EAC Minutes 04/05/2000 RApril 5, 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, April 5, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
William W. Hill
Jack Baxter
Michael G. Coe
M. Keen Cornell
John DiNunzio
Thomas W. Sansbury
J. Richard Smith
NOT PRESENT:
Ed Carlson
James L. McVey
ALSO PRESENT:
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer
Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist
Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director
Marni Scuderi, Assistant County Attorney
Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager
Page 1
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Environmental Advisory Council.
May we have roll call.
MS. BURGESON: Hill.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Baxter.
MR. BAXTER: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Coe.
MR. COE: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Here.
MS. BURGESON: DiNunzio.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Here.
MS. BURGESON: Sansbury.
(No response.)
MS. BURGESON: Smith.
MR. SMITH: Here.
MS. BURGESON: McVey.
(No response.)
I call to order the April meeting of the
That makes us official.
MS. BURGESON: And Carlson. Ed Carlson has an excused
absence.
CHAIRMAN HILL:
from '-
MS. BURGESON: From Ed, yes.
CHAIRMAN HILL: -- from Ed about the trial.
(Mr. Sansbury enters boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Let the record show then that
we have a quorum of seven, with Mr. Sansbury.
I have two minor changes to the agenda, which I'll ask for
your approval. Mr. Cheatam and his staff are here at our request
to discuss certain aspects of the wastewater system in Collier
County. And with your permission, I'd like to move that up to --
let's mark it Item 3-A, following the approval of the minutes of
the last meeting. Is there objection from the council? MR. COE: No.
CHAIRMAN HILL: The other item -- this is the end of the first
year for this council, as structured. Would this be the proper
I was going to ask if you had received that
Page 2
April 5, 2000
time for election for chairman and vice-chairman, commencing
with our May meeting? I see several shaking of heads.
MS. BURGESON: I'm not sure if it would be today or after
the new members are appointed.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Will we have the appointment of the two
vacancies that will occur subsequent to this one?
MS. BURGESON: That should be on the Board of County
Commissioners' schedule for I think the next agenda, and so we
should expect to have two new members or reappointees and
new members for the next board.
CHAIRMAN HILL: For Mr. McVey and Mr. Sansbury's
position?
MS. BURGESON: Right. Or hopefully just for Mr. McVey.
MR. SANSBURY: I volunteered to be reappointed.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz.
Your ordinance specifies that the chairman and
vice-chairman are to be elected in October of each year.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Was that the EAC or the EAB?
MR. LORENZ: The EAC.
CHAIRMAN HILL: EAC.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Can't get out that quick.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, I may have to next month. We'll
handle that as it occurs.
Any other recommended changes to the public agenda?
I'll ask for approval then as amended by the one item.
MR. CORNELL: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Second?
MR. COE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Second by Mr. Coe.
All those in favor?.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimously passed.
Ask for your action on the minutes of the March 1st meeting.
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. SANSBURY: Second.
Page 3
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
All those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimously accepted.
With that then, Mr. Cheatam, you're on the hot seat.
MR. CHEATAM: Thank you very much. For the record, my
name is Joe Cheatam. I'm the wastewater director for Collier
County Wastewater Department.
I'm here this morning to spend a few minutes with you to
discuss the status of our wastewater collection system for
Collier County. I'm here this morning to report to you all is well
on our collection system. You have a fairly new infrastructure in
Collier County. The collection system is less than 25 years old.
So Collier County does not experience a lot of the problems that
you see in a lot of major cities of aging infrastructure, of pipes
falling apart. The system is in good shape. I want to just spend
a few minutes this morning to explain kind of what we do in our
system.
Just to give you a few facts and figures on our department,
we have approximately 60 employees, and our department takes
cares of the wastewater collection system, which includes about
713 miles of gravity mains and forced mains through the urban
area of Collier County.
Due to the nature of the topography of the area, which is
relatively flat, the county has to pump the majority of our
wastewater to our wastewater treatment plants, which we do
with 630 wastewater pumping stations. The slide you see on the
monitor right now is one of our master pump stations, which we
have t 8 of these master pump stations located all across the
county. And these stations come with standby power. They also
come with odor control, so we're able to keep down the odors of
our neighborhoods.
Our pipe sizes, mainly our pipes in Collier County, are made
of-- PVC pipe is our standard. We also have ductal iron pipe of
large diameter. Our pipe sizes range from four inches to 36
inches in diameter. Our pump stations pump anywhere from 150
Page 4
April 5, 2000
gallons per minute to 5,600 gallons per minute. So you see we
have a wide range of pumps.
A big part of our department also includes a stake and
locate crew. This crew is very important to Collier County
because of all the construction going on in the area. We have to
go out and locate our pipes for contractors, to make sure that
nobody inadvertently runs over one or breaks one. And we do
about 25,000 locates per year. This is a crew of seven
employees that go out with our as-built drawings, with some of
the latest technology of locating pipes, to make sure that our
pipes are located well and that we have very few accidents from
contractors.
This slide shows an employee actually going out and spray
painting. A line showing where our pipes are located. We also
put up flags. We have to locate our locates within 48 hours so
that they're done in a timely manner and that those locates are
accurate.
Our next slide shows a TV camera inside of a TV truck.
During the year we have to go out as part of our operations and
maintenance and TV lines to make sure that there's no problems
with breakage of our pipes. We do from time to time have
problems with tree roots getting into our pipes. And also,
sometimes just from settling, the pipes break and we have to go
out and TV these lines on an annual basis to make sure that we
don't have a lot of breakage and infiltration into our sewer
system.
Another part of our function is to install sewer laterals
where there aren't any. We also install gravity mains, as well as
repair and replace force mains.
The majority of our infrastructure, though, is built by
developers who actually install these pipes of the most part in
developments, and we operate them, and then they actually give
us a one-year warranty. And after one year we take over these
lines and maintain them from then on in. We have to ensure that
when we take over these lines, they're in good shape.
We also have crews that go out and inspect our lift stations
on a weekly basis. This slide shows a technician inspecting an
Page 5
April 5, 2000
electrical control panel to make sure that the pumps and the lift
station are operating properly. This is done on a regular basis.
The technician goes out and does a series of checks on the lift
station panel to make sure everything is operating like it should.
As you can imagine, with 630 wastewater pumping stations,
they require some maintenance. This slide shows a crew going
out and pulling a pump out of a wet well.
The majority of our lift station pumps are what we call
submersible pumps. They're located below ground in wet wells.
They're submersed in the wastewater, along with the electric
motor and the pump, just all in one piece. We pull these pumps
on a regular basis to inspect them, make sure all their parts and
pieces are operating correctly, and that there's no debris or trash
in these pumps, make sure that they're pumping efficiently.
From time to time some of our lift stations require some
upgrades. This slide shows a station -- we had to go into a
neighborhood, we had to upgrade the lift station. As you see,
when we go into the neighborhoods of Collier County, we try to
be good neighbors as well and make sure the landscaping was
put back like it was. This slide shows us replacing some sod.
As you drive through Collier County, you do not see many of
these lift stations looking like this, because the majority of them
are hidden by shrubs and landscaping. A lot of the
neighborhoods like to do that. And that presents a little bit of a
problem for us, but we're working on that, trying to get that
resolved.
This is one of our main pieces of equipment in the collection
system. It's called a -- it's a Vactor truck. This truck can go out
and actually clean sewer lines, lift stations, wet wells. It goes
out on a regular basis throughout the county and cleans out
blockages of pipes, as well as lift station housekeeping.
And one problem we have in Collier County with lift stations
is we have over 750 restaurants in Collier County. A lot of them
use grease in part of their cooking process, and this grease
eventually gets into our system and causes us problems with
blockages and housekeeping problems, as well as odors. This
truck helps us alleviate a lot of that.
Page 6
April 5, 2000
We're also proud of-- in our system, in our wastewater
system, have our own pump shop. We have trained technicians
who actually take care of our pumps, take them apart to replace
all the broken pieces, put them back together again and put
those pumps back out in the field. This saves us quite a bit of
money of having to contract this out to a private contractor to
rebuild these pumps for us.
We're getting into some automation in our system where we
want to know what's going on with our pump stations at any
given point in time of the day or night. And to do this, we have to
install radio telemetry communication equipment in these pump
stations to actually monitor our pump stations automatically.
This is a polling system where the lift station
communications equipment actually poll through radio telemetry
the station, it asks us how it's doing, reports back I'm okay or I'm
not okay. And if the station's not okay, then we dispatch a crew
to that station to say okay, we know you're having a problem,
we're on the way. So this is a system that will help us be more
reliable, it will help us pick up problems quicker so we can
respond faster to issues out there such as power failures and
pump blockages, so that we can have a more reliable system and
ensure less backups into our homes in Collier County.
This slide shows us as well, we get into helping out
neighbors, as well as ourselves. When we're out in the field and
a customer has an issue with our sewer system, we don't really
say well, it's not my problem, call a plumber. A lot of times we'll
go in and help them. And in case of an emergency, we'll go ahead
and solve the problem for them. In this way we try to have a
good customer relationship with our customers so that they
know that we're there to help them. We're not there to cause
problems and odors, we're there to assist them in whatever we
can do.
And the last slide just shows us in our recordkeeping, we
have a lot of records to keep. In our records management
department we have lots of drawings to maintain, a lot of
records, and this shows some of this recordkeeping that we're
doing in our system.
Page 7
April 5, 2000
That's really an overview of our department. Again, I'm
pleased to be here this morning. I'll be happy to answer any
questions. I have with me this morning Steve Nagy, our
wastewater collections supervisor. He's been here a lot longer
than I have. And if you have any questions of our department,
we'll try to answer those questions now.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Council? I had '-
MR. COE: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HILL: You said 630. Are they all pump stations,
or are some lift stations? And what's the distribution?
MR. CHEATAM: They're all pump stations, and they're all
considered a lift station. They have anywhere from two pumps in
the lift station all the way to six. They're located all over the
county, from the north part of the county all the way to the Lee
County line, south as far as Marco Island, east to 951.
And we have -- on the West Coast, we have some lift
stations located at Lely Barefoot Beach. Does that answer your question?
CHAIRMAN HILL: They're all true lift stations with the
gravity exiting the pump stations?
MR. CHEATAM: Actually, it's the other way around. Gravity
-- it flows by gravity from the homes through the collection
system to the lift station and then to a plant.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. They're force mains, they're true
pumping stations, as opposed to lift stations?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think we have a semantic thing here.
MR. CHEATAM: They're one in the same to me.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Where I'm from, and maybe Bill thinks
the same, a lift station lifts by pumping it up into a gravity main
where it goes down and then lifts again and goes down by
gravity; whereas, a manifolded pump station is a pump station.
That's -- but it's a semantic.
MR. CHEATAM: Well, in Florida, we try to get out of pumping
to a gravity system because of the potential for odors. I know in
the northern part of the country you may have a low area
pumping up to a higher area, then to gravity, down to another lift
station. We don't have a whole lot of that in Collier County. It's
Page 8
April 5, 2000
mainly gravity to the pump station, from the pump station to a
master pump station, from the master pump station all the way
to the treatment plant.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And they are all served by emergency
power?
MR. CHEATAM: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I thought I heard you say that.
MR. CHEATAM: The master pump stations are. We have 18
of those stations. They all have emergency power. We have
standby generators, portable, that we can pull behind trucks. We
also are working on a contract with a resource -- a disaster
recovery company to provide generators in case of a disaster.
We are connected to FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers for
generators, if we need it, a major disaster comes. We also have
some agreements with our cities and counties across the state
to help us in case of a major disaster.
I only have 19 generators currently installed on-site. We
have some portables that we could pull behind a truck to go from
site to site to pump out lift stations.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think that was one of the major concerns
that this council had with respect to emergency situations.
MR. COE: How long can we hold out if we, say, get a
hurricane in June?
MR. CHEATAM: How long can we hold out?
MR. COE: Uh-huh.
MR. CHEATAM: That's a good question.
MR. COE: I mean, you know, during the height of the
season, you're not going to have a hurricane, at least we hope
not.
MR. CHEATAM: This past year we had some major rainfall
events. We didn't have very much power outage this past year.
But we were able to, for the most part, keep the wastewater in
the collection system. During the last year, the storm was about
a 25-year flood this past August, I believe.
As far as a major power outage goes '-
MR. COE: What do you do what you have a major power
outage, you got surge, you got 20 inches of rainfall. How long
Page 9
April 5, 2000
are you going to hold out?
MR. CHEATAM: Well, at that point in time, with 20 inches of
rain, we'll be under water. There will be a lot of flooding going
on.
MR. COE: And the power's out.
MR. CHEATAM: The power's out. During this point in time
we would do the best that we could to keep up what we could.
MR. COE: That wasn't the question. How long can you hold
out?
MR. CHEATAM: Well, I'd have to say -- I'm not going to stand
in front of you and tell you exactly I know the answer to that
question. But I'd say that with our master pump stations going
and with generators on hand to go from site to site, I'd say we
could hold out -- as long as we could get to the station without
being under water for quite a while. I was say probably a day or
two.
MR. COE: How many of these portable generators do you
have?
MR. NAGY: We just ordered seven more, and we have two at
our shop right now.
