The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 05/07/2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA May 7, 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 April 2, 2008 meeting minutes Approval of March 5 & 6, 2008 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 —continued from April meeting Esperanza Place PUDZ Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East B. Rezone No. RZ-2007-AR-12044 (per CCPC Chair) lmmokalee LLC RZ Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East C. Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-10805 Hogan Island Quarry CU Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, & 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. SR 846 Semi-annual Wetland Monitoring Data-sent electronically 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 May 1, 2008 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 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 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA 1*a.s.. 4 � Y . ..i ..�. Yr?. i; .? b.. a'R •.pp. • at'g:( {r. DAY 24.9:00.A+M..March 6,2008 Coiinmunity Devet©pment,2800;N Horseshoe;Drive;Rooiiri;6091610 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. PUDE'--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,(AC shall be heard at 9 00a.n'.on March: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 XI. Council Member Comments XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment **k***************************************************a**************************************************rte************* ***** Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on WO nesdav:'Februarlr 272008 if you cannot al:tend 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 pertaininc 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 H 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 ''/ 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 be 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 I-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. Tom 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 lmmokalee 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 I6 April 2, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 2, 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 (Excused) Allison D. Megrath Roger Jacobsen David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review Melissa Zone, Principal Planner Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist 1 •paseq aq o; s! leadde au}go!14M uodn aouep!na pue Auowgsal au) sapnlou! paooaa 14oi4M 'apew s! s6u!paaooad 4o paooaa wgecpan e ley; aansua o1 peau Aew aaolaaagl pue :olaaoyl 6uwielied s6u!paaooad 041 }o pa000a e paau li!M pieod siq; ;o uo!s!oap e leadde o1 sappap own uosaad Auy :o!Ignd Ieaaua9 (0629-0£g) uo!;qed e uo tiu!}on 1110.11 u!e;sqe II!M pue;oHluoo e aney noA 4!.10 bugoow s!y;puone;ouueo noA 4! 80QZ `9Z 43JBW uo 'w'd OO:S uey}Ja;el ou }s!le!oadS Ie;uawuoa!nu3 ao!uag sao!naOS Ie;uauauoa!nu3 'enbeay aawwng Ail;ou aseald :sJagwaw I!ounoO ;uewuinofpy 'IIIX s;uawwo0 o!lgnd 'I1X s}uawwo0 jegwally I!ouno0 'IX s}uawwo0}4e;S 'X spodaj eefl wwoogns 'XI sloafoad uo saagwew a;epdn 'y ssau!sng pip 'IIIA ssau!sng MON '11A 1Se3 6Z 06u2>! `y;nos gi7 digsuMol 'Z£ uoi;oas Zafld aoeld ezuwads3 1.8936-dv-LOOZ-Zafld 'oN 01.10z0 }uawdoianaa;!un pauueld Ise3 9Z a6ueel '141nos os d!14suto1 `g uoiloas afld3 0€1s0043 98176-21V-900Z-Zofld -auozab and -ON;uawdolanaa;!ua pauueld ie!oaawwoa '8 ;sea 9z a6ueH 'ulnas 09 d!ysuMol 'r 6 uo!;oas ldd 4011400 pawuawy £OLL-21V-900Z--ldd ON SUeId Pue}Bic! V suo!;!;ad esa pue-1 'IA seouesgy I!auno0 i(.los!npy Ie;uawuoa!nu3 6u!wooda 'A as;el pap!noad eq II!M :aw!;s!y;;e algel!ene;ou —swum 6U!;aew g g yoaeW;o lenoaddy 'AI epue6y;o lenoaddy 'III 11e0 11021 11 101110 03 11e0 'I aoo1 j pa!yl—(,,;3„ 6u!pI!ng) 6ulpl!ns Jeuanl uawaey 'M wooapaeo8 uo!ss!wwo0 'INV 00:6 800Z 'Z I!ady VaN3OV 310NflOp A2IosIAav 1V1N31NNOdiAN3 April 2, 2008 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 9:00 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Jacobsen moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 6-0. IV. Approval of March 5 &6 meeting minutes—not available at this time; will be provided later V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr.Jacobsen will not be present for the June meeting. Ms. Megrath will not be present for the August meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Plat and Plans No. PPL-2005-AR-7703 Amerimed Center PPL Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in by Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright Mr. Sorrell arrived at 9:05 AM Tim Hancock addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant providing a brief overview of the project noting that the application is for 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. The property is located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (SR951),just south of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The site previously has been utilized as a nursery and a staging area for the improvements on Collier Boulevard. The existing wetlands have been impacted by previous disturbances in the region and become heavily invaded with Melaleuca and other exotics, with approximately 2.65 acres of the site deemed as wetlands for calculation purposes. The site has received South Florida Water Management District approval (permit #11-027-48-P.) This District as well as Collier County Staff has recognized the wetlands on site are of such poor quality,they support off site mitigation. The Army Corp of Engineers permit is still under review at this time. Mr. Penniman provided a 2007 study entitled "Is Melaleuca Really Drying-Up Florida Wetlands?"prepared by B.D. Bovard, R.M. Leisure III, and E.M. Everham III from the Department of Marine and Ecological Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University. He noted that the Introduction of the study states"Melaleuca 2 April 2, 2008 transpiration rates are thought to be greater than bald cypress and slash pine, and it is thought that Melaleuca's water use leads to reductions in groundwater." In the Conclusions and Future Research section of the study it is noted"In our study,we found that at the physiological, whole tree and ecosystem levels, Melaleuca is generally more liberal in its water-use compared to slash pine, but more conservative than bald cypress. When bald cypress loses its leaves during the early dry season, Melaleuca uses more water at the physiological and whole tree scales,but at the ecosystem scale, bald cypress still uses more water. The mechanism for this is unclear Mr. Penniman stated that in his time on the Council the statement has been made numerous times that Melaleuca is drying up wetlands and is concerned the concept of this statement made by many firms appearing in front of the Council may not be accurate. Tim Hancock stated that the driving force of the altering of the wetlands on this site is more due to the construction of Collier Boulevard canal(951 canal) and Florida Power& Light easements and other related disturbances creating a siphoning effect on the land rather than the Melaleuca(and related transpiration) found on site. The study was completed in 2007 and has not been the subject of a large amount of scrutiny at this point. Mr. Penniman agreed the study has yet to face"peer reviews." It was noted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was required by County Staff because of the prior agricultural use on site. Jim Krall, PE,Davidson Engineering provided a review of the stormwater retention system which will utilize dry retention prior to entering the Stormwater Lake proposed for the site. Chairman Hughes asked Staff if there were any concerns regarding the overall impact of stormwater impacts from this project and the development of the region in general(i.e., Marco Island secondary water supply, flooding issues, etc.). He wanted to ensure for the record that adjacent properties are protected from flood situations. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review provided the LIDAR map in the region, noting that the region has been previously altered by developments and that the impacts downstream from this project should be minimal. Tim Hancock stated that the South Florida Water Management District did not require Floodplain Compensation for the project; however, the water quality and flow standards required by the District have been met for the application. Chairman Hughes requested the applicant address Florida Panther concerns. Jeremy Sterk of Davidson Engineering stated that impacts on Panther habitat have been mitigated off site via credits to the conservation bank as required. 3 April 2, 2008 A discussion ensued between Council members outlining concern over the individual review of applications and the possible overall future environmental impact of the numerous developments combined. Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist stated the Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the following recommendation: A copy of the USACE permit shall be forwarded to Collier County upon issuance. Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Petition with the staff recommendation that a copy of the United States Army Corp of Engineers permit be forwarded to Staff upon receipt. Second by Mr. Jacobsen. Carried unanimously 7-0. B. Commercial Planned Unit Development No. PUD Rezone—PUDZ-2006-AR- 9486 Freestate CPUD Section 8,Township 50 South,Range 26 East • The presenters were sworn in by Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor presented an overview of the project noting that it is located on the south west corner of Davis Blvd. (SR84) and the future Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension. The application is for a proposed 16.8 +/- acre commercial development consisting of up to 150,000 square feet of commercial/office land uses. The South Florida Water Management District and US Army Corp of Engineers are currently reviewing the necessary permit applications. Mike Myers, Sr. Ecologist with Passarella and Assoc., Inc. addressed the Council on Environmental issues noting the site is primarily forested and has been invaded by exotics. The project has been designed to preserve the highest quality 2.5 acres of wetland on site. This area is adjacent to the Falling Waters development preserve area. In addition, the applicant has agreed to purchase 12.99 credits for the regionally approved mitigation bank for the wetland impacts. No listed species were found on site in a survey last conducted in April of 2007. The applicant agrees with recommendations 1-4 in the Staff Report but requests a change in recommendation #5 on page 9 of 11, line#3 "Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)..." to "Conservation Commission (FFWCC)or US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)... " This request is to prevent redundancy in reviews by different Agencies. Michael Delate of Q. Grady Minor addressed the Council on the Stormwater Management design proposed for the site noting that the project will utilize dry detention areas for pre-treatment before discharge into the stormwater lake area. He noted the statement in the Staff Report on Page 7 of 11, line#1 ("In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention to make the Preserves a part of the stormwater treatment system") is incorrect and should be removed. The wetlands will be hydrated by the stormwater lake as required by South Florida Water Management 4 April 2, 2008 District,but will not be utilized as part of the treatment area. The applicant has provided floodplain compensation as requested by Collier County Staff. It was noted that the proposed preserve is interconnected with the Falling Waters preserve which was permitted in the mid 1990's. Mr. Bishof noted the difficulty in reading the details of 24"x 36"plans that are submitted and have been reduced to 8.5" x 11" and encouraged Staff to assist in providing plans that are more legible if possible. Mr. Sorrell noted that the black bear telemetry map is from 1999 and information provided should be more up to date. Mike Myers agreed that they periodically update their information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and some is out of date. However, in this case,he agreed that there is more recent black bear telemetry that should have been included in the package. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review provided a brief overview of the status regarding the stormwater design noting the South Florida Water Management District review is ongoing. Claudia Piotrowicz, Environmental Specialist stated that Staff recommends approval of the project with the following recommendations: 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. Susan Mason noted that the Staff is in agreement with the previous request by the applicant to change the wording in#5 from"and to or" providing the approval letter from either Agency refers that they have coordinated with the other Agency referred to in the recommendation. It was noted by the applicant that if the Santa Barbara Blvd. improvement project is not completed by the County, the landowner will be required to provide the improvements for this portion of the Santa Barbara Blvd Extension as the design of the application requires access to this road. The following revisions for the Staff Report were recognized: Page 7 paragraph 1, line#1 elimination of the statement "In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention to make the Preserves a part of the stormwater treatment system." 5 April 2, 2008 Page 7, paragraph 4, line#1 and#2 from "dry detention areas and a preserve to achieve water to quality " to "dry detention areas to achieve water quality.... " Page 7, paragraph 8, line 5 from "through the dry detention area and the wetland preserve areas to "through the dry detention area. " Susan Mason noted the changes to the Staff Report and future versions for review will address the changes. Mr. Jacobsen move to approve PUD rezone PUDZ-2006-AR-9486 including the recommendations#1-4 in the Staff Report and revising recommendation #5 to include a caveat from one organization to the other in the letter. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 7-0. Break— 10:05 AM Reconvene— 10:25 AM C. Planned Unit Development Re-zone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Plaza PUDZ Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East The presenters were sworn in by Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Heidi Williams of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. presented an overview of the application and noted half of the property is under contract with the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida and the other half is under contract for Florida Non Profit Services, Inc. The property is located on the North side of Immokalee Drive approximately 3/4 mile west of State Road 29. The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural Agricultural Zoning with Mobile Home Overlay to Residential Planned Unit Development. The project will provide affordable housing for up to 262 dwelling units. One half of the property will be utilized as rental units, with the other half for single family residential units. One, 2 acre parcel will remain to be utilized as a single family residence. The property is surrounded by residential development and historically been utilized for agricultural purposes including row crops and cattle grazing. Marco Espinar of Collier Environmental Consultants provided a historical overview of the use of the property via aerial photos from the 1950's to present. He noted there is a small poor quality wetland on the southwest portion of the property that was excavated for a watering hole for cattle. The site contains some slash pines that have been in existence from at least the 1950's and are present today. In cattle production, it is a common practice of selective clearing leaving some trees for shade for the livestock. In conclusion, he stated after reviewing the site and historical aerial photos and data, the site was legally cleared and utilized for agricultural use for approximately the last 50 years. 6 April 2, 2008 The cattle grazing on-site were temporarily removed a year ago so the consultants could complete any necessary work. It was noted that the Environmental Advisory Council does not make determination on whether or not the parcel has been"legally cleared". It was noted that the soil boring results from the Geotechnical Engineering Service Report prepared by Allied Engineering&Testing, Inc. dated November 19, 2007 were not included in the submittal but has now been provided to the Council members. A discussion ensued regarding the comment in the Staff report that Staff does not recommend approval of the project. Heidi Williams noted that the Staff recommendation was based on the 2"d Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) submitted. Subsequent to this there has been submittal of a 3rd EIS for review by Staff. She noted the 3`d EIS is not substantially different than the 2"d EIS. She hopes the presentation contradicts Staff's position for the Council. Susan Mason noted that Staff has not completed review of the 3rd EIS as of the meeting date but is still within the allotted time frame for the review. Heidi Williams addressed the issue of the application being on the agenda before review of the 3rd EIS by Staff, as the project requires Grant Funding. Susan Mason stated that the main area of contention is the applicant's statement in the 2"d EIS that the project does not have any"native vegetation"therefore exempt from native preservation requirements. Timing in clearing of the property can affect the requirements,because this can determine various routes of compliance regarding vegetation requirements. Clearing on the site took place after permits and notifications were required. The Staff requested the applicant obtain an"after the fact permit" for the clearing and base the preservation requirements on the status of the property. There is a separate issue of the ground cover vegetation and in Staff's opinion, the EIS does not adequately address what exists on site and why it should not be considered"existing native vegetation." It is unknown information in the 3" EIS to support the applicants claim. Marco Espinar noted that the 3`d EIS does attempt to address the issue. Susan Mason stated that in addition to the upland ground cover and vegetation there is a wetland on site that contains native vegetation that is an issue. Chairman Hughes noted that the vegetation is not as much a concern as the land was historically used as agriculture, but rather the impact on the hydrology as the wetland located on site is being 100 percent impacted and the potential re-charge zone associated with the area could be adversely impacted. 7 April 2, 2008 Michael Delate, of Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. noted that the intent is to fill in the wetland area and create a stormwater lake in a different location. The lake will provide a greater groundwater re-charge area than now exists. The new excavation is within 200 feet of the existing wetland and the soils capabilities are essentially the same as those in the area of the existing wetland. Therefore, the hydrology of the area will not be negatively impacted. Mr. Penniman noted that the lack of a Staff Report regarding the 3rd EIS and based on this fact, it is difficult for the Council to make a thorough review of the application. Michael Delate noted that the Council has been provided a copy of the 3`d EIS; however the Council does not have an official Staff Review of the document. He noted that the issue is the pines that were left standing on the site for shade purposes for livestock. In the applicants and landowners view, leaving the trees for shade purposes has penalized them as the area is now deemed to meet the definition of"native vegetation" under the County guidelines. This determination would require the applicant to provide a"native preserve"on site (one is not currently proposed). In their opinion,the vegetation should not be defined as native vegetation under the guidelines as evidence has been provided that the land has been utilized for agricultural purposes. Susan Mason noted that Staff requested more information; however the applicant requested this date for the hearing prior to review of the new information. Heidi Williams noted Staff has worked with the applicant on the timing of the hearings, however the grant funding deadlines are a hard fast deadline and no extension is available. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney stated that any recommendation made by the Environmental Advisory Council would be forwarded to the Planning Commission who is scheduled to hear this application in May. He noted the Staff Report(based on the 2nd EIS)recommends, "the EIS be revised to include the justification of the Applicants contention that no preservation is required." With the Staff and the applicant present and a 3rd EIS available, he asked that the applicant point out the portion of the 3rd EIS that addresses the issue and alleviates Staff's concern. Susan Mason noted that review of an EIS is complex and it requires Staff sufficient time to evaluate the data to provide an opinion, and Staff should not be limited to the amount of time required to properly review the document. Claudia Piotrowicz noted the 2"d EIS considers the vegetation non-native vegetation and read the Staff recommendation "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 CCME Policy 6.1.1(1)For purposes 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 the definition. 8 April 2,2008 She has not reviewed the revised (3`d) EIS submitted by the applicant. Chairman Hughes noted that the land has been utilized for agriculture and could have been clear cut without any violations of land use laws. Susan Mason noted that this is true if it had happened long enough ago and used as agriculture for long enough. Besides the wetland area, areas of the eastern portion were cleared and require an"after the fact" clearing permit to be considered legally cleared with no preservation requirement. Further, portions of the wetland as well as portions of eastern half of the property have been determined by Staff to qualify for a native vegetation requirement. Marco Espinar noted the applicant has been dealing with the issue since July of 2007. They have included a letter from the Environmental Services Director that the land is in bona-fide agricultural use, etc. The last submittal by the applicant states "since this parcel was historically cleared and a bona-fide agricultural use for decades, it was identified and labeled as 212, unimproved pasture, therefore no native habitat exists on site. Since the parcel has no native habitat, no preservation is required for this project." He noted that there is a fundamental difference with interpretations between Staff and the applicant over this issue. They have provided aerial photos, and data that show even though native trees exist on site, there is no native habitat,thus they have no preserve requirements. In addition he stated that he reached agreement with Joe Schmitt and Bill Lorenz to conduct a tree count and plant an additional 15% of the sum of all the trees on site in addition to the landscaping requirements, which they agreed to. This was later revised to provide 20%additional tree coverage. Staff rejected this agreement. Susan Mason cited the definition of requirements in the Growth Management Plan which states "For purposes of this policy, native vegetation is defined as a vegetative community having 25%or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native species." It does not refer to "native habitat." Marco Espinar read an email into the record from Heidi Williams (consultant) to Cheryl Soter(Collier County Principal Planner) stating"it was confirmed in our meeting with Bill Lorenz and Joe Schmitt that no preserve requirement will be required, however, we agreed to plant 26 trees on site in excess of the regular landscaping requirements. We are preparing an exhibit that demonstrates the potential layout of these trees near the main water management lake. " The 2nd EIS was submitted subsequent to this and the agreement was rejected by Staff. Susan Mason requested a copy of the email. Carl Kuehner of Florida Non-Profit Services,Inc.provided a brief history of the project noting that the timing is critical and this application was to be on a "fast track basis."The application requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This requires review by the EAC and Planning Commission 9 April 2, 2008 subsequent to a Board of County Commissioner hearing. The application requires approval on or before June 16th 2008 for the grant application to be considered. There is no extension allowed for the grant application. Susan Mason stated Staff is not disputing the historical agriculture use of the property, but the fact that native vegetation exists on site. The preservation requirement is based on this fact. Staff reviewed the initial EIS and did not agree with the conclusions provided by the applicant. There was a meeting where Staff was not present between the Applicant's consultants, Bill Lorenz (Environmental Services Director) and Joe Schmitt(CDES Administrator) and a compelling case was made that the native vegetation preserve would not be required. It was her understanding that the 2"d EIS submittal would address the reasoning for this, as well as other additional information requested by Staff. Upon receipt of the 2nd EIS, she notified the Staff Supervisors that the information was not addressed in the document. She recommended that the application not be heard by the EAC at this time; however the applicant requested to move the application forward without the information present in the 2"d EIS. Ms. Megrath noted that no information was provided on the results of the soils sampling and expressed concern regarding the prior agricultural use of the property. Susan Mason noted that this concern could be addressed later through the process if necessary. Mr. Bishof noted issues of concern which are Staffs contention that a portion of the eastern area of the property contains native vegetation and whether or not the land was cleared for agricultural use. He noted that this area of the site is characterized as improved pasture cleared for agriculture as opposed to native vegetative ground cover. Further, the existing status of wetland area located in the southeastern portion of the site. He requested evidence on the assertion the wetland that remains on site has been"excavated." Marco Espinar stated that this is based on aerial photos and a field visit when identifying the jurisdictional limits of the wetland. The dominate vegetation is secondary growth. Mr. Bishof noted the wetland may be poor quality, however more evidence is needed to substantiate these claims. Claudia Piotrowicz stated that she confirmed there are plant species in the area of the wetland that are native vegetation and it is not clear to her that the area had been"excavated." Mr. Espinar stated that the project does propose off-site wetland mitigation and the existing wetland on site is poor quality. Susan Mason stated that there is a provision in the Growth Management Plan which allows the applicant to provide off-site preservation mitigation for the existing vegetation. She also stated that was an option that could be considered, however it is not proposed by the applicant at this time. 10 April 2, 2008 A discussion ensued noting that the project is an admirable cause (provision of affordable housing)however there is more information required that needs to be addressed before approving or denying the proposal. Susan Mason re-iterated that Staff recognizes the land was utilized for agriculture and"after the fact" clearing permits could be obtained by the applicant. However, it does not alleviate the native vegetation requirements that may need to be addressed in the application. The main issue is the difference of opinion between the Applicant and Staff over the definition of"native vegetation" for the requirements contained in the Growth Management Plan. Staff has not reached the same conclusion as the applicant. She noted the Council could review the information and could reach its own conclusion. Mr. Espinar reiterated there was a settlement agreed to by the Staff Supervisors; however staff is not in agreement with the settlement. Mr. Penniman stated that any decision herein could set a precedent for future applications that are reviewed by the Council. A discussion ensued on the hearing deadline requirements for scheduling purposes for the EAC, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners and the possible re-scheduling of hearing dates to allow the Applicant to meet its Grant deadlines. Mr. Bishof noted that the main area of concern by Staff is the native vegetation requirement and if this were resolved,the proposal could possibly move forward. Susan Mason agreed. Mr. Bishof asked the applicant if they were deemed to have 1.73 acres of native vegetation on site (the area identified as 618 on the FLUCCS map)would they be willing to provide a native vegetation preserve off site as required under County guidelines. Heidi Williams stated if it is the Council's recommendation they would consider that condition. Mr. Bishof moved to approve PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 Esperanza Place PUDZ for approval with the condition that the applicant provide a native vegetation preserve that meets Collier County Standards (consistent with the Land Development Code and/or the Collier County Growth Management Plan;if the native vegetation preserve is done on site it needs to meet the standards for native preserves) prior to issuing of the Site Development Order and that the area used in calculating the size of the preserve is equal to the area mapped as FLUCCS code 618 (1.73 acres). Second by Mr. Williams. Mr. Penniman indicated he will vote no based on the lack of information and the possible setting of a precedent as other applicants have been rejected who have provided more information than that in the application under review. 