Loading...
EAC Minutes 02/02/2000 RFebruary 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:01 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William W. Hill Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe M. Keen Cornell James L. McVey J. Richard Smith Jack Baxter ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Marni Scuderi, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Page 1 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd like to call the February meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council to order. If we may have roll call, please. MR. CORNELL: I could do that if you need somebody to call -- looking for a volunteer? CHAIRMAN HILL: Oh, okay. Cornell? MR. CORNELL: Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Smith? MR. SMITH: Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Coe? MR. COE'- Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: McVey? MR. MCVEY: Here. CHAIRMAN HILL: Hill? Here. Let the record show that we have a quorum of six out of the eight constituted members. Call your attention to the agenda. I have one small item to add to the agenda and Mr. Gary Julian is here and would like a few minutes under new business to talk about the Sanibel gopher tortoise ordinance. Did I get that correct? MR. JULIAN: Protection ordinance. CHAIRMAN HILL: Protection ordinance. I'd like to add that as the first item under new business and that will just take a few minutes of presentation. (Mr. Baxter entered the hearing room.) MR. LENBERGER: We have our new EAC member, Jack Baxter. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Chairman? John DiNunzio has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN HILL: Fine, thank you. MR. CARLSON: Hunting season? MR. COE: Gopher hunting season. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. I'd officially like to welcome Mr. Baxter to the council. Page 2 February 2, 2000 MR. BAXTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: It's good to have you, good to have that seat filled. Is that an agenda copy there? MR. BAXTER: Yes. MR. NINO: I just gave him the reports, that's all. CHAIRMAN HILL: With that addition under new business, I'd like a motion for approval of the agenda as amended. MR. SMITH: I'll so move. MR. CORNELL: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Those in favor, aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HILL: Minutes approved then, count of 7-0. You have before you, I think, minutes of both the December and the January meetings, I think December the 1st. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the minutes for December do not show me as present, even though I was. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. Could we add that then, please, that Mr. Smith, was, in fact, here? Any other comments or corrections to the December minutes? MR. CORNELL: Move we approve. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a second? MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, same? (No response) CHAIRMAN HILL: January the 5th meeting of the council, minutes are before you, I think. MR. CORNELL: Move we approve. MR. SMITH: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor, aye. Opposed? (No response) Page 3 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Both minutes are approved unanimously. *** Item number four, believe it or not, land use petitions is vacant. I assume we have none added to the agenda? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's correct. MR. CORNELL: Does that imply the growth is slowing down in Collier County or -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Either that or they don't want to come before us or something. MR. SMITH: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm not kidding, there is a note here in front of me that explains it all. It says, good morning, this is God. I'll be handling all your problems today. I will not need your help, so have a good day. CHAIRMAN HILL: Do I hear a motion to adjourn then? *** Item number five, old business. We started our growth management sub-committee, which is mandated by -- or legislated when we were considering the NRPA in particular, and since that time, it's kind of gone by the wayside and it's an agenda item. I think we have to revive that and take a look at our responsibilities. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director. Just to give you where we are with the growth management process, we've got two advisory committees that the board has developed and they were working on various aspects -- or actually two geographical areas in the county that would cover the requirements of the final assessment. What -- as staff~ what I would like to be able to do is to have the EAC's growth management sub-committee, the ability to provide information to that sub-committee, bounce ideas off of that sub-committee, get input from the sub-committee as we work through these other two committees, and to the degree that that sub-committee would want to bring some major issues or -- up to the full Environmental Advisory Council for consideration for formal input into the process, then obviously that's -- that would be the -- up to the sub-committee and how it Page 4 February 2, 2000 works with the full EAC, but I definitely would like to be able to have that ability for the EAC, especially since part of your mandate in terms of your ordinance and your responsibilities is in growth management. CHAIRMAN HILL: Correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but it seemed to me from the outset that the growth management sub-committee of EAC was to be built into the process, as you said, mandated and be a part of the planning process along with the two committees that are in existence, so that we were, I thought, to be contacted in that process. Now, is that true or are we totally to be active on our own? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think that's kind of a -- maybe a choice that -- how -- the direction -- your preference as the EAC. I mean, there are advisory committees that -- that do meet. I know that some of -- I know, for instance, Mr. Smith is on one of the -- is on the rural lands committee. I think that some of the advisory members may have attended some of the -- some of the committees. I'd like to be able to get a -- the way you'd want to be able to handle the -- your participation. For instance, if the sub-committee -- if you want to have a standing meeting, let's say, monthly for me to brief the committee and receive input, I -- we can do that. Basically I want to be able to, in other words, confirm that your sub-committee will be involved in the effort and set up the mechanism by which you prefer to be involved in it, because I can work either way. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I -- just to -- to kind of have some discussion here, and I don't mean this to -- to say this ought to be what it is, but I just wanted to explore the idea that what we're dealing with really is a -- an order from the administrative department with the governor and the cabinet ordering that the community be involved as much as possible and that there be as much input as possible from as many sources as possible locally, so in that sense, I think the more, the better, but I wondered if there might be a -- instead of having a sub-committee, and I don't suggest that we do away with the sub-committee, but I'm exploring maybe that as a possibility, that this EAC, the council, schedule a time for public input at some point or another or for Page 5 February 2, 2000 ideas or for reports from the various other -- from the other two groups that have been set up specifically for that purpose rather than having a sub-committee. It seems to me that the sub-committee step may -- may impede rather than enhance the ability to have more community input. MR. CORNELL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Isn't it true that the sub-committee is a part of the ordinance? MR. LORENZ: The EAC ordinance requires a -- one standing sub-committee. It can be more, but it requires a growth management sub-committee. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. I mean, I personally think your idea's great of getting together on a monthly basis and, you know, working out with you the best way to interact with these -- with these two advisory committees. MR. SMITH: I'm just not clear on this. You mean the ordinance that sets up the Environmental Advisory Council has a requirement that a sub-committee be established? Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't -- I was not aware of that. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right. That's only one -- that's the only sub-committee that's postulated in the enabling ordinance. MR. SMITH: Well, then obviously my comments don't have any significance. CHAIRMAN HILL: When that committee started, it was my understanding that with the heavy load of petitions before the council, that it would be much more efficient to have some of those considerations done on a sub-committee basis with contact with the full council rather than have all of it occur before the full council, but that sub-committee, I thought, was to be built into the process, and we have not heard anything from the other committees to involve us. Now, maybe that's partly our fault for not taking the initiative, but I think we do have to form the committee and I would hope the council would feel that it would be a vital part of that whole process. Now, how do we do that? MR. LORENZ: Well, my -- my suggestion is to have the Page 6 February 2, 2000 standing -- your standing sub-committee, whether it's three members or five members, and I think we may have to even maybe take a look at who's on the sub-committee, to meet on some regular basis to get really detailed briefings and have a lot of interchange with staff. The sub-committee at that particular point -- your sub-committee then can determine what are the issues that are -- that are important to bring to the full EAC, so that the full EAC's time is spent more effectively through the, and I'm going to use the term filtering process, of the sub-committee members. CHAIRMAN HILL: I think it makes the efficiency of both sub-committee and the full council much more -- much higher. I'd like to suggest, with the approval of the council -- see, Dan was on that, and now with a new member, that we re-form that committee and I think we had a committee of four and I was an ex-officio member, I think, but however the council would like to structure it, but let's, today, put that committee back together again. MR. NINO: Mr. Hill, if I may -- Ron Nino. If I may editorialize from your comment. You said in the process. I think that once you set up your committee and they meet on a regular basis to review an agenda, which may be in part initiated by staff, but certainly could be initiated by the committee itself, that that is the process, you're then in the process. MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN HILL: But the process also includes the other two standing committees, and I thought we were to be an integral part of that process. MR. NINO: Well, whatever comes out of those committees would eventually end up on your table. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. The council's table? MR. NINO: Yes, EAC's table. