Loading...
EAC Minutes 08/06/2003 R August 6, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 9:00 AM August 6, 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 Michael V. Sorrell Alexandra Ellis Ken Humiston William Hughes Alfred Gal Ed Carlson (left at 3:50 PM) Erica Lynne (left at 1:00 PM) Collier County Staff: Patrick White, Bill Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Stephen Lenberger, Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - Ellen Chadwell filled in for Marjorie Student from 12:45pm-1:20pm, Klm Hadley, Russell Webb, Fred Reischl Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Page 1 of 1 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2003 I. Roll Call II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of July 2, 2003 Meeting Minutes IV. New Business: A. Land Development Code Amendments (Clam Nursery Amendment) VI. VIII. IX. X. Land Use Petitions Ae Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158 "Coconilla" - View Staff Report Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Conditional Use No. CU-2002-AR-3537 "Stewart Earthmining" - View Staff Report Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Commercial Excavation No. EX-2002-AR- 4378 "Stewart Earthmining" - View Staff Report Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3860 "Artesa Pointe" - View Staff Report Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3495 "Wentworth Estates PUD" - View Staff Report Sections 29, 30, 31 & 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Excavation Permit No. EX-2002-AR-3112 "Golden Gate Quarry" - View Staff Report Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 27 East Old Business: Council Member Comments Public Comments Adjournment http://www.colliergov.net/natresources/Environmental/agendas/08_06_03.htm 8/5/2003 August 6, 2003 I. Roll Call -The meeting was called to order at 9:06 AM. A quorum was established. Members: Alexandra Ellis, Tom Sansbury, Ken Humiston, William Hughes, Alfred Gal, Ed Carlson, Erica Lynne, Michael Sorrell -Michael Coe had an excused absence. Collier County Staff: Bill Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Stephen Lenberger, Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney, Fred Reischl, Kim Hadley, Russell Webb II. Approval of Agenda -Due to the fact that Stewart Earthmining was originally listed first on the agenda and they were continued from the last meeting, the committee members decided to hear the two Stewart Earthmining petition's first. -All committee members agreed to the revised agenda. III. Approval of June 4, 2003 meeting minutes -Mr. Hughes stated that at the last meeting he asked to have an update on the county leech-aide processing facilities at the waste facility. This request was not in the minutes and he had not yet been contacted to set up an appointment to see the facility. -Mr. Lenberger stated that he would follow up with Mr. Hughes question and he would also hand out a tape, in regards to the waste management issue, to the committee members after the break. (A copy of this tape was not provided to the court reporter.) -Mr. Carlson moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2003 as corrected. It was seconded by Alexandra Ellis. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. IV. New Business A) Land Development Code Amendments (Clam Nursery Amendment) -Russell Webb, Collier County Planning Services, asked if there were any questions regarding the proposed LDC amendment. The committee members did not have any questions regarding the amendment. Page 2 August 6, 2003 -Alexandra Ellis made a motion to recommend approval to the BCC of the proposed LDC amendment. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. V. Land Use Petitions A) Conditional Use No. CU-2002-AT-3537 "Stewart Earthmining" Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East & B) Conditional Use No. EX-2002-AT-4278 "Stewart Earthmining" Section 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East -Items V-A & V-B were heard together. -The court reporter swore in all those who would be testifying. -There were no disclosures reported. -Stan Chrzanowski, Development Review Engineering Staff, explained that the petition is now being heard as a conditional use petition with the accompanying excavation permit application. Mr. Chrzanowski pointed the area out on the map and reminded the committee that previous concerns about this petition were in regards to the fact that the depth of the excavation did not follow the fetch- formula. -Mr. Hughes asked if the fetch formula could be changed in the code. Mr. Chrzanowski explained that this approval would only be for this petition and he saw no reason to change the formula in the code. Mr. Humiston believed that the fetch formula should be removed from the code since the water stratification did not have an affect on the water quality. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he could schedule a workshop for the EAC to discuss the fetch formula. -Mr. Carlson felt the issue was that the deep lake was a direct conduit into the surficial aquifer. He noted that he did not have a problem with the petition, but asked if anyone would be reviewing adjacent land uses to verify if a protection Page 3 August 6, 2003 zone was needed. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he did not know if there would be anyone to review this, but he will look into the matter. -Erica Lynne agreed with Mr. Carlson's concem and asked if they were sure that the depth of the lake would not punch through to the deep aquifers. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that this would not happen. -Mr. Hughes made a motion to approve the two petitions with the addition of a berm, (with a membrane), and the recommendation that the county closely monitors surrounding land uses to ensure that no potential pollutants are not in the areas. -Pamela Stewart, Attorney for Stewart Earthmining, was against having a "requirement" for a berm, unless it can be shown through a study of the surrounding lands that there is a problem with seepage. -Jeff Davidson, Civil Engineer, stated that typically the lake excavations that they do in Collier County are berm-ed or the stage in the lake is less than 100yr flood elevations. He did not believe this requirement would be a problem. He did not believe that placing a membrane in the berm would help the flow of ground water. -Nick Stewart, President of Stewart Mining, had no objections to Mr. Carlson's recommendation to have the county review adjacent land uses. Mr. Stewart also had no obi ections with the berm. Public Speakers 1) Howard Hayes, DEP - Bureau of Mine Reclamation, asked if the board had any questions on the state regulations on mining. -Mr. Carlson asked if they looked for significant point sources of pollution in the region around sand-pits similar to this one. Mr. Hayes stated that they do when the application comes in, but they have no authority to regulate land uses. He added that. future changes in land use, would be a county issue. -Mr. Humiston asked if Mr. Hayes knew about the "cattle dunk baths" and if there were any in this area. Mr. Hayes stated that the district office would inform them of this type of situation when the application was received and his department walks the sites. If anything like this were Page 4 August6,2003 found during the walk, then it would be a concern. Mr. Stewart added that it would have shown up after the state had located all of the "dip-bath areas" and there was nothing listed on his title policy. 