11 April 2, 2008 Mr. Sorrell noted the application is a noble cause but has concerns in the area of the wetland and agrees with Mr. Penniman. Ms. Megrath agreed. Claudia Piotrowicz stated that the soils samples were provided and no pollution was found on site. The motion failed 5-2. Mr. Bishof and Mr. Williams voted yes. Mr. Penniman, Ms. Megrath, Chairman Hughes, Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Jacobsen voted no. Mr. Penniman moved to continue the application until the May meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council. Second by Ms. Megrath. Mr. Delate stated the Applicant would prefer a denial of the application as opposed to a continuance. Mr. Penniman withdrew his motion. Mr. Sorrell moved to deny the application based on the recommendation in the Staff Report. Second by Mr. Penniman. A discussion ensued regarding the County requirements for definition of native vegetation with regard to areas that have been cleared for agricultural use. Susan Mason stated that there is no dispute that the area in question (an area in the Eastern portion of the property) has been cleared for agriculture use, however (with the timing of the clearing), the remaining vegetation located in this area qualifies as native vegetation under standards of the Growth Management Plan. This is due to the amount of remaining canopy cover on this area of the site. The Council could determine if this area does or does not meet native vegetation standards of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Sorrel! withdrew his motion. Chairman Hughes moved to deem the property as "agricultural"in intent for agri-business therefore not subject to the additional Land Development Code requirements. Second by Mr. Williams. Motion failed 4-3. Chairman Hughes, Mr. Bishof and Mr. Williams voted yes. Ms. Megrath, Mr. Sorrell, Mr. Penniman and Mr. Jacobsen voted no. Mr. Penniman moved that PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 be continued until the May meeting of the EAC with the provision that Staff be given adequate time to review EIS#3 and make every attempt to reach an accommodation with the applicant on any points of contention. Further, the applicant contact members of the Council for an: opportunity to walk the land. Second by Ms. Megrath. Carried unanimously 7-0. 12 April 2, 2008 Chairman Hughes stated there was debate over the regulations pertinent to farmland. The Council was split on more than one vote. The Council was unanimous on the last vote as it puts the application back into its standard operating procedure. VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects None IX. Sub-Committee Reports None X. Staff Comments It was noted that Allison D. Megrath is now a full time member of the Environmental Advisory Council. It was noted some vacancies have been filled; however there is one alternate position still open. XI. Council Member Comments Chairman Hughes thanked Lee Horn for his service to the Council. 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 12:56 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 13 • ' " �• Memorandum dum To: Environmental Advisory Council Members From: Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist—Engineering and Environmental Services Department C: Joseph Schmitt, William Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Summer Araque, Melissa Zone—Community Development and Environmental Services Division Date: 4/21/2008 Subject: Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 —Summary of minimum required native vegetation preservation Claudia Piotrowicz, Melissa Zone and I met on site with representatives from the Empowerment Alliance and Florida Non-Profit Services and Marco Espinar on April 10, 2008. On this site visit, staff verified and explained to the applicants that a portion of the wetlands and uplands on site meet the definition of native vegetation. At a meeting in the office later that same day attended by numerous staff including Joe Schmitt and William Lorenz, additional representatives from both the applicants and the agents, it was further agreed that± 0.73 acre of the wetland and 0.52 acre of the upland vegetation meet the definition of native vegetation. For this project to be found consistent with Growth Management Plan (GMP) Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 25% (a minimum of 0.31 acre--0.18 acre of wetland and 0.13 acre of upland) of this area must be preserved. The applicants stated for the upland portion either a 0.13 acre preserve would be created on site or an off-site alternative preserve consistent with CCME policy 6.1.1 (10) would be provided. For the wetland preserve, Mr. Schmitt agreed to allow mitigation at an approved mitigation bank required by South Florida Water Management District as part of the Environmental Resource Permit can also be used to meet the County's preservation requirement. These options are consistent with the GMP requirements for vegetation retention since the GMP does not expressly prohibit mitigation banks as an off-site option. The PUD document has been amended to acknowledge the preservation requirement and detailed that the required preservation will all be met using off-site alternatives to be accomplished prior to development approvals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 with the following conditions, all of which are included in the current version of the PUD document: Engineering and Environmental Services Department Community Development & Environmental Services Division Environmental: A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County manager or designee during SDP or plat review process. B. The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/-acres of upland and +/-0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); A minimum of 25%, 0.32 acres, must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found in an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved off-site, plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for management of off-site land. The appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning is in place. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73-acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation as part of the Environment Resource Permit. C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for which no permit can be located; in order for clearing to be considered legal and re-creation of vegetation removed not be required an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid for the clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for relevant acreage Call me at 252-2987 if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Engineering and Environmental Services Department Community Development & Environmental Services Division rr111111\ Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects CO To: Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)Members From: Marco A. Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants,Inc. Heidi K. Williams,AICP, Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. Date: April 18,2008 Subject: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 -Additional Information on Esperanza Place RPUD During the regularly-scheduled EAC meeting on April 2, 2008, the Council discussed the proposed Esperanza Place RPUD rezoning petition. The Council did not achieve consensus on the project and requested additional information be provided for review. Each of these items is listed below with the applicant's response. The applicant also walked the property with staff to discuss the project. The PUD Exhibits have been revised to reflect our agreement on the outstanding native vegetation issues. 1. Ownership information: Please see Exhibit A, attached, for a list of owners and contract purchasers. 2. Additional information on the wetland area: The onsite wetland is approximately 1.73+/- acres. The applicant applied for a permit from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)to completely impact this wetland. We anticipate the lcpermit will be approved and off-site mitigation of impacts will be allowed. SFWMD staff has indicated that this will be approved due to the poor quality of the wetland and the alteration of its natural state due to agricultural use of the property and the existing development of the property west of the subject site. The vegetation in and around the wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper, Carolina willow and Primrose willow. A full list of vegetation is included in the EIS. Most of the plants are native; however, they are considered nuisance species and are indicators of the disturbed nature of the wetland. Due to its condition and MWRAP score of 0.40, the area would not qualify as an on-site native vegetation preserve. The entire wetland area will be mitigated off-site at an approved mitigation bank. We met with County staff to discuss this approach on April 10th, and staff had no objection to off-site mitigation and preservation. 3. CCME 6.1.1(1): Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element contains minimum native vegetation preserve requirements for new developments within Collier County. Sub-policy number one,which is cited by staff, states: "(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." Based on our site visit with staff and a subsequent meeting on April 10t1', and in the interest of making progress on the project, the applicant agreed to consider 0.52 acres as native upland habitat. Due to C the small amount of vegetation required to be retained, the applicant will provide an equivalent preserve off-site, or will contribute an amount equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair EAC Memo,4-18-2008 Page 1 of 2 FNPSP/EAIDP market appraised value of 0.13+/- acres within the PUD to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. A commitment has been added to the PUD that states: CC "The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland and +/-0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); a minimum of 25%, 0.32 acres, must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute an amount equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair market appraisal value within the PUD to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73-acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation as part of the Environment Resource Permit." 