MR. CHEATAM: We ordered seven. We had planned to order
them last year. Y2K caused a major problem with generators,
when everybody in the world was ordering generators, and the
price skyrocketed. So we waited till after Y2K.
We'll have seven more new ones here by this hurricane
season. We have two more coming. We have two here already;
that will be a total of nine. We already have 18 at our master
pump stations, which take up the majority of our flows, our
master pump stations do, so they are covered by generators.
And the plants themselves, the wastewater plants, have standby
generation power to operate the wastewater plants.
MR. NAGY: Could I ask '-
MR. CHEATAM: Sure.
THE COURT REPORTER: If you get on the mike, please.
MR. NAGY: For the record, I'm Steve Nagy, collections
supervisor.
In addition to the generators, I'd just like to say, we also
Page 10
April 5, 2000
have several what we call trash pumps that we can actually
hook up to the smaller stations, and even some of the what we
would call master stations in certain developments, they're not
our major master stations, but we can hook up these pumps and
pump right from the well into the force main in the valve vault.
And that also, what is not covered by generators, we could
have several crews out there with these trash pumps to keep the
flow down in those stations. And then also, we are receiving
shortly a pureper truck, which also holds 5,000 gallons of
sewage, which we can take from smaller stations that are
starting to back up and dump them into the master station.
So along with what Joe said, we have several means of
keeping the wastewater out of the streets. And when you have
20 inches of rain, there's times at that point, especially in south
and east Naples where it just gets under water so quick that, you
know, all we can do without endangering our employees, we just
do the best that we can. But like I said, we do have quite a few
means to keep the wastewater out of the streets.
MR. COE: Do we have a contract with anybody to provide us
with additional generators?
MR. CHEATAM: There are --
MR. COE: You're talking, just by my count, roughly 30
generators to include the 18 that are in place now. We have 600
and some odd pump stations that you're going to try to cover.
MR. CHEATAM: We have 630 pump stations, but the -- over
half of them are about five horsepower or less. Very, very small
ones. They can be off for a long period of time.
We have just opened -- or received proposals, like I
mentioned, from disaster recovery companies to go into a
contract for generators on an as-needed basis during times of
disasters. And they'd be guaranteed that we'd have them
available, once we sign a contract with them.
MR. COE: When do you expect that to occur.
MR. CHEATAM.' We're reviewing those proposals next -- in
two weeks. We'll have a contract in place prior to the hurricane
season this year.
MR. COE: I don't have any further questions.
Page 11
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Other council members?
At what capacity is the treatment plant operating at peak
times?
MR. CHEATAM: At peak times?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there any bypass?
MR. CHEATAM: There is no -- we do have a means of what
we call reject water. The plant does not meet state standards.
There is no bypass to, like, a canal or something like that, or '-
but we do have a way of bypassing our water from our reclaimed
water system to an injection well during times that they were not
meeting our state permit. And that does not happen very often.
CHAIRMAN HILL: We have very few if any combined
sewers?
MR. CHEATAM: We have no combined sewers. We are
strictly sanitary sewer in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HILL: So essentially there's no major storm
impact on the quantity.
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, there is. We do have infiltration and
inflow through our collection system, through manholes, through
broken cleanouts, those type of things, and we're trying to fix
them as fast as we find them.
MR. SANSBURY: I have one other question.
You all handle the reuse program also; do you not?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, could you repeat the
question?
MR. SANSBURY: The reuse program.
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, sir, we have the reuse program.
MR. SANSBURY: Do you all -- I mean, this is for my own
information. Do you have a report on who actually utilizes reuse,
i.e., and whether they use golf courses, public areas and things
of that sort?
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, sir, we do.
MR. SANSBURY: Could I possibly
of that?
MR. CHEATAM:
MR. SANSBURY:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
-- how could I get a copy
I can provide you one, sir.
Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
What is the capacity of the plant, by the
Page 12
April 5, 2000
way?
MR. CHEATAM: Okay, the capacity of the plant, combined
capacity -- we have two plants in Collier County. Actually,
there's three plants, but one is Pelican Bay is only a one million
gallon per day plant.
But the two major plants in Collier County, one right now is
8.5 million gallons per day, and the other one is eight million
gallons per day. That is as of today. The combined capacity of
17.5 million gallons per day.
The north county plant has been expanded right now to take
an additional five million gallons per day. And the south county
plant is being designed to treat an additional four million gallons
per day. So by this time, two years from now, we'll have
additional capacity on line of nine million gallons, in addition to
our 17.5. So -- which will be a total of 26.5 million gallons per day
in the near future.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Was that expansion based on population
increase predictions?
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And do you feel comfortable with 26.5
MGD?
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, sir. We have to plan out 10 years in
advance on our capacity, and we have different time lines to
trigger us to go into a design phase and a construction phase,
based on the capacity report that we do every so often. Every
couple of years we do this type of report.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any other questions for Mr. Nagy or Mr.
Cheatam?
Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. It's
an important item for this council to know what's happening in
the way of our wastewater systems. MR. CHEATAM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'm remiss. Is there anybody in the public
that would like to comment or raise a question with respect to
this item?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Hill? One thing, just by way of
remainder, and it has nothing to do with Mr. Cheatam's
Page 13
April 5, 2000
presentation, in Collier County itself, you do have -- the City of
Naples has their own sewage treatment program, wastewater
collection. You have -- Marco Island has their own,
Port-of-the-Islands has their own, Everglades City has a system,
the Orangetree development out in Golden Gate Estates has one.
I think they also serve TwinEagles, maybe. Immokalee Water
and Sewer District has a separate system and Golden Gate City
has a separate system.
A lot of the county is on septic tank and drain field, golden
Gate Estates and the Pine Ridge subdivision. I know these
weren't brought up, but just for your information.
MR. COE: That doesn't come under the county at all then.
MR. CHEATAM: No, sir.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The county has been buying up like
Rookery Bay Utilities. Anything that they feel that they can
serve better than the private utility that's doing it, they've had a
program going.
MR. CHEATAM: We're trying to phase out a lot of the small
package type wastewater plants. Recently this year we took
over Rookery Bay, as well as Eagle Creek development. And
we're also working on a development on 951 in Diamond Shores.
So we're trying to decommission the smaller wastewater
facilities and connect them to the regional facility, which is more
efficient, cost effective and less impact on the environment.
MR. BAXTER: I have a question. What is the daily volume?
The daily volume that passes through the system?
MR. CHEATAM: Currently we're at the end of season and
we're pumping approximately 17 million gallons per day right
now. So we're at our capacity during season. That's why we're
having to expand our facilities, due to the higher flows during the
seasonal months.
MR. BAXTER: And how long has that capacity been flowing
like that, at that rate? How many years?
MR. CHEATAM: Our flows go up about anywhere from -- it
varies from five to t 0 percent a year, based on growth. And we
are just now reaching capacity. Our north plant will be on line in
about t 6 months, so next year we'll probably be at capacity as
Page 14
April 5, 2000
well.
MR. BAXTER: So you think the nine million additional
capacity that you're adding is going to be sufficient in two years?
MR. CHEATAM: Yes, sir. It should take us out to the year '-
we've projected to the year 2010. MR. BAXTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Stan, you mentioned a term private. Are
the satellite facilities, are they public or truly private? Like
Immokalee, Everglades City, Marco.
MR. CHEATAM: They're mainly public. The City of
Immokalee has their own utility, as well as Everglades City.
Orangetree is private. The Golden Gate area, I believe some
form of co-op group put together.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Florida Cities Water.
MR. CHEATAM: Florida Cities Water. Well, they were sold
out.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Immokalee, Everglades City,
Port-of-the-Islands is private.
MR. CHEATAM: Port-of-the-Islands is private, yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And what's the one that -- what's that
called, the Florida Governmental Utility '-
MR. CHEATAM: That's Golden Gate now.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- Association?
MR. CHEATAM: Right. It's an association together that they
formed to operate the Golden Gate City area.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We've been dealing with this entity,
and I'm not really up on what they do or -- it's a bunch of small
utilities that got together and formed '- MR. CHEATAM: Yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- an authority?
MR. CHEATAM: Yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. They call themselves the
Florida Governmental Utility Authority. We thought they were an
arm of the PSC.
MR. CHEATAM: No.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Again, thank you. And if you have
concerns that this council may address, keep us informed or
Page 15
April 5, 2000
come back to us with anything you'd like us to consider. Yes?
MS. PAYTON: Mr. Hill, if I may. Nancy Payton, Florida
Wildlife Federation.
And I wanted to comment on TwinEagles and being hooked
up to Orangetree. And it's our understanding that TwinEagles is
not hooked up to Orangetree, that Orangetree does not have the
capacity at this time to serve Orangetree. It's also in litigation.
Furthermore, we have an agreement with DEP, Orangetree,
that should they expand beyond their 99,000 gallons per day,
that it will go back to DEP for public review and comment.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Mr. Cheatam didn't say that, I did. And
it was a slip. I should not have said that.
MS. PAYTON: Well, no problem clarifying it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mrs. Payton.
Thank you, again, gentlemen.
(Mr. Sansbury exits boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let the record show that we still have a
quorum of six members for a short period of time. Mr. Carlson's
excused -- Mr. Sansbury is.
Item No. 4, update with respect to growth management. Mr.
Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, natural
resources director.
The council wanted to have on their agenda a monthly
update on the activities for the development of the Growth
Management Plan. The -- specifically their progress in meeting
the requirements of the final order.
I know that in the past I've provided you this flow chart here
that I have on the screen. But just to let you -- where we are is
of course the final order requires us to look at everything in
Collier County except for the urban area and North Golden Gate
Estates to create this -- address the requirements of final order.
We are '-
MR. SMITH: Could you speak in the microphone? I'm sorry, I
just can't hear. Thank you.
MR. LORENZ: We have put together a general methodology
Page 16
April 5, 2000
to approach the whole effort. The County Commission has also
chosen to create two advisory committees that will be working
to some degree on a different time line. One advisory committee
is the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee that's dealing with the
areas that are closer in to the urban area. And then there's
another committee, the Rural Lands Committee, that is dealing
with lands that are much further east in the county.
The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has been meeting very
frequently, twice a month, basically every two weeks, and have '-
are attempting to go through the first portion of this uniform
assessment process. And the portion that they're -- we're
basically right now is in Phase I, where of course we've
established our technical advisory group from various
individuals, from state agencies. We've been gathering data
that's available in a variety of state databases.
But more specifically, the effort that we've been really
working with the committee on is the development of this impact
methodology. And the handout that I've given you is the -- what
we're calling an evaluation matrix, to help us get an
understanding of how we're going to evaluate proposed land
development strategies as part of the final assessment.
We've identified a number of factors on the left-hand side of
your matrix. These evaluation factors include agricultural lands,
wetlands, listed species, upland habitats and other vegetative
communities. Habitat fragmentation, water resources, effect on
adjacent conservation lands. Then we're -- those particular
factors where staff has fairly a firm on in terms of giving a
proposal for the advisory committee to review. And this
information is being reviewed by the Advisory Committee.
Some of the other factors at the moment have been listed,
but staff is still in the process of developing the more specific
evaluative criteria for those factors and bringing them back to
the Advisory Committee.
The purpose of these criteria that you see, the specific
evaluative criteria, that's basically on the fourth column over,
which is -- which is here -- is to define very detailed the kinds of
data and information that we want to try to determine what the
Page 17
April 5, 2000
impacts are. For instance, for wetlands we are looking at -- to
some degree have an understand that there are certain wetlands
that have different values, different functions. And we want to
capture those different and distinguish those different functions
and values in our analysis.
So we've gone through the factors and we've looked at, for
instance, large contiguous slough systems, other information,
looking at priority wetlands for listed species. I mean, you can
read the number that we've gone through with the -- proposed to
Advisory Committee.
Again, this information is readily available in a database.
We can easily take that information, put it on a map, overlay
potential impact -- overlay potential alternative land development
strategies, and then quantitatively determine what type of
impacts that one alternative land strategy will have on these
particular factors, as opposed to other impacts.
So it gives us the ability to then looking at a range of
alternative land use strategies, to look at what would be the
various impacts of those strategies will be on a variety of
different natural resource factors.
The Advisory Committee has -- in the first run-through, has
approved the agricultural lands, specific evaluative criteria. Last
meeting, they -- they went through the wetlands. Quite frankly,
I'm not sure, I'd have to look at the minutes, whether they
approved the whole fact or just made a couple of suggestions.
But we have a meeting with them again tonight, this evening, at
5:15.
And then just once we get through the first shot of this '-
these evaluation factors, then what we'll do is we will take -- we
will test those factors and that methodology on the current
comprehensive plan's land use. So that will give us a baseline on
what the impacts are.
And from that analysis, we can determine where the '-
maybe perhaps some of the strengths or some of the
weaknesses of the current comp. plan are with regard to how
they're impacting these -- how it's impacting these factors. And
then we can also use that to some degree in a design mode to
Page 18
April 5, 2000
help us design alternative land use strategies that will help to
minimize or mitigate some of the impacts on the factors.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Lorenz.
Is there any questions or comments from the council?