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right. MR. CORNELL: So what do we do or who is on it or is it a -- it's been a while since we've talked about it. CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me take privilege of the chair, and with your permission, we'll reconstitute that committee completely at Page 7 February 2, 2000 this point. MR. CORNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there somebody that would like to serve on that committee? MR. CORNELL: I would love to. MR. SMITH: I would also. MR. CARLSON: I will. MR. NINO: Again, if I may, that committee could be an unlimited number. It could be the -- it could be your entire board, if that's what -- CHAIRMAN HILL: I think the efficiency would be highest if it was a small portion. MR. LORENZ: So it would be Keen Cornell, Ed Carlson, and I didn't hear the -- MR. CARLSON: Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Did you miss Smith? CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don't I again -- let me digress for just a moment. Between EAB and EAC and the reformation, when is our anniversary year? It's not calendar year now, but -- and the reason I ask, there will be people going off the -- the formation was April; is that correct? Do you remember, Bill? MR. LORENZ: It was April, yes. The terms -- CHAIRMAN HILL: So there were some one year appointees that will go off the council in April? MR. LORENZ: Yes. The terms would expire April 30th of 2000. Mr. Sansbury and Mr. McVey had the one year terms, so your terms would expire in -- in April of 2000. CHAIRMAN HILL: Sansbury and McVey? MR. COE.' Because I think I was two. MR. NINO: However, they can be reappointed. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right, yeah. MR. LORENZ: Subject to the board's appointment process. CHAIRMAN HILL: And when do we need to notify the Board of County Commissioners and ask for reappointment? MR. LORENZ: Well, typically for -- Sue Filson, who is the administrative assistant to the Board of County Commissioners, typically monitors these expiration dates and will send out Page 8 February 2, 2000 notices at an appropriate time -- time frame. I will -- I will take it on my own and I'll just give her a ring just to make sure since this board was -- this is its first year and I can give her a call and make sure of that. CHAIRMAN HILL: I will add my name again as ex-officio and maybe suggest that the chairman might serve in that capacity when a new chairman is appointed. So let's have a -- a motion then from the council to appoint Mr. Cornell and Mr. Smith and Mr. Carlson as full-time members of our growth management sub-committee. MR. COE: I'll make a motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN HILL: Second? MR. MCVEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? (No response) MR. LORENZ: And Mr. Chairman, would -- just for scheduling purposes, is there a time, a day, times that like kind of work on here right now, because then I've -- we can't talk together, so is there any better times or worse times for the members? CHAIRMAN HILL: Let me ask for the three members to -- MR. LORENZ: Maybe we can set the first meeting up right here and then we can get it on the schedule and I can get it noticed. MR. SMITH: Well, for me, evenings would certainly be a help. MR. LORENZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: We met at five, I think, the last time, didn't we, when the committee met? It was five o'clock that we -- MR. SMITH: Two separate meetings. One of them was at five. MR. CORNELL: Well, you guys work for a living, so I would think it should start with you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Don't look at me, I don't work. MR. CORNELL: I'm looking at Bill also, so -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Ed? MR. CARLSON: Afternoon meeting is fine, at five o'clock would be fine with me. CHAIRMAN HILL: Keen? Page 9 February 2, 2000 MR. CORNELL: CHAIRMAN HILL: MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN HILL: another? Sure, Richard? Any day of the week any better than MR. SMITH: Tuesday for me is probably the best. CHAIRMAN HILL: Tuesday? MR. CARLSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HILL: Keen? MR. CORNELL: So you're talking about normally Tuesday, two weeks before -- CHAIRMAN HILL: That's a suggestion, yes. Okay. I think we -- we ought to have one before that two week window. MR. CORNELL: Sure. That sounds fine. Sure. CHAIRMAN HILL: May I tentatively suggest February 15th, two weeks from yesterday? MR. CORNELL: Okay. That's at five o'clock? And we'd meet probably over at the -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Conference room over at -- MR. LORENZ: Probably over at Horseshoe, but let me -- I'll shoot to set that -- that location up, but I will call everybody and I'll confirm it and then we'll go through the regular public notice. MR. CARLSON: I have an event that day and I'm not sure when it's going to be over. CHAIRMAN HILL: I just picked that as in between now and Is Wednesday any better? Do you have a the -- MR. CORNELL: better day, Ed or -- MR. CARLSON: MR. CORNELL: MR. CARLSON: Just the 15th is -- Oh, just the 15th? Just the 15th is a conflict with me. CHAIRMAN HILL: How about next week, the 8th? MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN HILL: Ed? MR. CARLSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HILL: Richard? MR. SMITH: I don't have my calendar here. I don't -- Page 10 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don't we tentatively set five p.m. February 8th, and if you would notify us, Bill? MR. LORENZ: Okay. We'll be able to do a public notice for that. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah. Does that give you time for public notice? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: Six days. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, for -- in the past -- of course I'm looking at Marni, in the past for sub-committee meetings, we've done it as -- as less as 24 hours, but -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Does -- does that conflict with any of staff's commitments, Tuesdays at five o'clock? MR. LORENZ: No, that is fine. I'll be the lead staff for it, so -- MR. NINO: Wednesdays and Thursdays are bad days for staff because DSAC holds their -- the DSAC and their sub-committees tend to meet on Wednesday and Thursday and, of course, the board meets on Tuesday. CHAIRMAN HILL: Right. MR. NINO: So hopefully the board's done by five o'clock. MR. LORENZ: And since we're talking about the growth management plan, the rural fringe committee has been meeting the second and the fourth meeting -- second and fourth Wednesdays at 5:15, so this month they'll be meeting on February 9th and February 23rd, so just for kind of informational purposes, that's the rural fringe committee. CHAIRMAN HILL: The second and fourth Wednesdays? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's what they've been -- that's been their meeting schedule. CHAIRMAN HILL: At what time and where? MR. LORENZ: 5:15 at conference room E at Development Services. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Could those of us on this sub-committee just get on the mailing list for all the agendas and meeting times and minutes and summaries and everything that's going on in those meetings so that we can attend if we want to and -- Page tl February 2, 2000 MR. LORENZ: Yes, we can -- we can make -- I can make an arrangement that if-- if--just the sub-committee members or would all the EAC members like to receive the packets? CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd like all the members to -- MR. LORENZ: Okay. We can make that arrangement so when we -- we send those out. For past information, we do log on to the natural resources web site, the growth management section, and what we have done is we have put all the related information on that web site in addition to the agenda and the -- all the meeting minutes of the past two advisory committee meetings, and what I'll also do too for the public is, we'll be posting the dates and times of the EAC sub-committee's meetings as well on that web site so the public has an opportunity to see -- to participate as much as possible. CHAIRMAN HILL: You know, I would hope that you'd pass on to them, and maybe that should come in a letter from me, that -- that we and our sub-committee would like to be involved in this and be thought as a part of the whole process, if you would pass that on -- MR. LORENZ: Yeah, we certainly will. We'll make that announcement at the next two meetings of the two sub-committees -- of the two committees. CHAIRMAN HILL: So their next meeting will be the 9th then? MR. LORENZ: The fringe committee, that's correct. MR. CORNELL: And what about Eastern Collier? MR. LORENZ: That meeting has not been scheduled yet, the next meeting, although we're looking at trying to get something within the next month to look at what we're calling environmental impact methodology for various land use alternatives. MR. CORNELL: Good deal. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mr. Lorenz. I failed in my duty to welcome the public. What I'd like to do with the permission of the council now is to ask, since we have no petitions, but is there any member of the public that would like to address the council under the new business category? All right. Okay. I would like then to ask Mr. Julian, who has Page 12 February 2, 2000 requested some time relative to the Sanibel gopher protection ordinance -- did I get that right? MR. JULIAN: Gopher tortoise. We'll have you saying it right soon. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, not gophers. If you would state your name and -- MR. JULIAN: Good morning. My name's Gary Julian. I'm just a private citizen concerned with the plight of the gopher tortoises. For months now, I've been trying to get the commission to adopt the Sanibel gopher tortoise protection ordinance. It's been working over in Sanibel. It supersedes the state's policy. It's called the incidental take fee where they can pay $6,000 an acre to develop without too much regard for the gopher tortoises, and at this point, the population is estimated to be around 25 percent, that's what's left of the gopher tortoise population here in Florida, and since the gopher tortoise protects by its burrows, I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous, it supports the lives of 360 other species. That's why I find the gopher tortoise so important and I'm trying to bring this to everybody so we understand and start really protecting the gopher tortoise because he's not being protected. He's in danger, but he's not protected by the State of Florida. He's an endangered species. That's another thing everybody gets wrong, they get confused with endangered and protected. Well, he's not protected. He's endangered, and I propose that this ordinance Sanibel has already, that Collier County adopt it, and that we do a study on the gopher tortoises to find out exactly how many we have in Collier County and start protecting them and that's -- that's what I'd like to propose to this committee. MR. CORNELL: You say there's an ordinance in the City of Sanibel? MR. JULIAN: Correct. MR. CORNELL: Okay. And you would like something like that to take place -- or we should have one here? MR. JULIAN: Yes, I'd like Collier County to adopt Sanibel's ordinance. MR. COE: Do you have a copy of that ordinance? Page 13 February 2, 2000 MR. JULIAN: Yes, I do. I'll make sure all you gentlemen have one. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, If you get copies or -- leave one for US, MR. JULIAN: Yeah, before I leave this building, I'll make sure you all have a copy. Are there any questions? MR. BAXTER: Do you have a proposed study? MR. JULIAN: Do I have a proposed study? Yes. MR. BAXTER: Do you have the cost of it? MR. JULIAN: No. MR. CORNELL: Was there a study? How did it go in Sanibel, was there a study done? What was the -- MR. JULIAN: Not to my knowledge. MR. CORNELL: How do they happen to have one? I just wondered. MR. JULIAN: Sanibel doesn't have a study, that's the second phase. MR. CORNELL: But they have an ordinance? MR. JULIAN: They have an ordinance, yes. I shouldn't say they don't have a study, they might, but -- CHAIRMAN HILL: What was the impetus behind the ordinance then, was an original study made on Sanibel Island? MR. JULIAN: I guess just what was transpiring with the incidental take fee, the money goes into a mitigation fund and the tortoises are relocated, but the relocations aren't as good a habitat as they were taken out of and because of the upper respiratory tract disease, you know, a lot of them were dying out. CHAIRMAN HILL: I know we've had some difficult and hearty and heated discussions in the council on the gopher tortoise and I -- I certainly think the council would like to take a look at what you're suggesting. MR. JULIAN: Great. Thank you. Again, I'd like to apologize for my nervousness. This is my first time for -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Don't even consider it. We're all nervous up here too. MR. JULIAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: If you would get us copies of-- Page 14 February 2, 2000 MR. JULIAN: Yes, I will and I'll work on the cost of the study. CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Lorenz, do you know of anything in existence that might complement what Mr. Julian is saying? MR. LORENZ: What we have done -- Commissioner Carter had requested a report from staff that we presented to him in the December, January time frame and he's -- he indicated back to us that he was interested in staff pursuing the matter to some degree, even to the point of perhaps proposing some land development code amendments for the next appropriate land development cycle. Just yesterday I began the -- the effort to bring Barbara Burgeson in and my staff and to start to create a little bit of a work plan and a study scope, and what I'll do is I'll present -- I'll copy the EAC on that report that went to Commissioner Carter. We've addressed some -- some of the items in the Sanibel ordinance. Very briefly, we're not sure that the Sanibel ordinance is going to do much more from what -- from our ordinance. However, we do have some areas for some possible improvement, so that's part -- MR. JULIAN: Yeah, because our ordinance doesn't supersede the state policy. MR. LORENZ: Right. So that's part of the information that we have in that -- that report. So I can present that to the -- I can make copies of that available to the council and then we'll be putting ourselves on some -- some type of schedule to -- to develop that, flesh that out a little bit more, and then of course, any of this information would obviously come back to the full EAC for -- for input or for approval and recommendations to the board. MR. CORNELL.' Bill, didn't you express a concern a while ago about the need for habitat protection ordinances in -- in -- more generally? MR. LORENZ: Well, yes, that was back in '92, '93, we were -- staff was working on what we called a habitat protection ordinance that would have addressed some of the concerns, I think, for the gopher tortoises with regard to prioritizing habitat and looking at the highest quality habitats to be preserved on Page 15 February 2, 2000 site through a ranking process that was built into the ordinance. It may not have addressed all the issues for gopher tortoises, but -- MR. CORNELL: Could this give new life to that effort or did that just sort of fizzle or something? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think this could be, to some degree, incorporated into -- into that process. The process for the growth management plan, the final order, we have to look at listed species concerns through the final order, so that will all be part of it as well. So one can kind of take a look at it as everything kind of coming together through it all, so we're trying to coordinate all those recommendations. CHAIRMAN HILL: A question for Mr. Julian, have you presented this to Lee County? Have they -- MR. LORENZ: No, I haven't. No, sir. I've introduced it to the Conservancy and FGCU. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any comment from the public members relative to this? Mike? MR. SIMONIK: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Michael Simonik from the Conservancy. Gary did come and talk to us at the Conservancy and we support all of his efforts that he's doing on the gopher tortoises, and as I told him, he wants us to make gopher tortoises our number one issue. We'd like to have it our number one -- we'd like to have everything our number one issue. We're working on 133 different items right now, but we just -- our board decided to pick the top ten for the year 2000 and gopher tortoises doesn't make the top ten, but it's great to have citizens, and Gary didn't tell you, he's from Marco Island. He's from Collier County and he's been working behind the scenes on this issue. He has a group that's been formed, the Gopher Tortoises Guardians, he has a web site out on the web, people can read about the gophers and find out more about them and educate themselves about the gophers, and I come to these meetings, I watch the EAC meetings, I watch what goes on with the permitting and what happens with the gopher tortoises every month that you guys meet and every Tuesday at the County Page 16 February 2, 2000 Commission, and on the point of gophers, I had a call maybe two weeks ago from one of the consultants on Little Pine Island that was passed through EAC, and I don't know how far it's gotten in Planning Commission and the Board, but they've got 40 gopher tortoises, 30 to 40, he said they're trying to find a home for, and he said, do you want them at the Conservancy, and I said, no, we don't want any gophers, we've got enough already in rehab that we're trying to fix their shells and find places for them to live too. One of the ideas I had for him was the new Fleishmann property, which, very good, was supported yesterday in the election and won it four to one, now we have Fleishmann property that used to have gophers on it, probably the only gopher habitat in the city proper of Naples that some of those gophers, maybe 10, 20 of those from Little Pine -- what's it called, Little Palm -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, not pine. MR. LORENZ: .. Little Palm Island can go to that site and maybe be relocated onto Fleishmann if there's nice little fencing put in or something, I don't know, it's an idea, but we're always trying to figure out what to do with the gopher tortoises, and I really do believe, Gary, that we don't protect them here in Collier County. There can be a better ordinance and this is the perfect opportunity for the EAC members to work on issues exactly like this. It's an environmental policy issue. It's analysis of the policies that we have here in the county. It's the role mandated by -- in the ordinance to the EAC. The reason why EPTAB was molded into the EAC was because they told us on EPTAB, all of these policy issues would be taken up at the EAC and in your sub-committee meetings and meetings like this today. I really haven't seen that happen as much as I'd like to see it happen on the EAC, which is why I again tried to get on the EAC, and I think your Mr. Baxter, congratulations, they'll never put me on, so don't feel bad, and I'll keep trying, I'm persistent, but it is important to talk about what our policies are in the county and what we have, are they the right ones, are they the best ones, and I hear all the time from land use attorneys, oh, Collier County goes over and Page 17 February 2, 2000 above every other county. Well, that's just not true. I've had DCA tell me that Lee County, some of their protections are better than ours, which shocked me, to think that Lee County was better than us, and now I'm going to go into another subject that I want to talk about today. There are other counties that protect environmental resources better than Collier County and Martin County is one of those. We keep hearing, oh, they're making us do too much, the governor and cabinet is pushing too far for Collier County. Well, they're not, because other places have passed and approved ordinances that are much better than the ones we have here in Collier County, and for example, is the Martin County wetland protection ordinance, which is what this is. A couple months ago, I had a commissioner from Martin County, an elected commissioner, a Republican, call me and tell me she wanted to send me their wetland ordinance they just passed this June of '99 because they had heard that we were dealing with the same issues here in Collier County, so she sent me this whole packet and I talked to her on the phone, and I think it's Commissioner Melzer, I can't remember her name, but -- it's been a few months, but this is a no wetlands loss, no wetlands impact ordinance, and it passed, and it passed in Martin County, and other places are looking at it and I believe we ought to look at it. They have just as many wetlands in Martin County. They're on Lake Okeechobee and in the Everglades area. They have just as many wetlands as we do. They have developers, they have development pressure just as we do and they have a no wetlands impact ordinance. We don't come anywhere near that. I sit here on Tuesdays at County Commission and watch us pass hundreds of acres of wetland impact, wetland loss, wetland destruction, wetland obliteration is what I call it, and we watch it every month here in Collier County and this is something that I think the EAC should take on in their sub-committees, growth management. In EPTAB, we used to have a natural resource sub-committee and we would deal with policy issues, do we have the right policy Page 18 February 2, 2000 in Collier County, is it what's best for Collier County? We're the western Everglades. We're not just somewhere in the middle of Ohio. We're the western Everglades. We're a national treasure. Eastern Collier County, all of Collier County, it's a worldwide treasure. It's called the Everglades, and it's up to us to protect it. Martin County's doing their job. Other counties are looking at it and I would like the EAC, and I'll leave a copy for Steve or somebody to copy for all of you, so that a sub-committee can look at this ordinance, see if it's -- whatever you want to pass on, but at least look at it because other counties have done it. We're not the only ones trying to protect natural resources in Florida. So I'll just leave this with you, and thank you very much, but I do support everything Gary says and he's really working hard and he's just a regular guy from Marco Island and I think he owns a sign shop or something, but this is the first time he's ever, you know, called the Conservancy. He's not one of us. He's what people are thinking out there, and the county ought to be doing something about it because Gary's not the only one. I can tell you, I get calls every day about this. Gary's not the only one. So I urge you to look at both of these issues, on gophers and on wetlands. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: How far is he from your top ten? How far are the gopher tortoises from your -- MR. LORENZ: Today, it's number one. MR. CARLSON: I have a question for Mike. Rather than just handing us that ordinance cold, have you done a review of it or a summary or an executive summary to -- MR. SIMONIK: I haven't -- normally the Conservancy does position statements on issues. I haven't done that, but I plan on doing one for this and giving -- a background of it, what we believe is right for this, but I have perused through this. I haven't read it all. I can say with everything else we're -- MR. CARLSON: But you expect us to read it. Come on. MR. SIMONIK: Right. Well, you're sitting up there and I'm not. Thanks. Anybody else? CHAIRMAN HILL: I guess it needs to be said on behalf of the Page 19 February 2, 2000 council, I'm sure we have missed some of the efforts that we should be involved in, but we're brand new. We're feeling our way in this whole process and we've had disruptions and tremendous responsibility with respect to petitions, a lot of new items for this group, but I think once we get our -- our focus correct, I think we'll be involved in a number of these things. When EPTAB and EAB were put together, a lot of responsibilities were piled on and we weren't totally aware of all of our responsibilities, but it's a growth problem and a learning curve for us too. Thank you, Mike. Mr. Coe? MR. COE: Marni, I -- I have to get my mike over here. I've got a question for you. We have a court reporter that, you know, does the minutes for us. They've got like 30 days, I guess it is, to complete it and get it back to us. In that 30 day period, the Planning Commission's met, the County Commissioners have met. In other words, all the minutes do is, they come back to us and we approve them. Now, we also have VCR taping done of the proceedings here. MS. SCUDERI: Right. MR. COE: Why are we doing both? It seems to me the minutes are a total waste of time and money when it's all on tape. MS. SCUDERI: We -- as far as I know, the reason that we have the court reporter here is so that we have the written record, which is necessary in case anybody tries to bring something up to the next level. The video, I guess that's just -- MR. COE.' Why isn't the video good enough? It's good enough for the police in their DWI cases. MS. SCUDERI: Generally, if something want's to go to the next level, you need to have a written record. MR. COE: Can't you take it then, if they decide to go to the next level, just take it right off the VCR tape? It seems like we're wasting a heck of a lot of money. MS. SCUDERI.' I can find out about it for you. I can't tell you the exact policy reasons right now, but I can find out for you. MR. COE: All right, fine. Thank you. Page 20 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: I don't want to put words in Mr. Coe's mouth, and I think one of the problems, and I think we've discussed this before with the council, our deliberations reflected in part by our minutes should be of value to people down the line such as the commissioners or the Planning Commission and it -- it's non-existent by the time our deliberations and the petitions get to those -- those staff. So in that sense, it's not doing any -- or isn't of any value to later steps in the process. MS. SCUDERI: So your request would be that the written minutes come earlier so that the other councils can see it? CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, I think we're all concerned that our deliberations, except in very brief summary form, don't get to the Planning Commission and the Board. MS. SCUDERI: That, I would have to ask Ron about. CHAIRMAN HILL: And whether there's a solution to that or not -- Ron, do you have -- MR. COE: See, we discussed this a while back. You know where it's coming from. You all don't even have the advantage of having it when you write your summary, so basically, if you aren't taking notes now to write the summary for the Planning Commission and for the County Commissioners, the only thing you've got is the possibility of getting the VCR tape or doing it from memory, so why do we have minutes anyway? MR. NINO: Well, the minutes are the official record, of course. MR. COE: But the tape could be just as official, couldn't it? MR. NINO: Well, I -- how do you get a tape and -- MR. COE: I've done it. All you do is call the little lady over there and she makes you a copy and sends -- MR. NINO: Makes you a copy? MR. COE: Yep. MR. NINO: And that's a verbatim record of the minutes? MR. COE: Exactly what we've got here. They throw on the camera and we start blabbing. MR. NINO: Then we should fire this young lady here and do that, but you asked for, I think it was at your direction, that we solicited the recording organization so that you could have Page 21 February 2, 2000 verbatim minutes in print. We could always change that, but to get back to your -- where you're coming from, in many instances, we do have the minutes -- staff does have the minutes available to it when it is preparing its executive summary for the -- for presentation to the BCC, but aside from that, I mean, normally what goes into an executive summary is a very -- is basically your decision and why you made your decision. I don't think we need the verbatim -- we don't need the minutes in their verbatim style in order to convey that position to the Board of County Commissioners. However, in the last couple of months, we have included in our executive summary package, the EAC staff report that I believe the commission -- you sign, Chairman Hill, and once you sign it, that, in fact, becomes your report. Now, those do go with the executive summary. We've been doing that for the last couple of months. MR. COE: So basically you're saying the same thing we're saying, that generally speaking, you aren't getting a copy of the minutes, you really have no use for them? MR. NINO: record. MR. COE: MR. NINO.' MR. COE: would be great. Other than they're -- other than they're an official Which a VCR tape is the same. Correct. We don't need them. Okay. Well, Marni, if you could get back to us, that MS. SCUDERI'- Absolutely. MR. COE.' All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN HILL: Marni, were you saying that a written record has more standing in, I'll use the term court, not necessarily in the total formal sense, but -- than a videotape? MS. SCUDERI-' Well, the videotape would have to be transcribed. When it goes to another level, it has -- it generally, unless there's a situation I am unaware of, which is possible, it has to be written. I understand Mr. Coe's point that the videotape could be transcribed. I don't know is my -- is an honest answer between the transcription of the videotape versus the court reporter being in Page 22 February 2, 2000 court, and that, I can find out for you. MR. NINO: For what it's worth, of course, the Board of County Commissioners' meeting is both video recorded and recorded by a recording service, similarly, the Planning Commission. We -- I would think that there's some legal, just conclusion behind the fact that the Board does it. MR. COE: I don't know that, so I'm not going to speculate. I learned that a long time ago. As a second lieutenant, I never assume a thing. MR. SMITH: All right. Can I say something since I do have some knowledge on this? The -- the transcription is something that can be introduced as evidence. The tape probably cannot be, even a transcription from the tape cannot be, so that's the reason. CHAIRMAN HILL: So a videotape would not have any standing in the legal sense? MR. SMITH: Likely, there would be an objection that would be upheld, if somebody made such an objection. CHAIRMAN HILL: I'm going to plead ignorance, and I -- I'm sorry I missed it. What happened to the Little Palm Island when it went before the commissioners? MR. NINO: That entire -- that petition has been put on indefinite hold. So we won't know for another three or four months if they decide to go ahead with it or not. We'll let you -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else with respect to an official copy? *** Okay. Official new business, item 6(A), planning and land use approval process. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. CHAIRMAN HILL: Excuse me, Ron, can I interrupt you? Do you need a break? Are you sure? Would you raise your hand when you do? MR. NINO: We're going to try to walk you through the development decision making process. I'm going to talk about where it starts, and it starts, of course, with vacant land and zoning, in most instances. However, in those instances where the land is already zoned, then it immediately jumps to an Page 23 February 2, 2000 administrative site plan review and platting procedure. Our rezoning process, of course, starts with a pre-application meeting with the person who is interested in doing something with their land or a use other than that which it is zoned. Now, we have applications -- I mean, this is pretty elementary, but we're not going to give you a course in 101 planning, we're going to tell you what our procedures are. We have application forms for various types of rezoning applications, for a standard rezoning application, for a PUD, and for a conditional use. I gave you the one application, but really the other applications are -- are very similar and so to that extent, this application indicates to you what we ask the -- the applicant to tell us, and you'll note that a great deal of it is who owns the property, who's buying the property, who has interest in -- if the owner is not the applicant, the buyer's the applicant, who are the members of that buying trust, who are the members of the selling trust. We're not only interested in who appears as the trustee in many instances, but who are all the beneficiaries of the trust. So it's important, and the Board has directed us time and time again to make sure that our application fully apprises them of who is receiving a benefit from selling land and who is receiving a benefit from rezoning land, and that's why the application is structured as it is. Most importantly, the land development code simply doesn't leave to the planning staff and to the county Planning Commission the ability, without any foundation or basis for its decision, to recommend that land be rezoned, and the land development code specifically has findings that staff has to make and findings that the Planning Commission have to make, and indeed, findings that the Board has to -- they're all the same findings, but we need to all make those findings in order to justify a recommendation or an action to rezone land. I've given you a copy of the rezone findings and the PUD findings. However, there are findings not as elaborate as the findings for a rezone, for conditional uses and for variances and indeed for boat docks, and indeed for any type of land use Page 24 February 2, 2000 petition we have. It's necessary for staff to make a positive finding that supports the decision, the recommendation to approve the petition. So it's not a shoot from the hip kind of thing, or believe me, I'm a planner and I've been trained and I'm telling you that this is a good land use decision and that's it, you know. We have to follow the findings that are prescribed for each and every application. Now, it doesn't mean that you have to meet 100 percent of the findings, but you need to meet a preponderance of the findings and that -- to justify a recommendation to rezone, and of course, the Board has to do the same thing. Now, in addition to the findings, however, the growth management plan says that a recommendation to rezone property has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan for county -- Collier County. That also happens to be one of the findings, but remember, the zoning -- a recommendation to zone land has to be based and has to be -- complement a comprehensive plan for the community. Many years ago, the courts said that zoning has to be based upon a plan and that decision was some 50 years -- is some 50 years old now. For a long time, we didn't know whether the zoning plan, the zoning map for the community, in fact, could constitute the master plan. However, that -- that lack of understanding has gone away many years ago, and today what is a comprehensive plan is something that is a lot more in depth in terms of how you strategize the development of your land use resources, and the land use -- and a zoning map simply doesn't do that. A zoning map is -- is a wish list, you might say -- not a wish list, but it's how you intend to carry out your master plan and there needs to be a nexus there. We can't recommend rezoning land that is