4. Soil sampling/borings: The soil sampling report was provided to staff on February 20, 2008. It was inadvertently omitted from the EAC information. The report is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. The western half of the PUD was subject to both a Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Assessment. Both of these reports indicate the site is suitable for residential development. Due to the volume of these reports, they are not included; however,we will provide a copy to any EAC member who wishes to review them. 5. Habitat of east half/site visits: County staff visited the property on April 10th with the applicant. During a subsequent meeting, the applicant agreed to consider 0.52 acres as upland native habitat. The EAC requested that members be invited to visit the site; the applicant would be happy to accommodate members during individual Y ` appointments to review the status of vegetation on the property. 6. Precedent of determination that the site was used for agriculture and therefore not subject to native vegetation requirements: A determination that this site does not contain native vegetation does not set a precedent for other properties. Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own set of circumstances and merits. Staff and the applicant identified limited areas of the property that contain native vegetation. Most of the site has been disturbed for cattle grazing; other grazing lands may be barren of trees, or may have full cypress domes in the grazing area. These projects will need to be reviewed individually to determine whether individual sites contain native vegetation communities. 7. Deviation from on-site preserve in PUD document: Exhibit F of the PUD contains a new deviation that allows the applicant to preservation of habitat off- site, or allows the applicant to contribute to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. A full justification of this deviation has been submitted to staff. A commitment has also been added to the PUD. EAC Memo,4-18-2008 Page 2 of 2 FNPSP/EAIDP Exhibit A r List of Property Owners and Contract Purchasers CFolio Number: 00076040007; 00076200009 Property Owner: Jose and Norma Lopez P.O. Box 445 Immokalee,FL 34143 Date Acquired: November 6, 2006 Contract Purchaser: Florida Non-Profit Services,Inc do Real Estate Technology 900 Broad Avenue South,#2C Naples, FL 34102 Board of Directors: Carl J.Kuehner,Chairman Alan Parker,Vice Chairman Harriet Lancaster, Secretary Frank Proto,Treasurer Sister Maureen Kelleher,Member Sylvia Munoz,Member Date of Option: May 10, 2007 Date Option Terminates: June 1, 2008 Anticipated Closing Date: June 1, 2008 '' Folio Number: 00076080009 Property Owner: Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation 750 South 5th Street Immokalee,FL 34142 Date Acquired: August 10, 2007 Folio Number: 00076160000 Property Owner: Carol A. Caruthers P.O.Box 324 Immokalee,FL 34143 Date Acquired: October 10, 1982 Contract Purchaser: Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation 750 South 5th Street Immokalee,FL 34142 Date of Option: September 13,2007 Date Option Terminates: October 13, 2008 Anticipated Closing Date: October 13, 2008 FNPSP/EAIDP Exhibit B ENGINEERING A BETTE! 0 LDS' via email and mail mdelate@gradyminor.com Mr. Michael J. Delate, P.E. 18 February 2008 Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Subject: Geoenvironmental Services Sediment Sampling at Esperanza Place Immokalee, Collier County, Florida ASC Project No. 0E3003 Dear Mr. Delate: Per authorization from the Client, ASC geosciences, inc. sampled for sediment at two locations on the project site referenced above (refer to Figure 1). One hand auger boring was advanced near the southwest portion (labeled "SW"), within a proposed pond area. Samples at the SW location were initially collected at a 1 ft and 2 ft depth below existing ground surface and screened in the field with an organic vapor analyzer (OVA) in accordance with FDEP guidelines. The purpose of the field screening was to determine if petroleum contamination was present at the locations sampled. Because no OVA readings were detected, laboratory analyses for petroleum was not required. A duplicate hand auger boring was advanced for the collection of sample SW at a 1 ft depth. This sample was laboratory- analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and metals (results attached). A second sample was collected near the "NE" portion of the project site at a 1 ft depth. The NE sample was laboratory-analyzed for arsenic (results attached). All analytes of interest were reported as below detection limits or BDL. The reporting of these results completes the services requested for this phase of the project. Sincerely, ASC geosciences, inc. Anu Saxena, P.E. Senior Project Manager Florida Registration No. 45601 attachments: Figure 1 — Project Layout and Test Location Plan Laboratory test results ■physical address: ■contacts: } ASC geosciences,inc. phone:239.693.6334 r WWW C S C W 0 l d . R e t 5811 Corporation Circle fax:239.693.8852 Fort Myers,Florida 33905 naples:239.598.3833 ZI o im aO Q a_ oN E 2 2 T p U U O C O-0 N O0 V 6 u! Q tO O C O'' .^.e O a > , O c. ,1,..7, ° O ea fi. Fa as r T ; tw x 4' 4 •3n��g@i>�,� A � a z 3 t ',,,',1,,,,11.1',4, fA . rya �`��'", -. t^ its �.' t ! .C'K • �.;K: >- ��1k j t4's� 't, C3 .- '.d z'1* ` ' 3 s e{rd a- n L�>. 'fit `o L. '',r'y '/" > 'r"c a 5'�' r 'e+` Y:rt a4 � t �` xyd t't..-_ :'`,3-''''''''''' s + an #_ F -13t f a � r # ry n °° s .rim, `<, r fi Ari ,,,i,;„%.. a• 6 '' ra;sP, v u . F Nye v E'b'j k 4Y fir'X-' O 6 Y X Y. - 4,...k-31,0;t.„4.41:„•,,!„-Is&,,. .41..f.,,, - a. 6 a ..7-4. 3 S:.ax'yY' `.r{4 -r.a�tilc ,.S''L'''E''t'.4. -:'. vk" >ah` iE' 'P` O La 3 k,' r.,.. ; v E o "Yi yg -, ,'3,1%,;;.: 71t41.0i isi,41*-04g4 Liutx-ft ':,:,-,,,,4,, r 1 ai LOf { a-`• ^ + g1 ' O4Rr ',� e , CSU4 p • • G 1 yy #. 1 .wd ,L 8; rk ycyt ^ilax',1 d� bV " " � tgPryy-� 'P W s52.y +" ) K 'Cr z o vt* -� 4 - � -,70-10-;;;:traitorj"{ 4 .tL _gr1S*13 fir� 49 i " ^" a ?s -4-.' . ao« ` - ya >e � 6m ' ' Ewg � '�� s T P � � „ a , aE5 I ar� ; � d u Yh+ , � r� ..f� a , !" j r{, 3. � I 3 ' sn rte:tet „ sr F ir IF . - _ _ s r v t i ,I- ` @ zs' p1 4 Ct .. i r., 4„"", �' ` 4.N. µ iu r Y ,'F 1 0 ..ii{ k � r ��Y e �S1r . ` + t er" vx ra ' i ` � a : . a v* F �" r' . ' „ qq - . , en ti a s AAs awM r,e..k x ' b cc A- t {�_ f ` rf IsOt� ;::::::::; �r.,-,,:,4.4a-I,,,,, , , {e g- rx : rvr :1ytn� � 'es^ ? € fo ,v.„t,T.L. ,,,E. 4 tAtriXTIAzii,,,..P.,,,,.:A.s.,*.'`..,',.,j, ? q@�sti.._.i, AteE T9bgt t;t-••• yy:ti �, i ,i 3 ` lNi R Y4f G ' " r'^ Y, � Fas ` 2 ro ' • • • 4. • 41 lx. It • m ye - r .';S -x ,,. 8 S pfry ' s sT �. mak' Fro yar 6 p ;A m' 4 3.Na'. rkb l - :v 7 s xvP. a5r0-t-1,. k 4if, -yu , 4 :r v - 7 � : ob £ 31V401 � -- ° Cin ' ryc � i e4P rtT1,14-0.b. T47.4,-, ss ha{h ,. "�t1t � 7v { fIViwt> - ,' . S* : sy�� ArX2 � � r +-;- : Yy v .' tler* �Q.. AS{ , ,-,2, .] d ¢pjIr .,04,,- � i _ 3 r ga.Iiifm "1.i = Yf 3 a -'n a " Ri m; r � S "� x '• '� : r R ti(. t yflxr . :147,1:''.1‘.,V.V.4:4"-tal � fi[ h) r-.."2":: rvex y « � s rt i r1 wil s a Ca r t � F-yas e , 5,..-41;,:‘...,,,.A -wo, t is y, 3 ..rv �}� tY --Ds-v\ l a.,' kr3i.:r1/4rt44e:.,, i ©80� 'e } E#fi!k6�P'£00Z6 BOOZ6T/ZA-TT',toll'WV b 80\800S173COadd1N3WNOt 1nvv\Puelale1>AA T•111 44 t,t'41414 • 4C PES Phoslab Environmental Services,Inc. � •.•r rt . 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,F133803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683.3279 EL flEE14t-iU2-t17 FDOH ID:E84925 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Client: MDM Services 1055 Kathleen Rd. Lakeland,FL 33805 Attention: Mike Alexander Phone Number: 863-646-9130 Fax Number: 863-648-1106 Project Name: Esperanza Place Project Number: 22443 Project Location: Immokalee,FL Sampled By: M.L./MDM Date Sampled: 02/05/08 Date Received: 02/05/08 16:00 Date Reported: 02/08/08 Lab.Report#: 020508-002 Project Description The analytical results for the samples identified in this report were submitted for analysis as outlined by the attached Chain of Custody. The results for the quality control samples were reviewed and found to meet the acceptance criteria for precision and accuracy or properly flagged. Unless noted in this report or a case narrative,all data in this analytical report is in compliance with NELAC standards.This report may not be reproduced in part or whole without the permission of PES. Notes: Sample results reported at the Practical Quan station Limit(PQL) Samples reported on wet weight basis Approved By: David Pomella ,L David Pometla,Laboratory Director Approved By: Megan Skeen Ii, ,. _ as,ta Megan Skeen,Quality Assurance officer PES Report: 6 Data Qualifier: 1 COC: Sample Log-lo: 1 Total Pages 9 COC:020508-002 Page 1 of 6 PES }�, Phoslab Environmental Services,Inc. • 4 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,Fl 33803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683-3279 TOR 111114111-1112-51117 FDOH ID:E84925 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS EPA 6010B- Metals Sample ID: 020508-04 020508-03 Sample Description/Matrix: SW Soil NE Soil Sample Date: 02/05/08 13:45 02/05/08 13:20 Preparation Date: 02/06/08 02/06/08 Analysis Date/Time: 02/06/08 14:07 02/06/08 14:02 Method: 6010B 6010E Batch: 821 821 Dilution: 1x lx Initials: MS MS Analytes: Cas No. Results Units Results Units