2) Mark Hurst, Mining Consultant, informed the committee that he was currently employed by Stewart Mining. Mr. Hurst noted that this mine will be required to have an industrial waste water permit. The permitting review is intended to prevent the mining companies from polluting the ground. He thought that it was a good idea to review adjacent land uses to ensure that nothing was seeping into the pit and potentially the ground water as well. Mr. Hurst explained that the "potentially polluting facilities" would also be required to obtain similar permits and prove that they will not be polluting the ground water. Mr. Hurst stated that this site is located near citrus grove and he has never experienced problems in the past with grove chemicals entering the pits. -Mr. Stewart stated that they would not mind taking water samples and submitting the results to the county on a quarterly or biannual basis in order to ensure water quality. Mr. Carlson stated that he is not looking for something like this; he is looking for something like a "well field protection effort". -When the motion was recalled, Marjorie Student informed the committee that they needed to make to separate motions; one for the conditional use and one for the excavation permit. -Mr. Hughes made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the condition that the excavation pit be berm-ed, (if there is not sufficient clay material, then some type of barrier material should be installed to prevent horizontal flow from surrounding properties), and the recommendation that the county establish a procedure that would monitor the surrounding land uses to ensure that no pollution source would be able to enter the pit. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Page 5 August 6, 2003 -Mr. Hughes made the same motion in regards to the excavation permit. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. C) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158 "Coconilla" Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East -The photos, maps, and presentational materials provided to the committee were not provided to the court reporter for this item. -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -Disclosures: -Mr. Carlson stated that he had nmnerous meetings with the petitioner and his employer is planning a benefit with the Pelican Island Yacht Club. Mr. Carlson recused himself from the vote. -Mr. Humiston stated that the applicant is his client. Mr. Humiston recused himself from the vote. -Erica Lynne stated that she received a lot of information in the mail, one telephone call, emails, and her signature is on an application to save the Seagulls. Due to an appearance of a conflict of interest, Erica Lynne recused herself from the vote. -Mr. Sorrell stated that he received pro and con information in the mail. He did not believe that this would "cloud" his judgment. -Mr. Hughes stated that he had been receiving items in the mail and he visited the site unannounced in order to review it personally. -Mr. Sansbury, Mr. Gal, and Alexandra Ellis also received materials, but not enough to present a conflict. -Rich Yovanovich, with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, represented the petitioner. The existing site is zoned C-4. It was recently an active Marina, which resulted in the environmental contamination on the property. Eco-group has a contract to purchase the property; the marina will not stay and will not be a future use on the property because it is not an economically sound Page 6 August 6, 2003 investment. The petitioner is proposing a residential condominium, which includes public services with the project. The project includes a residential tower that stair steps up from 15 stories over parking to 21 stories over parking. There will be 10 marina villas in the project and 102 units. The petitioner is proposing to provide the public with public parking, which will enable the county to build additional parking for trailer-ed boats. They will also provide for interconnectivity with the park. The fueling station proceeds will go to the county. There will also be a public ship-store. The site is -10.45 acres; -.43 is under water. The petitioner is proposing to create a marina for boat slips and a flushing area that will be replanted with mangroves. Mr. Yovanovich stated that the neighboring PUD was approved for four towers with a maximum height of 200ft over parking; therefore the transition is compatible with area uses. Mr. Yovanovich reviewed policy 5.9. The petitioner is requesting -11 units/acre after the public areas have been removed from the equation. Mr. Yovanovich stated that this is within the intent and desire of the comprehensive land use plan and therefore consistent from a future land use element standpoint. The county conservation element, water related vs. water dependent uses, was also reviewed with the committee. Mr. Yovanovich feels that they have complied with the conservation element. The petitioner has provided a manatee protection plan and a bald eagle protection plan. The applicant believes that they have fully complied with the county's comprehensive plan and they believe that the proposed uses are the best alternative from an economic and an environmental standpoint. -Chris Oslegar, Vice President of Eco-group, presented an overview of other projects that they have constructed in order to show the high quality they use and the lengths they go to in order to protect the environment. A few of the projects reviewed were Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Barefoot Beach Club, Sanibel Golf Village, and the Tides Beach Club. -Joe Tucker, Mac-tech Engineering, stated that they assisted this project in the due diligence process by identifying certain environmental conditions associated with past/present land uses. Joe Tucker explained that the marina uses on this property have the potential for pollution and stormwater run-off. A number of the Page 7 August6,2003 marina activities have led to the contamination of the property. The three categories of contamination on this site are soil contamination, ground water contamination, and sediment contamination. Eco-group proposes to remediate the contamination at the site. Joe Tucker explained how the amount ofremediation required will be more significant on a residential site than it would on a commercial site on this property. In summary, she believed that the proposed residential land use had environmental advantages by removing sources of concern, the remediation of contaminants, and the fact that the remediation will be to the most stringent standards. -Mr. Hughes asked about the federal standards for remediation. Joe Tucker informed him that the state standards are more stringent than the federal standards. -Joe Tucker provided the committee with two tables of sampling done at Wiggins Pass; soil/sediment analytical results summary and Ground water analytical results summary. -Andy Woodruff, Vaseril & Associates Senior Ecologist, stated that they were an environmental consultant for the project site. The site has -10acres of uplands identified on the project identified as a commercial marina. There is also -4/10 acre of open water, which has been used for the launch and docking of vessels. There are no native habitat types present within the developed uplands and there are no mangrove or sea-grass habitat present within the open waters. The proposed projects impacts are: a. The redevelopment of the existing uplands. b. Dredging of-2/10 acre of open water. c. Excavate -3.65 acres of existing uplands for the creation of the new boat basin, but adjacent to this 8/10 acre of inter-tidal habitat will be created. This inter-tidal habitat will be used to improve water quality/exchange in the basin and it will be planted with mangrove vegetation, which will provide habitat for fish and wildlife. d. In regards to listed species: Page 8 August 6, 2003 -Manatees do occur in the area. The project will eliminate -450 dry storage spaces, which will significantly decrease the amount of boat traffic. The project will also eliminate ramps for trailer- vessels. There will be no increase on the number of wet slips. A Manatee Protection Plan was also created. -Bald Eagle nest CO-19 was identified on site. The project lies within and just outside of the secondary protection zone. This nest has been active all but once in the last twelve years and it has successfully fledged two young during the last two nesting seasons. The eagles have demonstrated acclamation to the Wiggins Pass Marina. The applicant is proposing construction activities within the secondary zone during the nesting season. A Bald Eagle management plan has been prepared. This plan is being