inconsistent with the future land use map, for example. Keen? Stop me anywhere along the line. MR. CORNELL: Just a question on that point. Does a -- if a citizen feels that a rezoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, does he have standing in court? MR. NINO: No, I -- well, now you're asking a legal question. Page 25 February 2, 2000 That -- I don't believe so. MS. SCUDERI: I'm sorry? You asked -- MR. CORNELL: I'm just asking, if a citizen -- MR. NINO: I can't play lawyer. MR. CORNELL: -- let's say of the county, felt strongly that a rezoning decision was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, does he or she have standing to bring -- to bring an action against the county or the -- MS. SCUDERI: I'm going to give you an off the cuff answer, I'm going to say probably not, and Mr. Smith might know more about standing than I do, actually, in these situations with land use petitions. My -- my thought would be no, because there are certain case law and standing that you need to fit into specific groups. MR. CORNELL: So you need to have a reason for standing -- to have standing? MS. SCUDERI: Right. I could research that issue more for you, but as far as I know, it doesn't seem -- depending on that landowner's proximity. MR. CORNELL: Okay. MR. NINO: So most importantly, when we stand here and recommend a rezoning action, we're doing so because we have concluded that that action is consistent with the county's comprehensive development plan. That is a key relationship. However, that's not the only relationship. The comprehensive plan also directs that staff make a finding of compatibility. Compatibility, as you know, puts you into a whole subjective area. Everybody's opinion of what is compatible is different than somebody else's. However, it's my understanding that in terms of the legal definition of compatibility, it has always been the relationship of one classification of zoning to another classification of zoning, and -- and more definitively, it has been residential and its relationship to non-residential, or non-residential in relationship to residential. The -- the strict interpretation of compatibility is residential to commercial to industrial. It's traditionally not multiple family Page 26 February 2, 2000 residential to single family residential, but that has become one of the more modern usages of the compatibility test, although I personally don't believe that it is legal -- it would legally apply if one made a compatibility conclusion based on single family versus multiple family or two units per acre versus four units per acre. In my opinion, that is not consistent with the legal test for compatibility, but nonetheless, it is widely used and, you know, I don't think we're ever going to dissuade people from arguing that it isn't a valid compatibility test. MR. COE: Wouldn't somewhat of a glaring example be the boat storage there by the bridges in relationship to the condominiums that are so close by? MR. NINO: I would say that's probably a -- MR. COE: I know that wasn't a county deal, but -- MR. NINO: Yeah, sure. The traditional test has been a glue factory next to a residential area would be the extreme example. However, in addition to the compatibility test, there are also -- there are also relationships -- planning -- good planning requirements that talk about the -- the availability of infrastructure, you know. Is there a good highway system serving it, is there sewer and water, is storm drainage adequate, are there community facilities? Oftentimes, nobody thinks about, you're putting a community out there and there isn't a drugstore or medical facilities, so the relationship to community facilities and services. The planner is charged with justifying that rezoning action or recommendation based on that host of available infrastructure. Is it adequate to support another urban development in that location? Timing is also a consideration. I would hope that if you picked up our staff reports, you would see all of these things in them. Timing. Is -- is the action to rezone premature? Is it urban sprawl and is there a wide gap between the -- the nearest urbanization -- urban portions of the county? That becomes a question of timing. Is it appropriate at this point in time to move the boundary, to jump 100 -- several miles and jump to another area? That becomes an issue of timing. Even though your comprehensive plan may have an urban boundary, it doesn't Page 27 February 2, 2000 necessarily follow that an action to rezone anywhere in that urban boundary is appropriate. Unfortunately, Collier County's master plan -- or Collier County's future land use map really doesn't give us direction in terms of that benchmark that planners use in terms of the question of timing. Basically, the philosophy here has been, if you're yellow -- if you're asking to zone land on the yellow portion of the future land use map, we have to approve it, aside from whether it's consistent with a timing theory that says you ought to progress from the highly urban areas out in increments. We have been, quite frankly, lumping land areas to get to other land areas and -- MR. COE: How do we get that turned around? MR. NINO: Pardon? MR. COE: How do we get that turned around? MR. NINO: By amending the growth management plan to say that development ought to progress in an orderly fashion outward to meet the extreme limit of the urban boundary. MR. COE: I use for example, like I noticed a newspaper article recently where Collier County accepts, I guess, level D roads or whatever it was, that are like worthless, and if we would require the higher level of road -- the infrastructure to be in place ahead of approval of the developments, then it kind of puts our feet, as citizens -- puts our feet to the fire and says, we need to pay for that infrastructure before the development goes in, and we've got countless examples in the county. MR. NINO: Sure. That's not the way our -- MR. COE: Before -- before, what happens, the citizens step up to bat, like just happened in Naples, and said, wait a minute, we aren't gonna have that kind of height, we aren't gonna allow that growth. MR. NINO: Yeah. I certainly wouldn't argue with you, Mr. Coe. That's not the way our growth management's set up. Our growth management, in terms of the traffic element -- you know, we have to make a finding that is consistent with every element. The one that usually binds around here is the traffic element. Page 28 February 2, 2000 Our comprehensive plan says, you know, to put it in the simplest terms, it says that the road system can become -- can be deficient, can go to pot, so to speak, for a period of three years, as long as we have a committed correction of that condition. In other words, within that three year window, we have committed the dollars to bring that road up to standard, so to get at your question would require us eliminating that window. What you're saying is, it ought to be done before the development is permitted. That would require an amendment to the growth management plan. That's not the way our plan is structured. Our plan is structured to say that, indeed, you can permit development, even if the road has gone to pot, i.e., has fallen below its design level of service, and in Collier County, in most cases, that's D. However, in some cases, it's even E. CHAIRMAN HILL: Are you saying, Ron, that there is no method whereby an approved development can be delayed in implementation until the infrastructure's in place? MR. NINO: I'm saying that our growth management plan doesn't provide for that. In other words, to meet the consistency test, we merely have to find -- not merely, we have to find that the road that is deficient will be corrected within a time frame of three years. For example, the Whippoorwill projects, you're going to get a couple of those, Pine Ridge Road is operating below its adopted level of service. The adopted level of service for Pine Ridge Road is E and it's operating at F. We have to recommend approval of those projects, even though that condition exists because Pine Ridge Road, within the next three years, will be widened to six lanes, and upon completion of that widening, that level of service will become C, higher than D. In other words, it will be corrected and that's the -- you know, that's the legislative position we find ourselves in. Now, that's not to say that -- that's not to say that the Board of County Commissioners cannot take a -- a more restrictive view of that position, say, for example, phase those projects to minimize the impact on an already deficient road, but that's a decision the Board has. Page 29 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: That was my question. Is there a mechanism whereby the Board can say, all right, this development is approved, and we've had, what, four or five along Livingston Road and Whippoorwill, can they say, right, we'll approve that, that's consistent, but you can't implement -- you can't make the development until the infrastructure's in place? MR. NINO: No, I don't believe the Board can -- the Board can do anything it wants to do, but to the extent it makes decisions that are inconsistent with its own plan, it invites litigation and it may not prevail and we could end up spending a lot of money in the court system. MR. COE: MR. NINO: MR. COE: from E to C? MR. NINO: MR. COE: correct? MR. NINO: MR. COE: Correct me if I'm wrong, Pine Ridge Road is at E? Uh-huh. We approved the money to widen it to bring it up Yes. That's based on the current traffic conditions, It's based on projected traffic. Also projected. Well, if it's running at E right now, one more lane is only going to bring it up to C, correct? Does it take into consideration all those projects on Livingston Road that are going to flush onto Pine Ridge? MR. NINO: Well, Livingston Road will also be eventually constructed to a six lane facility itself and -- MR. COE: But that traffic that's going to come down Livingston Road to Pine Ridge is not going to overload Pine Ridge and -- and drop it from a C to E again? MR. NINO: Correct. That's -- at least that's what our traffic experts tell us. That's what our MPO people -- MR. COE: Those are the same guys that are on their way to work at three a.m. too, right? MR. NINO: I can't say that. They have a model and their modeling process supports the proposition that they're telling us, that six laning of Pine Ridge Road will correct its current deficiency and -- MR. COE: The reason I say that, I'm not a planner, obviously, Page 30 February 2, 2000 you can tell by the haircut, but -- what hair's left, but I look at Highway 41 that's been widened and I see all these homes that are gonna eventually go out there, particularly if the Collier project comes through. I don't know if you've been on that road lately, but it's wall to wall traffic during the daytime. Obviously this is the season, but you take the traffic that's there now and what is projected for that area over the next five to ten years, I don't see how there's any way that road is going to handle that traffic. MR. NINO.' Well, they have to because we're required by law. The minute that -- when we go beyond the three year window and that condition still exists and now we've widened the lanes to six roads -- I mean, we've widened the road to six lanes, we know we're not going to widen roads any more than six lanes, then we have to trigger, and there's a mechanism in the growth management plan, there's a mechanism that triggers in the process leading to a moratorium, and we have to follow that process. It's -- we have to declare the area as an area of significant influence and we need to then trigger the public hearing process to establish the moratorium. That process alone takes a year. MR. COE: But does that kick in before, say for example, Pine