Loading...
EAC Agenda 04/02/2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 2, 2008 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")-Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of March 5& 6 meeting minutes- not available at this time; will be provided later V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR-7703 Amerimed Center PPL Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUD Rezone- PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 Freestate CPUD Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East C. Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place PUDZ Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments XI. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (530-6290). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 2, 2008 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F")—Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of March 5 & 6 meeting minutes— not available at this time; will be provided later V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR-7703 Amerimed Center PPL Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUD Rezone- PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 Freestate CPUD (Staff report to follow under separate cover) Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East C. Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place PUDZ (Staff report to follow under separate cover) Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments XI. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 20, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (530-6290). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. March 5-6, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 5-6, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Dr. Llew Williams Allison D. Megrath Lee Horn Michael Sorrell (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Summer Brown-Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA DAY 2 ;- 9 0O;ArM.,March 6,:2008 Community syslopfl.Q t,28D4',N Horseshoe:Drive,Room 6091610 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of January 7, 2008 meeting minutes—First Mailing V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2006-AR-10875—First Mailing Tamiami Crossing CPUD Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East B. Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-9337 STAFF REPORT TO ARRIVE UNDER SEPARATE COVER-DUE TO ARRIVE BY FEB. 27 South Grove Lake CU Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East C. Excavation Permit No. EXP-2007-AR-11983 South Grove Lake EXP Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East D. Plat and Plans PPL-2004-AR-6476 City Gate Commerce Center Phase Two Section 35, Township 49, Range 26 VII. New Business{A»C,`shall be heard at-9:00 aorkontl arch 6) A. 5 year review of the RLSA by the Comprehensive Planning Dept. Phase I (1-2 hours)—Tom Greenwood First Mailing B. Lake Trafford Ranch (CP-2006-9), Planner: David Weeks C. Half Circle L Ranch (CP-2006-10), Planner: David Weeks VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX. Subcommittee Reports X. Staff Comments A. RLSA projects to be heard before EAC- Bill Lorenz B. Suggest EAC cite LDC & GMP when giving recommendations for denial C. Attendance—Please be available for the entire day of the meeting Xl. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5;00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 2.7.J2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition(252-6290). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. March 5-6, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 9:00AM. II. Call Roll Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman voiced concern over the location of the Rural Land Presentation scheduled for March 6, 2008 at Horseshoe Drive and wished to ensure that the Phase II Presentation in November, 2008 is scheduled in the Board of County Commissioner's Chambers with access to a live television broadcast. Summer Brown Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the meeting is scheduled for the room;however there are times when the Environmental Advisory Council is re-located from the Chambers due to scheduling conflicts. The March 6 Meeting at Horseshoe Drive will be filmed and broadcast on television. The Board noted that all attempts should be made to ensure that any Environmental Advisory Council Meetings are broadcast live. Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 8-0. IV. Approval of January 7, 2008 meeting minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approve the minutes subject to the following corrections: Page 4, line 7 - "for a periodic time while"to "for a period of time while" Page 3 item B. paragraph 5, Dr. Hushon comment, line 2 — from "the site is in the area of the proposed lake which will require excavation for construction" to "the site is slated to be residential and that these contaminants require excavation before construction." Motion, Page 4, paragraph 7, line#3 - from "and if possible, the County" to "and if required, the County" Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Dr. Hushon will not be present for the April meeting Dr. Williams will not be present for the July meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 Tamiami Crossing CPUD Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in Kim Schlachta of Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc.provided a brief overview of the project noting the following: 2 March 5-6, 2008 • It is located at the intersection of US 41 and Collier Blvd. with Wal-Mart located to the South • A majority of the land is forested with some small disturbed areas and open land • It contains 13.86 acres of jurisdictional wetlands with mitigation being finalized on the wetland impacts; 1.27 acres will be preserved on site with the remaining being mitigated offsite • A protective species survey has been conducted with no listed species identified, a management plan has been provided for listed plants species that were identified on-site • The preserve area meets all Collier County standards and requirements • There are no outstanding issues with the Collier County Staff A discussion ensued regarding stormwater treatment and the Council requested an overview of the Stormwater Treatment System. Michael Herrera of Q.Grady Minor& Assoc.noted that there is a dry retention area located along the perimeter of the wetlands consisting of a swale and berm. There is 1/2 inch of dry pretreatment prior to discharge into the wet detention system. The wet detention system will subsequently discharge into the wetland preserve. The system will be designed to provide the required 150 percent volume of wet detention treatment as proposed in the Land Development Code amendment. It was noted that South Florida Water Management District is enforcing this requirement. Mr. Bishof noted the controlling elevation provided in the Environmental Impact Statement IS of the wetland is 4.9' and the controlling elevation of the wet detention system is 4.1'. Kim Schlachta of Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc noted that the controlling elevation of 4.1 ' was an error and the actual wet detention control elevation is 4.9'. This elevation (4.9') is the elevation provided in the submittal to South Florida Water Management District. It was noted that the 4.1' control elevation is the control elevation of the Artesia Pointe wetland to the South which is adjacent to this wetland. Based on the elevations provided, the Council raised a concern regarding the possibility that the proposed preserve area may drain into the adjacent preserve thereby draining the proposed preserve. The Council requested clarification if it would be allowable for the Council to stipulate that the control elevation of the wetland detention system be at 4.9' or above. Jeff Wright Assistant County Attorney cited 8.06.03.0.2 of the Land Development Code noting "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), 3 March 5-6, 2008 are exempt from review by the EAC", however he stated issues such as stormwater entering preserves and the future health and hydrology of wetlands are within the purview of the Council and this type of stipulation would he acceptable. The discussion continued regarding the possible impacts of this development on the Artesia Pointe wetland area and how the 4.1' elevation of this preserve was established. Michael Herrera noted that this elevation was determined via a biological indicator and determined in a previous application for the Artesia Pointe PUD. Mr. Bishof moved to approve the Petition stipulating that the Stormwater Management System be required to discharge at 4.9'NGVD or higher; that the Council has concerns over the water discharges into the adjoining Artesia Pointe Preserve and there may be impacts(on this preserve) and that the applicant be subject to the stipulations in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Mr. Penniman questioned whether the application should be recessed to request information on any concerns Artesia Pointe, may have regarding the wetland. Richard D. Yovanovich, Attorney for the applicant noted that Artesia Pointe has had ample opportunity through legal notifications, neighborhood meetings, etc. to address any concerns and have not come forward. The applicant is acceptable to the 4.9' elevation stipulation. Speakers Nancy Payton of Florida Wildlife Federation noted that the applicant has not provided details on the off site mitigation for the wetland and there is nothing in the documents that address possible Florida Panther habitat impacts from the developments. She did acknowledge that the site is not located in the"Primary Zone", but may abut a Primary or Secondary zone. The Council noted that the Florida Panther is a concern; however no listed species were found on site. Richard D. Yovanovich,Attorney for the applicant noted that any Florida Panther issues will be addressed during the required Army Corp. of Engineers review process. Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated that Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the stipulations in the Staff Report. Carried unanimously 8-0. Break: 10:17 A.M. Re-convened: 10:30 A.M. 4 March 5-6, 2008 B. Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-9337 South Grove Lake CU Section 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East C. Excavation Permit No. EXP—2007-AR-11983 South Grove Lake EXP Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East The presenters were sworn in It was noted that the applications will be combined for presentation purposes,but voted on in separate motions. Further,the Excavation permit application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval while the Conditional Use application will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for approval. George Varnadoe of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson &Johnson, LLP, attorney for the applicant provided an overview of the project noting the following: • It is located in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area on the North side of Oil Well Road and zoned Agricultural • The conditional use property extends into a Habitat Stewardship Area • It abuts Ava Maria to the North, Camp Keais Strand is to the West • The Petition is for the excavation and construction of 2 lakes; the West lake of 41.6 acres and the East Lake of 89.4 acres. • The lakes will provide water for agricultural use and drainage treatment of stormwater from Oil Well Road • The lakes will be excavated to a maximum depth of 35 feet from grade, the same depth as the lakes in Ava Maria • The excavation will provide fill for the Oil Well Road Project,but in absence of this project the construction of the lakes will still be completed • There is a secondary access to Ava Maria between the two proposed lakes Bruce Johnson of WilsonMiller continued the overview regarding the Habitat Restoration Area aspects of the project noting the following: • There are 3 goals in the restoration, Provision of a Florida Panther Crossing; Wading Bird Habitat Restoration and provision of improved drainage to Camp Keais proper by breaching an existing berm between the property and Camp Keais Slough • It will include some forested restoration areas with the wading bird restoration area abutting the west lake • The side slope of the proposed lake in this area will be 8:1 (adjacent to the Habitat Stewardship Area) • No contaminants were found in the area of the application creating an Environmental concern 5 March 5-6, 2008 Chairman Hughes noted that there are existing wells in the area of excavation that should be abandoned and sealed off to a depth of 35 feet (the elevation at the bottom of the lakes) to prevent surface water contaminants from entering the aquifers. Thomas Jones of Barron Collier Company agreed with this requirement and noted it is a requirement of the South Florida Water Management District permit. Chairman Hughes also recommended any wells not currently in use of the property be capped. George Varnadoe continued the presentation noting: • Minimal blasting will be required to complete the project • DEP and Army Corp. permits are in place • The Restoration Plan has been approved by the County • United States Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation issues will be addressed in the Oil Well Road improvement approvals • If the Oil Well project does not proceed, the Petition will still require approval by the United States Fish and Wildlife • The applicant is in agreement with the recommendations included in the Staff Report • Should the littoral shelf on the West lake not occur naturally with in 2 years, it will be physically completed by the Petitioner A discussion ensued regarding the indexing requirements for the Habitat Stewardship areas and the scoring therein in relation to Panther Habitat and land uses. Bruce Johnson noted that the scoring system has been previously established by the County via a rigorous review process. Claudia Piotrowicz,Environmental Specialist stated that Staff recommends approval of the applications noting that the mitigation plan to compensate panther habitat has to be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Speakers Nancy Payton of Florida Wildlife Federation recommended approval of the Petitions. Mr. Jacobsen moved that Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-9937 for South Grove Lake EXP is approved subject to the following: 1. That the Petitioner comply with all recommendations in the Staff Report 2. Any wells within the excavation area be plugged with concrete to a depth of 35'(plugged to the bottom elevation of the lake) Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 8-0. 6 March 5-6, 2008 Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve Excavation Permit#EXP-2007-AR-11983, South Grove Lake, EXP based on the Staff Report. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 8-0. Break- 11:40 AM Re-convened— 12:45 PM (Mr. Horn did not return) D. Plat and Plans PPL-2004-AR-6476 City Gate Commerce Center Phase Two Section 35,Township 49, Range 26 It was disclosed that Council Members Bishof, Megrath and Hushon toured the site. The presenters were sworn in Roger Rice, Attorney for the applicant provided a brief overview of the project noting the following: • The Application is for Phase 2 of the City Gate Plat; Phase 1 was previously approved in 2004 • A document entitled"City Gate Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 and 2", dated December 17, 2007 has been prepared for the application • It is located on the Northeast side of the 1-75 Collier Blvd interchange • Estimates of 4605 jobs created; 173 million dollars of annual direct impact and 738 million overall annual economic impact • The applicant has developed Habitat Conservation Plans for mitigating the impacts on the Red Cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther Habitat • There are also Indigo Snake Protection Plans and Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plans prepared for the site • A Relocation Proposal and Habitat Management Plan for a recipient site for the Gopher Tortoise has been prepared • The applicant agrees with all recommendations in the Staff Report Roger Rice stated that Roy DeLotelle will speak on the Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Tom Logan will speak on the Florida Panther HCP and Ray Ashtan will speak on the Gopher Tortoise Management Plan. Roy DeLotelle of DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc. provided a Power Point presentation on the Red Cockaded Woodpecker(RCW) strategy for the City Gate parcel noting the following: • City Gate property owners have been instrumental in maintaining the existing RCW's located on their property which were first identified in 1987 7 March 5-6, 2008 • The primary mitigation consists of restorations of old growth pine forest and other habitats in the Northern Picayune Strand State Forest, a parcel located on Sabal Palm Road and a parcel in North Belle Meade • The mitigation also involves the relocation of birds from the City Gate property to acceptable habitat areas Tom Logan of Breedlove, Dennis & Assoc.,Inc. provided a Power Point presentation on the Florida Panther strategy for the City Gate application noting the following: • The property is located in the primary habitat zone for Florida Panther identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service • The mitigation proposed is primarily the funding of construction of a wildlife crossing with fencing on CR846 east of Immokalee • The mitigation involves primarily funding a study completed by Dr. Reed Noss from the University of Central Florida to evaluate and identify other priority roadways requiring crossings within Collier County • The importance of genetic diversity of the Florida Panther; this has been assisted by the introduction of limited numbers of female Texas Cougars (a species that has been genetically linked to the Florida Panther) into the population • The Florida Panther is a sub-species of the Mountain Lion; sub-species are incorporated in the Endangered Species Act for protection • The important factors in habitat include movement corridors, buffers, food supplies, impact reproduction rates, etc. • Higher numbers of male Panthers than females are produced and survive to adulthood • Panther crossings are critical, any loss to a female panther(natural or man induced) has a negative effect on the continuation of the population • Panther telemetry points and accident reports assist in developing locations of proposed crossings • The crossing proposed is for the existing 2 lane roadway, constructed at no public expense; this will not only aid the panther, but public safety as well For future planning purposes, a discussion ensued whether the crossing should be constructed for a 4 lane wide highway, in the event this road is widened in the future. It was noted that the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, among others,have identified the area north and east of Immokalee as an area for future growth. A discussion ensued on who will be responsible for future maintenance of the crossing. It was noted that the various transportation agencies that control the site are responsible for maintaining the crossings once constructed. Break 2:24 PM Re-convened—2:34 PM 8 March 5-6, 2008 Ray Ashton of Ashton,Ashton and Associates, Inc. addressed the Council on the Gopher Tortoise Relocation Proposal and Management Plan noting the following: • 6 of 7 of the known tortoises were re-located from the site; 1 was left behind for health reasons • The burrows indicated no other signs of other types of life other than the tortoise (spiders, insects, etc.), he noted this is a recent alarming trend in suburban burrows and needs investigating • The habitat on the site is not considered high quality Gopher Tortoise Habitat • High quality habitat is required to promote reproduction of the tortoises • Donation and acquisitions, etc., of conservation land is needed however, once the land becomes conservation land it needs to be maintained at an expense; funding sources should be identified and enhanced in this area The Council noted that any reports on the results of the Gopher Tortoise relocations are required to be submitted to Environmental Services as provided in Recommendation#5 of the Staff Report. Ray Ashton stated he would verify if they have been provided and if not he will do so. A discussion ensued regarding the proposal, noting control elevations