reviewed by the Fish & Wildlife Service, the petitioner has been in consultation with them, and they have agreed to no construction of multi-stow buildings in the secondary zone without the authorization of the Fish & Wildlife Service. Mr. Woodruff also reviewed the additional Eagle initiatives that had been voluntarily submitted by the applicant. Some of the long-term benefits to the bald eagle from the proposed zoning change are: reduction of the vessel traffic originating from the site, reduction in chemical and noise pollution, shielding and use of low wattage lights will be used, remediation of the existing pollution, creation of inter-tidal habitat that will include mangrove plantings, native vegetation will be used in the landscaping, and the assumed activity of feeding the Eagles will be stopped with the proposed project. -Mr. Gal asked if the petitioner agreed to allow the monitor to shut down the project if there is a disturbance to the eagle's nest. Mr. Woodruff stated that they would if it became a situation where it was clearly a disturbance factor. Mr. Gal asked who made this decision. Mr. Woodruff stated that he believed Fish & Page 9 August6,2003 Wildlife would decide on the resolution after a disturbance was noticed. Mr. Gal asked who would employ the monitor. Mr. Woodruff stated that it would be the petitioner. -Duke Woodson, Environmental Attorney with the law firm of Foley & Lardner, explained the federal approval process to build within the vicinity of an eagle. The petitioner must perform a biological evaluation and then submit the evaluation, a management plan, and a monitoring plan to the Fish & Wildlife Services. Fish & Wildlife Services takes this information and reviews it, they then send a recommendation to the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers can then either accept or reject this recommendation and issue the permit with conditions. Mr. Woodson reminded the committee that all eagles are different and they must be reviewed on a case to case basis and that all of the documents referred to in the permitting process are guidelines not statutes. Mr. Woodson reviewed some of these guidelines with the committee. Mr. Woodson noted that they know from past monitoring that these two eagles are "urban eagles", accustomed to the urban disturbances and way of life. Mr. Woodson explained that the applicant employs the monitor, but the guidelines determine who the monitor may be. The guidelines also outline what variances disturbances to the eagles are, how they are noticed, and what is to be done when a disturbance occurs. The monitor is trained in these guidelines and what to notice. If the monitor notices any disturbances then he reports it to the owner of the property and to Fish & Wildlife. Mr. Woodson stated that in his experience, Fish & Wildlife is very quick to shut down a project if a disturbance occurs. The penalties for not obeying the orders of Fish & Wildlife are criminal penalties. Mr. Woodson added that the applicant will be obeying the orders ofFish & Wildlife. -Mr. Carlson asked how successful the eagle management plans have been throughout the state. Mr. Woodson stated that they have been successful; the population of eagles has increased. Mr. Woodson added that he cannot guarantee the eagles will stay, they may find a new habitat, the tree they nest in, (which is a dead tree), may blow down in a storm, etc.. Mr. Carlson asked what eagle's Page 10 August6,2003 reactions have been to tall buildings as opposed to other developments. Mr. Woodson informed him that different eagles act different ways and there are tall buildings in this neighborhood. Mr. Woodson reviewed a provision in the 1987 guidelines under recommended restrictions, which recommended the restriction of tall buildings near eagles, but used words such as "in most cases", "likely", etc.. Mr. Woodson did not believe that the construction would disrupt the eagles since they will not build between the nest and the feeding area. -Chris Osleger added that one of the benefits of this process is that they have formed relationships with the various consultants; Nancy Payton, Ed Carlson, Lynda White of Audubon, etc... These new relationships provide them someone to turn to for advice on the specific situations in regards to the eagles. Many of the recommendations from the discussions with these groups and individuals were used to come up with the proposed benefits. Mr. Osleger added that they want the eagle to stay in the nest and they will quickly respond to anything the monitor reports as a potential disturbance. At 10:45am a break was taken until 10:53am. -Kim Hadley, Environmental Services Department, read into the record an additional stipulation she added to the staff report (the committee received a copy earlier in the morning). The stipulation read: "The marina management plan shall be amended to include a sediment quality program to address the issues associated with operating a recreational marina and fuel facility. Included in this plan shall be a requirement to establish the existing conditions of the sediments with the level 2 environmental assessment as a baseline for future monitoring and compliance." She added that the additional measures the applicant stated they would take regarding the Bald Eagle should be to the management plan, (the county has a copy of this as well). The committee also received, earlier in the morning, copper readings for the Cocahatchee River Basin put together by Pollution Control. Page 11 August6,2003 -Dusty Perkins, US Fish & Wildlife, offered to answer the questions of the committee. -Mr. Gal asked how the Fish & Wildlife decided to shut down a project and whether or not the petitioner had the opportunity to dispute it. Mr. Perkins state that this opinion is usually part of a biological opinion or a habitat conservation plan. The monitor is employed by the applicant and this is the person who will look for the disturbances and then follow the orders outlined in the biological opinion. -Mr. Carlson asked about the track record for the bald eagle management plans. Mr. Perkins stated that projects consistent with the guidelines do well. -Alexandra Ellis asked if they were allowing construction during the nesting season in the secondary zone. Mr. Perkins informed her that this project would need an Army Corps of Engineer permit. Currently the Army Corps of Engineer has issued a "may affect" order and requested Fish & Wildlife to conduct consultations with the petitioner. The product of these consultations is the biological opinion. -Mr. Hughes asked if they had comments on the chemicals at this site. Mr. Perkins stated that they provided some comments, but they have not completed the review process yet, and have requested further information. -Mr. Sansbury asked the petitioner if they had any objections to Kim Hadley's, (staff's), stipulation as previously noted. The petitioner stated that they will agree to all the stipulations. Public Speakers 1) Eugene Fostor, property owner at Pelican Island Yacht Club, stated that he and his wife are in favor of the proposed condominium because: it will create less pollution, less road and boat traffic, less pollution of surrounding waters, and less noise pollution. 