Ridge Road drops to E again? MR. LORENZ: No, it would -- Pine Ridge Road would have to drop to E again, and there's no solution immediately in mind, in sight, we have to trigger in the moratorium process or -- MR. COE: But we could change the ordinance and rather than let it go to E, if it drops to D, then the moratorium would kick in? MR. NINO: Yes, you could do that, but again, that would require increasing or improving the level of services over and above what we've now said is satisfactory, and that would be a -- I suggest to you that would probably be a tough sell because we think that -- I mean, traffic planners say that while you might -- you and I might find level D inconvenient based on where we're from and what we've historically been accustomed to, the traffic planner would say level of service D is a satisfactory level of Page 3t February 2, 2000 service in an urban environment. I mean, you know, I -- I'm -- I grew up in areas of stop -- you know, stop and go traffic. I personally, I don't know how many other people would -- would say, I am not terribly inconvenienced traveling around Collier County, but somebody else may have an entirely different perspective of that. They may find any inconvenience as not -- you know, needs to be corrected. I mean, their level of service standard is higher than mine, and I'm sure that applies generally to a lot of things in life. The experts -- the experts have set the standards. The Board has adopted them, and by virtue of that, we've made a statement that says that is a satisfactory level of service. Now, when it goes below that, then we have a mechanism for -- we need to correct it. By law, we need to correct it, and if we can't correct it, we need to institute a moratorium. MR. SMITH: Mr. Nino, I'm impressed sometimes when I -- my son goes to Florida Gulf Coast University and I travel up there. I'm impressed with the magnificent roads, as I know everybody here has seen them, that go through the woods, basically, and provide access to the university in a setting where you can anticipate that there's going to be growth, but there has been some planning done way ahead of time with some vision. Is there anything in place here in Collier to put those kinds of roads in areas where, right now, there's nothing but woods, but where there can be anticipated growth? MR. NINO: There isn't. We're not going to -- I don't believe we're going to spend money on an if come somewhere else when we have so many problems within the urban area that need to be addressed, you know. The whole business of -- of -- the ultimate solution, of course, are the fly overs and, you know, we're talking in terms of just fantastic investments that need to be made if we're going to deal with that -- that issue satisfactorily. The day will come when Pine Ridge Road will be deficient again, Livingston Road will be deficient and they'll be six laned and -- MR. SMITH: That's what I'm concerned with is that -- and then it becomes very, very expensive, as you well know, the higher Page 32 February 2, 2000 the property values, the more expensive it is to build roads. Whereas now I would think there's an opportunity to build for the future at much, much less of an expense. MR. COE: If we know this area is going to be an urban area -- in other words, the only way I see that it would not be an urban area would be if some big benefactor came in here with a couple of billion dollars and bought up the land between here and the Everglades, so if we know it's going to be an urban area, why can't we plan now, and this is what Mr. Smith's saying, why can't we plan now, plat out the roads for the county? Not leave it for the developers to do it, but -- MR. NINO: No, I think you're going to -- MR. COE: -- let the county take control of our county, plat out the roads where we expect the development to be and how we're going to do these roads. MR. NINO: If I may, that wasn't really part of our workshop agenda. The workshop agenda was the -- MR. COE: This is interesting. Again, it's not a battle with -- MR. NINO: No, I understand, but you need somebody else here if you're going to discuss that type of question. My -- our function was to tell you, here's how we make land use decisions. MR. COE: You thought you were going to get away easy, that's all. MR. NINO: The issue that you're talking about is -- is a whole different issue and -- MR. SMITH: But I think as far as the environment is concerned that -- that it's a very important issue because, you know, by doing what Mr. Coe's suggesting, we can have a look at big environmental issues rather than take them piecemeal as each development comes in. MR. NINO: Sure, it would be very easy to widen Immokalee Road to six lanes today all the way to the City of Immokalee, to widen Pine Ridge Road to six lanes all the way to Wilson Boulevard. MR. SMITH: It doesn't go to Wilson. MR. NINO: Well, where -- as far east as we can carry it and -- MR. LORENZ: That's one of the things that we'll be looking at Page 33 February 2, 2000 when we start talking about the fringe area and the rural area. We have the opportunity, through the final order, even though the final order may provide some minimum requirements, to look at what that growth pattern potentially will be on those areas and look at what the impacts will be on various infrastructure or community services, and so we do have that opportunity in the next three years through the final order to maybe perhaps look at those types of questions. MIR. NINO: Yeah, but I suggest -- I think the suggestion here is that we build -- we build the road far -- far earlier than we anticipate a problem to arise. In other words, I hear you saying, we should six lane roads long before the need to six lane them is in place. MIR. SMITH: Not really. What I'm suggesting is that it might be possible to look at the overall Collier County area and anticipate where there's going to be substantial future growth, and instead of waiting for that growth to come project by project, prepare for it by putting some infrastructure in and alleviate problems that are already in existence by doing that and -- and also in that process, perhaps address some environmental concerns that otherwise just aren't going to get addressed. MIR. NINO: Well, basically we're talking about roads. The degree to which we marry the land development with the preservation consciousness, you know, that could be easily handled. Maybe our standards aren't high enough right now in terms of the degree of preservation that ought to occur, but you know, those numbers can be adjusted and that's your function, to adjust those numbers, because that's the issue that Michael Simonik makes, that we're not doing perhaps a good enough job here in Collier County in preserving those natural resources. MR. SMITH: I grew up in Broward County and when I was in Broward County as a child, areas that were -- where we used to take horses and go out and spend days -- you know, a whole day without seeing cars and just -- are now the center of town, basically. MR. NINO.' Sure, sure. Page 34 February 2, 2000 MR. SMITH: And it occurs to me in looking at where Collier County is now, that if there had been vision, Broward County would not be, in terms of traffic and congestion, nearly the problem it is now, and what I would suggest is that perhaps there's a way to envision where the potential growth is going to go so that you can lead it there, if you will, in a way that is going to be less of an impact on the environment and on the community as a whole and make it better for the people to have the development as opposed to make it worse. MR. NINO: Doesn't that mean building the road prior to -- MR. SMITH: I think it would have to, yes. MR. BAXTER: Secondary system. MR. SMITH: I think it would have to. MR. NINO: And to give you a corollary, we're building Livingston Road currently from Immokalee to Bonita Beach Road. We know that road's got to be six laned someday. Aren't you basically saying, build it six lane right now? MR. SMITH: Well, one of the problems, I happen to own land where they're building that road and they're taking part of it, and one of the problems with Livingston Road is that they waited way too long. They waited and waited and waited and the property values kept going up and up and up, and finally they said, we can't afford it. So what do they do? They look to a private developer for the money. What I'm suggesting is, why do that again? MR. NINO: Because we can't afford to do otherwise. MR. SMITH: Well, you can't afford to do otherwise either. It's a question of, pay me now or pay me later. MR. NINO: Well, it could -- what you're suggesting would require Collier County to go up and borrow a ton of money in anticipation of sufficient revenue from impact fees to make the bond payments. MR. SMITH: I'm not too sure about that, Mr. Nino, because I wonder if it might be possible to have a private-public partnership of some sort where there would be enthusiasm on both sides and much less of an expense than you might anticipate from the public coffer. Page 35 February 2, 2000 MR. NINO: Well, we -- that's exactly the scenario with Mediterra and Long Bay Park. MR. SMITH: Yeah, but unfortunately there, it didn't happen until the place was built up way out of proportion. MR. NINO: Well, how would we have gotten the public partnership from Long Bay Partners prior to them buying the land? I mean, it wasn't going to happen. Let me also say that Long Bay Partners is not building a road free of charge for Collier County. They're getting credit for impact fees. No one -- no developer builds anything for nothing in Collier County. We give them a credit on their impact fees, so we're paying for it from impact fees. CHAIRMAN HILL: Of course, that was the reason the impact fee was -- MR. COE: So what's wrong with that? CHAIRMAN HILL: That's what it was for. MR. NINO: Correct. The problem is, impact fees -- we don't have enough impact fees to build the roads prior to their requirement. So the only solution is to borrow money and make the bond payment on anticipated revenues from impact fees, and if they fall short, then it's the ad valorem tax, and I suggest to you that elected officials are not going to gamble to that extent, at least I don't think they -- MR. SMITH: I think there should at least be some exploration of the idea. Impact fees, for example, in Golden Gate Estates, that's, I guess, now the fastest growing area in Collier County, so that each time there's a new home put up there, there's another three -- what is it, three or four or five thousand dollars put into the county's coffers, but very little or none of that money is used to assist in the Estates, and I find that to be wrong. MR. NINO: Well, it has to be. In fact, impact fee money has to be spent in the area that it comes from within the district. There are a number of impact fee districts and the money does have to be spent there. In other words, impact fees from Golden Gate Estates cannot be used to widen Vanderbilt Drive in North Naples. It can't be. The impact fee money is an escrow account that is directed to road improvements within defined districts Page 36 February 2, 2000 from which they come. MR. SMITH: Other than the anticipated -- very long anticipated widening of Golden Gate Boulevard and the long anticipated widening of Immokalee Road, nothing has happened. CHAIRMAN HILL: I have a more fundamental -- MR. NINO: Can we get back to your agenda? I'd like Susan Murray to tell you how we do the rest of our business in terms of dealing with land use petitions. CHAIRMAN HILL: Could I raise one question quickly? I think there's probably a quick answer. I'm frustrated every once in a while when a petition comes through here for rezoning. Some come with half a site plan, some come with no site