for the stormwater drainage treatment areas,Phase I vs. Phase II. Roger Rice noted that the control elevation for Phase I is 7.5' and Phase II is 8.5' and the stormwater systems are independent of each other. Phase II and III treatment systems will be merged together. A discussion ensued regarding the development impacts on the existing water quality of Golden Gate Canal. Roger Rice noted that most of Phase II will not require any fertilizer usage, (other than a small portion around the buildings) creating very little runoff into the canal. Further, stormwater will be pre-treated before entering the canal. A discussion ensued regarding which wetlands on site are impacted with this application. Jeremy Sterk of Davidson Engineering noted that they are in the process in mitigating all the wetlands on site (including Phase III) through the South Florida Water Management District with appropriate mitigation measures completed. The mitigation plan includes parcels that are located off site with an endowment provided for inspections and maintenance. Speakers 9 March 5-6, 2008 Nancy Payton of Florida Wildlife Federation acknowledged the contributions of the applicant in protecting the species recognized and recommended approval of the project. Dr. Hushon thanked the group for their diligence in dealing with the issues and encouraged the adjacent property owners(Collier County Landfill, etc.) to follow the same degree of care when dealing with these issues and take advantage of any scientific data produced in these studies if applicable. Mr. Hughes moved to accept the application subject to the Staff stipulations. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 7-0. VII. New Business (A-C. shall be heard at 9:00 AM on March 6) VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Mr. Penniman requested clarification on members storing meeting information at their home or office. Jeff Wright,Assistant County Attorney, advised the members preserve the documents and if necessary, that a member should contact Staff for retrieval of the documents. Staff will then file any necessary documents. Susan Mason stated the Board of County Commissioners approved the New Hope Ministries application 5-0. IX. Sub-Committee Reports None X. Staff Comments A. RLSA project to be heard before EAC—Bill Lorenz Bill Lorenz Environmental Service Director appeared before the Council, seeking clarification on the motion from the last meeting that the Council requests in regards to reviewing Rural Land Stewardship Area Projects (RLSA). Specifically, if they wish to review all applications or certain applications. Currently, the Land Development Code states that only Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) reviews are required, when properties abut conservation lands or any developments characterized as a Development of Regional Impact. Further, Stewardship Sending Areas are an administrative process that is voluntary by the landowner with very little public hearing input. The scoring utilized for an application is reviewed and field checked by Staff. Staff would like direction on this issue. 10 March 5-6, 2008 The Council noted the process allows the EAC to provide a letter to the Board of County Commissioners and request to review any application it deems necessary. It was determined that Staff should provide a list of proposed RLSA applications to the Council and the Council would notify Staff if it wishes to review a particular project. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney stated that projects would currently be reviewed on a case by case basis other than those identified in Section 4.08.07(F) (1) (a)of the Land Development Code, which states that "The EAC shall hold one (1)public hearing on a proposed resolution to designate an SRA if such SRA is within the ACSC, or is adjoining land designated as Conservation,FSA, or HSA." Susan Mason noted that a new agenda item may be added under new business; providing a list of any applications proposed along with some minimum facts of the application (location, size, etc.). If it is determined to review an individual project, the Council will provide notifications to the proper parties. This issue will be taken up for formal action at tomorrows meeting. B. Suggest EAC cite LDC (Land Development Code) and GMP (Growth Management Plan)when giving recommendation for denial. The Council recognized this request. C. Attendance—Please be available for the entire day of the meeting Ms. Megrath moved to recess the meeting and re-adjourn at 9:00 AM, Wednesday March 6, 2008. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 7-0. VIII. New Business (A-C. shall be heard at 9:00 AM on March 6) Environmental Advisory Council Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive - Meeting Room 609/610 9:00 A.M. — March 6, 2008 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Vice Chairman Dr. Hushon with the following EAC members present: Chairman William Hughes, Vice Chairman Dr. Judith Hushon, Nick Penniman, Dr. Llew Williams, Michael Sorrell and David Bishof Roll call was taken and a quorum established A. 5 Year review of the RLSA by the Comprehensive Planning Dept. Phase I (1-2 hours)—Tom Greenwood 11 March 5-6, 2008 Tom Greenwood provided a document entitled "Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee—Members, Meetings, and Schedule" for review by the Council. He noted the purpose of the meeting is to review the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Five-Year Review, Phase I, Technical Review. This Technical Review requires Environmental Advisory Council Approval. Please note that Tom Greenwood provided a subagendum for this topic I. Introduction (RSLA Review Committee members, County Staff and schedule for reviews) Tom Greenwood provided an overview of the Agenda and noted that the following Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee members were present: Neno Spagna(Vice-chair), Brad Cornell, David Farmer, and Bill McDaniel. II. Overview of RSLA Overlay The Council viewed a Power Point presentation originally presented on December 4, 2007. III. Proposed Town of Big Cypress No discussion IV. Goals of the RLS Area Overlay Tom Greenwood reviewed the Goals of the Rural Land Stewardship Area as follows; 1. To protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. 2. To direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat. 3. To enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations. 4. To discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. He noted that the purpose of the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee is to determine if the program is meeting these goals and recommend any changes if necessary. V. Five Year Review (Policy 1.22) The review is required under Growth Management Plan FLUE RSLA 1.22. VI. Review of Phase 1 Technical Review It was noted that the program is voluntary for landowners and any lands not within the program are subject to the Land Development Code regulations in place. 12 March 5-6, 2008 It was noted that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship program is "grandfathered"by the Florida Community Development Agency, as the State Statutes governing these programs were adopted after the programs initiation. Any amendments to the program may require review by the Florida Community Development Agency. Legal services are reviewing this issue. The Council review Technical Review on a page by page basis. It was approved by the Rural Lands Stewardship Committee on February 7, 2008. The following points were raised. 1) Page 3, the definition of a Water Retention Area, line 2, "provide surface water quality"should be re-worded to state "provide enhanced surface water quality"or a similar terminology. 2) Page 4, the Council noted it is important to ensure that the applicants and reviewers are utilizing the most recent data provided in any area of purview (watershed planning, wildlife maps, etc.) Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted that the applicants and reviewers are under the obligation to utilize the most recent data available. 3) Page 8, the Council requested clarification on the sun-setting date of the early entry credit bonus. Toni Greenwood will provide the date to the Council. A discussion ensued if there is an estimate of the area that could be developed for"urban uses" if all the Sending Area land rights were removed (the maximum percentage of land that would be able to be developed in Receiving Areas). Russell Priddy, landowner stated that the emphasis should be on determining the quantity of land wanted to be preserved and build the program on this concept,not how much land could be developed. Also, the biggest assurance for the program to succeed is having the demand for the credits. In addition, he cautioned that the sending area concept is a volunteer program and it not be"over regulated"so a landowner will not volunteer the land for conservation. He also noted that a majority of landowners would most likely not remove all layers of the land use. 4) Page 13, the Council noted that Table 1: Data Sets and Publications Obtained for Use in the Immokalee Area Study submitted separately for review should be referenced in item #3 and included in the Appendix. The Council noted a concluding paragraph ending Phase 1 of the Review and moving into Phase 2 of the review should be included in the report. Mr. Bishof arrived at 10:20 AM 13 March 5-6, 2008 Vii. Request for Environmental Advisory Council Approval A discussion ensued on the concept of incorporating a statement into the report that the best available data should be utilized in project reviews. Russell Priddy, landowner recommended that this issue needs to be addressed in the Phase 2 aspect of the review,which will address changes as the program goes forward. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the technical data of the review process. Mr. Penniman moved to accept, with gratitude the Report of Phase I prepared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee subject to the following recommendations: 1. Page 3, The definition of a Water Retention Area, line 2, `provide surface water quality"should be re-worded to state "provide enhanced surface water quality" or a similar terminology 2. That "Table 1: Data Sets and Publications Obtained for Use in the Immokalee Area Study"be referenced in item #3 and included in an Appendix. 