ask the district to come to the next meeting and discuss this item. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he could ask them. -Mr. White stated that staff recommendation 7-2, proposes that they waive the excavation permit public hearing. He did not feel that this would be possible, and if they approved this conditional use, they would have to remove this item. Mr. White noted that this change would mean that the excavation permit would come before the committee for further consideration at a public hearing. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that there is no difference between the conditional use and the excavation use, except that the excavation has to notify all the neighboring property owners. The neighbors have had a property owner's meeting. Mr. Chrzanowski asked if the committee wanted him to repeat the notification procedure. Mr. Sansbury felt that the first notification was sufficient. -Mr. Gal made a motion to approve the petition. Public Speakers Ralph Brookes stated that although he is not against this mine in particular, they are fighting the deep mines in Lee County. They are fighting the 85-90ft mines on the grounds that they are mining out potential recharge sites for the county aquifers, digging to 100 ft connects the water tables for the superficial water aquifer with the sandstone aquifer, and the blasting done to get to this depth is disturbing the neighbors and their properties. Page 12 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Gal stated that his motion stands, because adjoining landowners were notified, but did not appear and staff cannot find anyone to oppose this project. Mr. White stated that in section 3.5.22 of the LDC, it says that in order to issue a commercial excavation permit, the division administrator and the EAC must consider and approve it. Mr. White noted that the EAC does not have an excavation permit before them, and this could not be legally sound because it waived the requirements of the LDC. Mr. White believed that in order to approve the permit, they needed to have a subsequent noticed hearing, consider the permit, and then approve or deny it. He noted that they could not waive this requirement, 7-2, so this staff recommendation should not be included in the motion. -Mr. Gal amended his motion to approve the petition with the removal of the stipulation in paragraph 7-2. -Mr. Carlson stated that he did not support the motion because the burden of proof was on the applicant and he did not feel that the applicant provided enough proof for the committee to be comfortable with an approval. -Fred Reischl noted that 5 votes were required to forward the item with a recommendation to the board. If the item does not get five votes, then it is forwarded with no recommendation. Although it is not an official recommendation, staff will inform the BCC of the vote. -Mr. Gal's motion was recalled. There was no second to the motion; the motion failed. -Mr. Carlson made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting, invite representatives of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, and any other agencies involved in the permitting of this project to speak on the matter, and request that staff provide more information and proof that this is as "benign" as the applicant proposes. Mr. Sansbury added that this motion would be with the understanding that there would be two things occurring at the meeting, approval of the petition and the review and approval of the excavation permit. Mr. Humiston seconded the motion. -Mr. White stated that the EAC's meeting must be noticed to the neighbors. He did not feel that the original notice was sufficient. Mr. Carlson amended his motion to include the request that the neighbors be re-notified. Page 13 July 2, 2003 -Mr. Sansbury stated that his employer may own property next to this land and he was not sure whether there was an effect on his employer's property or not. On "the appearance of a conflict", he abstained from the vote. Mr. White provided Mr. Sansbury with the appropriate forms to fill out. -The motion was recalled. The motion passed, 4-1 (Mr. Gal was against the motion and Mr. Sansbury abstained from voting). Mr. White noted that since there were not 5 members in favor of the motion, it would not be forwarded to the BCC as an "official" recommendation. VI. Old Business -There was no old business to discuss. VII. New Business A) Consideration to schedule a separate meeting date in October to hear the Cycle 3 LDC amendments -A separate meeting was set for the third amendment cycle of the LDC on October 6, 2003 in the BCC chambers. VIII. Council Member Comments -There were no council member comments. IX. Public Comments -There were no public comments. X. Adjournment Page 14 July 2, 2003 -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was. adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:33AM. Collier County Environmemal Advisory Committee Chairman Tom Sansbury Page 15