MR. SMITH: I have a question. Mr. Lorenz, the applicable
9J5 criteria, is that taken from the final order? Are those the -- is
that the criteria that you -- that is removed from the final order
and put into some verbiage here? Is that --
MR. LORENZ: No, the -- on your table, the final order
requirements --
MR. SMITH: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- is the language that's lifted pretty much out
of the final order. The applicable 9J5 criteria are those criteria
that the state requires that the comprehensive plans meet. So
ultimately we're going to be tested on our comprehensive plan by
the final order requirements and applicable 9J5 criteria.
So in creating this matrix, just to put everything in context
for the committee and others, I pulled out the 9J5 criteria as a
reference point as well.
MR. SMITH: Is that one of the reasons, or is that a reason,
or is there any reason why some of the criteria that are in the
final order that specify what must be done at a minimum are not
included in here? Is it because that they don't comply with any
9J5, or--
MR. LORENZ: When you -- specifically which ones are not in
here?
MR. SMITH: I don't have the final order in front of me, but
it's paragraph number three. I think it's on Page 10, numbered
three.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
LORENZ: Oh, you're speaking of the community input?
SMITH: No, no, no. That's another issue, but --
LORENZ: Well, I'm not sure what --
SMITH: Do you have the final order that I could --
LORENZ: Yes, I do.
MR. SMITH: I could easily locate it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: While you're doing that, is there any other
question or comments from the council?
Page 19
April 5, 2000
MR. SMITH: Okay, it's on Page 11, pardon me. Paragraph
number three. Assess -- this is at a minimum. It says the
assessment must identify means to accomplish the following:
Assess the growth potential of the area by assessing the
potential conversion of rural land use to other uses in
appropriate location.
And then encouraging development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniques, including but not limited to public
and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite
communities, area based allocations, cjustering and open space
provisions in mixed use development, innovative approaches to
development. Those kinds of things I don't see indicated all in
the matrix. And I was wondering why that is.
MR. LORENZ: It would -- excuse me, it would be going into
the urban sprawl indicators, and I think I can reflect that in that
-- in factor No. 9.
MR. SMITH: Yeah, urban sprawl is there. But I mean, these
other things are not. And I just frankly don't understand why.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the things that you're speaking of, the
techniques, would be the land use strategies themselves. They
would be the alternatives that we will design, and then look at
how they are impacting these evaluation factors.
MR. SMITH: But when you're trying to create a matrix that
will ultimately give points, I guess, to various strategies,
wouldn't having something in the matrix that complies with the
final order be important in terms of being able to give the proper
weight to the various strategies? Because after all, the strategy
itself is going to be put up front, and you're saying well, that's
where the strategy is put. But there won't be anything in the
matrix to give it the weight that it would need in terms of
compliance with the final order.
MR. LORENZ: Well, I don't read the final order as saying that
this is something that we have to do. It encourages '-
MR. SMITH: Well, let me just see if I can '-
MR. LORENZ: It encourages us to look at creative land use
techniques. And certainly we want to do that. And as part of
staff's analysis of the alternatives, we want to be able to propose
Page 20
April 5, 2000
those alternatives.
But I guess I'm still not sure, I'm not following or making the
distinction between a land use strategy that we will propose as
alternate strategies and evaluate those strategies against these
types of impacts. This is an impact methodology. So we're
looking at the land use strategies, how they're impacting various
factors, natural resource factors, such as wetlands or listed
species, water resources. So this is an impact methodology
matrix.
The specific things that you're speaking of, again, are the
alternative land uses that will have impacts on these factors.
MR. SMITH: Well, what I would wonder about is suppose a
proposal is suggested for a land development, and you weigh
that proposal against the final order, and that proposal seems to
comply with what the final order says, which is, quote, at a
minimum the assessment must identify means to accomplish the
following: Assess the growth potential of an area by assessing
the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses. If there's
no weight given to that proposal because of its ability to do that
criteria, how is that going to be included in the evaluation of that
particular proposal? Or one that would be showing that be it's
encouraging the development that utilizes creative land use
planning techniques, including the creation of urban villages,
new town satellite communities, for example?
If we don't have in the matrix anything that would give that
any weight, how would any proposed land use development be
able to say that it complies with what the Governor and Cabinet
have said that at a minimum it must identify means to
accomplish the following?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the minimum is the development of the
alternative strategies right here in this phase, Phase III. So at
that phase we will be developing various alternative strategies
that would meet that requirement of the final order.
Again, that's a different phase. That's how we're going to
development the alternative. So yes, indeed I can see at that
particular point we can then sketch out a specification for what
kinds of alternatives that we're going to look at that would
Page 21
April 5, 2000
ensure that we're conforming to the final order.
But I'm making a very important distinction between Phase I
and Phase III in terms of evaluation of impacts from the
alternatives that we're going to look at in Phase III. So at that
particular point, I think that we can generate that kind of
specification for how -- for what kind of alternatives we may
design. I mean, there's an infinite number of alternatives that we
could put on the plate that would conform with the final
assessment -- final order requirements.
MR. SMITH: Let me just -- and I'll finish here, Bill --just
briefly tell you the reason I'm concerned about this, okay?
Golden Gate Estates is a huge area. It's a -- to me, it's a
beautiful, unique -- the character of Golden Gate Estates is that
it's a forest, and it's an area that is very, very sensitive to
environmental concerns. And there's some real pressure to put
commercial in Golden Gate Estates.
There are some alternatives that would involve using -- I
think this final order from the Governor -- that would perhaps
save Golden Gate Estates and at the same time save other areas
that could be environmentally sensitive in -- with some proper
planning and growth development. That's why I think we have a
unique opportunity here with this final order to meet some of
these concerns.
MR. LORENZ: I'm shaking my head yes, because that's
exactly what staff feels as well. There's opportunities here to go
beyond what I want to say the minimum requirements of the final
order and take a look at a good rural planning from the urban
boundary out, and take into account the unique problems and
characteristics of especially North Golden Gate Estates.
Because we're not going to -- we're not going to be able to
plan the undeveloped area in a vacuum without considering just
breaking North Golden Gate Estates out of the picture. We're
going to have to consider how north Golden Gate Estates is
going to grow, what kind of impacts that they're going to have,
what's the -- what the services the community infrastructure of
North Golden Gate Estates will have, in addition to any
development of right now the unplatted rural lands. So that has
Page 22
April 5, 2000
to be part of our consideration when we develop these
alternative land use strategies.
So I see that as being accomplished, but it's -- it will be
designed in Phase III. To the degree that we're looking at some
of that information in the order, especially premature conversion,
that will be evaluated through the urban sprawl evaluation
factor.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think we're talking pretty much on the
same wavelength, and it might be minor semantics, but I would
suggest that since portion of our subcommittee, growth
management subcommittee, do meet with the rural lands, that
maybe some of these questions and recommendations might be
taken directly to them. I know Mr. Smith, Mr. Cornell and I have
made most of them. So I think there is the real time to point out
some of the things you're requesting. And so '-
MR. LORENZ: Well, I'd also like -- you know, obviously we
are -- staff is available if you'd like to talk to us more specifically
of what types of alternative strategies you're thinking about. We
would love to be able to have that input to then as we start
developing some staff alternative to put on the table to look at,
we can consider your specifics of that input.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else from council members?
Question. The community character program and schedule
which began, I guess, last night, is that specifically going to be a
factor in the assessment committee's deliberation as a result of
that?
MR. LORENZ: Staff is going to use that effort. To some
degree that's a leading -- or alternative design strategy in Phase
III of the final assessment. So the information that's going to be
gathered from the community character workforce can be
utilized by us in helping us to design some of those alternatives
that eventually we want to evaluate their impacts on the natural
resources. So that information is going to be very useful for us
as input, number one.
Number two, we do have a line item in the contract with
Dover/Kohl to be able to more specifically design some of these
items that we just talked about as some -- maybe some
Page 23
April 5, 2000
innovative techniques. We can utilize their expertise to develop
some land development strategies that we will put together in
Phase III. So that's kind of how we see it coming together.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is everybody on the council aware of the
schedule that -- community character? I think you received a
copy.
Let's hope that turns out to be very effective in the overall
scheme of things.
Is there any comment or questions from the public that
you'd like to address to Mr. Lorenz or the council? Thank you very much.
Item 5, there are no land use petitions scheduled. I assume
that is still true?
Do we need a break? Are you all right?
THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. Go on to Item 6 then, old business.
I think you have in your packet a semi final annual report
document that I put together based on comments last month.
Are there comments or suggestions from either the council or
staff? We will have, in item 3-A and B the summary prepared by
staff. Is that true? The land use petition summary and the
Growth Management Plan? I think you presented that to us two
months ago, didn't you, Mr. Lorenz? Did you?
MR. LORENZ: Sorry, the -- there was some additional -- I
believe some additional information you wanted for staff was the
prior year petitions, and I'm not sure whether Barbara has put
that together or not.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: Other than that, I believe what you have in
your packet was the second draft, Bill, I think that you provided.
And '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: But in there it was included a summary of
the land use petitions for the past '-
MS. BURGESON: We had faxed that over to you about two
months ago.
MR. LORENZ: The information that was in the first submittal
that I drafted has that information in there. So that simply will
Page 24
April 5, 2000
be captured in your annual report.
CHAIRMAN HILL: That's what I'm -- that will be placed in
those two items.
I didn't repeat that in this document, assuming that's ready
to be incorporated.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, we will simply just blend it, merge it
together.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Questions from council members?
MR. CORNELL: I move we approve the draft annual report.
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any discussion?
Does staff have any recommendations?
MS. BURGESON:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
standpoint?
MS. BURGESON:
No, none.
This seems satisfactory from your
Uh-huh.
MR. LORENZ: No, I don't have any recommendations. I just
wanted to cover what the next steps of the process would be for
the board agenda.
CHAIRMAN HILL: There's no further discussions? It's been
moved and seconded that this draft, with the indicated additions,
be approved and sent on in the process to the Board of County
Commissioners. All those in favor? Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimously accepted.
Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. The -- this is the EAC's first report.
Staff's preference would have the chairman be available to
present the report to the board. Or if the chairman is not able,
some designee of the EAC.
CHAIRMAN HILL: At their first May meeting?
MR. LORENZ: At the board's meeting in May. They've
rescheduled some meetings. They're meeting on May 2nd, May
9th and May 23rd. And we -- staff would be prepared to be able to
get it on the agenda for the May 2nd. At that particular point, it
would depend upon your preference as to which -- if you have a
Page 25
April 5, 2000
preference, which meeting to go on.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. If you would, if you'd prepare it by
the 2nd and then there might be a -- an item of conflict as to
when we go before the board, and I'll address that later, but '-
MR. LORENZ: Well, we can put it on -- we would -- we can
prepare the executive summary, put it through. We have about a
two-week deadline prior to the board meeting to get it in the
system, so we would prepare it to be able to go through the
system and then we'd place it on the May 2nd agenda.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Why don't we shoot for May 2nd then.
MR. LORENZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And the chairman will be present at that
meeting to present it.
Old business, Item 6-B. The Marion County -- or Martin
County Wetland Ordinance. You have that in your documents.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This was an item that came up probably
two meetings ago. The Conservancy had indicated that Martin
County had a comprehensive wetlands ordinance. The desire
from the council was to get a copy of that. So we simply made a
copy of it and presented it in your packet. We did put it on the
agenda to determine whether you wanted to take any action on
it, and so this is your opportunity to discuss it as a full body.
Staff does not have a presentation on it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Are there comments from the council
members? Questions on the ordinance, or any position you'd like
to take?
MR. COE: I'd like to get an indication from the staff as to
what they thought about it.
MS. BURGESON: I haven't made a thorough review of this
ordinance. I was not at the meeting when it was discussed that
this item was coming back in front of the board. So I apologize, I
wasn't ready for it for this month.
I've read through it very briefly and I understand that it's
practically a hands-off wetlands ordinance, allowing only
pass-through capability to access the upland portions of the site.
But I haven't gotten into it, into the depth to compare it to what
that -- what type of impacts that would have if Collier County
Page 26
April 5, 2000
were to adopt something similar to this.
I'd be happy to review it and present it. What I thought we
were doing with this is setting a month that we could use this as
a workshop or add this to a workshop item to address wetland
concerns.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes.
MR. SANSBURY: I reviewed it quite a bit and am very
familiar with it. Basically Martin County ordinances is a highly,
highly restrictive ordinance that's based more on political needs
than scientific facts. I don't think that the requirements set in
that ordinance are set by biologists and others. I think it's set
entirely from a political standpoint. And I think if we look at it,
we need to look at that portion of it. It just -- the restriction of is
it based on true scientific facts and arguments and what have
you. Basically Martin County says if it falls within the area of
being a wetland, then it's a wetland. You can't touch it no
matter what the hydro period is, what the source is, what have
you. I think that should be looked at very closely.
MR. COE: What's the political aspect? I don't understand.
MR. SANSBURY: Martin County is probably the biggest no
growth county in the State of Florida. They've done everything
politically to stop growth in the county, and through that
ordinance, that's one of the ways they've done it. And I don't
mean planned growth or anything, I mean any growth, period.
Good-bye. It's probably the biggest last man in the county we
have.
MR. CORNELL: The biggest what, Tom?
MR. SANSBURY: Last man in county.
MR. CORNELL: Last man in.
MR. SANSBURY: You know, last man in, lock the door?