MDL PQL Arsenic(As) 7440-38-2 0.25 U mg/Kg 0.25 U mg/Kg 0.25 1.00 Barium(Ba) 7440-39-3 1.00 U mg/Kg 1.00 1.00 Cadmium(Cd) 7440-43-9 0.25 U mg/Kg 0.25 1.00 Chromium(Cr) 7440-47-3 2.00 U mg/Kg 2.00 5.00 Lead(Pb) 7439-92-1 0.25 U mg/Kg 0.25 1.00 Selenium(Se) 7782-49-2 1.00 U mg/Kg 1.00 1.00 Silver(Ag) 7440-22-4 2.00 U mg/Kg 2.00 5.00 Sample ID: 020508-04 Sample Description/Matrix: SW Soil Sample Date: 02/05/08 13:45 Preparation Date: 02/06/08 Analysis Date/Time: 02/08/08 13:15 Method: 7470 Batch: 399 Dilution: 1 x Initials: MS Analyte: Cas No. Results Units MDL PQL Mercury(Hg) 7439-97-6 0.050 U mg/Kg 0.050 0.20 COC:020508-002 Page 2 of 6 `.rte+o PESPhoslab Environmental Services,Inc v '"� 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,Fl 33803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683-3279 MU.RlEE1-$$$-Nt-tn FDOII ID:E84925 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS EPA 8081 Pesticides Sample ID: 020508-04 Sample Description/Matrix: SW Soil Sample Date: 02/05108 13:45 Preparation Date/Method: 02/07/08 EPA8081 Analysis Date/Time: 02/07/08 20:46 Method: EPA 8081 Batch No. 035 Dilution: 1 x Initials: IT Analytes: Cas No. Results Units MDL PQL Gamma BHC(Lindane) 58-89-9 0.002U mg/kg 0.002 0.010 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.002U mg/kg 0.002 0.010 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.003U mg/kg 0.003 0.010 Endrin 72-20-8 0.004U mg/kg 0.004 0.010 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0.004U mg/kg 0.004 0.010 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0,011U mg/kg 0.011 0.100 Technical Chlordane 0.006U mg/kg 0.006 0.100 Surrogate: %Recovery Limits TCMX 114 70-130 Decachlorobl he^ l 106 70-130 COC:020508-002 Page 3 of 6 acoa* PESPhoslab Environmental Services,Inc. 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,FI 33803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683-3279 Tell Fill 1-iiia2-3US1 FDOIl ID:E84925 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS General Analytes(Wet Chemistry) Analytes: Sol ids Sample Description: Esperanza Place Sample Date: 02/05/08 Preparation Date/Method: 02/06/08 SM 2540E Analysis Date/Time: 02/06/08 Method: SM 2540B Batch No.: PDS-291 Intials: RV Sample ID Field ID Results Units 020508-03 NE 97.2 % 020508-04 SW 963 % { COC:020508-002 Page 4 of 6 1 PESPhoslab Environmental Services,Inc. 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,Fl 33803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683-3279 nu NEE 141111-M-51117 FDOH ID:E84925 QUALITY CONTROL DATA EPA 601013 Metals SPIKE DATA(EPA6010B) Analysis Date/Time: 02/06/08 12:44 Batch: 821+822 Initials: MS mg/Kg Found %Recovery Parameter Spike @ Spike Spike Dup RPD Spike Spike Dup Range Flag Arsenic(As) 10.0 9.67 9.92 3 97 99 80-120 Barium(Ba) 10.0 9.35 9.52 2 94 95 80-120 Cadmium(Cd) 10.0 10.7 10.7 0 107 107 80-120 Chromium(Cr) 10.0 9.79 9.81 t) 98 98 80-120 Lead(Pb) 10.0 10.0 10.2 2 100 102 80-120 Selenium(Se) 10.0 10.1 10.1 0 101 101 80-120 Silver(Ag) 25.0 21.3 22.8 7 85 91 80-120 SPIKE DATA(EPA 7470A) Analysis Date/Time: 12/06/07 09:45 Batch: 381 Initials: MS/GF Spike @ Spike Spike Analyte: mg/Kg mg/Kg Recov % Recov Limits Flag Mercury(Hg) LCS 0.250 0.260 104 90-I 10 Mercury(Hg) MS 0.125 0.[34 107 85-115 Mercury(Hg) MSD 0.125 0.137 109 85-115 LAB BLANK Analysis DateJT ime: 02/06/08 12:44 Batch: 821 +822 Initials: MS Analytes: Results Units Arsenic(As) 0.25 U mg/Kg Barium(Ba) 1.00 U mg/Kg Cadmium(Cd) 0.25 U mg/Kg Chromium(Cr) 2.00 U mg/Kg Lead(Pb) 0.25 U mg/Kg Mercury(Hg) 0.050 U mg/Kg Selenium(Se) 1.00 U mg/Kg Silver(Ag) 2.00 U mg/Kg MS=Matrix Spike MSD=Matrix Spike Duplicate CLCS=Laboratory Control Standard COC:020508-002 Page 5 of 6 • 1e Jed • PESPhoslab Environmental Services,Inc. ra 806 West Beacon Road•Lakeland,F133803• (863)682-5897• Fax:(863)683-3279 Till FIR 1-UUKi:-5in FDOH ID:E84925 QUALITY CONTROL DATA EPA 8081 Pesticides SPIKE DATA Analysis Date/Time: 02/07/08 22:46 Batch No. 035 Initials: 1T LCS MS MSD RPD Flags Parameter 80-120% 70-130% 70-130% 0-20 Gamma BHC(Lindane) 84 90 78 14 Heptachlor 116 114 93 20 Heptachlor Epoxide 82 103 89 15 Endrin 98 112 98 13 Methoxychlor 99 105 98 7 LAB BLANK Analysis Date/Time: 02/07/08 22:46 Batch No. 035 Initials: JT Analytes: Results Units Gamma BHC(Lindane) 0.002U mg/kg Heptachlor 0.002U mg/kg Heptachlor Epoxide 0.003U mg/kg Endrin 0.00411 mg/kg Methoxychlor 0.004U mg/kg Toxaphene 0.011U mg/kg Technical Chlordane 0.006U mg/kg Surrogate: %Recovery Limits TCMX 103 70-130 Decachlorobiphenyl 115 70-130 MS-.Matrix Spike MSD=Matrix Spike Duplicate LCS=Laboratory Control Standard =Exceeds quality control limits U.Compound analyzed but not detected to the level shown COC:020508-002 Page 6 of 6 ti z DATA QUALIFIER CODES SYMBOL MEANING A Value reported is the arithmetic mean (average) of two or more determinations. This code shall be used if the reported value is the average of results for two or more discrete and separate samples. These samples shall have been processed and analyzed independently. Do not use this code if the data are the result of replicate analysis on the same sample aliquot,extract or digestate. H Value based on field kit determination; results may not be accurate. This code shall be used if a field screening test (i.e., field gas chromatograph data, immunoassay, vendor-supplied field kit, etc.) was used to generate the value and the field kit or method has not been recognized by the Department as equivalent to laboratory methods. I The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit. J Estimated value. A "J" value shall be accompanied by a narrative justification for its use. Where possible,the organization shall report whether the actual value is less than or greater than the reported value. A"J"value shall not be used as a substitute for K,L,M,T,V or V,however,if additional reasons exist for identifying the value as estimate(e.g., matrix spiked failed to meet acceptance criteria),the'J" code may be added to a K, L, M,T,V,or Y. The following are some examples of narrative descriptions that may accompany a"J"code: • No known quality control criteria exist for the component; • The reported value failed to meet the established quality control criteria for either precision or accuracy(the specific failure must be identified); • The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; • The data are questionable because of improper laboratory or field protocols (e.g., composite sample was collected instead of a grab sample). • The field calibration verification did not meet calibration acceptance criteria. K Off-scale low. Actual value is known to be less than the value given. This code shall be used if: 1. The value is less than the lowest calibration standard and the calibration curve is known to be non- linear;or 2. The value is known to be less than the reported value based on sample size,dilution. This code shall not be used to report values that are less than the laboratory practical quantitation limit or laboratory method detection limit. L Off-scale high. Actual value is known to be greater than value given. To be used when the concentration of the analyte is above the acceptable level for quantitation(exceeds the linear range or highest calibration standard)and the calibration curve is known to exhibit a negative deflection. M When reporting chemical analyses:presence of material is verified but not quantified;the actual value is •less than the value given. The reported value shall be the laboratory practical quantitation limit. This code shall be used if the level is too low to permit accurate quantification, but the estimated concentration is greater than the method detection limit. If the value is less than the method detection . limit use eT"below. N Presumptive evidence of presence of material. This qualifier shall be used if: 1. The component has been tentatively identified based on mass spectral library search;or 2. There is an indication that the analyte is present,but quality control requirements for confirmation were not met(i.e.,presence of analyte was not confirmed by alternative procedures). O Sampled,but analysis lost or not performed. Q Sample held beyond the accepted holding time. This code shall be used if the value is derived from a sample that was prepared or analyzed after the approved holding time restrictions for sample preparation or analysis. T Value reported is less than the laboratory method detection limit. The value is reported for informational purposes only and shall not be used in statistical analysis. U Indicates that the compound was analyzed for but not detected. This symbol shall be used to indicate that the specified component was not detected. The value associated with the qualifier shall be the laboratory method detection limit. Unless requested by the client, less than the method detection limit values shall not be reported(see`T'above). ✓ Indicates that the analyte was detected in both the sample and the associated method blank. Note:the value in the blank shall not be subtracted from associated samples. Y The laboratory analysis was from an improperly preserved sample. The data may not be accurate. ? Data are rejected and should not be used. Some or all of the quality control data for the analyte were outside criteria,and the presence or absence of the analyte cannot be determined from the data. • Not currently accredited for this analyte. ! Not within scope of method. o Z IM `. o W '� 0 cA <C Q o0 Z W -� Q o Q D, A a. o o ;; - + 0 � x z a Q o a A W 1 P.• r b -.T_ Z a o 0 [ ® w'' Mt 1Z4I 1 41 b' (� Q z dI ii m 0 ,, .,.., . g-7:1, clihlililli 0 r ° Io � 3 - 1� au +- n b a 1 �rrrrrrrrrry ; c A ox , ,, z Er o coo 0...., 4 I 1111111111111111 r �rIIIIIlIU . , It +Q tiuuiuOIIIIiu T tri .4 : 3! 79:28 NI, - Z 0 .0" • . .... a) 6 ,3 •••43. ._ ... % .4\ , Ir 1 13 al 0 Ei ',E)' o o — lit : r-7, 7.) a a ci r: W (Ilili + r O o o ( � ; z•ia.- , o, ai cl 4. i N n'EL...•••••• 5 6) M5 00 ) d N 3 1. 1 \ 1111111111111111 411. ' u ,y. oo \ lullilin ,, . fy � f, °o, I. < - Morro , ,�:., 7:1 co .! 