Loading...
EAC Minutes 08/02/2000 RAugust 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, August 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: M. Keen Cornell Thomas Sansbury Jack Baxter Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe Alexandra Santoro NOT PRESENT: J. Richard Smith ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Donald Murray, Principal Planner Ronald Nino, Senior Project Planner Page I August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Welcome to the advisory council meeting of August 2rid. Can we have a roll call? MS. BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury? MR. SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Cornell? CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Smith? Santoro? MS. SANTORO'- Here. MS. BURGESON: And Baxter? MR. BAXTER: Here. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. So we still have, what, two vacancies? MS. BURGESON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Progress or-- MS. BURGESON: I'll check with Sue Filson right after we're done with the first public land use petition, and I can get back to you before the meeting's over. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Just a couple of short questions that I had, I guess, on the agenda. I'd like to catch up on -- or make sure we're moving along with the golfer tortoise protection, but I guess that would come under old business. Yes, Ms. Burgeson? MS. BURGESON: It can come under old business. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: And new business, I suppose, would include the wetlands workshop. MS. BURGESON: The wetlands workshop will be at -- after or following the September meeting. We've got a commitment from the young lady from Martin County to come down and make a presentation and an offer from St. Lucie County to attend. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great. MS. BURGESON: And we probably will have someone else all in from somewhere on the west coast, either Sarasota or from Hillsborough County. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Are we gonna talk about that at Page 2 August 2, 2000 all today, as to what it might consist of or how we're going to approach this? MS. BURGESON: If you'd like to, we can certainly do that. You can -- if you want to give us some direction and things that you'd like to see happen at that workshop, I'd be happy to take that information. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well, I know Bill has some ideas also about -- MS. BURGESON: Bill had a few things that he wanted to make a presentation about in regards to how the final order affects what we might need to do about wetland protection. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. And then I wanted to mention, I don't know, maybe we all know, thanks to -- Marjorie set up a private property rights workshop for December 6th, whenever our meeting is in December, so that was good news. Any other agenda items that -- do we need a motion approving the agenda? MS. BURGESON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have action on the agenda? MR. SANSBURY: So moved. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: All in favor? Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great. Regarding the minutes of the -- we don't care about July 5th, we do care about July 12th. MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: May we have a motion regarding the minutes of July 12th? MR. SANSBURY: Haven't read them. MR. COE: I'll second. MR. SANSBURY: You second? I haven't read them. MR. COE: I read them, I speed read. MS. BURGESON: We can approve those at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Growth management update? MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher for the natural resources department. Bill Lorenz is unable to make it. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Morning, Mac. MR. HATCHER: Morning. I don't have an update for you-all. Page 3 August 2, 2000 We're plodding along with our analysis and Bill asked me to come and try and answer any questions, if you might have any questions. MR. SANSBURY: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have any questions? MR. COE: No. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you. And we have a land use petition. MR. MURRAY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Morning. MS. BURGESON: We need him sworn in. (All speakers on this issue were sworn.} MR. MURRAY: Once again, good morning. This is -- this petition, CU-2000-07, also known as Lake Trafford Christian Church. I can't pronounce the name very well, it's a Spanish name, but it's -- this petition is located approximately two and a half miles west of State Road 29 in Immokalee, on Lake Trafford Road, approximately 15 acres that is undeveloped with access directly onto Lake Trafford Road at two points. You should have the site map in your -- in your petition packet. The traditional use for the church will also include a private school with up to 360 students and a church-run day care center. The initial phase of the development will allow for a worship -- a worship service of up to 150 members and eventually, if the need calls for it, a phase two, that could go up to 500 members. The property itself is surrounded mostly by agricultural zoning, with mobile home overlay. With the exception of to the west of the property, it's RSF-3, I believe, and that's single family development. There are mobile homes on most of the property surrounding, with some agricultural use, just to the north-northwest. Staff has looked at this for consistency with the comprehensive plan and has deemed it consistent and compatibility is all right with the surrounding development. The actual church and school will also serve the neighborhoods surrounding it. Staff is recommending approval of this petition, and if you have any questions at this time, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Questions for Don. Page 4 August 2, 2000 MS. SANTORO-' I have one question. One of the letters stated that there was an archaeological site -- was one previously recorded site and one field survey, and yet in another place, it says there are no archaeological sites on there. Has someone determined that professionally? MR. MURRAY: They're having a survey done and I don't know the status of that. I was looking for Ray Bellows this morning to ask him if they had submitted -- I imagine Fisher can answer that question better. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions for Don? Would the petitioner like to -- would like to -- MR. SCHOENAUR: Hi. For the record, I'm Peter Schoenaur with Davidson Engineering. We're the civil engineers involved with this project. The environmental expert, Michael Ramsey, he's not here today, I was expecting him to help with answering any of the environmental issues. Addressing your question regarding the archaeological survey, I'm not aware of the status of that survey right now. I'll mention that it's -- one was being conducted. MR. MURRAY: I will say it's in an area of archaeological probability, but what I was told, and the information I have, was that there's no evidence of any archaeological artifact or anything on the property, so we're awaiting that survey. MS. BURGESON: On the environmental issues, as Don had mentioned, it's approximately a 19 acre site, with greater than five acres of that either in pasture or an improved pasture. Remaining land is in pine flatwoods, hardwood forest, and mixed wetland forest. Two wetlands on site are identified on the map behind me in yellow. The largest, about 4.3 acres, will be just minimally impacted for access on the southern edge of that, and the small wetland at the northwest corner will be preserved in its entirety. Inspections on the site made it difficult to determine what the seasonal high water table was for the property, but they estimated it to be one to one and a half feet above ground elevation during heavy storm or rain events and the environmental consultant expected that that was only going to be for short periods of time and that that rain would or that water would succeed down rather quickly after that. Page 5 August 2, 2000 The preservation requirements for this site would be 15 percent of the native vegetation existing on site, which would be 1.9 acres. However, they're preserving 4.3 acres of that existing native vegetation, which gives them 34 percent of the on site vegetation being preserved. So that exceeds considerably what we would normally request, and staff is recommending approval. No listed species were observed on site or utilizing the property adjacent to it. We just have two environmental stipulations, which are fairly standard. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any questions for -- MR. CARLSON: The hardwood forest is, what, oak, oak forest? MS. BURGESON: The hardwood forest is red maple, oak, oak -- I have a report on that. Let me just give you -- ElS, this is Steve's project, so I apologize, I haven't been out on site. He's on vacation, but let me -- MR. CARLSON: Well, it's an upland hardwood forest? MS. BURGESON: Yes, but I can give you a quick -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any other questions for staff? MR. SANSBURY: I've never seen the term possible retention area. Why is that labeled possible retention area? MR. SCHOENAUR: It's just as a preliminary site plan, and what our intention right now, or since the site is split up into those two obvious areas of development, that we would achieve a flow in both directions on either side of that wetland. So when we say possible, it's just -- you know, that's our first go of the site plans, what it looked like, but we will definitely split the flow for the quality treatments to put those back into the system. MS. BURGESON: Getting back to the hardwood forest, that's primarily oak, sabal palm, slash pine and some maple around the parameter of that. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions for staff or the petitioner? MR. MURRAY: I'd like to just clarify about what I was saying earlier about the historical probability. That survey will be reviewed by the historical and archaeological preservation board and they'll make a decision on that. There shouldn't be a problem. Page 6 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Do we have any questions for -- from anyone else in the room? MR. CARLSON: I do. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Question and comment. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Sure. MR. CARLSON: Obviously this project's saving virtually almost 100 percent of the wetlands on the site; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: That's correct. MR. CARLSON: Yes, and that's a lot more than the required preservation of native habitat. MS. BURGESON: Right. MR. CARLSON: And now is that -- we've had other projects come before us -- which is great, I think it's fantastic -- where the future development of the land comes in and those areas are encroached upon by future development. Does this preserve area have any sort of in perpetuity kind of status for preservation? MS. BURGESON: We might check with the environmental consultant and find out if -- Mike, I'm not sure whether that wetland is going to be required through your ERP permitting process to have a conservation easement over it. Are you aware? MR. RAMSEY: At this point, I'm not sure that -- at this point, I'm not sure it's going to require any conservation easement. That's still up for question. MS. BURGESON: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: If it goes through the typical permitting process, it may not. MR. WHITE: Just two points of order; one, I prefer that he be sworn and that he identify himself after that, and if you would be so kind as to do so. (Mr. Ramsey was so sworn.) MR. RAMSEY: My name is Michael R. Ramsey, environmental consultant, P.O. Box 1261, Immokalee. MS. BURGESON: Typically, on a piece of property like this, if it comes in as a PUD, we would require that that wetland have a conservation easement or protective language over it during the platting process. Since it's a conditional use, and I am assuming that this is Page 7 August 2, 2000 gonna go through just a site development plan, it normally doesn't go through the platting process, but we can ask that they put protective covenants on it through a separate instrument, if you would like to do that. MR. CARLSON: I think for our future discussions on saving wetlands that if there's something we can do to offer as an incentive to lock this in now, it looks like you're gonna develop this thing the way you want to and still be able to preserve wetlands. If there's some incentive in the future that we can develop that would put a permanent conservation easement over this wetland area, I think that would be beneficial to the county's future. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great point, good question. Any other questions? We invite questions from anyone in attendance on this project. MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve. MR. CARLSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: All in favor? Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you, gentlemen. So you were going to add that as a request or a stipulation or MS. BURGESON.' Yes. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great. Old business, I just wanted to ask -- I wanted to make sure that we are keeping the golfer tortoise protection ordinance rolling. Do I understand the commissioners approved it as far as we've gone or-- MS. BURGESON: Yes, it was approved in very similar language to what you saw last. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. MS. BURGESON: We had actually added a little bit more protection and definition to that before it got to the board, and we are working now for the next process to add some additional language and working with the agencies on that. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Great, terrific. Glad to hear it. New business. My only question was regarding the wetlands workshop. I had Page 8 August 2, 2000 a brief conversation with Bill Lorenz and our thoughts were simply that it -- we should probably begin with reviewing where we are now and what is established that we're starting with. Does anybody expect not to be able to make the September 6th meeting? That's when we're going to tackle this. We all think we're going to be here? Great. Do you have any thoughts about it, Barb, or anything you would like to add or, Mac, for that matter as to -- MS. BURGESON: No, just what we've kind of foreseen is that we would present how our current wetland review is being handled, how Bill foresees the final order input into future wetland ordinance writing. I understand that we have to put some protection over wetlands to meet that final order and then presentations from the other counties in how they handle their wetland protection. MR. CARLSON: We have no information from St. Lucie County. Should we have something from them also? MS. BURGESON: That will be mailed out as soon as we get the packages ready. We're going to try to get them out a couple weeks before the meeting, and if we're running a little bit late on the regular package, we'll make sure that we get those ordinances out to you even earlier than that. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I wanted to ask us also if we wanted to promote this a little bit as a public workshop. I know that's something we talked about earlier in our career. MR. COE: I think the initial workshop with St. Lucie and the rest of them, I think that should be just us. Then if we want to open it up once we come out with something or once we as a county have kind of got -- got some -- yes? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm having a problem with my machine. It's shutting on and off, so I have to either get a replacement or something. I don't know what else I can do, or if you -- MR. COE: So we should stop talking? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: These meetings are triply redundant. They usually have the TV going and they're taping that and this -- and the tape machine. Of the three, the tape machine is still going so -- THE COURT REPORTER: But I cannot identify who's speaking. MR. SANSBURY: Should we identify for you who's speaking? Page 9 August 2, 2000 Would that assist you? MR. COE: If we'd slow down. THE COURT REPORTER: My machine's just not writing at all, so if you want to identify yourselves, who's speaking, then I'll have to just take it from there. MR. COE: That's fine, that will work. My name is Mickey Coe. I think the initial meeting with St. Lucie and the rest of them should be, you know, board only, so we don't run this into a three-day event, because it's for informational purposes first, and then based on that, we as a board can begin to discuss what