MR. CORNELL: May I comment on it?
I thought it was terrific. I thought it looked like a really
serious effort to protect '-
MR. SANSBURY: I think the scientific part of it needs to be
looked at.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah, I have no thoughts about that. But I
Page 27
April 5, 2000
think it would be wonderful to take a crack at it. It looked like a
really serious attempt to protect the wetlands that we have left.
I thought it was very interesting.
MR. COE: But, you know, the other aspect too is what do
you do if you shut the door on a developer, for example, who has
100 acres, 25 of which is wetlands, and he can't develop it? He
can't do anything to it. Can't run a road through it, can't do
anything.
MS. BURGESON: Well, this ordinance provides '-
MR. COE: Are we paying for the land?
MS. BURGESON: Yeah, this ordinance actually provides for
roads through wetland areas for access.
MR. COE: But if we shut the door totally on this guy, do we
pay him for his land?
MS. BURGESON: That's something, we can contact Martin
County and see if they might be interested in sending a
representative down to discuss this at a workshop with us, if
you'd like me to call them and see if we can schedule something.
MR. SMITH: I think since we're talking generally in the
abstract here, I'd like to also comment -- I think I mentioned this
at the last meeting -- it's my understanding, and, you know, we
all have been enjoying a very good economy, but I think from the
last couple of three days, it's obvious that, you know, we can't
count on the economy being as good as it's been.
Martin County suffers from the highest unemployment in
Florida, and, you know, we need to be concerned with the
economy in Collier County. And, you know, while it's important,
obviously, to preserve the environment, we always have to
remember, Collier County is already owned by the government,
70 percent of it. So, you know, I think we need to look at this
very judicially.
CHAIRMAN HILL: In review of the ordinance, I think it's -- it
would form a good basis for us to start in Collier County. But I
think in many instances, it's much too restrictive. That's a first '-
first comment. And certainly would need some more in-depth
study of the ordinance itself. But at first glance, it seems to be
that way in my mind.
Page 28
April 5, 2000
In our annual report, in future plans and missions, remember
we did put in there that we would like to address extensively the
wetland impact and mitigation process. MR. CORNELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And I think that is a long-term project that
EAC may wish to involve itself with. I think this is such a vital
aspect of Collier County's growth that we need to be very careful
in putting together an ordinance for Collier County.
And in no way would I recommend that we take an
ordinance from another county and overlay it on Collier County
with a lot of in-depth study, and in particular, and I think I asked
the question one month, we need a wetland inventory, I think,
both from the standpoint of function, areas of concern and
acreage, et cetera, because I think a wetland ordinance has to
be, if you wish, county specific. And I think we desperately need
this in Collier County.
So I don't think we want to take an action on the ordinance
at this point. It's here for our information. And I think the
council, if you've accepted the annual report, should begin to
look at this in some priority arrangement of our future plans and
get that on our agenda. Martin County ordinance will be one
factor in that assessment on our '-
MS. BURGESON: Would you like to try to schedule a month
where we can set a wetland workshop?
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think that would be very appropriate, if
the council would so desire.
MR. CORNELL: Yeah, it's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think we need to roll up our sleeves and
MS. BURGESON: I think we have some tentatively
scheduled for May already, so if you want to schedule this for
June, I'd be happy to get it ready for you for that meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there any way to predict? We've for a
variety of reasons been relatively free of land use petitions.
MS. BURGESON: There's no way to predict.
CHAIRMAN HILL: June sounds good to me, to try to
dedicate a major portion of June's meeting, if we're allowed to,
Page 29
April 5, 2000
with other scheduling conflicts, avoid it, address the question of
-- is that agreeable to the council? Would -- could we give some
instructions to staff, perhaps to prepare for us some sort of
documentation of -- do we have wetland maps for '-
MR. LORENZ: Yeah, let me cover a couple of things. One is
we can prepare some information for a workshop. That's one
alternative. The other alternative, if you'd like to have a
subcommittee of -- special subcommittee of three members, we
can work with that subcommittee and get down with some -- a
lot more detailed information. So that's another alternative that
you have.
In terms of content, I think that the biggest thing we have to
look at is when you talk about inventory, yes, we have
inventories, but they're based upon a land cover analysis from
aerial mapping. It is not the same as if you -- if the petitioner
comes in with jurisdictional lines, that his biologist has gone out
on-site with the regulatory agencies and said this is where the
wetland line is. So you have to look at it as a -- in more of a
planning level context, as opposed to a specific project, site
context.
But we do have that information inventorled in that kind of
database. So we can present you an inventory of the information
that's available. We can go in and look at them through past
petitions as to how much wetlands have been converted, what
the quality of those wetlands have been. We've done an analysis
like that for the past comprehensive plan update.
Secondly, though, we have to look at what is our problem. I
think, and as a staff member, I'd like to be able to put on the
table that you've got to determine what we have been doing,
where do you want to be, and then from where -- what we have
been doing from where you want to be, that's the gap we have to
-- the plug. And then we have to look at what the alternative '-
appropriate techniques would be to plug that gap from where we
are to where you want to be. So I think that's -- we have to look
at it in that context.
And thirdly, we have to realize as well is that there are two
other agencies or levels of government that regulate wetlands
Page 30
April 5, 2000
and have primacy for regulating wetlands, federal government, of
course, and the state.
So to the degree that they are not doing certain things that
we would want to see, that's where we kind of try to fill the gap,
as opposed to simply duplicate a program.
So I think those are three important inventory; what you
perceive the problems are, and how do you -- what kind of
solution do you put in place that does not duplicate programs I
think are three key issues that the council should evaluate.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: I guess the biggest concern I have, and in
my previous statements, I certainly believe that viable wetlands
should be -- there's no question about it. Mitigation is a very
important alternative, if you have things that aren't as viable as
they should be.
But when we get into this, we need to make sure that we're
not creating duplication, as just said. We need to make sure we
have a full understanding of what the Corps policy is, how it's
done, how it's enforced, how it's determined and the district.
The problem I see with the county getting further into that is
again, it's duplication of effort, but also, it's a manpower thing. If
you're going to do it, you've got to have the manpower to do it,
you've got to have the professionals to do it, which the Corps
has, which the district has. And the weak point of the whole
program is enforcement. And you've got to have the people to
enforce. Which again, the Corps has and the district has.
So when looking at this, we need to make sure that we all
fully understand what the Corps and the district does already.
I'm sure there's some things that can be improved upon, but we
need to make sure that we have a full knowledge of what's out
there already and what's already acquired.
MR. COE: Well, I agree, both you and Bill have made some
very good points.
What's our problem? Do we have a problem? And the other
thing is, as has already been mentioned by a couple of people,
we've got two agencies, the state and feds. They're really the
Page 3 1
April 5, 2000
watchdogs on this thing. The regulations are very strict as it is.
Do we really want to take the time, the manpower, what have
you, from the county staff to dig into something before we
determine there's a problem?
You know, I see Mike's real quiet back there. I don't know
why. Are you sick, Mike?
MR. SIMONIK: Not any more after that comment.
MR. COE: Voice gone?
What's your feeling? What's your feeling? You're the one
that brought it up the first time.
MR. SIMONIK: Thanks. Michael Simonik, from The
Conservancy. Mr. Coe, you just asked what's our problem, do we
even have a problem. Yeah, we have a big problem. The federal
government is down here in Southwest Florida in the middle of
an Environmental Impact Statement because they're saying the
wetlands are going too fast. We can't keep up with the number
of developments, the number of people requesting permits to
destroy wetlands. We just can't keep up with it.
And there's so many happening. There's more wetlands
being destroyed in Lee and Collier County than the entire State
of Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands combined. And
when I talked to a senator in Rhode Island about wetlands being
destroyed down here when he was down in January for
Everglades Coalition, he said, "What do you mean you destroy
wetlands? We don't even allow that in the State of Rhode
Island." I said, "Well, we allow it every Tuesday."
Hundreds of them, thousands of them a year of wetlands get
destroyed all the time. They're mitigated for, but it's not
sufficient. They're still going away. Our county -- I mean, we
have a national treasure in Collier County. It was over 90
percent wetlands when we started. It ain't there now and it's not
going to be there in a few years. There's not going to be
anything left except for what's owned by the public.
And yeah, we're at about 62 percent owned by the public
right now. We're going to go to about 69 percent when all is said
and done, not 90 percent, about 69 percent. We've added up the
numbers. And that's not enough.
Page 32
April 5, 2000
Isn't that enough? No. We're the largest county east of the
Mississippi, and we're a national treasure. Ask me how many --
ask the county that has the Grand Canyon what percentage of
their county is owned by the federal government. Or the other
natural forest, what percentage of their county is owned by the
national government or state government. It may be more than
69 percent, because it's a national treasure. The Everglades are
a national treasure.
We do have a problem. We have a big problem. We're losing
our wetlands here. This is the fastest growing place -- one of the
fastest in the county. The fastest in Florida. Development,
urban sprawl, going out into our wetland areas. And it's up to us
in our county, home rule, we're the ones that have to protect it.
We cannot rely on federal and state. I hear all the time, oh, it's
duplication of effort. No, it's not. They're not doing a good job.
They're being sued. They're being sued by environmental
organizations, civic organizations, 19 organizations are suing the
federal government here in Southwest Florida, because they're
not doing their job.
We're suing -- Conservancy is suing over Hamilton Harbor
because we don't expect that the Army Corps and the Water
Management District are going to do their job. We have to do it
in our county ourselves. And that's why I was asking to bring this
ordinance that was done in Martin County, passed by five
Republican commissioners -- it's not about politics, it's all about
the science behind the wetlands. And that's what we're trying to
preserve here in Collier County.
So to me there's a big problem, there's a huge problem of
what's going on in Collier County in the environment and the
ecosystem as a whole. We're going to see it degraded beyond
repair in the future, if we don't look at it now. And it's us that
needs to look at it.
And I'm not willing to let the federal government and the
state government tell us what to do in Collier County. We ought
to be doing what we think is the best for Collier County. We live
here. And we need a wetlands ordinance.
And I appreciate you all talking about a workshop coming up
Page 33
April 5, 2000
in June, if that's a good time, and having people from Martin
County, maybe the planning department, the environmental
department coming over and telling us how their ordinance is
working. And has it shut the door.
Mr. Sansbury said oh, they're the, you know, no growth
county, the biggest no growth county. I don't know anything
about that, but I know that they're concerned about their
environment and protecting their environment. I don't think it's
politics at all. It's that they care about their environment and
protecting the wetlands.
So I'd love to have those people come over. And if they
can't make it because of money, then The Conservancy will pay
to have them put them up at a hotel or something. We'll pay for
that part of it, if Martin County can't afford to have them come
over. Hopefully they can spend the time. But I'd love to hear
them say how it's been going for the past year. I haven't heard
any complaints.
MR. SANSBURY:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
MR. SANSBURY:
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Sansbury.
Can I comment on that?
I mean, you know,
we need to be factual when we make these things, I mean, to the
point of very trivial -- Collier County is not the largest county in
the State of Florida in land area. Palm Beach county is, my home
county, for one.
MR. SIMONIK: Land area.
MR. SANSBURY: Land area, correct.
MR. SIMONIK: It's '-
MR. SANSBURY: That's correct. Palm Beach County is '-
MR. SIMONIK: You include Lake Okeechobee '-
THE COURT REPORTER: Whoa, whoa, one at a time.
MR. SIMONIK: If you include Okeechobee.
MR. SANSBURY: Not to argue.
CHAIRMAN HILL: One at a time.
MR. SANSBURY: But secondly, the District and the Corps
have -- to listen to that presentation, you would believe that the
District and Corps are not enforcing the rules, the rules are being
broken.
Page 34
April 5, 2000
MR. SIMONIK: They have said that publicly themselves, that
MR. SANSBURY: If I could '-
MR. SIMONIK: -- they've been permitting illegally.
MR. SANSBURY: -- finish.
CHAIRMAN HILL: One at a time, please.
MR. SANSBURY: If I could finish.
The District and Corps are enforcing the rules. We have
some of the strictest environmental rules. The district -- I mean,
the Corps throughout country, the rules are the same. The
District, probably some of the strictest environmental rules in the
country.
In the first place, don't tell me that New Hampshire or
someplace else doesn't have the kind of environmental rules we
have, because they do.
Secondly, I don't care if there's t 0 Republicans on the
council, if you don't know that Martin County wetlands ordinance
is for one purpose and one purpose only, not to save viable
wetlands or habitat, it's there to stop growth.
Now, if you don't know that, then you don't '-
MR. SIMONIK: Is that a fact?
MR. SANSBURY: -- know Martin County.
That is a fact.
MR. SIMONIK: So you're asking me to say facts, so I would
like to hear the facts from that -- I mean, that's not written down
anywhere.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'm going to -- thank you, Mr. Simonik. I
think I'll put a '-
MR. SANSBURY: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN HILL: -- stop to the dialogue. It's healthy. It's
healthy.
MR. DiNUNZIO: On a personal note, I don't necessarily see
where at least slowing down some of the growth would be a real
cause for us to get nervous around here. If anybody's been out
on the highway recently and drove around this town, there's a
major difference between the way it used to be and the way it is
now. And what's already approved and on the books is going to
Page 35
April 5, 2000
triple the population of the county.