2 M o ¢ O ca 1 \ z — a� is I �. i [ cd a 4 oVo .' ' . 'C A W 9 y c G v)t o b o g s 0 o s • Ba4 U -4 Cl : z . ' a a, .5 PESPhoslab Environmental Services,Inc. 0 Sample Log-in Checklist F' 4 2��0a V)% Q:),..\-- Shipping Method: Date/Time of Receipt: 0-0 Cooler Check Ice in cooler Custody Seal Cooler# Yes No If No Temp. Yes No Intact Not Intact Note: If the temperature of a cooler is above 60 C or a custody seal is damaged then identify the bottles in the affected cooler and note on "Improper Sample List" 1) Custody Seal on Bottles present Yes No 2) Condition of Sample container Headspace (Volatiles) tJ (t lay Bubble > 5mm 0 A Loose caps Yes No -)c--- Broken Broken Containers Yes No .->` 3) Chain of Custody included Yes No 4) Acid preserved: pH less than 2 Yes No ),-)/ Coolers Unpacked/Checked by: Date: oZ tV Client: hv ' 'k' ' Q . :V'Project: , Improper Sample List Bottle # Out of Improper Seal Intact Loose Cap Damaged Damaged pH>2 Sample Action Hold Containers Bottle Cap Volume Ii Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit Development Exhibit A The Esperanza Place RPUD is a total of 31.63 +/- acres that will be developed with up to 262 dwelling units. This amounts to a gross density of 8.28+/- units per acre. The base density is 4 units per acre and the affordable housing density bonus is used to make up the difference. I. Tract A: Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 15.83± acres, which are to be developed with up to 176 dwelling units and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses a. Multi-family dwelling units; b. Zero-lot line units, including townhomes; c. Community center; d. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) according to the process described in the Land Development Code (LDC). 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; d. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; e. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 1 of 10 ,'•— II. Tract B: Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 13.8± acres, which are to be developed with up to 85 dwelling units and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses a. Single-family, detached dwelling units; b. Single-family, attached dwelling units; c. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; d. Community clubhouse; e. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; f. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. III. Tract C Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 2.0± acres, which are to be developed with up to 1 single-family dwelling unit and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 2 of 10 4 T. a. Single-family dwelling unit 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Storage sheds; d. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; e. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; f. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. C C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 3 of 10 ..,,gin Exhibit B Development of the Esperanza Place RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan(GMP)in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as,but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. Table 1 —Principal Structures Tracts A, B & C Development Standards SINGLE- ERO-LOT COMMUNITY SINGLE- FAMILY LINE DEVELOPMENT FAMILY, ATTACHED MULTI CENTER/ TOWNHOMES STANDARDS FAMILY RECREATION DETACHED AND (TRACT A BUILDINGS DUPLEX ONLY) PRINCIP Z 4 S Minimum Lot 5,000 s.f. per 3,500 s.fper n/a 1,200 s.£ per n/a Area unit unit unit Minimum Lot 50 feet 35 feet n/a 15 feet n/a Width Minimum Floor 1,000 s.f. 750 s.f750 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a Area Minimum Setbacks: Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side 7.5 feet 0 feet and 5 10 feet 0 feet or 6 feet 10 feet feet Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between 15 feet 10 feet 20 feet 12 feet 10 feet Structures Maximum 35 feet 35 feet 45 feet 45 feet 45 feet "Zoned" Height Maximum 40 feet 40 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet "Actual" Height 1) Principal structures located on corner lots may reduce one of the two front setbacks by 50 percent. The remaining setback must meet the full front setback standard. Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 4 of 10 Table 1.1 —Accessory Structures Tracts A, B & C Development Standards SINGLE- ZERO-LET CONIMtiN11)( FAN1ILY, I INE 1)LVELOPI\ilEN'l DE IA('IIED ri- CEN`IFR' , , '1'()WNIIOMES S rAN[)AIDS NIII I()N AND I"CT 13EILDINCIS D u p LEXt ONLY) •••"'C'' r-A('CESSOR NIT S I IZ rCTt)1.1,S Minimum Setbacks: Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet Side 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Rear 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Maximum Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet "Zoned" Maximum " Height 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet "Actual C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 5 of 10 4 e. JZ IL J l O <F u e•y LL Z f�- s n F m< x 2ZW u •aims y <fna' oH j z H co a i, U c� � ,, , W I-- ' a' — Q' 1 1 of i N i w ; ' o N w0 co1' 3 CO a CO / ', LL � / m i u I_ • Ql 2OI i _�- 2 2j w U 0 I ' J z i` � < 4 2"Ili I : o CK CC i Ce . I; Q• , r � Q ; a I • 0 I jz F- ND I; W v r n Q Q G PI z f 1�l l J m . W: '4 w , 1 J' �¢� F Q I II I ,,� ;i � . a8r F �! W r : . 7 U s T ///lll 0 z I _ V I— O • o w c„_,,_ re w �- I - H d 0 K41 = ' , Q i Z w n • f'g rt Y v \ �1�� / ` I—�—1yu. l t�� p�o°" w 6 to III i Iu .l JI U L-i C7 MI c Z n n _ft__ ; Js ' m F O IIzm 6 w U'' J /'�/5 Y m m r V U Y 2 D 3 0 4t‘i' Z Z ul O to N 0 d z .. • E 9 v a 7 x y v. O < • t • 0 v : c r;.; z U • U m - m 1 a O aa a ..H LL • " •• aF Oal"O U CU ' �w s..1-5 6 ci Q dam `d O m, m v_ o m < F W 2 o a 8 m= �(7Y ill w Z W K O ., �. o a ao aci s� m <W Q O w m0 F aci E N c E mi W 2 cc00 F .� .. c o d z 2<U w • < DC7 m . E m c E,E o m LL LL< > cC 0 Z •• U N _� aU OOLLO w 0_ Q1- to J , . N V Z o n m to co o< c d a) 0 ' 22 2 N w g Z> C C oQ•"'• w CC Z IX we • ,. • o • aZ c E E 6 - 6 Et a w et ee D F a I__0- m e o m m E E •L =LC wco < ,n Et N Z V < .. oLm. m �o 0 Kew A oQ67 6 z X~ . .. 0 3 o asci �� U U U ,p Z O O II J W (]J O W d m C C <<< < Ka .. d m 'w c 0< a 'o 'o M O H O O i, N J , �� • O z O II II a 6 cob FInoI-- U CL < •' • :•, d In • d 3 I°(1 .'O-,_cV II FO x0 to < Uw w 0 .. .0 N a .c 2 L Q 111 0 XU~ Z~ CO Zp Qfn .. LO m L m N C 8 L11 w W W� 0Z t0 OU z w O m m IS r m~ N 0 Q a < < W E U Z (9 D rn O o w '. O c o '11 "0 RCL CL •• w w >Q� O_ ?Z 0) z< W- �. '. .. o 0y , m as u < CC aN� w� z �U W _ .. . 'nv2 cn...0 a C O F- to ZOO 0 33H D 00- <� - .. o f o 0 `o$ 4E, Cw O 0 J .. • o c_' o i0- �Z< J '0 D ziO QQ .. Ij�" ° ZLL m0O m < vi iii n om Q 0 0 )< • ,MJ- U co Q J Z •. , E L E E al c t I 0 0 0 Q0)U 0 Waw r F-F-ti W O . .. .� . O ` K O g O x - . UUU ~ 0 w 3 to UUU 0 W Q " - l m a ll >U W U.' «< a z «< 5 U) I 1 I IY 00 I 1 I N Z r fV 0 <i '•7 N -5.- . Ad ZZ:1.8002/Ll/f 0M02 don dSdNJ\dSdNJ\SOMO ONINNYld-0o11d\10 f Exhibit D Legal Description PARCEL 1 OR 4242 PG 2471 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 1058.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES,PLUS OR MINUS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 2 OR 4242 PG 2470 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 1,058.80 FEET THEROF AND THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT cOF WAY, CONTAINING 7.92 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 3 OR 1596 PG 43 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 794.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES,PLUS OR MINUS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 4 OR 1007 PG 1558 THE WEST 264.70'OF THE EAST 529.40'OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00'FOR ROAD R/W, CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, CCOLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 7 of 10 •i CCOMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST THENCE RUN NORTH 89°15'36"EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32,ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD(60'RIGHT-OF-WAY),FOR A DISTANCE OF 1323.92 FEET;THENCE RUN NORTH 00°44'24"WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE;THENCE RUN NORTH 00°51'21"WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.83 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°16'27" EAST,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,060.74 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°4T35"EAST,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1299.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°15'35" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1059.