plan. To me, rezoning simply says it's land use compatible, but environmental issues, quite often, really need more than just that, and yet we're not consistent in what we require on those plans that come before us. MR. NINO: Let me -- let me try to speak to that. CHAIRMAN HILL: Is my question clear? MR. NINO: Yes, it is. First of all, a site plan is not required for a standard rezone. As a matter of fact, there have been -- I think there are some legal cases there that suggest that if you require me to submit a site plan on a straight rezone, you are, in fact, contract zoning because you're -- because that requirement is, tell me what you're building. That -- we can't do that on straight rezones. On PUD's, however, a PUD is its own -- establishes its own development strategy, and traditionally, there has been a master plan unique to that PUD, i.e., Pelican Bay and all of the -- Pelican Marsh. The question I think that you're getting at there is the degree -- the degree of detail on that master plan for that community. That has always been conceptual. You know, when Pelican Marsh first decided they were going to ask for rezoning and develop a master plan, I'm sure they didn't, at that time, and I don't think any developer knows exactly what he's going to put on every tract of land within that master plan community. I hope that we have -- I hope that the master plans, however, Page 37 February 2, 2000 accurately delineate the preservation areas, because that -- and I think we have done that in all cases. If you look at the Pelican Marsh master plan when it came in, it delineated very accurately the preservation areas, but it didn't say where single family housing was going to go versus multiple family housing. It didn't lay out footprints for how commercial was going to occur within the commercial tracts, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to do that because that's market driven. So I don't know how we could ever develop a plan that was less detailed than your traditional bubble diagrams that say, this is going to be residential, this is going to be commercial. They -- at that point, they haven't even worked out the alignment of all the roads, you know. It's very conceptual. Your kind of master plan is something that we just never asked for and we don't feel is justified at that -- CHAIRMAN HILL: When the process then is completed with a site plan, et cetera, there may well be environmental issues that arise that were not obvious when the conceptual plan was introduced, and yet we and other environmental agencies are not in that loop. Now, I don't know, should we be? It seems to me that we should be in that loop. MR. NINO: Well, if you're talking about -- if you're talking about environmental involvement down to each and every site plan, then you're suggesting that you ought to become involved in the review of each and every site plan and I don't think that's going to happen. The board doesn't -- the board hasn't asked -- I mean, the board hasn't asked for-- the board has said, we're comfortable with the site -- the process post-zoning as being an administrative process, and that's by and large the way it is handled throughout the country. Legislative bodies and appointed advisory bodies generally don't get involved in the day-to-day handling of the building development process. You get involved in the more conceptual stage, and that is the rezoning -- the rezoning stage. That's not to say it can't be changed, but we're not going to change it. The Board would have to change it. You'd have to convince the Board that, indeed, you're -- you ought to be Page 38 February 2, 2000 involved in -- in the use of land at the day-to-day decision making stage. I'm going to have Susan -- MR. CARLSON: Can I ask one more question real quick? I know you're not a traffic engineer, but we're talking about these levels of service on these roads, the C's, D's and E's and that must be -- it must boil down to some number somewhere. Can you tell me what the main factors are that decide what level of service it is? Is it just, they put out the traffic counters and it's so many cars per day on a two lane road, or do they figure out how many times you have to wait for the light to change, you know, or something like that? MR. NINO: I certainly would think that that's all factored within the number of -- traffic lights, the stop and go's, the turn lanes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It has to do with numbers, but there are also criteria like traffic moves freely, traffic must stay in its lane and goes down to 45 miles an hour. A lot of traffic slows down -- MR. CARLSON: Well, I decided never to come to this meeting on 951 and Davis Boulevard again because you get to within about a mile of the interstate and you stop, and all the traffic coming off the interstate heading, I guess for Marco, just totally, totally gridlocks that area right there, so -- CHAIRMAN HILL: Does any of the council or staff need a short break before we -- MR. NINO: Did you ever go to work from the suburbs of downtown Detroit and --- work in downtown Detroit and come from the suburbs? You know, people do it every day. MR. COE: You know something? This ain't Detroit. MR. NINO: Or Atlanta, what have you. People do it every day. CHAIRMAN HILL: Would anybody like a break, including the court reporter? Let's take five minutes. We'll reconvene at thirty-six. (A recess was had) MR. NINO: Susan Murray's going to get into the more detailed day-to-day aspect of what we do in dealing with land use petitions. MS. MURRAY: Hi. I'm Susan Murray. I'm chief planner in the Page 39 February 2, 2000 current planning section, and I'm going to talk about the site development plan review process which would occur post-zoning. So if you look on the overhead, I have a site development plan review process highlighted in relationship to the development approval process. It's -- and that would occur just prior to pulling building permits. I'm going to speak in very general terms about the process. I'm not going to go into too much detail. I'm going to talk about the various processes within the overall site development plan process, so feel free to ask questions, stop me. Steve Lenberger and Stan Chrzanowski, I invite them to jump in. You may also ask them questions relative to what they are charged with reviewing through this process, so I had already invited them to do that. Basically, the site development plan process is an administrative site plan review process to ensure compliance with land development regulations prior to the issuance of a building permit, and it's not applicable to all projects in Collier County, but probably to a majority of them and that would be -- they would be applicable to commercial, industrial, multi family. Single family residential and some minor improvements like to golf courses and things like that are not required to go through the SDP process. The SDP process does require engineering site plans. That would be specifically a site plan showing generally the location of the buildings, structures, parking area and traffic circulation, utility location, storm water management, conservation areas, et cetera. Some projects require signed and sealed architectural plans. The county has an architectural ordinance which applies to commercial development and some industrial development. And also the site development plan process requires signed and sealed landscape plans. The purpose of the site development plan process is essentially to ensure that development complies with the fundamental planning and design principles, and that would be consistency with the county's growth management plan, which Page 40 February 2, 2000 us, as planners, are primarily charged with, and we basically would look at consistency with the growth management plan and compliance with the land development regulations. We also have various team members that participate in the site development plan review process and they would be looking at other things, for example, like configuration of traffic circulation system, the layout and arrangement of buildings in open space. Other review agencies would look at things like emergency access, architectural design in open spaces, the availability and capacity of drainage and utilities, the overall compatibility with adjacent development and the impacts on natural resources and any environmental considerations. I hope you can read this. You're gonna hear various terms thrown around when you are reviewing land use petitions like SDP, site development plan, site improvement plan, SDP amendment process, so I thought I'd just throw up a slide that shows -- gives an outline of the various processes. The first one being the site development plan process, and again, I already explained where it was applicable, and I just wanted to give you an idea of how long it takes and how much it costs also. The review time for a site development plan process is generally ten to 20 working days, and I say that review time being that that's generally the amount of time that county staff has the plans in for review. You also have to factor in time for revisions because often there are various phases to the review, and I don't mean to say phases, but I mean, for example, when somebody submits a plan, comments are received, but the applicant receives county staff comments and subsequently has to make revisions to the plan, so they may have to resubmit. MR. CORNELL: Susan? MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. CORNELL.' At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I love the overheads. Is it possible to get a copy of them? MS. MURRAY: Sure, sure, no problem. So I just wanted to clarify that, because the review time is generally the time that the staff has the plans in their office. There is a time frame in Page 41 February 2, 2000 which corrections and revisions need to be resubmitted and re-reviewed by any applicable county staff. We also have the site development plan amendment process, and that would apply generally to any proposed change to a previously approved site development plan. Generally our staff takes five to ten working days to review a site development plan amendment and we also have what's called a site improvement plan, and that generally applies to where a site is currently improved and where there is no expansion of existing impervious areas or effects to on-site surface water management treatment. Site improvement plans we use a lot for some of the older structures around the county that were never -- that are established, but we do not have a record of a site improvement plan, and then that generally takes five to ten working days. An SDP amendment would generally be applicable to any proposed change to a previously approved SDP, and we define those amendments as substantial or insubstantial. A substantial change would be any change which substantially affects the existing transportation circulation, building or parking arrangements, drainage, landscaping, or preserve and conservation areas. And an insubstantial change would be all others. Just to give you an idea of the cost for a substantial amendment, that costs the same as a new SDP, $425, plus $9 per dwelling unit, plus $21 per residential building structure, and then you can read the rest for non-residential. Review time is generally ten to 20 working days, so that gives you a little bit of an idea of how much that costs. CHAIRMAN HILL: Susan, excuse me for interrupting. Could you back up to the previous overhead? In one of the substantial amendments, you have preserve and conservation areas. Can this be significant from an environmental standpoint, and if so, would that come back to us? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it could be--well -- MR. NINO: Steve, we have brought back some, haven't we? MR. LENBERGER: Are you talking an insubstantial change to an SDP? These generally involve -- substantial change? I can Page 42 February 2, 2000 think of no cases where the preserve areas were significantly changed. CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, what I'm saying is if they were, preserve or conservation areas were one of the possible changes, would that, in fact, come back to -- MR. LENBERGER: We would -- it would have to be drastically different than what's on the zoning, the PUD, which the Environmental Advisory Council had reviewed previously. MS. MURRAY: Generally that -- that would probably trigger some type of PUD amendment, which would then come back to you in that form, if it was a PUD. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Insubstantial amendments, $85, five to ten working days. Pretty straightforward. Site improvement plan, I already touched on that. It's applicable to a currently improved site where there is no proposed expansion of impervious area or changes or effects to on-site surface water management treatment areas. That is for a cost of $85 and five to ten working days for review time. I wanted to give you a little overview of how the process works. It's an administrative process. The project review section coordinates a review process. Site plans are submitted by developers, by the developer's engineer primarily. They are distributed to various county departments for review and comment. The departments are basically reviewing the project for compliance with county codes, regulations and permitting requirements, as you know, and the comments are then returned to the project review section and then are funneled back out to the developer for correction to plans. They are then resubmitted and re-reviewed by any applicable agency. So they would not go back through the entire review process if the engineering folks had a couple concerns which rendered corrections, then they would be the only ones to review the resubmittal, and the planner also. When all the reviews are complete and the plans meet the county codes, provided that the applicant has met any of the code and permitting requirements, administrative approval is Page 43 February 2, 2000 given to the SDP, and once the SDP is approved, the developer may begin applying for building permits. Once permits are approved, the developer may begin construction, so that's kind of the tail end of the development review process, that being applying for building permits, and that's kind of it in a nutshell. That's a very brief overview. If you have any specific questions, feel free, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. NINO: Let me give you an example of where the kinds of things that you guys are concerned about comes into this process. For example, the native vegetation, the preservation requirement, you know that every project needs to preserve 25 percent of their native vegetation. Steve and Barbara and -- and the environmental staff, they're charged with making sure that that happens, and believe me, they are very vigilant in that process and -- MR. MCVEY: Amen. MR. NINO: And you know that, being on the receiving end, and -- and similarly with the conservation areas, I mean, those jurisdictional lines are hard and fast and they're certainly not going to be varied in the site development plan process. However, you get to the -- one of the buildings that got a lot of attention a few years ago, do you remember when Sports Authority, they built on a beautifully wooded pine forest. They knocked the trees down. They have a right to do that, you know. That's -- that's not going to change unless our rules change dramatically in this county, and that's not -- and I suggest to you that that's not an environmental issue over which we have any authority to deal with, but that is -- was one of the things that, you know, kicked up a lot of heat. Nothing we could do about it, and if we were to do anything about it, we'd need new rules. Like I say, we work with rules. You give us the rules and we'll enforce them. I -- I hope that our discussion of how we do business has helped. If you think we need to do something more, keep scheduling these kinds of meetings, we'd be happy to do so. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. Page 44 February 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions for Mr. Nino or Miss Murray? MR. CARLSON: You know what I thought was important today was Mr. Simonik coming in with that Martin County wetland thing. I mean -- and you've got to wonder how many other counties have grappled with all of these questions about how to save stuff and do better and have better rules and how much great stuff is out there that we could just look at and adapt and -- MR. NINO: No question. *** CHAIRMAN HILL: Item 6(B), is that -- MR. LORENZ: Yes, your annual report. Well, actually, that's the segue into your annual report, because what I presented everybody at the break, I presented one little handout for you, your enabling ordinance and the code that I've quoted requires the EAC to present an annual report to the Board of County Commissioners, and it's due in May of each year, and this report, as noted here, wants to look at your achievement, so what you have done for the -- for the past year, your objectives for the coming year and any -- and highlight any environmental issues that need further study. So that's exactly the type of thing that -- that we talked about today earlier, the gopher tortoise, possibly amendments for protection of gopher tortoises. I know that in the past, there has been discussion -- some of the projects that have come across the EAC's review, they say, well, is this enough wetlands that have been set aside, and as Ron says, staff presents to you a recommendation based upon our existing rules, and if you, as a body, as an advisory body to the Board of County Commissioners would like to see those rules change, these would be issues that, as you come up with this annual report in May, that you could identify and tell the Board of County Commissioners, we would like to study these particular issues. So this is your -- this is the opportunity here, in this annual report format, to obviously be retrospective, but then to be prospective as well. I've outlined a little bit of a timetable as a proposed timetable for you to consider. This is your first annual report. Different advisory committees do it differently. Staff -- for some advisory Page 45 February 2, 2000 committees, staff simply develops the report and puts it into the advisory committee, they sign off on it and it goes to the Board of County Commissioners just as part of a written report. It was envisioned -- the intent was for -- for this particular advisory board, however, to make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the regular agenda, with the chairman making a presentation of the report and then engage in some dialogue with the County Commission for the County Commission to say, yeah, you know, those are -- those are good issues to work on or, well, maybe not these issues, but maybe these issues. That was part of the discussion process as the EAC's ordinance was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners more than a year ago, so the question -- the alternative for the advisory council is, staff would be certainly willing to take a shot at providing the retrospective portion of the report, providing, you know, some of the statistics and the information, but in terms of what the objectives are, your objectives and what your issues are, that needs to come from you. Another alternative would simply be to have EAC here assign a member to draft a report for the EAC's consideration for March 1st and that could be either taken on by the chairman or have -- have that be assigned, but -- but the point is obviously, you've got -- you have to meet to discuss it as part of a regular EAC meeting, even though we're talking about May, meeting once a month, you need to start working on it fairly soon here. MR. COE: It doesn't have to be real elaborate. We can just get the information from them and do it. CHAIRMAN HILL: You mentioned that you would be able to -- or be willing to supply the statistics of the events that have occurred in the last 12 months. That certainly would be part of the report. Would that also then govern actions, in other words, approvals, disapprovals, summary of -- of reasons and that type of thing? MR. LORENZ: Yes, we -- we do draft that for you and -- and put that in your -- probably your agenda packet for you to review on -- on March 1st, but as I said, the objectives for the coming Page 46 February 2, 2000 year and the issues that you want to study, I think that needs to come from you all. CHAIRMAN HILL: What I'd like to suggest then, if staff will do that for us, if the council members would come to our March 1st meeting with items for inclusion for adoption in our report for activities in the future, why then, we can put that together at the March 1st meeting. MR. COE: Can we get another e-mail -- CHAIRMAN HILL: And at the same time, if you would -- if staff would get to us a history of the past year? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that would be -- that would be in your packet for March 1st. MR. COE: Can we get another e-mail and telephone list made up? Because I know like my e-mail's changed. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I just got everybody's e-mail at the break and I told Kim that I would give them a copy so we can e-mail each of you the new e-mail and telephone list of everybody. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Be as specific, but not necessarily great detail, but if you come to the March 1st meeting with -- and Mr. Baxter, I would hope that maybe as a newcomer, you have some fresh ideas of where we should be going, so please let us know what you have in mind as far as EAC's future. MR. BAXTER: I will. CHAIRMAN HILL: And if you remember, I handed out a couple months ago, and we never got around to it, what I called the EAC horizon. There were a lot of things on there. You might revisit that and see if any of them are worth considering. If you don't have a copy of that, I'll get you one, but it was based on a list of responsibilities and the enabling legislation and it's -- a whole potpourri of things we're supposed to be doing. MR. SMITH: Would you mind e-mailing that to me? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah, sure. Thank you, staff, and everybody for your participation today. Are there any comments from the council? Page 47 February 2, 2000 Remind you five p.m. on the 8th, growth management sub-committee. Mr. Lorenz, you'll let us know -- probably one of the conference rooms there, so you'll confirm that indeed we can meet there? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HILL: Would you also, when you -- Stan, when you give us the e-mail addresses, I think in that table we had before, we also had the terms -- term limits. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, Kim has a copy of that. Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. And I think-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We'll just update everything, the e-mail, the telephone, the term. CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah. Any comments? Public? Eric? I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. MR. CORNELL: Move we adjourn. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN HILL: Any objections? There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:00 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WILLIAM W. HILL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY HEATHER L. CASASSA, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 48