What I'd like to know, the proponents of the growth, the
incredible growth that we've been incurring here is what are we
going to do for roads around here and traffic around here when
you've already built out like on Airport Road to where it's built
out to the boundaries of where the next step is you're going to
have to buy houses and businesses and everything else like they
had to do in Broward when they tried to improve the road system
there.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, John. I think that's a little off
the topic right now, though. I appreciate that is a problem.
MR. DiNUNZIO: If the topic is growth, it's not off the topic.
CHAIRMAN HILL: No, the topic is wetland protection. And
growth may be a part of the wetland protection.
With respect to the question is there a problem, every time a
land use petition comes before this council, I find that there are
objections in my mind with 90 percent of the way wetlands are
treated. Now, whether that's the fault of the Corps or the
Management District or what, I think there is a problem. I'm not
so sure it's severe as Mr. Simonik says.
With that in mind and the seemingly consensus of the
council, I would like the council to appoint a subcommittee
which might work with staff to define perhaps where we are in
Collier County. And if that's not overloading staff, have that
subcommittee come up with something for our June meeting. Is
that satisfactory with respect to staff? And I would like to ask
for volunteers from the council to serve on that, if you would.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, assuming I will be
reappointed, I will volunteer.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- Mr. Chairman?
Last month, or the -- last month Mr. Coe asked about
different items in the county, the wastewater, the water, the
transportation. We said we'd try to get wastewater this month.
We got it. I believe Mr. Lorenz has a fairly lengthy presentation
planned for next month. It might be at the meeting or it might be
Page 36
April 5, 2000
some other time. And we talked about doing the transportation
one in June, to answer Mr. DiNunzio's comment, so that you
would know what the future road plans are.
Do you want to put that one off, or do you want to do these
the same day?
CHAIRMAN HILL: It would be my suggestion to put the
wetlands off, because I think that's going to demand -- yeah,
demand a lot more preparation time.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because the person scheduled for
June has already said no problem.
CHAIRMAN HILL: July then, rather than June.
MR. COE: Yeah, do the wetlands one in July.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah.
Would anyone like to '-
MR. COE: August.
CHAIRMAN HILL: -- volunteer to serve with Mr. Sansbury on
a subcommittee?
MR. CORNELL: Yeah, I'd like to volunteer.
MR. COE: Depend on when the meetings are. I'm bound by
my work.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. I will exercise the power of the
Chair and appoint Mr. Sansbury and Mr. Cornell to the
subcommittee, with the understanding that as you begin to meet
with staff, if you would like to call on any other interested
member of the council to join you, why, feel free to.
MS. BURGESON: Since Ed Carlson is absent today but has
such incredible experience and knowledge on the wetlands
systems, would it be appropriate for me to call him and ask him if
he would also like to volunteer for that subcommittee?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Barb.
Let's reconvene at 10:35. That's a nine-minute break.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Reconvene the April meeting of the
Environmental Advisory Council.
We're down -- is there any other old business that's not on
the agenda that the council would like to discuss?
We'll shift down to new business. Item 7-A, LDC
Page 37
April 5, 2000
amendments, including the gopher tortoise.
MS. BURGESON: We sent out a package of Land
Development Code amendments. And what I've distributed to
you this morning with the gray highlighted areas are some
updated or changed language to a majority of those, but not to
all of those, so we'll work off of both of those packages.
And I would like to ask Alex Sulecki to discuss her item
first, which if you'll look through the package that was mailed to
you, the one without the highlighting, it would be Item 3.9.6.9.5.
The author at the top of that page is going to be Michelle Arnold.
MR. SANSBURY: 3.9.6.9.
MS. BURGESON: .9.5.
CHAIRMAN HILL: That wasn't the first thing.
MR. CORNELL: Do you have a page number on that, Barb?
MS. BURGESON: There actually is no page number on that.
MR. SANSBURY: Next to the last.
MR. CORNELL: What was the number on that?
MS. BURGESON: 3.9.6.9.5. This is the one without any
highlighting.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes. Council ready? Located it?
MR. CORNELL: No.
CHAIRMAN HILL: 3.9.6.9.5.
MR. CORNELL: Okay, near the back, right?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right.
MR. CORNELL: 3.9.6.9.5; is that what you said?
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right. Marines and numbers don't mix.
MR. SANSBURY: Still looking for that gate somebody stole.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let's proceed.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members.
Please excuse me, I have a little bit of a cold.
For the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm an
environmental specialist in the Code Enforcement Department.
I have amended this amendment by taking out reference to
the 90-day time frame. And I propose this amendment to provide
what I feel is some flexibility and a more reasonable way to
resolve some vegetation removal violations, particularly in
Page 38
April 5, 2000
Golden Gate Estates, where clearing in advance of, in violation of
and without permits is happening regularly.
This amendment was also designed to allow code
enforcement personnel to deal with a particular kind of violation
in an expeditious way, since there are only two individuals
handling all the environmental violations for this county, and
including but not limited to vegetation removals.
Our current regulations provide for most scenarios. But in
the case of individual property owners, clearing uplands in
advance of permits, the penalties seemed excessive to me. The
need I saw was for an appropriate way to resolve some
violations in an expeditious manner. Particularly in Golden Gate
Estates, there are property owners who attempt to do much of
the land development by themselves; they have family members
in the development trades who will work for free or low cost; and
they often don't consult building professionals at that stage, and
rarely come to development services to read the LDC. They're
always shocked, when I talk to them, that they can't clear their
land without a permit.
The remedies per the LDC, and that's the section referenced
in the amendment, which is 3.9.6.9.5, require replacing the
vegetation on-site or donating the funds equaling the cost of not
only the replacement vegetation, but the planting costs, the
watering and maintenance costs, which can come to many
thousands of dollars. Replacement are not feasible, as they are
developing a lot. And pulling a building permit will authorize that
clearing of one acre.
Cramming more native vegetation into other places on the
lot is not realistic, oftentimes. Donation amounts seem
excessive to me, so I propose this alternative as a way to handle
one acre or less clearings by owners.
The time frame was added later because of concerns
expressed at a staff meeting, but it was not a part of my original
proposal and can be dropped.
And the purpose of my amendment is to keep some
single-family owners from profiting by their mistake, not
punishing them for a failure to know the rules when they're trying
Page 39
April 5, 2000
to do the work themselves.
MR. CORNELL: So we should act on this, is that where we
are?
CHAIRMAN HILL: I think the EAC should make some stance
with respect '-
MR. CORNELL: I'd like to move we recommend approval of
your change.
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Any discussion from council members?
MR. SMITH: By way of discussion, let me commend you for
your efforts in this. I think very, very few people understand how
important it is that the Estate be viewed as a forest, as an
existing viable nature tract that right now there are trees that
are refurbishing themselves, and it's a viable, huge geographic
area with animals and birds and all of what nature brings us.
And that's what makes it so pleasant to live in the Estates. And
it's what makes the people who are there glad that they are
there.
The concern that you have is absolutely on point, that if the
people who live in the Estates, or anybody, goes in and starts
clearing the land unnecessarily -- I say unnecessarily in terms of
having enough clearance to build their homes in those tracts that
are now to be no smaller than two and a half acres -- you would
soon have a destruction of this viable forest. And I think what
you are doing is to be highly applauded.
I think that what we also need to do is to start to educate
the people who are out there and the people who would propose
to move there of the very important reasons for what you're
doing. It isn't just the government coming in and saying we're
going to be the boss. It's because we want to preserve this area.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Very good.
MR. SMITH: And I think it's important to always keep in
mind that the people will cooperate, I'm sure, if they understand
this.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
MS. SULECKI: One of my goals in this was that a lot of
people are coming to Collier County all the time, and some of
Page 40
April 5, 2000
them try to do this work for themselves and don't understand the
rules here. It's important for us to get those rules out to them,
which I'm trying to do in various ways. But if someone comes to
Collier County and tries to clear for their home in advance of
permits and gets hit with humongous fines, what's not being
developed is a love and appreciation for the environment, it's a
hatred and resentment for environmental rules. And so I think
there -- I'm trying to work with -- in recognition of that.
MR. SMITH: Just a -- a thought just occurred to me off the
cuff here. If there were signs posted along the major roadways,
Golden Gate Boulevard and maybe Immokalee Road, Wilson, just
a sign, a public sign, please remember, clearing your lots in
excess of whatever is a violation of law. People don't know that.
MS. SULECKI: I'll help post them.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Thank you. Barb?
MS. BURGESON: So is that then a vote of the board,
unanimous to support this amendment forward? CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes.
MS. BURGESON: The next item I'd like to present is -- I'll
have Don Murray make his presentation, so '-
MR. SANSBURY: Did you want to have a vote on that?
MS. BURGESON: -- he can get back to the office.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I thought we did.
MR. CORNELL: I don't think we got that far.
MR. SANSBURY: We got a second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: We need a second.
MR. CORNELL: We got a second, I think.
MR. COE: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN HILL: It's been moved and seconded that we
recommend approval of the changes incorporated in 3.9.6.9.5 of
the LDC.
MS. BURGESON: With the strikeouts as discussed by Alex,
removing the reference to the 90 days?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, as amended.
Those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 4 1
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL:
MS. BURGESON:
with the highlighted changes, and it's the second item.
stapled package. Author is Don Murray.
CHAIRMAN HILL: 114.537 Is that '-
MR. MURRAY: I don't have that number.
MS. BURGESON: In your package that was handed out
today?
CHAIRMAN HILL: No.
MS. BURGESON: It would be in your package handed out
today, the second item. And it's 2.6.35.7.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Don Murray with planning
services department.
MR. SANSBURY: I did good on the first one. I'm not doing
good on this one. 2.6.35.7?
MR. MURRAY: Did you find it?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Mr. Murray.
MR. MURRAY: This is a proposal that was initiated by
Holland and Knight for Lodestar Towers, Incorporated, who
Lodestar has contracted with FDOT to provide tower sites,
construct towers to maintain those and market those for both
private and public use.
The initiated amendment that's before you today would
provide four specific tower sites along Alligator Alley, the 1-75
corridor. Those are these four dots that follow the corridor.
The initiation would provide towers -- excuse me, this
amendment would provide towers from 250 to 310 feet to the
tower sites. The one near the L-28 interceptor canal, and the
one that's closest to the urban area would provide -- those would
be new tower sites. And the two in the middle, the one at State
Road 29 and the one at the rest area on 1-75 would be
replacement towers.
Staff has taken a look at this area. We've looked at the
underlying zoning, and we recognize that there is a problem with
the applicants trying to provide towers based on the existing
zoning. One is that if you notice all the area in red, that is
conservation area. We do not allow towers in the conservation
Thank you.
Okay, the next item is in your package,
The thick
Page 42
April 5, 2000
areas.
Two, there are areas of critical state concern, including this
tower located at State Road 29, which is located in the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge. And that poses other problems
with other agencies as well.
The tower that's located near the Everglades Boulevard is in
an Estates district, and we limit towers in Estates districts to
sites that are on -- that are essential services. And most of those
are related to public safety: Fire, Sheriff's Department,
emergency management services.
This tower site is also within an area that has two tower
sites; one is existing, the WAVV tower, and the other one is at
the Ford motor track, test track. That's an approved tower site,
which American Tower is proposing to build a tower upon. So
we've asked the applicant to go back and look at using that site,
which will probably be built.
We also believe that the State Road 29 site, given that there
must be some coordination with other agencies, such as the Fish
and Wildlife Service, if any problems that may occur upon that
review are overcome, they could replace this tower under our
existing LDC requirements, because underlying zoning is
agricultural, and we do a lot of towers there. It would need a
variance for the height, though.
The tower at the rest area on 1-75, we've talked to National
Park Service and to some others, and this is the one of least --
probably least likely impact, because it would be a replacement
for one that's already there. So they had the least concern about
this one.
The tower that is closest to the county line would be a new
tower, and there is some concern about potential impact to
migratory birds and so forth. But keep in mind, I haven't received
all comments back from all the agencies that have been
contacted, and that could be another -- up to another two weeks
before I get a formal response.
Most of the people that I've talked to on telephone, their
concerns are with the impacts on wildlife caused by lighting and
the height of towers. So the State Road 29 tower's a guyed
Page 43
April 5, 2000
tower. That's the one with the wires. By replacing that with a
self-supporting lattice towerl the impacts are minimized. And all
these towers would be self-supporting lattice towers.
Staff at this time, based on the comments and the facts that
we do havel is supporting somewhat the two tower sites: The
replacement on -- at the rest area, and the new tower site that's
closest to the county line.
I didn't want to forget that this proposal is to -- I guess
primarily to help the state set up their intelligent transportation
system, which the applicants are herel they'll explain some of
their needs to you in just a minute.
So that -- that's the question. You knowl do we allow the
towers along the 1-75 corridorl improve communications and
response to emergencies versus the potential impact to any of
the birds and wildlifel as well as the scenic impact to the 1-75
corridor?
And with that, I'll let -- if you have any questions for me, or if
you want to wait till Mr. Gustafson addresses you, that would be
fine.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Gustarson.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Mr. Chairmanl members of the board, my
name is Joel Gustafsonl I'm an attorney with the law firm of
Holland and Knight. It's a pleasure to be with you this morning.