2) Lynda White, Coordinator of Eagle Watch, explained that CO-19 was monitored by Eagle Watch since 1997. Audubon would prefer that there Page 12 August6,2003 be no construction during the management zone of the nest during nesting season, but they realize that this is not a practical timetable for construction. Therefore, if US Fish & Wildlife Services grants permission for construction to occur, then the bald eagle management plan may be amended. Noise abatement is a priority for nesting eagles, monitoring of the birds by a reputable biological firm is necessary, and the eagle watch volunteers should augment the monitor since they have viewed this pair of eagles for the last eight years. Lynda White has volunteered to lead an education program on the nesting habits of bald eagles for the construction workers. Lynda White believes that a responsible management plan can result in successful nesting season even with ongoing construction. She believed it was unacceptable that this project does not require an incidental take permit. She urged the county to establish an eagle management plan. Lynda White added that Chris Oslegar has expressed a willingness to amend his management plan to include her suggestions, she believes that he is sincere in his desire to do what is best for the birds, and she believes that the amended management plan will minimize the current impacts to the eagles in this area. 3) Mimi Wolok represented the Estuary Conservation Association, (ECA). ECA monitors the health of Wiggins Pass. ECA supports the proposed residential development as long as the applicant complies with environmental laws and guidelines, follows the recommendations of ECA: no construction activities during the bald eagle nesting season in the primary or secondary zones, the height of the condo unit should be limited to the height of the bald eagle nest, water quality testing should be done immediately and incorporated into the community water testing program that is currently being conducted, and the testing program should carry out for the next five years. Mimi Wolok placed a letter from the President of ECA, Andy Hill, and a letter from Robert Mountain Jr. regarding evidence that bald eagles occur in the construction zone into the record. Page 13 August6,2003 4) Doug Fee, President of the North Bay Civic Association, submitted emails into the record of individuals who were in support of sending a recommendation of denial to the BCC. Mr. Fee stated two quotes for the record: -"We do not feel that there are any environmental issues". -Came from Chris Oslegar in a meeting the North Bay Civic Association attended. -"The applicant will not have to go before the EAC." ~2ame from Bob Mulhere at a public meeting. -Mr. Fee stated that he was representing hundreds of individuals who could not attend this meeting and they recommended denial of this rezone. He explained that they provided a binder to the committee that included the North Bay Civic Association's position, public comment letters, and two petitions to deny the rezone and protect the eagles. Mr. Fee explained that they feel the current marina is a benefit to the bald eagles and manatee. They are opposed to construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season. 5) Lew Schmidt, Pine Avenue Resident, stated that he was president of a marine transportation company in the port of Chicago. He suggested that the proposed marina was not given appropriate consideration. He was opposed to 50fl docks since they encouraged large boats, which were not able to go through the area without causing problems. He requested that the EAC suggest to the developer that he reconsider the marina configuration. 6) Rail Brookes, was opposed to the re-zone since it did not consider the human element; the fact that it was removing public accessibility to docking. He believed that a marina should be located at this site. Mr. Brookes was against construction during the nesting season and felt that they were experiencing an "erosion of the bald eagle protection". Mr. Brookes felt that there was no reason to change the zoning and that to do so was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, since it was not preserving water related uses. He felt the idea was to "protect the potential for this site to be used as a marina". (Handouts and Page 14 August6,2003 presentational materials used by Mr. Brookes were not provided to the court reporter.) 7) Dick Macken represented the 216 owners of The Village of Emerald Bay. The residents were opposed to the rezone for a variety of reasons. They feel that the decline in the number of bald eagles in Florida is due to the "steady encroachment of development on the birds nesting sites". The residents feel that the bald eagles are well adapted to their site, where they have "habituated" to the problems of noise and traffic coming from the marina and the road. They believe that the construction of the high-rise towers will "almost certainly" lead to the abandonment of the nest. 8) Barbara A. Bateman, resident of Naples Park, was opposed to the re- zone and believed that there was a need for a marina in the area. She believed it would be a benefit to the county if they acquired the property and maintain the marina uses. 9) Marie Sourbeer, resident of Naples Park, was opposed to the re- zoning because Collier County had a need for boating services and facilities. She noted that the lack of boating facilities leads people to store their boats in their garages, which is a code violation. She recommended that the county consider purchasing this land and maintain the marina uses. 10) John Itickey represented 356 residents of Beach Walk Resident's Association. The members are opposed to the rezone because of the negative impacts of construction on the nesting eagles, there is a need for marinas in Collier County, deeper draft dredging is a danger to manatees and mangroves, the US Army Corps of Engineer study has not been completed yet, eco-ventures does not currently own the land and will probably not purchase it if the rezone is denied, and the use of this property is more efficiently used as a marina. 11) Tom Gardella, Bonita Shores resident, stated that his family was opposed to the building of a high-rise since it also affected humans as a species. He was very concerned about the view pollution. Page 15 August6,2003 12) Susan Stiefel, Vanderbilt Beach Estates area resident, stated that she belonged to the ECA. She stated that the ECA was opposed to the re-zone if any construction occurs during the nesting season. She felt that the Army Corps of Engineers report needed to be completed in order to understand the possible impacts to the eagles. She "echoed" the opinions of those who spoke regarding the human rights in the neighborhood. 13) Bob Stone did not believe that the high rise would be more "friendly" to the eagles than the marina, since the eagles have become accustomed to this environment. He also did not believe that the applicant would stop construction if a disturbance was noticed and he felt that the development would further destroy the coastal environment. Mr. Stone was opposed to the re-zone. 14) Donna Reed Caron stated that the applicant had requested to tear down a pine tree that the eagles nested in. She explained that this is one of the reasons she did not believe the applicant was concerned with the eagles safety. She called the state DEP and spoke with Judy Wysoki and found out that the DEP does not make any distinction between residential or commercial properties in regards to clean-up and the upland dredging will stir up old sediment which could find its way into the estuary. She was opposed to the rezone. 15) B.J. Savard-Boyer, President of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, stated that they are opposed to the rezone. She noted that there might be a potential buyer, maybe even the govermnent, of the property if it remained commercial. She believed that this project is not "human being friendly". 16) Bonnie L. Karkut, the North Bay Civic Association, stated that this project will not be better for the environment as the petitioner has stated. She was concerned about the decrease in public access. She was opposed to the rezone. 17) John Bache, resident of Tiburon, was in favor of the residential rezone. He believed that a residential zoning of this property would Page 16 August6,2003 benefit the environment. He noted that condos would also increase the tax-base. He added that he was a member of ECA and he agreed that the water quality needed to be cleaned up, but this would cost a lot of money. 18) Anita K. Brown stated that she was against the rezone and the high- rise towers, since it caused view pollution. She also believed that this project would destroy the environment. She asked the committee to consider the human rights and the rights of the future children to enjoy the environment. She believed that the committee was not hearing from neutral experts and requested the EAC to urge the county to find neutral experts to evaluate these plans. She requested that the county buy this land and keep it open to the public. 