3. That a brief concluding paragraph be added at the end that takes the Phase I technical review to the Phase II process. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 6-0. It was noted that any members that have recommendations for the Phase II portion of the review email Tom Greenwood at Thomasgreenwood@colliergov.net Break 10:35 AM Re-convened 10:55 AM Mr. Williams did not return B. Lake Trafford Ranch (CP-2006-9), Planner: David Weeks Robert Duane, agent for the Petitioner provided an overview of the Growth Management Plan Amendment noting that it was submitted in April of 2006 and requested the change of designation of a portion (191.8 acres) of the property from Open Lands to Habit StewardshipArea. The area immediately adjacent to this portion of the property requested is Habitat Stewardship Area and it should have been included in this designation originally. The applicant is willing to comply with the recommendations in the Staff Report. Tom Taylor, landowner stated that this application runs parallel to the subsequent possible acquisition of the entire property by Conservation Collier. If this re- designation creates an issue with the pending appraisal for the Conservation Collier process, it will be withdrawn. At this point, they wish to let the 14 March 5-6, 2008 application run its legal course. No development rights have been removed from this portion of the property. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager stated staff recommends approval of the request, noting that the property is currently in a Stewardship Sending Area. Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Petition and forward it to the Planning Commission subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 5-0. C. Half Circle L Ranch (Cp-2006-10), Planner: David Weeks Robert Duane, agent for the Petitioner provided a brief overview of the property noted that it is located in northeastern Collier County and the application is to re-designate approximately 2400 acres of Open Lands to Habitat Stewardship areas. The area is critical habitat for endangered species. A portion of the property is in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program as a Sending Area. The recommendations in the Staff report are acceptable to the Petitioner. Dane Scofield provided a brief overview on the history of the property and noted there was a contract to purchase the Rural Land Sending Area credits but it fell through. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager stated staff recommends approval of the request. He noted a correction in the Staff Report, Page 5 states that the property is in SSA#6; it should state the property is in SSA#8. Mr. Hughes moved to approve the Petition and forward it to the Planning Commission subject to the recommendations and correction to the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 5-0. X. Staff Comments A. Continuation - RLSA projects to be heard by EAC—Bill Lorenz Mr. Penniman moved to direct Chairman Hughes to write a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting that the Environmental Advisory Council receive all SRA applications for review and comment. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5-0. XI. Council Member Comments Dr. Hushon noted that she has been attending the RLSA Review Committee meetings, the next one is April 1, 2008 and she cannot attend and requested, if possible, any member attend and provided any necessary input. The Council requested staff to schedule Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director for a presentation on the Natural Resource Index requirements in the RLSA program. 15 March 5-6, 2008 Chairman Hughes thanked the Board of County Commissioners, as well as state legislators for their increasing awareness of environmental issues and the costs associated with these issues, including water quality issues. Further, to ensure the citizens of the County are being protected, he requested Staff generate a report pertinent to Golden Gate City and the water alerts (boil water alerts) occurring in this region. Specifically, the location and reason for the alerts. Mr. Sorrell noted the large number of persons residing within a particular single family residence or duplexes in the Golden Gate Regions. The septic systems serving these structures have been designed for a specific number of individuals(and related gallons per day) and expressed a concern over the possible failure of the septic systems, caused by the overloading of the systems serving these structures. XII. Public Comments None ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:40 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF April 2nd, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No: Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR 7703 Petition Name: Amerimed Center Applicant/Developer: Amerisite LLC Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Davidson Engineering, Inc. II. LOCATION: The Amerimed Center (plat) is located within Sectionl4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The proposed plat is located approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road 951, folio numbers; 00418200007, 00416800001, 00417720009. The construction plans and plat submittal are proposing an 18.95 acre commercial subdivision. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The proposed plat is bordered on the north by Rural Agricultural zoning, on the south by Rural Agricultural zoning, on the east by Rural Agricultural zoning and on the west by County Road 951. Zoning Description North: Rural Agricultural Unimproved South: Rural Agricultural Unimproved East: Rural Agricultural Unimproved West: Right-of-Way County Road 951 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction plans and plat for four(4) lots zoned Commercial Intermediate (C- 3) and five (5) lots zoned General Commercial (C-4) on 18.9 acres. EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The northern portion of the subject property(Folio No. 004182200007) is designated Urban(Urban- Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict), as depicted on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). The Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District allows low intensity office commercial or infill commercial development within this portion of the subject property; and does not contain specific development standards, minimum lot sizes, or other requirements to be depicted on a plat. The existing C-3 zoning designation (Ordinance No. 04-23) limits office and infill commercial development to low intensity uses consistent with the property's Future Land Use designations. The southern portion of the subject property (Folio No. 00416800001 and 00417720009) is designated Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #7), as depicted on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Interchange Activity Center designation allows the full array of commercial uses (C-1 thru C-5) in this portion of the property; and does not contain specific development standards, minimum lot sizes, or other requirements to be depicted on a plat. The existing C-5 zoning designation (Ordinance No. 03-31) allows commercial uses consistent with the property's Future Land Use designations. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 This project is consistent with policy 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 18.95 acres of which 2.65 acres is native vegetation. There were no listed species found on site. The wetlands on site were composed primarily of Melaleuca with a MWRAP score of 0.54. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.40 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. As required by Policy 6.1.4,prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from the site and maintained in perpetuity. The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of the review packet for this submittal. As required by Policy 6.2.6,the required preserve area is identified on the preserve management plan as part of the site development plan. As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS. As required by Policy 11.1.2, correspondence was sent to the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR)regarding possible archaeological or historical sites within the project area. In a letter dated September 15th , 2005, the DHR stated that the Florida Master Site File lists one previously recorded archaeological site and no standing structures on this parcel. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The Amerimed Center project received Environmental Resource Permit (Conceptual Approval and Construction/Operation) no. 11-02748-P from SFWMD on 8 Jan 2008. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." Sheet 8 of 18 of the plan set, the Master Drainage Plan, shows no water being discharged into the one 0.40 acre preserve on the site. The drawing on the EAC Meeting . Page 4 of 8 SFWMD website is the same as the drawing in the review set accompanying the PPL application. For the record, the project uses a standard stormwater management design employing interconnected swales, catch basins, culverts, and a wet detention area to achieve water quality detention and peak flow attenuation. Amerimed sits in the Henderson Creek Basin and discharges to the Henderson Creek Canal which flows south toward the Rookery Bay area. According to Ordinance 2001-27, the County's stormwater discharge ordinance, the allowable discharge rate from the site is 0.15 cfs/acre. Environmental: Site Description: The property site contains 18.95 acres of which 2.65 acres is native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.40 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. On site native vegetation communities include Pine Flatwoods (1.99+ acres), Palmetto Praire (0.22 +acres), and Hydric Pine (0.44± acres). The non-native areas include Exotic Wetland Hardwoods (± 8.57 acres), Brazilian Pepper ( 0.65± acres), disturbed lands (2.47± acres), utilities (1.76+ acres), electrical power transmission lines (2.75+ acres), and an unpaved driveway (0.10±acres). Wetlands: The project site has approximately 10.19 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands. On site wetland communities consist of Hydric Pine Flatwoods (± 0.44 acres), Exotic Wetland Hardwoods (± 8.57 acres), and disturbed wetlands in the utilities easement(± 1.18 acres). Impacts to 1.22 acres of the 10.19 acres of onsite wetlands have been previously authorized (Permit Number 1 1-0251257-001 and SAJ-2005-6149) in association with a Collier County Welifield Expansion project (EIS Exhibit 6). The proposed site plan will impact the remaining 8.97 acres of wetlands. The applicant will purchase 4.84 freshwater mitigation credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank to offset the 8.97 acres of wetland impacts associated with this project. A South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) has been issued for this project (Permit Number 11- 02748-P). The project is currently being permitted through the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A copy of the permit shall be forwarded to Collier County upon issuance. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 Preservation Requirements: The property site contains 18.95 acres of which 2.65 acres is native vegetation. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser's office, this parcel was once cleared and operated as a nursery. A portion of the cleared area (FLUCFCS 740 disturbed) was not counted in the native vegetation calculations due to the adjacent FLUCFCS 619 (Exotic Wetland Hardwoods) areas. Staff has referenced past GIS mapping data and found that portion of the site to be dominated by exotic wetland vegetation around the time of clearing. The proposed upland native vegetation preserve of 0.40 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing 2.65 acres of native vegetation on site. Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a preserve area is shown to be consistent with the GMP. There were no listed species found on site. The wetlands on site were composed primarily of Melaleuca with a MWRAP score of 0.54. The proposed upland native vegetation preserve of 0.40 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing 2.65 acres of native vegetation on site. Listed Species: A listed species survey for this project site was conducted in June 2006 (EIS Exhibit 7). This initial survey found three burrows on site with two of the burrows being identified as armadillo burrows and one as a gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrow. Another gopher tortoise survey was conducted in January 2008. The survey showed no additional burrows or signs of gopher tortoise such as scat in the surveyed areas. A re-inspection of the suspected gopher tortoise burrow was also done. Upon closer inspection, it was shown that the burrow lacked the characteristic half moon shape and sand apron typically found with gopher tortoise burrows (as verified by staff on site). As a result, it was concluded through the January 2008 survey that no gopher tortoise individuals inhabit the project site. Although the Florida panther has not been observed on site, this property is in an area designated as primary panther habitat by the USFWS. Mitigation for these impacts will be provided through the purchase of 4.84 mitigation credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR 7703 "Amerimed Center"with the following condition: Stormwater Management: None. Environmental: 1. A copy of the USACE permit shall be forwarded to Collier County upon issuance. EAC Meeting • Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: e• /941/4MOS STAN CHRZANO 1' KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING ' ' VIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4/6Y/ C S D'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT .n_ S OM CRAIG DAVIS DATE PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: 73 ha BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST / 3 '/.3 -d8 V LIAM D. LORENZ, r., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 4AAL: 4 3 /S0S JEF GHT DATE ASS ANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: / „V,f* •.EPH K. SCHMITT D •MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Item VI.B . ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT Petition No.: PUD Rezone, PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 Petition Name: Freestate CPUD Applicant/Developer: FFT Santa Barbara I, L.L.C. and FFT Santa Barbara II, L.L.C. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Environmental Consultant: Passarella & Associates II. LOCATION The subject 16.8± acre property is located on the south west corner of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. The subject property is located in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) is bordered by Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to the north, Agriculture zoning with a proposed Taormina Reserve MPUD to the east, and Falling Waters PUD to the south and west. ZONING DESCRIPTION North: Berkshire Lakes Davis Boulevard (SR 84) Development of then commercial and residential Regional Impact (DRI) development. East: Agriculture Santa Barbara Boulevard (proposed Taormina Extension, vacant and Reserve MPUD) undeveloped. South: Falling Waters PUD Residential development. West: Falling Waters PUD Residential development. EAC Meeting Page 2 of 11 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Freestate CPUD is a proposed 16.8± acre commercial development consisting of up to 150,000 square feet of commercial/office land uses. Approximately 2.9 ± acres of right-of-way for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard have been previously donated to Collier County. The Conceptual Master Plan depicts the location of buildings, parking areas, landscape areas, storm water management areas and 2.5± acres of native vegetation preservation area, which is located immediately adjacent to the native preservation area of the neighboring Falling Waters PUD. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY A. Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict), the site is located within Activity Center #6, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict permits the full array of commercial uses allowed in C-1 through C-5 zoning districts and up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. In addition, Activity Center #6 is specifically designated as an Activity Center that is eligible for up to 100%, or any combinations thereof, each of the following uses: commercial, residential and/or community facilities. The Mixed Use Activity Center states, in part: "Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses...shall be determined during the rezoning process based on considerations of the factors set-forth in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict." "Mixed use developments- whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building are allowed. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects-whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density is calculated based upon the gross acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen units per acre." The total project acreage is approximately 19.7 acres and lies completely within the Activity Center boundaries. Approximately 2.9 acres is reserved for the future Santa Barbara Boulevard right-of-way. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 11 Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows: • Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. (The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit Development.) • The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Use Activity Center. (The proposed development is located within Activity Center #6. The defined area contains supermarkets, convenience stores, institutional uses and various other retail uses that are consistent with the C-2 to C-5 commercial zoning district. In addition, the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and C-4.) • Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. (No market study was submitted with this application nor required by staff, as the site is presently zoned C-2 and C-4. Further, the PUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses, most of which are allowed in C-2 and C-4 zoning district.) • Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. (There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center #6 and inclusive of two radial miles, including commercial, residential single-family, residential multi-family, institutional (e.g. church, school, governmental uses) and mixed-use.) • Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. (Project proposes access to Davis Boulevard and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. Transportation Planning Department will review this petition for adequate road capacity.) • Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. (Comprehensive Planning staff defers the compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. However, the PUD Master Plan proposes the commercial component to front along Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Blvd. extension. The preservation area is proposed to abut the Falling Waters PUD to the west.) • Natural or man-made constraints. (The site contains some wetlands, which will be preserved.) • Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. (Comprehensive Planning defers to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department for this review.) EAC Meeting Page 4 of 1 1 • Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code. (Comprehensive Planning defers to the Transportation Planning Department for review of access and traffic circulation issues and requirements.) • Coordinate traffic flow on-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point location and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. (Detailed traffic review is performed by the Transportation Planning Department.) • Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects. (The project proposes vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the commercial components of the project, but does not propose any interconnections to the adjacent Falling Waters PUD, which is a fully developed, gated community of which a physical interconnect is not possible.) • Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. (PUD Exhibit B "Residential Development Standards," provides that standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.) FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The PUD Master Plan depicts access to Davis Blvd. and Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension, also provided in the Project Narrative and Growth Management Consistency document.) EAC Meeting Page 5 of 1 1 Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Provided for in the Growth Management Plan narrative, though not fully explained; however the PUD Master Plan depicts internal connection between the commercial components.) Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The PUD does not provide for interconnections with adjoining developments. The only adjacent development is Falling Waters PUD, which is a fully developed, gated community of which a physical interconnect is not possible, given its development status. This is addressed in the revised Growth Management narrative.) Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed CPUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). B. Conservation & Coastal Management Element Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. The Project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: A total of 2.57± acre (15 percent) of the site will be retained and set aside as a preserve area with a conservation easement prohibiting further development. The Preserve area is adjacent to the preserve bordering the property in Falling Waters and is the largest, most contiguous area, containing the best quality wetlands on the site. Wetland and upland management will include the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation, as required by the LDC. Selection of preservation areas are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. A preserve area management plan will be required at the time of Site EAC Meeting Page 6 of I 1 Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plan Submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an EIS pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits will be required at the time of SDP/Construction Plan submittal. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the urban designation and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. The area to be preserved will remain as preserve areas and will be placed under a Conservation Easement to the state and Collier County. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the master site plan. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2, a listed species and Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) survey was conducted on the property; no listed species, or their signs, were observed on the property during the survey (Exhibit I of the EIS document). RCW nesting and non-nesting season surveys have been conducted on-site from April 19 through May 12, 2005 and November 11 through 25, 2005, respectively. No Red Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) was observed during the RCW surveys, the property was surveyed for all listed species, including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observations stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW surveys to meet Policy 7.1.2 and the wading bird survey requirements. However, update RCW survey will be required prior to the SDP approval. In accordance with Policy 11.1.2, correspondence has been received from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding historical, archaeological, or cultural resources that may be present on the Project. No significant archaeological or historical resources are recorded within the Project area. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed as Exhibit J. VI. MAJOR ISSUES A. Stormwater Management Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section EAC Meeting Page 7 of 11 3.05.07." In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention to make the Preserves a part of the stromwater treatment system. Freestate PUD was submitted to SFWMD on 13 Jan 2005 as Application Number 050113-15 and the latest drawings and calculations can be accessed on the SFWMD website by clicking on the application number. There apparently has been some discussion as to whether the discharge will be to the southeast into the Santa Barbara road system or toward the northwest into the Davis Blvd canal. The petitioner will address this in his presentation and County staff will defer to SFWMD for the final route of the offsite discharge. The project has received four Requests for Additional Information (RAI) and two Extension Letters (EXT) from SFWMD with the last RAI being sent out on 6 Mar 08. The project has already been submitted for Site Development Plan approval, but this review is for the rezoning process. The project sits in the Lely Canal Basin and according to Collier County Ordinance 2001-27 it has a maximum allowable discharge rate of 0.06 cfs per acre. The project employs a standard design of connecting wet and dry detention areas and a preserve to achieve water quality detention and peak flow attenuation. B. Environmental 1. Site Description The Freestate MPUD is 16.76± acres and is located at the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard in south Naples. The Project's surrounding land uses are a mixture of residential developments; undeveloped, disturbed land; and commercial developments. The proposed Project includes a commercial development and 2.5± acres of native vegetation preserve along the western portion of the site. The required preserve requirements for the commercial development total 15 percent of the Project's total native vegetation, or 2.5± acres. The actual native vegetation preserve consists of 2.38± acres of wetlands and 0.19± acre of uplands. The proposed surface water management plan will incorporate best management practices including water management areas for water treatment and storage prior to discharge to the east to the future Santa Barbara Boulevard area and flow southward. The system will be designed utilizing both wet and dry detention system. The detention system will provide for the treatment and storage for the 16.76± acre site, less the 2.57± acre preserve (i.e., 14.19± acres). The operation of the proposed storm water management system may include the collection of surface water runoff by catch basins and closed pipe systems that convey the runoff to the wet detention areas. The site proposes one storm water management lake for water quality treatment. Additional storage will be provided through the dry detention area and the wetland preserve areas. Water quality EAC Meeting Page 8 of 11 will be achieved before any flow is permitted to enter the preserve areas. Once water quality treatment has been achieved, all discharge will occur through control structures located on the east side of the Project near the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. The site consists mostly of Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum with some Boca Fine Sand. The average dry season water table elevation is estimated to be at 7.0± feet NGVD. The proposed control elevation of the project will be 9.7± feet NGVD, which is consistent with the neighboring Falling Waters development to the west. 2. Wetlands The Project area contains 13.32± acres of Collier County/South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands and no "other surface waters" (OSW). The wetland lines were previously approved in the field by Lisa Earhart of the SFWMD on December 10, 1998 and re-verified by Krista Gentile of the SFWMD on August 27, 2004. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) wetland jurisdiction determination and sign-off map is provided as Exhibit L of the EIS document. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) jurisdictional wetlands were field reviewed by Skip Bergmann on December 11, 1998 and re-verified by Robert Tewis on February 17, 2005. Approximately 10.94± acres or 82 percent of the wetlands onsite are proposed to be impacted by the Project. The proposed wetland impacts are summarized in Table 6 and are illustrated on the Wetland Impact Map enclosed as Exhibit 0 of the EIS document. 3. Preservation Requirements The proposed Project includes a commercial development and 2.5± acres of native vegetation preserve along the western portion of the site. The required preserve requirements for the commercial development total 15 percent of the Project's total native vegetation, or 2.5± acres. The actual native vegetation preserve consists of 2.38± acres of wetlands and 0.19± acre of uplands. Staff has conducted a site visit to verify existing vegetation and FLUCFCS code, the best habitat for preserve selection and existing listed species and wildlife onsite. Another site visit will be conducted by staff during the Conservation Easement review. EAC Meeting Page 9 of 11 4. Listed Species A listed species survey was conducted on the property on March 4, 2004, and updated on April 23, 2007. Additional observations were made on January 21, 2004, June 22, 2004, July 13, 2004, and July 30, 2004. The updated listed species survey report is included as Exhibit I of the EIS document. Red Cockaded Woodpecker - RCW nesting and non-nesting season surveys have also been conducted onsite from April 29 through May 12, 2005 and from November 11 through 23, 2005, respectively. Copies of the RCW surveys are provided as Exhibit R of the EIS document. No listed species were observed during the listed species survey, additional observation dates or RCW nesting and non-nesting season surveys. During the RCW surveys, the property was surveyed for all listed species including wading birds. The RCW surveys were conducted for one hour after sunrise and ending four hours past sunrise at randomly located observation stations over the entire site. Sufficient time was spent during the RCW surveys to meet the wading bird survey requirements. Listed species issue for this project was discussed during the interagency meeting and since the site is within RCWs habitat the biologist form Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council recommended a full nesting and foraging RCW survey prior to any vegetation removal. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of Freestate CPUD PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: None Environmental: The following items will be required prior to the Site Development Plan approval: 1) Approved preserve management plan and Conservation Easement 2) Florida Black Bear Management Plan 3) Provide a Big Cypress Squirrel survey prior to any vegetation removal 4) Big Cypress Squirrel protective plan 5) A full nesting and foraging RCW survey prior to any vegetation removal, unless written technical assistance from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) indicate otherwise. EAC Meeting Page 10 of 11 PREPARED BY: IAJI •���' 0,4,4Z I� MA2 ZGl'JS STAN CHRZANO SKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT eICWa CieP 0+8000ICZ. 3 1 C3 a 00 8 CLAUDIA PIOTROWICZ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Yka - 3 )00.03 NANCY GUIPDiL A� DATE PRINCIPAL I .ANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: I Z-20-D8 SUSAN!MASON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT P.L./ WILLIAM D. LORENZ, Jr., P.E. DATE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR • illY‘4111±-* 5/190$' JEFF GHT DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY JO4.4...."--,,-744.......V4 PH K. SCHMITT DATE Co , MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR • ITEM NO.: ( .. ; .. i R�4 T ' FILE NO.: ROUTED TO: 0 S– E I13 — Q C:), �� 1 DATE REC'D: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS SPACE(Orig.9/89;Rev.6/97) REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES (Please type or print) Date: 03/19/08 To: Office of the County Attorney, Attn: Jeff Wright From: Claudia Piotrowicz,Environmental Specialist Environmental Services Community Development and Environmental Department Services Division Telephone#: 252-5882 Re: Freestate CPUD AR-9486 BACKGROUND OF REQUEST/PROBLEM: This item been previously submitted. ❑ Yes X No ACTION REQUESTED: EAC Staff Report for CAO review and signature • OTHER COMMENTS: Ot46° 4j2" Cn w CI°; 3/I - (61. 1)..1j"" 1"1111 16.1rYtraiL 11/64/62424.0t �� ( IS 1000#1. ), cenAtv.).40-3. 66,071441?) G> ` w �� ` Item VI. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF APRIL 2, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT Petition No.: PUDZ —2007 —AR 12581 Petition Name: Esperanza Place PUDZ Applicant/Developer: Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor & Associates Environmental Consultant: Collier Environmental Consultants II. LOCATION The subject properties are located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, west of S.R. 29 and % mile east of Carson Road in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The site is currently bordered on the west by mobile home/manufactured home subdivision. The property to the south and east are developed with single-family dwelling units. South of the property is vacant but used for agriculture uses. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - RSF-4, Garden Lake Apartments PUD, Single-family residential units, and MH apartments & Mobile Homes S - A-MHO Single-family residential units E - Davenport PUD Single-family residential units W - MH Mobile Homes & Manufacture Homes IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) zoning district with Mobile Home Overlay to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), Esperanza Place RPUD zoning district. The Esperanza Place RPUD is a total of 31.63± acres that will be developed up to 262 dwelling units per acre. This amounts to a gross density of 8.28± dwelling units per acre. The base density is four (4) dwelling units per acre and the affordable housing density bonus is used to make up the remaining dwelling units. The Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc will develop an affordable multi-family residential community EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 on the western half of the site and the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation will develop affordable owner-occupied homes on the eastern portion of the property, and a two (2) acre tract will be for one (1) single-family residence, this home currently exists and will remain. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY A. Future Land Use Element The project is located in the lmmokalee area which is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map — specific subdistricts and development standards are contained within the lmmokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP). The subject sites are located within the TAMP Low Residential Subdistrict designation. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for low density residential development. Residential dwellings are limited to single-family structures and duplexes. However, multi- family dwellings are permitted provided they are within a Planned Unit Development. Density less than or equal to four (4) dwelling units per gross acre is permitted. Esperanza Place RPUD proposes 262 dwelling units on 31.63 acres, which equates to a gross density of 8.28 units per acre. The Density Rating System (DRS) allows the subject properties a base density of four (4) units per acre and the potential of an Affordable- Workforce Housing Bonus (AHDB), by public hearing, of up to eight (8) units per acre. The subject petition includes a companion Agreement Authorizing Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus that indicates the requested project density is allowed (which is subject to Housing & Human Services' review for accuracy and Board of County Commission approval as a companion item to this RPUD). A density analysis is as follows: • Permitted Base Density— 31.63 acres x 4 units/acre = 126.52 units ■ AHDB Density Eligibility— 31.63 acres x 8 units/acre = 253.04 units • Total Possible Units = 379.56 (12 du/a) ■ Requested Units = 262 units (8.23 du/a) The following FLUE policies and objectives apply to the subject use with respect to potential site utilization (note various staff comments italicized and bolded below): FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Objective 7 of the FLUE states: "In an effort to support the Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable." EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Staff Comment: The site's existing access is to lmmokalee Drive, a collector road; no new access is proposed.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Staff Comment: In the project narrative, the applicant indicates that there will be internal connections between the multi-family residential portion of the site and the single-family portion of the site — after reviewing the Master Plan provided in sheet two of the large location map submittals, this has been confirmed.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (As stated in the project narrative, the applicant notes that interconnections will be explored, but may not be possible given the surrounding development conditions. Upon review of the site aerial, staff concurs that it does not appear to be feasible. There is a potential pedestrian interconnection shown on the Master Plan.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Staff Comment: The subject proposal provides a blend of single and multi-family densities in conjunction with being a development with a proposed affordable housing component. The project allows a clubhouse, includes a recreational tract, and includes the required open space. Since no deviation is being requested, sidewalks must be provided as required in the LDC). CONCLUSION: Staff deems the subject PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 to be consistent with the TAMP subject to the approval of the companion agreement authorizing the Affordable- Workforce Housing Density Bonus. B. Conservation & Coastal Management Element Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. According to the applicant the project attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention areas and lakes to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 3. Preservation Requirements Despite of providing the following statement "since this project does not have any native habitats a tree count was conducted." The applicant did not provide enough scientific evidence to sustain this statement. After several meetings between the applicant and staff, William Lorenz Engineering and Environmental Services Department Director wrote a letter in which it is stated that "vegetation retention requirement will be based on the vegetation currently on site since there is little change from aerials in 1997 to today", the referred letter is the EIS document Exhibit "Environmental Services Director Letter". Staff has requested the EIS to be revised to elaborate and justify their statements regarding why the native vegetation present on site should not be preserved. The applicant has declined and decided that the EIS document is sufficient for the EAC review. 4. Listed Species A Listed Species Survey is included as Exhibit "Listed Species Survey" in the EIS document. No evidence of listed species was observed during the survey. Since the site is located within the Black Bear habitat range a Florida Black Bear Management Plan is required and is included in the EIS as Exhibit "Black Bear Management Plan". VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends not approving the EIS for Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 for the following reasons: Stormwater Management: None Environmental: 1. Staff recommends the EIS be revised to include the justification of the applicant's contention that no preservation is required. The EIS does not demonstrate compliance with COME Policy 6.1.1(1) "For the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to this definition." 2. If the EAC deems the EIS sufficient and recommend approval, staff recommends the following condition of approval: After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing is required in order for historical clearing without permit to be in compliance with required native preservation. For this site staff knows that 2 acres for each existing house and ± 4 acres were legally cleared from the site. Applicant has to provide calculation in the EIS document and include the After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing total acreage in the PUD exhibits. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 B. Environmental 1. Site Description The site comprises ±31.70 acres and although it has been partially cleared some of the existing trees are remnant specimens from the vegetation that originally occurred on site. The upland vegetation canopy is composed of mature slash pines (Pinus elliott,) and other associated upland species such as live oak (Quercus virginiana). The secondary strata is composed of winged sumac (Rhus copallina), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Paw-paw (Asimina reticulata ) etc. There is a wetland area ±1.7 acres located at the southeast portion of the site; the existing vegetation is composed of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), swamp fern (Blencnum serrlantum), and other native species. The historic aerials reveal that native vegetation on site has been cleared on different occasions and years without obtaining the necessary permits and/or documents for the removal of native vegetation. According to the applicant the site has been used for row crop production and eventually, the entire parcel was used for cattle production/grazing. Currently the site is vegetated with some scattered slash pines, oaks and cabbage palms and the ground cover consists of bahiagrass and native ground cover species, additional information on existing vegetation can be seen on the EIS exhibit "FLUCCS code vegetation inventory". Approximately, 121 Slash pines and 11 oaks were identified on site according to the tree inventory provided by the applicant. Soil types on site are mostly non-hydric soils composed by Myakka Fine Sand; Urban Land - Immokalee — Oldsmar; Limestone Substratum, Complex; Pomella fine sand. At the area where the wetland is located the soil is hydric: Chobee, winder and Gator Soils, Depressional. The subject parcels have two single family residences within the project boundary. 2. Wetlands As required by policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) will conduct a site visit and field verify the wetland jurisdictional boundaries for the proposed project. The ± 1.73 acres onsite wetland area has been partially impacted and the offsite portion of this wetland has been completely impacted. Existing native vegetation onsite is composed of: Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Primorose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), Wax myrtle (Myrica cerfera), Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), etc. Please see more details on the FLUCFCS code map provided as exhibit "FLUCCS code vegetation inventory". The project as proposed will impact 100% onsite wetland and the appropriate wetland permits will be necessary prior to the next development order approval. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 This project does not show consistency with CCME/Policy 6.1.1(1) "For the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to this definition." Throughout the EIS document the applicant states that there is no existing native vegetation onsite and therefore there is no native preservation requirement. However, in Exhibit "FLUCFCS Code Vegetation Inventory" in the EIS document the applicant does provide a comprehensive list of native vegetation found on site. This is inconsistent with the applicant's conclusion that there should be no preserve requirement. The applicant did not provide reasons based on biological knowledge that mature slash pines (Pinus elliotti) and other associated upland species such as cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), live oak (Quercus virginiana), winged sumac (Rhus copallina) and wetland native vegetation such as Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Primorose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), Wax myrtle (Myrica cerfera), Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), etc. do not qualify as native habitat. Please see more details about existing vegetation on the pictures attached to this staff report. An EIS has been submitted and is not consistent with Policy 6.1.8 since the EIS document lacks important technical aspects, therefore it is not sufficient. Staff has requested complementary explanation about the information contained in the EIS document and the applicant has declined the opportunity to provide the requested information and required that the EIS document be reviewed by the EAC. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included, no evidence of listed species was observed during the survey. Staff conducted site visit to verify existing vegetation and FLUCFCS code and existing listed species and wildlife onsite. VI. MAJOR ISSUES A. Stormwater Management Esperanza Place was submitted to SFWMD on 7 Feb 2008 and processed for an Environmental Resource Permit (Application Number 080207-26). The Request for Additional Information letter (RAI) was sent out by SFWMD on 7 Mar 08. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." Since this project does not intend using preserves for stormwater treatment, the water management aspects are exempt from review by the EAC. For the record, the project uses a standard stormwater management design employing interconnected swales, catch basins, culverts, and wet detention areas to achieve water quality detention and peak flow attenuation. A seven page set of the permit plans can be accessed on the SFWMD website. The drawings show discharge into the Immokalee Drive swale. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 3. Preservation Requirements Despite of providing the following statement "since this project does not have any native habitats a tree count was conducted." The applicant did not provide enough scientific evidence to sustain this statement. After several meetings between the applicant and staff, William Lorenz Engineering and Environmental Services Department Director wrote a letter in which it is stated that "vegetation retention requirement will be based on the vegetation currently on site since there is little change from aerials in 1997 to today", the referred letter is the EIS document Exhibit "Environmental Services Director Letter". Staff has requested the EIS to be revised to elaborate and justify their statements and the applicant has declined and decided that the EIS document is sufficient for the EAC review. 4. Listed Species A Listed Species Survey is included as Exhibit "Listed Species Survey" in the EIS document. No evidence of listed species was observed during the survey. Since the site is located within the Black Bear habitat range a Florida Black Bear Management Plan is required and is included in the EIS as Exhibit "Black Bear Management Plan". VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends not approving the EIS for Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 for the following reasons: 1. Stormwater Management: None 2. Environmental: 1. Staff recommends the EIS be revised to include the justification of the applicant's contention that no preservation is required. The EIS does not demonstrate compliance with COME Policy 6.1.1(1) "For the purpose of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25% or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. The vegetation retention requirements specified in this policy are calculated based on the amount of native vegetation that conforms to this definition." 2.1 Condition of approval: After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing is required in order for historical clearing without permit to be in compliance with required native preservation. For this site staff knows that 2 acres for each existing house and ± 4 acres were legally cleared from the site. Applicant has to provide calculation in the EIS document and include the After the Fact Vegetation Removal/Clearing total acreage in the PUD exhibits. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: lg 6111. 2 ©g STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT etaulc CfPCGOicz 3 / 12 foe CLAUDIA PIOTROWICZ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 77( •P‘ -..01111i Oleg 3//0/o2f5r49,!5‘ MELISSA ZONE - DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 1 1 of 1 1 REVIEWED BY: SUS ASON DATE P PAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST E IRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 'ri LLIAM D. LORE Z, Jr., '.E DATE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 3/► R �o � JEFF WRIGH DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: 4 / C JGGS PH K. SCHMITT DAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR 100„,,,„ .. , , • _..., . ' ,:„..,., r ,-•• -- r,a ' . +` wad ;a. 4.21.6 rig` 0 =ka . _ •. _ -40, v. , 11„ ,µ ' •,�`.! i t a F' .mo..„...41,,,,.; 4 Cry' a� $: . ,.,, . p r e4df- f v 1. 3 •Y n /N� t 8 qt FSO l "fir, , • A ,1- r " '7 . tg` -4Rtt x F • moi+"' + A ,dirt , . J #:a a .F , *r x i ,.-liti, ...., .._,_,.. iiirb,..• '• !L.0,,, 0 V s E 01M-41 : 4P a r "'4f1 . y I . s M' A jr, Attz .S I x. YY- i # �' 1. �.. y n " d t l - -. +rE "Siiic « ;r_ -"• . ,,,,,„,.-',:'Y. • '., .- .i,A `,'",•••:,,tr, , .-.,,. . - ',se,4 0 0 . • • 1 ,' ..` Pt 1 ° �" m01 _,...,„..46- ''.:'_,, . OF Itoill%- ...401 1 4... •"-.... ti ., , �F - N i NNgi a w ' t o ' ` X44' .t.„,,,,1 I' �- Vs . n- ` m ;{ r R "" 4 i witi 4 4. tali r . ;'�,.,- r �,r�,a ' .r"' - 4444— '44 ,,,I, SI if 4Pt - Aillif • y.. ` �s r gam. x `B WI 31 N DDDNQQQ fiiir� k. sa ally DIY r �°�K / it ,� °1---,,,Lit.: ,... .�-' -' w It Tp pyww t ji ., . le' .: f. r I Y I. ID N tV Iii lgr 0 S e ffs.%,r `.4, i '{'i Mktioto, ill . . k k 1 ' ! 1 - ,., i ',Y M 4QC4 g a 4 _ . xv., . ;� 2,A: 3 a '= ilk i, l'.-''','I # PI O } LLUNTY ITEM NO.: �({ l J RF• FILE NO.: '�� rz,` ROUTED TO: 0%3 – — a,55 DATE REC'D: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS SPACE(Orig. 9/89;Rev.6/97) REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES (Please type or print) Date: 03/19/08 To: Office of the County Attorney, Attn:Jeff Wright From: Claudia Piotrowicz,Environmental Specialist Environmental Services Community Development and Environmental Department Services Division Telephone#: 252-5882 Subject: Esperanza Place PUDZ AR 12581 BACKGROUND OF REQUEST/PROBLEM: This item been previously submitted. ❑ Yes X No ACTION REQUESTED: EAC Staff Report for CAO review and signature OTHER COMMENTS: (7