Scott, could you hand --
MS. BURGESON: Do you want him to slow down?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
MR. GUSTAFSON.' Did you receive a book --
MS. BURGESON: Excuse mel for the court reporter's sake,
could you please slow down just a little bit?
MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. I'll say it again. Joel Gustafson.
We had had some booklets that we handed out. I don't
knowl Don, did you have some extra ones of those? If nott we
could do that. It just gives you a little background on it. It was --
while Scott's walking up there.
I have with me todayl in light of this particular committee's
chargel I have William Precht and Adam Gelber. They're both
with the environmental division of Postl Buckleyl Shoe and
Page 44
April 5, 2000
Jernigan (phonetic), who are here today. And we have -- Scott, if
you would mind handing out that little four-page sheet on each
one of these sites, if we could.
And we have Scott Gustafson, who is with Lodestar.
What -- Don has done a good job of basically giving you a
background. And I think you probably have the benefit of his
staff comments and the amendments to the ordinances.
Lodestar, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LeBlanc
Towers, probably one of the larger tower builders in North
America.
Lodestar entered into a contract with the -- or prevailed in a
request for proposals with the Florida Department of
Transportation to build a tower system to -- along the interstate
and turnpike system, to augment a number of their programs that
they feel is necessary to move us through the century.
There was discussion about traffic congestion, and that's
only going to many respects for the Alley and for -- the
interstate's obviously is going to increase. The consequences of
that is they have come along with -- you've seen the Smart Pass
being available on the turnpike, and they're now coming along
with -- they'll have these reader boards that will be -- they'll be
able to deal with and change signage and information systems
and also supply emergency availability through this network that
they are -- want to create.
Part of that system that they're going to create is they're
going to make these towers also available, share those towers
with private cellular phone communication companies. Because
one of the things that they've found, and they've been receiving
comment and request, because they've been requested to allow
to have towers by private cellular tower companies to go on
there right of way, is that because of the traffic on the interstate
and because of the increased volume of cellular users, and
particularly the concentration on those interstates, the demand
for more tower space, antenna space, is ever growing also.
So what they devised within this RFP is a plan that would
allow -- they with Lodestar would build the towers, put their
facility on it, make it available to other governmental entities,
Page 45
April 5, 2000
and then lease out space to private users.
The revenues of that would be split between -- they'd take
the lions share; 60 percent of those revenues from the private
users would go to them and Lodestar would get 40 percent. And
this contract runs for 30 years.
The Alley is a particularly (sic) problem for Lodestar and in
turn the Florida Department of Transportation, particularly the
Department of Transportation. Bad reception, lack of towers.
Part of the problem is that there is no phone line entirely
across the Alley. The cellular tower business -- and Scott
Gustafson can take you into more detail on this -- is if you know,
you -- they'll go to a hard line phone line at the bottom of those
cellular towers, you'll see. Well, these are -- there is no phone
line that runs entirely across. I didn't realize that, so I guess
even those little call back boxes, I guess when you lift one of
those up, that really kind of sparks a charge that you're able to I
guess give one or two or three numbers. It's not like I thought,
you could pick a phone up and you could dial someone and say
I'm out here and I have a problem. So there is that continued
problem.
That speaks to some degree of the height of these particular
towers, because they need really a microwave system to transfer
that -- those calls where they haven't got hard line telephone
lines in the ground.
What they did is they came out and they have -- for example,
they've been approved for a tower at Andy Town. They've been
approved for a tower in the Miccosukee Indian Reservation area,
in Broward County. And then the link would continue westerly
through Collier County.
The -- and as we got into the process and talked to Don, we
-- and also Tom Palmer in the County Attorney's Office, it became
apparent that we had thought we had some serious zoning
problems. So we devised an issue. We talked about an overlay
district. And there was some concern about that might be --
even though the overlay would be just the Interstate, there might
be an overreach and a concern about how many towers might go
in there.
Page 46
April 5, 2000
So we've come back, and in an amendment we've suggested
an amendment to the Telecommunications Act delineating these
four particular towers. And it's kind of interesting in a sense that
as it goes through this process, and this process because of the
amendment process, your twice a year process will end hopefully
on June 17th. You're planning and zoning board will have two
shots, your County Commission will have two shots, you can
have another shot, and of course the other technical advisory
bodies, to look at these specifically, and continue to answer
questions as questions come up, as they might happen.
The locations again are strategically located. We're not in
the business of building more towers than we need. And
obviously our tenants on these towers, if they didn't need any
towers, they would be happier, because they have to pay rent
and that obviously goes to the bottom line as to what they can
charge users of that system.
We have contacted -- and I think in the back of the packet
we sent you, there's an indication of who has contacted us. And
either we have them under contract or waiting for these towers
to be built because they want to go on there, the Nextels and the
AT&T and what have you.
The first tower -- and if you want me to take you, and you
have an environmental -- you have kind of a packet here. And I'm
taking you from east to west, I think, from -- and we have again,
consultants will talk about those.
All four of these towers are located on -- it's from an
environmental standpoint of -- for existing disturbed areas. In
other words, they -- it's either the existing Alligator right-of-way.
In the first case it's on the shoulder of the right-of-way. The one
is out, the mile marker of 51. And that's a new tower. And that
would be 250 feet high. And we will have detailed plans of that
as we go through the process.
The second tower is at the rest stop. And that particular
location is -- if you may or may not recall, there is in fact an
existing DOT tower on the north side of -- diagonally across the
street from this rest stop, which has been there. It's an old -- I
think it's a guyed tower? Is it? It's a lattice. It's an old lattice
Page 47
April 5, 2000
tower, and it has limited capacity on the thing. And what we
would be replacing within the rest stop, a brand new tower that
would provide for the government's use and also a space for the
private sector.
The next one, and those are the two that I think Don has
included, and recommending that at this time that they be
included. They've amended our ordinance to take two of them
out. The next one is the one at -- a replacement tower at State
Road 29. That will be located basically -- or not basically -- in the
same compound as that existing tower that's there today. Today
the tower there is a guyed tower, the lines going out. These are
all lattice freestanding towers. And what they do, to not get rid
of service, they come out there I guess with almost a giant
cherry picker, and they put it there as a -- and they put
whatever's on there, microwaves or antenna on that thing while
they're building this new tower. Then once they get the new
tower, they just transfer it over.
They would do it on that particular site. As you'll see from
the environmental comments from Post-Buckley, that -- again,
that exists, and we go there.
The last tower, and that's the replacement tower that Don
Murray thought that we could resolve that particular by going
through the provisions in your code. And since the zoning's okay,
you go through I guess it's a variance or conditional use. And
we'll probably file that very for that one to replace that particular
tower.
And the last tower is the other one that he suggested that
we -- that's at Everglades Road where there's -- you know,
Everglades is a flyover on 1-75 on the north side. And there's also
what appears to be a ramp -- it never ramped on to 1-75, but
there's a right-of-way there that is available, and we would put
the tower of what would be in the northwest quadrant.
The suggestion regarding that particular tower is that there
has been a tower being built by -- and there's a proposed tower in
the -- and I want to point out, our star is in the wrong -- our spot's
in the wrong place. It should be -- for that number. It probably
should be Everglades Road. I think on our map is a little further
Page 48
April 5, 2000
east, the one we gave you. That one's probably correct. Yeah,
he moved it over. We didn't. So the thing I handed out is -- ours
is a little too far east. Everglades Road, we didn't properly
locate that.
But the suggestion is that we look at the Ford Motor Test
Grounds, because they have -- in their DRI have been permitted
to build a 500-foot tower, and they have had some conversations
recently with staff, I guess, about coming in to do something for
that.
That may be a problem for DOT. DOT wants to go on their
own towers for security and various other reasons. However,
we'll look at that. And we'll look at the other tower that's in the
area. But that may be the problem. And I'm not sure what kind
of access they give, because this -- you have private users that
want to access the tower for their own equipment, and then of
course you've got DOT, which has, you know, some serious
concerns. And that was a suggestion that we might look at that.
And we'll take a look at those. If we don't, if that doesn't
work out, we would ask that the -- somewhere in this process,
obviously before its final deliberations, and we'd be always
happy to come back to you, is to locate -- in fact, locate the
tower at that particular -- on the DOT right-of-way at Everglades
Road in northwest Collier County.
I'd be happy to answer any questions. We can live with the
amendments other than the -- that you have two copies. I think
you have a copy of that and the strike-throughs and underlines
showing the changes suggested by Don Murray. And under that
you probably have a copy of our ordinance.
But you can see what our ordinance consisted of, because
it's where the strike-throughs are, wherever they changed it.
And we can live with those amendments, with the exception of
maybe wanting to put that Everglades Road one back on,
because we can't resolve using someone else's tower. And
again, that would be in the right-of-way. And we meet all the
other requirements.
MR. SMITH: I have a question, Mr. Gustafson.
The -- I believe you made a comment, and I just want to
Page 49
April 5, 2000
make sure that I heard this correctly, that these towers would be
available and would be expected to be used by governments in
their function, safety functions, for example. Did I hear you
correctly?
MR. GUSTAFSON: Yeah. We know DOT is going to use it.
Because that's why their -- the system is.
MR. SMITH: For example, would a fire department, for
example, be able to use this tower? MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes.
MR. SMITH: The reason I ask that is that there was a tower
recently put right smack dab in the middle of a residential area in
Golden Gate Estates next to a library. I opposed that because
it's ugly in a residential area. But the fire chief said well, we
don't have any alternative. Would this kind of tower provide that
type of alternative?
MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes. And we, in our conversations with
Don Murray and that, and in fact, he highlighted specific
agencies and amended them to that, we said Collier County
agencies, that would be fine. We'd make the space available for
that. That's DOT's intention is to kind of also work with law
enforcement.
MR. SMITH: I had two other questions, if I could. One is
that there are people growing in numbers all the time that would
like to see the interchange at 1-75 opened, either for -- I'm talking
about the interchange of 1-75 and Golden Gate Boulevard -- it's
not Golden Gate Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard. What you've
been calling Everglades Road. But you guys from Broward
County don't understand '-
MR. GUSTAFSON: I meant Boulevard. And Broward County
roads are boulevards.
MR. SMITH: One of us are behind times, I don't know which.
In any event, Golden Gate -- I mean, Everglades Boulevard
and 1-75, they are mounting numbers of people that would like to
see at some point the interchange opened there for access to
the Estates area, with the placement of a tower in the location
that you're talking about, the impediment to that at some point in
the future.
Page 50
April 5, 2000
MR. GUSTAFSON: It may well be. It could be. I don't know
if we have proposed any information as to the likelihood, or
Scott, do you?
MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: My name is Scott Gustafson, with
Lodestar.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Use the microphone.
MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: My name is Scott Gustafson and
I'm with Lodestar Towers.
What we -- the process that Lodestar goes through to locate
any towers along the right-of-way, we have to submit an
application with the Department of Transportation. DOT will '-
we go through several stages of process before we even get to
you as far as throughout the State of Florida, before we get to
the jurisdictions. And we have to get basically what we call a
Phase I approval.
Phase I approval is basically, they looked at their future
plans along 1-95, I-10, 1-75, and they determine if we are in an
area that they have deemed concern that they're widening the
road or what have you.
As far as at that location, Post-Buckley's given us the most
recent construction plans. We've supplied those to the District
with that. And they've also done their background. They have
not declined us on that site. So right now the future plans, we
are, I want to say, close enough to the Everglades overpass, as
well as Alligator Alley, that where that ramp would run would be
further away. And we do quite often locate in those infields of
the cloverleaves, as far as accessing them. And that's where
they have directed us to relocate.
So where we're locating, they would not -- I can't imagine
engineering a road that would cut on that tightly to get on a 60,
70 mile an hour road. So we're within that cloverleaf.
MR. SMITH: Then I have one final question for either you or
Mr. Gustafson, Joel. Assuming that the technology -- I -- you
know, Mr. Baxter is much more of an expert, and is an expert in
this, and he might be able to answer it.
But as I understand it, there had been a system in place
which is now being abandoned for satellite communication that
Page 51
April 5, 2000
perhaps could have avoided the need for towers, but there
wasn't enough demand for it and so they've abandoned that
system. But assuming in the not too distant future that there
were satellites made available for the communications, the types
of communications that you're talking about, is there any plan for
removal of those towers at that point?
MR. GUSTAFSON: Our contract doesn't speak to that as to
whether that happens. I would suspect that if we lose -- and I
don't know how long the contracts are with the individual
companies. Are they 10 years, Scott?
MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Well, they're actually -- the
contracts that we have with -- like let's say Sprint or Nextel,
typically they are five five-year contracts. As the need for the
towers, whether it's equipment change or, you know, technology
advances so that they're not needed, we have -- we have to post
a bond for each tower for its removal at that time. So each
tower is bonded to be removed when it is found unnecessary. If
that answers the question.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Do you think my son gives more
convoluted answers than I do?
MR. SMITH: Well, I knew that was your son just from the
view. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN HILL: That's not fair, sir.
Any other questions from council members?
MR. DiNUNZIO: I have one, Mr. Chairman. The county's
proposed amendment doesn't allow for the tower at Everglades
Boulevard, or it does allow for the tower at Everglades
Boulevard?