19) Robert Nolan, Pelican Island Yacht Club resident, was in favor of the rezone to residential use. He noted that the issue was not about saving a marina, it was about the environment. He believed that the manatee would benefit greatly from the improvements that this project is proposing. He added that the owner had the right to sell this property to whoever he wants. 20) Tom Nelson explained that he is one of the eagle watchers, who has spent a lot of time watching this particular eagle nest. He was opposed to any construction during nesting season. He noted that the flight pattern of these eagles is that they come in from all directions. He felt that the county needed to establish an eagle management plan in the future. 21) John Findley, Certified Marina Manager and Level 4 Responder for the state of Florida, stated that a commercial marina has a higher potential for spills than a residential marina. He added that a commercial property could be built in this space and then people will still be concerned about the increased traffic, noise, etc... As for dredging, he explained that deeper waters are better for manatees. He was not for or against the proposed project, he only felt that people were not considering the possibility of other commercial uses that could be worse. Page 17 August6,2003 -Rich Yovanovich replied that most of the issues heard from the public were emotional issues with a desire to keep the property as a marina. He did not believe this was possible unless the county purchased the property. He was also concerned that the motive behind those against the rezone was not to protect the environment, but to keep the property at a lower price range so that the county has a chance to purchase the property. -Chris Oslegar added that the proposed project will have less of a detrimental effect on the water quality than the marina, eliminate a fleet of rental boats, reduce the number of boat storage on the site by 90%, and vehicle traffic will be significantly reduced by the residential zoning. He added that they agree the eagle protection is extremely important and they are confident that they can do a better job of protecting the eagles than anyone else. They have worked with professional groups to see "through the eyes of the eagles" and they have formed relationships with environmental groups to further ensure the safety of the eagles. Other benefits to consider are the planting of additional .82 acres of mangroves and the creation of a large view corridor over the estuary. -Mr. Hughes asked if the current owner, Wiggins Pass Marina, was responsible for the contamination on the site. Ed Oslegar, president of eco-group, stated that the current owner is legally responsible for the clean up of the site, but they are within acceptable commercial standards. Mr. Hughes believed that the site might not be valuable when considering the cost of clean up. Mr. Oslegar stated that they estimate the cost of clean up at -$300,000 and they estimate the value of the proposed use to be in the -20millions. Mr. Oslegar and Joe Tucker further explained the clean up process with the committee. -Mr. Sorrell asked about the roosting tree referred to by some of the public speakers. Mr. Woodson stated that there is a tree that the eagles roost in and they roost in this tree due to the fact that they are feeding at the marina. Tom Nelson, eagle watch volunteer, stated that the Norfolk Pine is used as a roosting tree and he had not observed marina people feeding the eagles. Page 18 August6,2003 -Mr. Sansbury stated that he has seen the decline in public boating services and facilities, but this is a government problem and they are not at this meeting to discuss this problem. He noted that the EAC needs to address the environmental effect of a residential zoning on this property and the only concerns he heard in this regard is about the eagle. He explained that the US Fish & Wildlife and Ms. White's organization are the ones who will make the decision on that matter. -Mr. Gal and Mr. Hughes were concerned about the height of the building and the affect that it might have on the Eagles. -Alexandra Ellis made a motion to deny because there is still a large concern about construction during nesting season and controls during non-nesting season, the plan was contrary to county requirements since it eliminated public access and dry boat storage, and there is a loss of diversity. There was no second to the motion. The motion failed. -Mr. Gal made a motion to amend stipulation 3A: to delete the second sentence in paragraph A in the staff report. -Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney, stated that staff informed her that the GMP requires that there be compliance on this issue with the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Mr. Gal asked if this meant that the county had to defer to the height established by US Fish & Wildlife Services. Ellen Chadwell replied yes. -Barbara Burgeson stated that it would be in accordance with the guidelines for the protection of the eagle's nest to restrict the height to the height of the nest, but if the second sentence of this item was stricken from the text, then it would be asking Fish & Wildlife to go further than their guidelines. Mr. Sansbury clarified that this meant they could make this recommendation in the motion, but if Fish & Wildlife approved 250 ft, then the EAC would have to accept it. Barbara Burgeson stated that this was correct. Page 19 August 6, 2003 -Mr. Gal stated that the county could decide to have a stricter height than Fish & Wildlife. Barbara Burgeson stated that in some cases they can decide to do so. -The motion was recalled. There was no second to the motion. The motion failed. -Mr. Hughes made a motion to approve with the caveat that should the US Fish & Wildlife Service change or revise the eagle management plan, then that change would come back for review by the EAC. It was seconded by Mr. Sorrell. The vote was 3 for - 2 against; thus without a 5 vote majority no official position was taken. (Mr. Gal and Alexandra Ellis were against the motion.) -At 1:20pm the committee took a break for lunch until 1:57pm. D) Planned Unit Development Amendment No. PUDZ-2003-AR-3860 "Artesa Pointe" Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -There were no disclosures to report. -Wayne Arnold, Grady Minor Engineering, represented the petitioner. This project used to be called Henderson Creek, but due to a conflict the name was changed to Artesia Pointe. The project is -82 acres and currently zoned PUD. The petitioner is requesting an amendment zoning to add a commercial component to the project, which is -325,000 sq. fi. The GMP requires that they provide a loop road, affordable housing, and that they provide their commercial development along the 951 frontage. The petitioner is partnering with an affordable housing provider that intends to build 300 units. The petitioner has also been working with the Rookery Bay Exotics preserve staff in conjunction on the environmental resource permitting. Page 20 August6,2003 -Re-Anne Boylan, Boylan Environmental Consultants for the petitioner, located the site on a map. The site is -82 acres, -33 are pine Flatwoods, and -27 are old agricultural lands. There is about 21.91 acres of wetlands; 17.57 acres are mixed pine and Cypress Cabbage Palm, while the rest are Hydra-Pine Flatwoods. This site has been severed from receiving any major historic portion of its drainage. The project will impact 16.79 acres of wetlands. They will preserve -5 acres of wetlands along with the 7.25 acres of uplands adjacent to the creek. The mitigation options have not been resolved, but they are meeting to discuss these options. A listed species survey was done; abandoned burrows were found in the farm-field area. The petitioner meets the county indigenous requirement. The wetland impacts and any mitigation will be reviewed and approved by the water management district. -Alexandra Ellis asked about the public's awareness of this amendment. Mr. Arnold stated that they met