direction we think we should take and then discuss it with the county, and then move from there with some sort of direction and ask for input. In other words, we need to have something first as a county board and as county staff members and then kind of maybe even publish it in the newspaper, if necessary, so we can kind of give them a heads-up of what we're thinking about, and then ask for public input and it may be -- we may even want to break it down, where we have the developers come in to make their presentation and then the next time have the community come in, and I -- you know, I'm just kind of talking off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. MR. COE: But I think that during the St. Lucie, Martin County and Marion County, or whoever (sic) county's doing the presentation, if we're having the public in here at the same time, it's going to be a zoo. MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can do that. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: This is Tom -- MR. SANSBURY: Sansbury, Tom Sansbury. I mean, if we have a meeting, it's got to be advertised, number one, I don't believe we can restrict public input at a public meeting. I'll look to counsel -- MS. BURGESON: Actually the workshops, the way we've held them in the past over the years, you have a public portion of the meeting and you can -- I'm sorry, Barbara Burgeson with planning services -- you can have that public portion of the meeting, adjourn the public portion and then just have a workshop, and that's how we used to do that. That way the workshop is a presentation to the board, but Page 10 August 2, 2000 you're not making any motions on it and there's no other public input. The only problem with that is you can't as a board make a motion on that until the next meeting. So it can be held either way. It can be held after you adjourn it, as just a public workshop, or it can be held during your meeting, so that you can make motions if you wish to. MR. COE: Mickey Coe. You know, again, we may want to have the public here. I don't care if they're here and listening. What would bother me is having to sit here and listen to the various counties make their presentation that could be lengthy and at the same time having the public comment on that, pro or con, while we're trying to just learn what the other counties did, but if they attend, I don't have any problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen Cornell. Yeah, I think it will work out. I understand what you're saying and I think unless we really aggressively promote it, I don't think we're probably going to have a tremendous turnout. MS. BURGESON: I'm-- CHAIRMAN CORNELL: It's a public meeting, anyway, but I don't think we'll be overwhelmed or bogged down or anything like that. Are you back in business? THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm just trying to do what I can. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: So I don't know -- it doesn't seem -- I don't think we'll be busy, do you, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Yeah, Barbara Burgeson. I have heard from quite a few consulting firms and they're interested in getting all the information they can -- CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Oh. MS. BURGESON: -- to be present for that meeting. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Oh. MS. BURGESON: But what you can do is what the other boards do, and that is, limit the amount of time for everyone making -- if you have somebody that wants to make a presentation, you can limit them to five minutes. That's one way to control the amount of public input in terms of the length of the meeting. Page 11 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN CORNELL: So you really need to set that up and if we have preference -- MS. BURGESON: We need to know where you want that on the agenda; whether you want that as a part of your public meeting or whether you want that as a workshop after you've adjourned. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: In other words, these are groups that -- Keen Cornell again -- these are groups that would like to make testimony or statements for -- MS. BURGESON: They're clearly interested in hearing what's going to be presented to the board. I'm not sure whether they want to make any statements, as much as they're interested in getting information, particularly Wilson, Miller is most interested. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well, I don't know, got any good ideas on how to set it up or just set it up and let it run? MS. BURGESON: Why don't I check with Bob and with Bill Lorenz and find out how we've normally done it in the past? I believe it's been done after the adjournment as just a workshop -- CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. MS. BURGESON: -- but if they feel that it should be done as a part of the public meeting, then we'll schedule it that way. If you have no problem, we'll let them make that decision. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Does that sit all right or -- MR. COE: Mickey Coe. I still would like to go back to what I said. I think that if we're going to do a workshop, a workshop is exactly what it is, ties off, sleeves rolled up and sit down in an informal setting and just -- and learn from one side. Then when the -- when Wilson, Miller and the rest of them, when they -- and I don't -- I really think they probably should attend, so they know what's been presented to us, and then they have the opportunity to go back to their drawing board to write up their rebuttal or whatever they want to do so that they can present their side to us also. Otherwise, they're not going to be prepared for Marion (sic) County or whoever it is that presents anything to us. So we should -- I strongly believe we should listen first. Let the developers and public be here. Let them observe it. We don't need any input from them, because they shouldn't be prepared for anything that's been presented to us. Page 12 August 2, 2000 Then the next meeting have them give us their input in a workshop format, public format, I don't care how it's done, but I'm afraid if you bring these other county presentations in here, and Wilson, Miller gets up to talk, what kind of preparation have they been able to go through in order to maybe even rebut what's being done in the other counties. I know if I was with an engineering firm, I wouldn't be prepared. That's why I would just like to limit it. Otherwise, we're looking at a marathon session. MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson. Does the host regular meeting workshop then work for you to MR. COE: Yeah, sure. In other words, we would adjourn the meeting in September, then we'd go right to a workshop setting, but it's not something -- I mean, although it's public, it's not something that we're voting on anything. I mean, we aren't going to do anything, other than learn just what the other counties have done and how they put together their wetlands program, if any, and they can discuss about some of the battles they may have gone through or some of the good things or bad things about it, and let the developers and the public be here so they can also learn, because this is not something we're going to make a decision on in the next meeting. This is going to be a long-term thing, and it may take us six months to a year to come down to the finite writing of the law or the plan or whatever it may be for our county. I think it's so big we need to take it in pieces, rather than taking it in big chunks. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. Ron? MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. I think Mr. Coe is right on target. You know, a workshop is a learning experience and if your learning parameters extend beyond the public sector, then the workshop would be structured to invite somebody from the private sector to give you their experience about the subject matter of the workshop. In this environment, I think currently all that you're interested in learning about, is the experience of other counties and then perhaps you should limit that agenda to that -- to the public sector. However, I do want to remind you that you have the Page 13 August 2, 2000 opportunity, under the workshop format, to invite a representative or somebody from the private sector that you have some confidence in to explain to you their experience in terms of dealing with the issue of wetland preservation. MS. BURGESON: One other thing I wanted to find out -- Barbara Burgeson -- is whether you were interested. We've got someone from South Florida Water Management District. We could have someone from the Army Corps here to make a presentation or we can just ask that they be available if you have any questions. Any preference? MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman -- Tom Sansbury -- if we're going to discuss a wetlands ordinance with somebody like Martin County or somebody like St. Lucie County, to not have South Florida involved, to not have the Corps involved, I think we're wasting our time, because South Florida and the Corps are the two governing agencies on both of these areas. They're the ones that have the most expertise in regard to both of these -- of this situation, and I think they need to be here if we're going to talk about it. MR. COE: Mickey Coe. I concur with that. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen Cornell. I think the commissioners were eager that we not overlook the Big Cypress or what is the local -- of the South Florida Water Management, their local? MS. BURGESON: Big Cypress Basin? CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yeah. MR. SANSBURY: They're a division of South Florida. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well -- Keen -- I'm a little confused as to how you want to structure this. I think for -- Bill's thoughts I think were that he wanted to make sure that we started slowly and caught up with where we were and what was going on and all the different things that were happening before we jump into considerations of, you know, new wetland protection ordinances and things like that. So may we leave it to you to structure this -- MS. BURGESON: Sure, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: -- so that it's open, legal and yet reasonably concise or workable or whatever? MS. BURGESON: We'll try to keep it under two hours. MR. NINO: I think we'll limit it to the public sector position -- public sector regulation, water management, where are we in the Page 14 August 2, 2000 field of wetland protection from the district's point of view and from the Big Cypress' point of view and then the experiences of those counties. MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson. This board member recommends the workshop method and I will be prepared to spend the entire day here. Break for lunch, come back, break for dinner and come back, and get all the representatives here and talk about this in depth. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Well, I think -- yeah, Keen -- I think that is a -- I think that is a fair question as to how -- you know, how much time do we want to commit, you know, what would make a reasonable workshop experience. MS. BURGESON: I think you'll found that these counties can probably make their presentation in 15 or 20 minutes each and it may be that it's the questions after those presentations that will take the longest amount of time. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Uh-huh. Okay. So we're looking at something like two to three hours? MS. BURGESON: I expect that we can probably do a workshop in a couple of hours and then it really depends on how many questions you have for each of those groups following that. We can certainly run that as long as you wish to. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Keen. Any other questions or concerns? MR. BAXTER: Jack Baxter. I'd like to get a copy of the wetlands ordinance or any updates to it that we have. MS. BURGESON: Well, they'll be mailed out as soon as we get those from the counties. MR. BAXTER: Okay. MS. BURGESON: They may come out with your next EAC package or they may be mailed out sooner than that. MR. BAXTER: And this meeting will -- with the wetlands presentation will happen on this next meeting, right? CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yes. MR. BAXTER: So we'll have it before then? MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Yes, that's a good point. Keen, again. Any homework that you might offer or great websites or Page 15 August 2, 2000 anything like that, would be -- you know, would be helpful. Anything else on this? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's a hand being raised from the office. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I'm sorry, sure. MR. WHITE: Ma'am, in order to be heard, you have to come up here and identify yourself, thank you. MS. AVALONE: I'm Kathleen Avalone and I'm from the Audubon Society and the citizens for protection of animals, and I just have a question on this workshop. Would it be possible to have a representative from the Audubon Society there in its initial presentation? MR. COE: I don't understand the question. MR. CARLSON: For what purpose? MR. COE: To be present or-- MS. AVALONE: Yes, to be present there and offer input at the workshop. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: I believe that's a given, isn't it? I mean, it's a public meeting and -- MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman, if we're going to do that, then we have everybody from the development community and we're going -- that's exactly what Mr. Coe -- MR. WHITE: There's two things that I believe need to be clearly stated. One is she indicated a desire to be present and then added to offer input, and I think you need to separate those two and talk about them individually. MR. COE: Mickey Coe. Again, I have no problem as far as your attendance. Bring as many people as you want, as long as they'll fit in the room, but as far as testimony, we're not at that position to have testimony from the public. This is a learning process. It's going to be an open -- I assume, I'm speaking for the board members here, council members, in that it's going to be a working workshop for us, this board, to learn from other counties what they have done with their wetland preservation. The second and third steps are going to be input from the county, private citizens, organizations and developers. So at this meeting, the one in September, there's not going to be time set aside for people to make testimony, other than from Page16 August 2, 2000 the other counties. Now, in subsequent meetings there will be time provided for people to make presentations. So, yes, you can attend, and I'm recommending that we don't receive testimony at that time from the county -- I mean, from other people, other than Marion County and other counties. MR. SANSBURY: And the regulatory agencies? MR. COE: And the regulatory agencies. MS. AVALONE: Okay. So-- MR. COE: I mean, you'll have the opportunity, it's just you're not going to have the opportunity in the September meeting. MS. AVALONE: Okay. MR. COE: We just don't want to run it for a week long marathon. MS. AVALONE: I understand. Thanks. MR. COE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Other questions about this meeting? MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Sure. MR. SANSBURY: Tom Sansbury. Mr. Coe gets a little bit geographically mixed up, from the standpoint he's formerly from the west coast. Marion County is right outside of San Francisco. This is Martin County. MR. COE: Yeah, Martin, whatever. I'm close. It's close enough for the governing board. MR. SANSBURY: The other west coast. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Do we have any report on growth -- from growth management? I guess Richard would normally do that. He's not here. Any other council member comments? Any comments from the public? Any other comments from the public? MR. WHITE: I don't know if this is the appropriate place to interject, but you'll recall in our last meeting that there was an abstention by Council Member Smith, and it was a requirement that he file a memorandum of conflict and I'm just, for the record, noting that absence today and that we will get that in the file, if it has not already been done. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Thank you. Appreciate that. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. Page 17 August 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Any reason why we should not adjourn? MS. BURGESON: No. All set. CHAIRMAN CORNELL: Okay. Thank you. (Whereupon, said meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:35 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL M. KEEN CORNELL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Sherrie Radin Page 18