MR. MURRAY: No, the amendment, the way we are looking
at it right now, would not allow the tower at Everglades
Boulevard.
At this point in time we feel -- or we actually believe that the
tower site at Ford Motor Test Track could be used. It's not -- the
tower is not constructed yet. American Tower indicated to me a
few weeks back that they were planning on coming in sometime
soon to discuss site plans for that tower.
The idea of the ordinance that we have in place is to
Page 52
April 5, 2000
minimize the number of towers in the county, and we do require
shared use of towers. So it's hard for us to support allowing a
tower at a specific location, if the new one's going in nearby that
would have adequate space.
And we've asked the applicant to contact American Tower
to see the status -- to seek what the status is of that, and
whether or not their equipment could be accommodated before
we'll support that.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Do we have an idea if your equipment is
compatible, and do you guys share that one tower?
MR. GUSTAFSON: At this point we don't know the answer to
that. This came up last week. But we're haste to check that out.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Yeah, I like the idea of the communications
tower, but I don't want to see a forest of steel towers between
here and Broward County. And as someone who's out there a lot
and knowing how cell phones are -- you have troubles with them
in various areas. And understanding the need for the
communication end of it, but I still don't want to see, you know,
15 towers across the alley. So at a minimal amount that we
could get by with, seems like -- I like the idea that everybody had
to share one, that would be okay with me.
MR. GUSTAFSON: And that's really why the staff came up
with the alternative to the overlay district, even though DOT
controls it, obviously. They didn't want a proliferation of towers.
And we can certainly live with that.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Gustafson, could you live with the
requirement of trying to work something out with Ford, and if you
can't work something out with Ford, coming back? Or what's
your feeling on '-
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, yeah, and hopefully we'll know that
in the next 20 to 30 days what we can or cannot do there. DOT
doesn't, frankly, want to be held hostage by Ford Motor as to
what they're going to do on that tower and what their attitude is.
We don't even know their attitude at this point. So we'll check it
out.
Page 53
April 5, 2000
MR. COE: You have another slight glitch, too. That's a
different tower company; is that correct?
MR. GUSTAFSON: That is a different tower company, yes.
MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: DOT does not rent space on any
towers. The only place that it shares a co-location use is with
DMS. For instance, the one right at the toll plaza, there's a tower
there. DMS has given DOT the right to use that. At the same
time, DMS has some of their equipment on a DOT tower. So they
do like a swap.
Another big concern for our system is that we have to -- like
what Joel was saying is that we have to provide the telephone
dial tone for each of the carriers. To supply the dial tone, we
have to put in our own microwave system. Now, that microwave
system is -- I want to say it's an entire network going from the
Broward County site, which does not have a hard line to tap into,
all the way through our 11,010 site, which is our Everglades Road
site. And those -- as that microwave system, I want to say it's
not quite a line of site, but the location of the dishes has to be in
such a manner that that system is not interrupted.
The enhancement we're also doing is we are enhancing the
current call box system that they have there. Currently it's on a
-- you'll see only one dish up there for the DOT in each direction?
Well, those receive and transmit, and there's a delay in between
that. Well, now, they're going to with our new, I want to say,
stronger towers, they're going to be able to put up two dishes in
each direction. So that way that call box system will work
better, as well as our own microwave dish system that's going to
be up there. And with all those requirements, I don't know if the
American Towers location is going to be as good a location as
what we're proposing, as well as I'm not sure if they're going to
be able to provide us that much space. And I'm not sure what
height they -- I think the approvals were 500 feet. I'm not sure
what height they're going to be building at.
We have initiated contact with them regarding this. But if
we can use theirs, yes, we would -- you know, that would be part
of the system. If we cannot, again, we want our site to be -- we
need this site, I should say, the Everglades Road site.
Page 54
April 5, 2000
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Uh-hum.
MR. SANSBURY: Having to drive that thing twice a month,
and I know that having the opportunity to use the little push
button thing, I know it's slow and it doesn't work very well and
what have you. And having just seen an accident out there this
week, last weekend, it was pretty -- anything they can do on that
thing to improve safety I think is great.
Having worked with DOT, I can very honestly say if you're
telling me DOT doesn't rent any towers anyplace else -- I can't
see DOT making a deal with Ford Motor Company.
This to me seems to be an important situation. I think the
county's approach to it -- because I agree with John, I think
they're ugly. These things are non guides, so they shouldn't be
as big a problem with the, you know, birds and things running
into it, although there are lights on it. You know, it's an
important system. I'd just as soon as see this thing approved as
they have requested.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Other questions or comments?
MR. MURRAY: Can I make a comment, based on that -- your
last comment? American Tower, Incorporated is a tower
construction company. They are the ones who are in agreement,
I guess, or entering into an agreement with Ford Motor Test
Track to build the tower.
Allowing FDOT to built a tower at the height that they want
at this location of course becomes prime real estate for the
wireless -- commercial wireless providers. It would impact their
plans which they've worked on for quite a while now to try to get
at tower site at Ford Motor Test Track, because they're following
all the rules that we've set in place since 1991.
That's another reason for sending FDOT Lodestar to
American Tower. There are no guarantees, I know that. But that
is of some concern, especially with American Tower, who's been
in a number of times to discuss this site with me.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we be more
concerned with DOT than we are with potential American Tower
doing something on a Ford Motor Company site?
Page 55
April 5, 2000
MR. GUSTAFSON: I think obviously we've got four users
today that are ready -- five users ready to go on there. Sounds
like American Tower -- now, I understand it because I'm sure
Lodestar does these all the time, that and Ford, it's a speculative
tower. They're going to build it for their use, and they're making
it 500 feet, so maybe they'll have some tenants. And they
probably will. But we have four ready to go today, and it's not '-
and we know DOT's there. So to have them say well, let them
build it and see what they get would seem to be unfair to us.
MR. BAXTER: But at that one site there possibly could be
two towers.
MR. GUSTAFSON: At the Ford -- well, we're not at the Ford
Motor site, but do you mean could they possibly build a tower?
MR. BAXTER: In that location where you're -- they're saying
now that it's possible two towers in the future coming up, yours
and '-
MR. DiNUNZIO: The Ford track is somewhat east of
Everglades Boulevard, about a mile and a half, isn't it?
MR. BAXTER: Right, but it's still in the same '-
MR. DiNUNZIO: Well, within the same line of site, yeah.
MR. MURRAY: So there could be two towers.
MR. SANSBURY: A mile and a half apart.
MR. DiNUNZIO: I call the question.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Entertain a motion for action by the
council.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
MS. PAYTON: Can we have public comments?
MR. SANSBURY: Public comments.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Sorry.
MR. SANSBURY: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: My apologies, Mrs. Payton.
MS. PAYTON: That's quite all right.
Actually, there are more questions than they are comments
and clarifications. This is the Environmental Advisory Council '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: Identify yourself, please.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
But we didn't hear any discussion of some of the concerns
Page 56
April 5, 2000
that were brought up by the environmental agencies that were
asked to comment on these particular proposals. The issues of
birds and the impacts on migratory birds, other birds.
Also, the lighting issue, we didn't hear any discussion about
that. Maybe you received a document that the public didn't
receive that addresses that. And if not, I ask that before you
make a decision, you look into these issues closely.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing this, and
according to the staff report, their comments are not going to be
available till the middle of this month. And I would ask that you
consider continuing this item until you have this environmental
information so that you can evaluate these proposals from the
environmental perspective.
The National Park Service apparently has brought up
concerns about the impacts of birds as well.
DCA, I raised the question with Bill Lorenz, how does this
relate to the final order and what's prohibited and what's allowed
in the final order. And with -- the request that went into DCA was
that one of the questions that was asked of DCA, a clarification
of how this relates to the final order. Question.
I think there might be a problem with approving these while
the final order's in effect.
And then just another question is that I know that the
Florida Gulf Coast University is looking at towers across 1-75 for
educational purposes. When you get on at the tollgate, you'll be
informed that if you go to a certain spot on your radio dial, you're
going to learn about various issues about -- issues on the
western Everglades, bird life, how it came to be, historical
issues, you're going to hear maybe some readings by Marjorie
Snowman Douglas, and I wondered if this was tied into that
particular educational effort. And if not, if it meets the
environmental standards that this committee should be looking
at. Maybe that's another way to sort of make good things out of
some questionable things. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Let me ask Mr. Gustafson a question. Did you
say that this is likely to come back to us a second time?
MR. GUSTAFSON: No, I said that I know you meet monthly,
Page 57
April 5, 2000
and this process, as it goes through in looking at the schedule
for the process, I think the last consideration by the commission
on this set of amendments is June 17th, and they have an earlier
meeting and then there's two meetings in May. Any time during
that, if, you know, at your May meeting you wanted us to return
with the additional, we personally would do that. But we're not
scheduled to be back before this body as such under your normal
procedure, but we'd come back.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yes, Mr. Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: As I said before, I'd like to make a motion.
I realize the concerns. I did mention earlier that towers are
concerns, towers are concerned with birds because of guys. We
don't have guys in this case. We do have the towers. They're
ugly. We have the lights, I know that's a concern. But we also
have the concern of the safety of the people that drive across
that every day. And the systems, I'm sure Florida Gulf Coast is
going to do something. I see in the literature that there's going
to be a low frequency AM radio station tied into this for people to
get information. I'd like to know if there's a big wreck at mile
post 75 when I'm at 80, I think would be very helpful to me.
So I really think this is really important to the public safety. I
think a lot of other agencies are going to be looking at it. And if
somebody has a big objection there, I'm sure that there are ways
that they can, you know, have the process changed. But from an
environmental standpoint, non-guyed towers, I think is going to
help us.
I'd like to make a motion for approval for all four of them be
made. And if they can work something out with Ford, they can
work something out with Ford. But I think it's important that we
have the system.
MR. SMITH: I'd like to second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
MR. DiNUNZIO: As someone who has been on the side of
Alligator Alley and punched the little button on the call thing that
hoped somebody would come by when the cell phone didn't
work, and after a few hours of tossing every rock in the near
Page 58
April 5, 2000
vicinity into the canal and no response, I do see a need for it.
But I also see -- and the staff recommendation here, it says that
there would be a minimum of eight co-users, including the Florida
DOT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service and
Department of Forestry and Collier agencies. Do we know that
USFS and MPS are going to use that?
MR. MURRAY: No, that -- this is Don Murray.
No, we don't know who would use it. But we just wanted to
state that if they had the need, that they would be given
consideration to use the tower.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Is -- does MPS have an approval on this, too?
MR. MURRAY: They are reviewing it. MPS, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Forestry I think all have kind of claimed
some jurisdiction, and they feel that -- or they believe that the '-
that an EIS would be required to be filed on these proposed sites
to be reviewed by EPA and by their agencies. So they are
claiming some jurisdiction.
The -- whether or not that's -- that's a separate process that
we're not part of, I guess, is the federal EIS that's required. But
we have been -- I have been talking with these agencies, with the
representatives, and there are some concerns about the bird
kills. But by changing the lights, getting rid of the guyed wires
and trying to minimize the height, those are the ways that you
effectively deal with minimizing bird kills.
And then the other point of view that they had was well,
we're here to protect the scenic beauty of the Big Cypress
Preserve. And they just don't like tall towers, so '- MR. DiNUNZIO: They don't like much.
MR. MURRAY: Right. And those are the issues that they're
going to have.
MR. DiNUNZIO: I have no further.
CHAIRMAN HILL: We had one development come before us
about six months ago where there was a tower just east of 951.
A church. As I remember '-
MR. COE: That was a big tower, too, wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN HILL: It was a big tower. As I remember, we put
some pretty stringent restrictions on how they handled the
Page 59
April 5, 2000
lighting. And I've forgotten what that was. But they did have a
bearing, Mr. Murray.
MR. MURRAY: Yes, by requiring flashing lights, strobe
lights, that with long pauses, that tends to not attract the birds
versus having the red flashing beacon, which tends to attract the
birds, or having a faster pulsating white light. And we did require
that.
They can go to a dual mode lighting, which would be red
during the day and the white flashing at night, or they could just
have the white flashing.
But that tower is also going to be constructed soon. And we
-- the rest of the requirements fall under the Land Development
Code, Section 2635, and that's why we've included those
requirements be met within this proposal.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Does FAA have any say in this matter?
The lighting action.
MR. MURRAY: They -- no, as long as it meets the FAA
requirements, they're happy with that.
CHAIRMAN HILL: And what we imposed at the 951 location
did meet FAA requirements?
MR. MURRAY: Yes, they will meet it.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem amending
my motion to put the same language again, as long as we don't
violate FAA requirements.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Is there a second to the amended motion?
MR. SMITH: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
MR. COE: Only question that I have, are we approving them
putting a tower in at Everglades Boulevard '-
MR. SANSBURY: Yes.
MR. COE: -- or are we '-
MR. SANSBURY: That's my intention.
MR. COE: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: Well, may I say, I think we ought to work
really hard to keep not only the number of towers but the size of
towers down to an absolute minimum. So I personally prefer
staff's recommendation, at the very most.
Page 60
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: Elaborate on that, Mr. Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: Well, as I understand it, staff has gone along
with two at this moment. And the motion on the table is for four.