with Eagle Creek Country Club residents and the mobile home park residents - Holiday Manor. -Alexandra Ellis stated that she was concerned about the traffic issues and the future plans for this area. Mr. Arnold discussed the future changes with her; with the intersection improvements and the proposed signal, they do not have much neighborhood or county concern over the traffic issues. -Mr. Arnold stated that they agreed with and concurred with the staff conditions. -There were no public speakers. -Mr. Carlson noted that the wetland impacts were higher than he would like to see, but based on the location and a lack of the opportunity to re-establish any flows, he does not see how anything could be done. -Mr. Hughes made a motion to approve with the staff stipulations and the recommendation that the BCC review the traffic impacts of the project. It was seconded by Mr. Carlson. Ail were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Page 21 August6,2003 E) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3495 "Wentworth Estates PUD" Section 29, 30, 31, & 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East & Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -Disclosures: -Mr. Carlson stated that he had a meeting with and a presentation from the petitioner. -Mr. Humiston stated that he had a discussion with a member of Rookery Bay. -Bruce Anderson represented the applicant. This project is currently zoned PUD and is known as the Lely Lakes PUD. The project includes 514 acres that are now owned by the state and are part of the Rookery Bay Reserve. The proposed amendment will eliminate the hotel resort village uses and seeks approval for a maximum of 1499 dwelling units; density of 1.45 units per acre when excluding the state owned lands. The team has met several times with the Rookery Bay staff and the applicant is committed to continue this working relationship with Rookery Bay, therefore the applicant will offer an educational program to the residents of the development about the mission and the special nature of the Rookery Bay Reserve. -Russell Dancer, Senior Consultant for the Phoenix Environmental Group, provided the committee with a packet of information to review. Mr. Dancer reviewed the history of the project with the committee. From the beginning V.K. Development has instructed their team to work with Rookery Bay and ensure that the project "is done right". The group has tried to design their plan by coordinating and cooperating with the agencies. They identified the environmentally sensitive areas; wetlands. The high quality wetlands will be preserved and enhance. Three times a listed species survey was done and they have only found gopher tortoises, which are being protected by exceeding the minimum requirements for their protection. A cooperative homeowner's Page 22 August 6, 2003 association program was developed with Rookery Bay National Estuarine research reserve staff that allows for prescribed burnings, provides for funding for resource management, develops a homeowner's appreciation and support program for Rookery Bay, and avoids any undesirable impacts to Rookery Bay. The manager of Rookery Bay wrote a letter, which was included in the packet, stating that they did not believe the project would negatively impact Rookery Bay. Minor problems were identified during the survey for hazardous waste and these items are being taken care of. The project is designed to address only-1/2 the units per acre that are allowed by the county, the policy requirements for the conservation and coastal management element are met, the preserve areas are interconnected, 84% of the wetlands on this property will be preserved, proper coordination was met with all the appropriate agencies, and the plan fits the Lely stormwater improvement plan. Homeowner's association documents will be developed that will allow for the appropriation of $374,000 going directly to resource management and environmental education for Rookery Bay. This program, the V.K. Development and Environmental Grant, states that $250 will be given to this fund each time a property sells. -Church Roberts, Johnson Engineering, reviewed the specific details of the site listed on page two of the packet. The majority of the parcel is comprised of agricultural fields; 70% of the uplands referenced. There are -264 acres of wetlands identified by the state and 45 acres of other surface waters. The two main factors of the wetland systems are the large slew that transects the center of the property and wetland system to the north. -36 acres of wetlands are being impacted, thus avoiding 84% of the wetlands. The main focus has been to preserve the large, central preserve and the north-west wetland. In total there is -298 acres of wetland and upland preservation. The Lely plan was also reviewed with the committee; -125 acres of both onsite and offsite wetlands will be improved due to the water management system. The site exceeds the carrying capacity density per acreage set aside for Gopher Tortoises. In regards to off-site listed species issues, there is a bald eagle nest -290 ft to the north. The only work being done in the secondary zone is minor lake excavation, which will be done Page 23 August6,2003 only during non-nesting season. A crocodile plan has been prepared in case crocodiles utilize the site after construction. -Mr. Hughes asked about fertilizer/herbicide issues and the regulations provided to protect the homeowners in the area. Chris Hagan, Johnson Engineering, stated that the water management program will be designed using wet detention lakes and they will be doing 150% of the normal water treatment. There will be perimeter berm-ing and collection facilities so that the run-off will be directed back into the water management system and not into the wetland preserves. Mr. Humiston asked if the plan included water quality testing at the point where it discharges into the Rookery Bay Preserve. Mr. Hagan stated that the current plan is to test where they discharge to the on-site wetlands, but they are working with Rookery Bay to see about testing down into Rookery Bay as well. Some of the V.K. Development Fund may be used to monitor this process. Public Speakers 1) Gary Davis, The Conservancy of SW Florida, was opposed to the PUD amendment, since they "did not preserve it (Rookery Bay) to see it be rimmed with development". They believe that the area adjacent to Rookery Bay should not have been included in the urban development. He asked the EAC to "draw a line" on the allowed density for this site. The Conservancy has reviewed the records from the previous PUD and the BCC "drew lines" in order to protect Rookery Bay. A copy of the minutes of the October 13, 1998 BCC meeting were provided to the committee. Mr. Davis stated that the Conservancy could support the PUD amendment if the 749 units per acre or less, (agreed to in the October 13, 1998 meeting of the BCC), be adhered to. The Conservancy is also concerned about the water quality on this project. Mr. Davis reviewed the coastal management element of the GMP: objective 2.1, objective 2.2, and objective 2.22. Mr. Davis also noted that the concerns of the water management district have not entirely been resolved yet. If the county approves this PUD amendment, then the Conservancy would also like to Page 24 August 6, 2003 see requirements on water quality addressed by the county and listed in the PUD. The more people added to the area around Rookery Bay, then the more impacts to Rookery Bay. The Conservancy suggests that the EAC "draw the line" on the density. -Mr. Carlson did not believe that the current developer had any obligation to commit to the obligation of a past developer in regards to density; referred to in the BCC meeting of October 13, 1998. Mr. Davis believed that the obligation should be kept since it was made in order to protect Rookery Bay. -Mr. Carlson noted that he presumed the staff at Rookery Bay was happy with the project. Mr. Davis stated that the Conservancy disagrees with Rookery Bay. -Mr. Carlson felt that this project has transitional quality and he believed that it was the best project he had ever seen for that size. Mr. Davis did not agree and stated that they saw this project as a project that will set the standard for the rest of the properties surrounding Rookery Bay. -Mr. Humiston asked if the Conservancy's concerns on water quality would be resolved if the applicant worked out monitoring procedures that were satisfactory to the staff at Rookery Bay. Mr. Davis stated that they would like to see the monitoring procedures as part of the PUD, a commitment to the county to be involved in this procedure, and limits placed on the discharges. -The petitioner stated that the points Mr. Davis raised were considered and built into the plan. He added that they have worked with Rookery Bay and agreed that they will have an active monitoring program and the results of this program will be provided to Rookery Bay Staff. The project will meet the standards for all three of the designations that this area has. -Bruce Anderson stated that the Conservancy was really objecting to the comprehensive plan. He did not feel that the minutes of the BCC meeting, October 13, 1998, were relevant. Mr. Anderson felt that the improved Page 25 August6,2003 environmental enhancements were changed circumstances. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Conservancy supported the Lands End project, which had a higher density. -Tad Bartareau, Rookery Bay, stated that he agreed with the comments made by Russ Dancer and Bruce Anderson. In regards to the density issue, Rookery Bay felt that it was transitional as described in the current zoning. He pointed out that Mr. Hughes raised a good point in regards to oil, and with the new rules, the homeowner association document, the commitment by the developer, and the resource management grant will enable them to better control this type of things and should they happen, they will be in a better position to handle them. In regards to water quality: the details of the water quality monitoring program are being outlined in the Environmental Resource Permitting Process. -Mr. Hughes felt that this would provide a great opportunity to document and show baseline changes with this type of development. Mr. Bartareau stated that this project goes a long way to address a wide variety of water quality issues and he was confident in this project. -Mr. Davis stated that the Conservancy did not support the density on Land's End PUD, they supported the PUD due to the agreement for decreased building height. 2) Vincent Temporo stated that if the approving agencies agree that this project is in the best interest of all involved, then he does not have any concerns. He stated that they told their employees to work with the agencies, they are not trying to make money at the expense of the community, and they believe in the protection of the environment. He added that they met with all the neighbors of the projects and asked for their concerns and considered all of these concerns. He noted that he only heard one organization object to the density. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion for approval with the staff recommendations and noting the EAC concerns about water quality Page 26 August 6, 2003 and the recommendation of an active monitoring program with the Rookery Bay Preserve. It was seconded by Mr. Hughes All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. F) Excavation Permit No. EX-2002-AR-3112 "Golden Gate Quarry" Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 27 East -The court reporter swore in all those who were testifying. -There were no disclosures to report. -Stan Chrzanowski noted that this item was a commercial excavation and no conditional use accompanied. Because the volume of the excavation exceeds 500,000 cubic yards, it is required to come before the EAC for review. Since there is no conditional use, this item will go directly to the BCC after the EAC review and it will not go before the CCPC. The site was located on a map. -Mr. Carlson asked if road access for the existing mine would change. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he was informed that it would not change. -Bruce Anderson, represented the applicant. He stated that this did not include a conditional permit use for mining since the Collier County GMP regulations allow earth mining as a permitted principal use in this area. The North Belle- Meade Overlay state that the mining operations/hauling of the excavated materials cannot generate truck traffic beyond the average historic levels of 156 roundtrips per day. The overlay also regulate that the counties then existing excavation and explosive regulations shall apply to the mining operation. The matter being heard is the application of the county's excavation regulations to this permitted use. The Rural Fringe Amendments and the North Belle-Meade overlay challenges were unsuccessful. The client offered the following conditions: blasting would be limited to 10am-2pm / no more than once a week and 5th street south-west (the access point) would continue to be used / will be re-paved within 90days of the BCC approval of this application. -Mr. Sansbury asked if the ownership of the two mining sections was the same. Mr. Anderson stated that it was not; the land that is the current subject is owned Page 27 August 6, 2003 by East Naples Land Company and would be leased to APAC. Mr. Sansbury asked if there was a county requirement for a reclamation plan. Mr. Duane stated that FDEP, who issued the permit in the packet, requires a reclamation plan and this plan is included in the packet. Public Speakers 1) Charles R. Goodacre, a resident on 5th Street, was concerned about this project because in the past the blasting from this area caused cracking in the area housing foundations, the walls to shake, and damage to items within the house due to the tremors. He and some of his neighbors were concerned that the blasting was overcharged. He also stated that the community was very concerned about the speed of the trucks entering and leaving the excavation area. This problem leads them to be concerned for their safety and the safety of the children in the area. He requested that the sheriff come out and sit on 5th street as a deterrent for the speeding trucks or that APAC refuse to continue to employ the drivers that speed through this area. He also stated that when the problems arose in the past, the community received little assistance or concern from APAC. -Bruce Anderson that there were -250 notices sent out and they exceeding the number of notices required. He added that the client has no control over the speed limit and it is really a law enforcement issue. -Jeffrey Straw, Vice President of Geo-Sonics, stated that they measure ground vibration and acoustics in this area. The blasting levels are established by the state and there is a state blasting permit that is required. He explained the setting for the charges of the explosive devices. Mr. Straw stated that the blasting in this area are monitored and are under 1/3 of what is permitted by state statute. Claims of damage are handled through a specific claims program outlined in Chapter 55230. -Mr. Hughes stated that it was difficult to file a claim in the past without the assistance of an attorney. Mr. Straw stated that prior to 2000 this was true, he added that now the matter is heard before a hearing examiner and the rules of procedure are still being written. Mr. Hughes asked how many overshots were Page 28 August 6, 2003 normal. Mr. Straw stated that if he sees five a year, he would be very surprised. Mr. Straw stated that for a commercial mining operation he does not know of any overshot within the last five years. -Mr. Chrzanowski noted that the county inspectors do not go out and do seismograph testing anymore, but they have the equipment to do so if anyone requests that they occasionally check the blasts. -Mr. Sansbury asked ifAPAC would put together some signage and an educational program to constructively warn the drivers of the speed limit as they leave the site and some encouragement to follow the speed limit. Mr. Duane stated that he did not believe there would be any objections to this. Mr. Carlson felt that this was a law enforcement problem. -Mr. Sorrell used to live close to this mine, he reiterated the problems of overshots with the blasting, but he noted that they were under control the last seven years. Mr. Sorrell asked Mr. Goodacre if he noticed the same or if he was discussing present conditions. Mr. Goodacre stated that the problems are better than they used to be, but there are still some problems and he was concerned that they will get worse with the opening of the new project. -Mr. Sansbury suggested that APAC put together an educational packet for their drivers and that the public send their petition to the Sheriff's department requesting more speed enforcement on this street. Mr. Carlson added that Mr. Goodacre's "best bet" was to rally the citizens and take their concerns before the BCC. -Mr. Hughes noted that Mr. Chrzanowski had offered to occasionally send out county staff to test the blast charge. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that the best scenario would be for the citizens to call when they are having a problem and the county staff can go out and test the blast when the petitioner is unaware. -Mr. Hughes made a motion for approval with the stipulations discussed; that the county services be available to monitor the blasting, the petitioner put together an educational program to encourage the drivers to slow down, and that the sheriff's department improve their enforcement in this area. Page 29 August 6, 2003 It was seconded by Alexandra Ellis. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. VI. Old Business -Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County Group, provided the committee with a summary videotape of their workshop. (A copy of this tape was not provided to the court reporter.) He suggested that the EAC pay particular attention to the presentation given by Dr. Jeff Morris, Mr. Allen Muller, and the discussion with Dr. Paul Conick. Mr. Krasowski also provided the committee with a copy of the program from the workshop and a press release on a related topic. (Copies of these two items were not provided to the court reporter.) VII. Council Member Comments -There were no council member comments. VIII. Public Comments -There were no Public Comments. IX. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:55PM. Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee Chairman Tom Sansbury Page 30 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTE~- ST NAM,E--F~FIST NA.~!~--'~IIDDLE NAME N~uM~E QF BOAR0, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, ~,ILING ADDRESS ~,TE ON WI'~ICH VOTE, OCCURRED COUNTY THE BOARO, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMrrFEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNiT CF: CI CITY ~COUNTY ~ O~'HER LOCAL AGENCY NAME- OF FOL[TICAL SgJBDIVISlCN: My POSITION IS: ,/ ri ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which yot.+-have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143~ FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or'she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal bY which he or she is retained); to the special privale gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-taw, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly 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 completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A"Cf'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: - You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes o! the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy cf the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read pubticly at the next meeting after the form is flied. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT Ry DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 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, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~'-I'C~:'~ ~;~I~/~C , hereby disctose that on (a) A/~e came or will come before my agency which (check one) __' i~ed to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent orgCnization or subsidiaW of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by which Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;- REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE. 2 FORM 8.B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, CCUNCIL. COMMISSION, AU'rHORITY. OR COMMI i ] ~E ST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME ~ILING ADDRESS COUNTY kTE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED THE BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR CQMMll I EE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: r3 Cf'PC ,,J~OUNTY O O:I'HER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:.,· MY pO-~FFIQN IS: ~APPOINTIVE o ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which ycu~ave a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143¢ FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN Irom voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or'she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal bY which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a 'relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A *business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of properb/, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly 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 completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WiLL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt 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) PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read pubticty at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO Aq-FEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT Ry DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose oratly the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 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, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. (a) A measure came or will inured to my special inured to the special inured to the special ~' inured to the special whom I am retained; DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST come before my agency which (check one) private gain or loss; gain or loss of my business associate, gain or loss of my relative, gain or loss of ~dcp or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent org.anization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me, (b) The measure before my agency and Ihe nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by which Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88, - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ST NAME--FiRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME COUNTY THE BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORI'P¢ OR CfOMMll i E.E ON WH~C., S~.VE ~S ~ UN~ MY POS~IQN IS: ~A ~ ELE~VE PPCI~IVE WHO MUST FiLE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level ot government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which ycu-+have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WiTH SECTION 112.3143~ FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, P.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are ncr prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where Ihe shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly 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 completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY Al-TEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt 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) PAGE 1 APPOINTED 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 flied. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT Ry DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 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, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or Icss of my business associate, .. inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~ inured to the special gain or loss of O_ ~ whom I am retained; er inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest tn the measure is as follows: by which Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2