And I '-
MR. SANSBURY: My reasoning on that, Mr. Cornell, was that
knowing the DOT and the potential of the DOT making us kind of
an agreement is not going to do anything but delay what we're
talking about. I think it's a great idea if these guys can work it
out. Fine. But I don't think we ought to hold up the program
because of this other tower.
I'm hearing in other conversation that if these -- if the DOT
system goes in, which is going to help the public, they have
some co-users, maybe this other tower is not going to go in
because there's not going to be a market for it. These guys were
here first, it's a much shorter tower than that one, what have
you, and I think it's critical to public safety.
MR. DiNUNZIO: The other thing is the tower -- one tower
that the county wishes to deny is the one on 129 that there's
already a tower there and it's a guy wire tower, which causes
you more trouble than the lattice tower.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Other comments? Call for the question.
Is the motion clear?.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. SANSBURY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Aye.
MR. SMITH: Aye.
MR. BAXTER: Aye.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Opposed?
MR. COE: Aye.
MR. CORNELL: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let the record show it passed by 5-2.
Thank you.
MR. NINO: For clarification, your recommendation is as far
as the applicant's petition for four towers, two of which are
replacements, two are '-
MR. SANSBURY: Correct.
Page 61
April 5, 2000
CHAIRMAN HILL: This might be a good place to -- let me
take a look at the agenda.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Let's take a stand-up break for awhile.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Barb, how many more do we have to go?
MS. BURGESON: The majority of what we have here is fairly
simple, with the exception of the presentation on the gopher
tortoise language, which is -- has actually originated from this
board, so this is your LDC amendment. And I expect that that
might take a little bit of time to go through.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let's finish up the rest of the small ones,
break for lunch. We'll reconvene in three minutes, try to wrap up
all but the gopher tortoise by noon. (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay, reconvene the EAC and proceed
under new business on the LDC amendment. Mrs. Burgeson.
MS. BURGESON: We're going to go back to the first page on
the highlighted section of LDC amendment. 1.9.8.6. It's a single
sheet.
CHAIRMAN HILL:
MS. BURGESON:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Everybody have that?
It's the first highlighted sheet.
I'm glad to find out what that -- what GBH
MS. BURGESON: DBH? This amendment is to require that
vegetation that's planted as a result of violation be at least the
minimum size that's required for mitigation plantings, as would
be required during the normal development plan review process.
About three years ago, the Board of County Commissioners
approved amendments to 3.9, the vegetation protection section
of the Land Development Code. That stated that during the
development process, if you have to impact the native vegetation
that we require to be preserved, then you'll have to replant it.
And you have to replant it in the larger plant material size that
was indicated.
At the time we didn't recognize there we're several sections
in the Land Development Code that addressed minimum planting
sizes. And particularly in the cases of violation, we want to
Page 62
April 5, 2000
make sure that all the mitigation plantings are at least the
minimum size of what is referenced in 3.9.5.4. So this is just to
bring some fairness to that issue.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve.
MR. SANSBURY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous recommendation.
MS. BURGESON: The second item is 3.5.7.2.5, and that's in
your package that was mailed to you. Probably should be the
very first item in that package.
MR. SANSBURY: One more time, 3.9 '-
MS. BURGESON: 3.5.7. That will get you there.
Actually, very simple. What we're asking is to remove the
ability to waive minimum planting heights. This is in regards to
plantings around lake edges. We don't have the ability in any of
the landscape sections of our code to waive minimum plantings.
We felt it was unfair to waive them in this case.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as written.
MR. BAXTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous.
MS. BURGESON: The next one is in your package that was
handed out today with the highlighted changes, and it's 3.9.4.
Again, this is just a single sheet.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Everybody have it?
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. SANSBURY:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
MR. SANSBURY:
MS. BURGESON:
MR. SANSBURY:
Could I have a question, Mr. Chairman?
Yes.
How does this affect exotics?
3.9.4?
It says no vegetation removal shall be
Page 63
April 5, 2000
issued by -- isn't there a separate exotic?
MS. BURGESON: Yes, and that's still considered a
vegetation removal permit. We do not issue vegetation removal
permits, for instance, if there's wetlands on-site, if they need
wetland permits first to do that. So it does apply to all
vegetation removal permits.
MR. SANSBURY: So basically you couldn't do an exotic
removal until you went through the whole process. MS. BURGESON: Right, right.
And this is just to correct the names of state agencies that
have been changed since the LDC was originally written. And
also to add new agency names, and to correct the reference,
which is now listed as the planning services director.
MR. DiNUNZIO: I move we approve.
MR. COE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? All those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous.
MS. BURGESON: The next one is in your highlighted
package, and it's 3.9.5.5.2. It's a three-page stapled.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay.
MS. BURGESON: Okay. This is to do two things: One, to
reference the proposed amendments in the protected species
section; and to provide consistency with that section of this '-
with the portion of this section that the board approved a couple
of years ago where we made amendments to 3.9,554, and
neglect to make those same amendments to 3.9,553.
MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL:
MS. BURGESON:
MR. COE: Next?
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Are you finished, Barb?
That's fine.
Discussion? Hang on a minute. I want to
read a paragraph here that I -- okay.
Those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
Page 64
April 5, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous.
MS. BURGESON: Okay, the next one is in the package that
was mailed out to you. It's 3.9.6.6. And this is to give some
clarification in this section for when exotic vegetation removal is
required. It's '-
MR. SMITH: What number are you on, Barbara?
MS. BURGESON: 3.9.6.6. It's in your original package. It's
just a two-page.
Right now we require exotics to be removed. And it's
referenced under the subdivision section, but it's not referenced
under the exotics section. And so this is to clearly define that
exotics -- right now exotic removal in golf courses is sometimes
missed, and we try to catch up with that at a later phase. It
sometimes complicates things and makes it more difficult.
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. SANSBURY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I have a question. In reading the gopher
tortoise document, in particular, are exotics ever -- do they ever
form a viable portion of a habitat for any species?
MS. BURGESON: Not that we see that is worth -- that makes
up for the negative aspects of keeping them. There may be some
minor benefits. I'm not even sure if you'd call them benefits.
Minor uses. But it certainly would be outweighed by the
negatives.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay. Those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous.
MS. BURGESON: The next section is 3.9.6.8 from your
highlighted hand-out today.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Everybody have that page?
MS. BURGESON: And this is almost identical to the first one
that I discussed about making some fair equity in the mitigation
size tree plantings.
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. BAXTER: Second.
Page 65
April 5, 2000
job.
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Discussion?
Unanimous.
Those in favor, eye.
So far you're doing a great
MS. BURGESON: Thanks.
The next one is in the highlighted section, 3.9.6.9. And what
we're simply doing there is removing an example that is actually
inaccurate and contradicts how we apply this.
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. BAXTER: Second.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion? Those in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: You're on a roll, Barb.
MS. BURGESON: All right. The next one in the highlighted
section, again, 3.9.6.9.2, corrects minimum tree sizes.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Single sheet. Everybody have it?
MR. CORNELL: Move we approve.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Wow, you guys are quick.
Discussion? All these in favor, aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HILL: Unanimous.
MS. BURGESON: And the last is the gopher tortoise section,
which you talked about doing after lunch. I don't know if '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, there have been -- some council
members have indicated they might not be available. With the
council's permission, shall we try and get through the gopher
tortoise?
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Let's go ahead then, since we've been
deserted by everybody.
MS. BURGESON: Okay. There's a good likelihood that the
people that left want to speak about this and felt that you were
Page 66
April 5, 2000
coming back after lunch with it. So I'm not sure -- I know that
they took a risk leaving, so I'm not sure how you want to proceed
with it.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I guess I did make that statement.
How about a very quick lunch, council?
MR. SMITH: I'm not going to be able to come back.
MR. DiNUNZIO: Okay, it's over.
MR. BAXTER: I can't do it.
MR. CORNELL: I've got to go. I'm not able to stay.
MS. BURGESON: Okay. If you are going to lose a quorum,
then I would suggest that you just continue with it. And I -- if
you're going to lose a quorum, then I would suggest we continue
with it at this point.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Okay.
MR. SANSBURY: What do we have -- I think this is
important, too. There are at least two or three people here to
address it.
MS. BURGESON: I can tell you what their big concern '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'm willing to continue it. What's their
concerns.
MS. BURGESON: -- I can express some of their -- well, the
concerns that they expressed to me. And hopefully if they have
any other issues, maybe they can bring those up at the
Development Services Advisory Committee, or the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I'd entertain a motion to table it, or
whatever you wish.
MR. COE: I'd like to hear about what the concerns are, so
we don't '-
MS. BURGESON: Well, do you want me to go through this
with you right now?
MR. SMITH: Before we do that '-
MR. DiNUNZIO: Can you summarize the concerns?
MS. BURGESON: The concerns were that they wanted to
make sure that we weren't requiring them to relocate tortoises
off-site, when sometimes it's complicated to find off-site
relocation property. And they wanted to make sure that we were
Page 67
April 5, 2000
pursuing the -- some type of an arrangement with the state.
We're talking with the state right now to try to identify a piece of
property or pieces of property that we could identify as gopher
tortoise relocation areas, or mitigation areas.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, could I suggest that -- first of all,
let me ask you, Barbara, is there a time frame that you're boxed
into here in terms of consideration of these amendments to this
tortoise stuff?
MS. BURGESON: Well, they go in front of the Planning
Commission -- I don't have the calendar here, but I think they go
in front of the Planning Commission in two weeks. And then they
would go in front of -- they go twice in front of the Planning
Commission. They would go once in May. And then the Board of
County Commissioners I believe hear it in the end of May and the
beginning of June.
MR. SMITH: So there'd be an opportunity to come back here
prior to that time.
MS. BURGESON: We could present this at the May meeting,
at the very beginning of the meeting, if you'd like to do that.
MR. SMITH: Because I really don't know that it's fair to
those folks that '-
CHAIRMAN HILL: Yeah.
MR. COE: It's definitely not fair.
MR. CORNELL: That's a good issue. I move we table.
MR. SANSBURY: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Discussion?
MS. BURGESON: Can we consider that a motion to hear this
at the very beginning of that agenda item?
CHAIRMAN HILL: Right, we'll move it '-
MS. BURGESON: That time certain would make it easier for
maybe the developer to -- for those petitioners to be here at that
time.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Put that early on the agenda.
Item 8-A, urgency. I don't think growth management
subcommittee has anything to report. I don't want to put words
in your mouth, Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: Even if I did, nobody would listen, so go ahead.
Page 68
April 5, 2000
MR. CORNELL: I would, I would.
CHAIRMAN HILL: I guess I can do it almost in private now.
There's no public here.
Originally, when I asked about the election, which is put off
now till October, and we do have the opportunity for the chair '-
or representative of this committee to go before the BCC on May
2nd, or later, presenting our final report, there is a strong
possibility that I might seek a seat on the Board of County
Commissioners. In that event, I will have to resign from the
appointed position on this council. I will know that in a relatively
short period of time. So there's an uncertainty there.
So next month, Keen is vice president, vice-chairman. You
may be asked to chair this, if I've had to resign. MR. CORNELL: Sure.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Hill?
CHAIRMAN HILL: If you have any comments, if you say
anything from go for it or hell no, you don't.
MR. SANSBURY: That was going to be my comment.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Which, A or B?
MR. SANSBURY: Having done it myself on a smaller scale
one time, it's a tough road to hoe, but it needs folks like yourself
to do it. I seriously encourage you to do it.
MR. CORNELL: Bravo.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Anything else?
MS. BURGESON: Just one other quick comment.
MR. DiNUNZIO: You blew your whole imagine. I thought you
were '-
MR. SANSBURY: Have you talked to your wife? That's the
first thing. You have to talk to your wife.
CHAIRMAN HILL: Well, I'm a widower.
MR. SANSBURY: You are? I didn't know that. You're okay
then. Because basically I did it, and four years later I was
divorced. So you don't have to worry about anything.
CHAIRMAN HILL: That's a gal tower, not a guyed tower.
MS. BURGESON: Since we're tabling the gopher tortoise
discussion until May, and this will be presented to the
Development Services Advisory Committee and the Planning
Page 69
April 5, 2000
Commission before you hear it again, I would encourage you to
take a good look at it. It is your item. Its origin is listed as the
EAC. And if you have any concerns that you want me to make
changes to, I will attempt to make those changes before it goes
to, for instance, the Planning Commission, or at least bring it up
to their attention, that this is a concern of a member of the
Environmental Advisory Council. So that when it comes back to
you in May, I believe that since it is your item, you will have a
strong ability to make whatever changes you wish to it to that.
So, you know, help me along the way. If you have any
comments, please give me a call.
CHAIRMAN HILL: With that admonition, we better study that
carefully.
Anything else for the good of the group?
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman?
Barb, will you contact Mr. Cornell or myself regarding
starting to sit down and talk about the wetlands or who --
MS. BURGESON:
MR. SANSBURY:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
Carlson.
MS. BURGESON:
CHAIRMAN HILL:
good month.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
And you were going to also contact Mr.
I'll call Ed Carlson also.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Have a
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
WILLIAM HILL, CHAIRMAN
Page 7 0
April 5, 2000
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 71