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 31.63 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. C C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 8 of 10 • Exhibit E lire. Deviations from the Land Development Code 1. A deviation from Subsection 1.05.02.F of the Collier County LDC which prohibits off parking spaces in which a vehicle must back onto the road. 2. A deviation from Subsection 1.06.02.0 of the Collier County LDC which requires a ten foot Type A landscape buffer between residential developments and a 20 foot Type D landscape buffer between residential development and vehicular right of way to allow 3. A deviation from Section 5.05.08 which requires non-residential components of any PUD to meet architectural design standards to allow the non-residential component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards. 4. A deviation from Section 3.05.07 which requires on-site preservation of 25 percent of the native vegetation on the site to allow off-site preservation or payment toward the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, in accordance with Commitment III.B, described in Exhibit F of this PUD. C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 9 of 10 Exhibit F List of Developer Commitments I. Affordable Housing: A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the developer has agreed to construct 60 owner-occupied dwelling units for residents in or below the workforce income category (61-80 percent.of County median income) and 176 rental units for residents in or below the low income category (51-60 percent of County median income). II. Transportation: A. If any entrance is to be gated, the face of said gate shall be located to maintain no less than a 100-foot throat length to the northerly edge of the pavement at Immokalee Drive. B. The developer agrees to pay a proportionate fair share contribution toward the cost of construction of improvements to the intersection of S.R. 29 and Lake Trafford Road. This contribution will be made prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the PUD. III. Environmental: A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County manager or designee during SDP or plat review process. B. The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland and +/- 0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); A minimum of 25%, 0.32 acres, must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute an amount equivalent to 115 percent of the post-zoning fair market appraisal value within the PUD to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73-acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation as part of the Environment Resource Permit. C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for which no permit can be located; in order for clearing to be considered legal and re-creation of vegetation removed not be required an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid for the clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for relevant acreage. C Esperanza Place PUD Document,4-18-2008 Page 10 of 10 Esperanza Place RPUD Deviations and Justifications from the Land Development Code 1. A deviation from Subsection '1.05.02.F of the Collier County LDC which prohibits off parking spaces in which a vehicle must back onto the road. Justification: The LDC is written to only permit backing onto the street for single buildings. This deviation request, as shown on the Master Plan, would allow parking in - . . • . - •ng units that are anticipated on Tract A. A mixture of parking lot style and parking areas in front of the building will be utilized in Tract A to provide utilized to provide shade for the spaces in front of the buildings. This is a condition that 2. A deviation from Subsection 1.06.02.0 of the Collier County LDC which requires a ten foot Type A landscape buffer between-residential developments and a 20 foot Type D Tract C to be exempt from these requirements. Justification: Once the RPUD is approved, two acres of folio number 00076160000 will - . ' • . . • -. P . - . - • . • • - •- . _ • .-. . . - . - the property to stand alone as a single family lot. The home will be retained and no development orders or building permits are expected to be requested. The property cannot be divided . - . - . .. . • . - - -- ' - . • _- . •- homeowner. The remainder of the property will be developed with the required buffers. 3. A deviation from Section 5.05.08 which requires non-residential components of any PUD to meet architectural design standards to allow the non-residential component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards. Justification: The activity center that will be developed in Tract A will be located internal to the project. The building will be a minimum of 430 feet from Immokalee Drive and the residential dwelling units are located away from the site of the recreation Deviations and Justifications,4-17-08 Page 1 of 2 FNPSP/EAIDP center. The center will be bordered by an internal drive with parking on the other side, the on-site water management lake and one building that is oriented to the road rather than the recreation site. Approval of this deviation request will not endanger public health, safety or welfare. 4. A deviation from Section 3.05.07 which requires on-site preservation of 25 percent of the native vegetation on the site to allow off-site preservation or payment toward the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, in accordance with Commitment III.B, described in Exhibit F of this PUD. Justification: Most of the subject property has been impacted from years of agricultural use. The native vegetation that remains is scattered throughout the site in a configuration that precludes the efficient use of the property. The proposed development is an infill project that is not bordered by any other native vegetation preserve. To ensure maximum use of the property for affordable housing the applicant has committed to meet this requirement by providing an equivalent area of preserve off-site or by providing a contribution to the Conservation Collier Trust Fund. This deviation and the related commitment are consistent with Policy 6.1.1(10) of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), which was adopted to allow off-site preserves in certain situations. The Land Development Code has not yet been updated to include a new process for approval, so a deviation must be granted through the zoning approval process. The CCME lists some considerations for allowing preserves to be relocated away from the development, including: the intended use of the property, including affordable housing; whether the required preserve is a small area; and what type of vegetation is on- site, among others. This project meets all the criteria in the GMP to allow preserve off- site. C Deviations and Justifications,4-17-08 Page 2 of 2 FNPSP/EAIDP Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary During the January 17, 2008 Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) meeting, the CCPC recommended to forward petition RZ-2007-AR-12044 to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) for review. In accordance with LDC Section 8.06.03.0 (Powers and Duties of the EAC), the EAC shall review any petition which requires approval of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) where staff receives a request from the Chairman of the EAC, CCPC or the BCC for that petition to be reviewed by the EAC. The Immokalee LLC rezone petition is a request to rezone the subject site from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Multi-family (RMF-16) Zoning District for a multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 15 units per acre, or 140 dwelling units on a 9.33 acre site. The subject property is presently vacant and undeveloped, and has not been previously disturbed. Only the 6.42 acre uplands portion of the site would be developed, and the remaining 2.91 acres of wetland area (marsh, swamp, and drainage canals) would be preserved. The development standards for the RMF-16 Zoning District are as follows: • Maximum Zoned Building Heights: 75 feet 00— • Maximum Front Yard Setback: 1/2 SBH with a minimum of 30 feet. 14,410, In addition, a minimum of 140 parking spaces, or one space per unit plus visitor parking, would be required for the proposed multi-family dwelling units. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning: The subject property is presently vacant and undeveloped, and is within the Estates (E) Zoning District. North of the property is Farm Worker's Village, a multi-family development, in the Village Residential Zoning District. South of the property is vacant, undeveloped land in the Estates (E) Zoning District. East of the property is vacant land, owned by Seminole Casino, in the Agricultural - Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District, and west of the property is Bethune Education Center in the Estates (E) Zoning District. Zoning Synopsis: As described in LDC Section 2.03.01(F),the purpose and intent of the residential multiple-family-16 district "RMF-16" is to provide lands for medium to high density multiple-family residences, generally surrounded by open space, located in close proximity to public and commercial services, with direct or convenient access to arterial and collector roads on the county major road network. This district corresponds to and implements the urban mixed use land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density shall not exceed 12 dwelling units per acre in accordance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, except as permitted by policies contained in the future land use element pertaining to Residential In-fill Density Bonus criteria. See GMP impact for details. Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary May 7,2008 Page 2 Growth Management Plan Consistency: The subject 9.33 acre property, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP), is within the land use designation known as Neighborhood Center (NC) Subdistrict (denoted as NC on the IAMP FLUM). The purpose of this land use classification is to provide for centers of activity that serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers should contain a blended mix of neighborhood oriented uses such as day care centers, parks, schools and governmental activities. In accordance with the NC designation, Section 4. d., "non residential uses shall be at least 20 percent of the size of the NC." The subject NC area is approximately 110 acres. Currently, the NC includes two non-residential uses: the Career and Service Center of Collier County (3.7 acres) and Bethune Education Center (10.4 acres). The existing non- residential uses combined equate to 12.8 percent of the NC's size. As a result of the existing non-residential uses, the aforementioned NC provision still requires at least eight acres be available for future non-residential use. The majority of the NC is zoned Estates (E), but there is a 4.5 acre parcel zoned Village Residential (VR) in the northeast quadrant abutting County Road 846. Additionally, there is a 2.8 acre parcel currently being utilized for residential purposes at the corner of Bethune Road and County Road 846. In combination, the two existing properties account for 7.3 acres and approximately 6.6 percent of the total NC. When the existing residential properties and existing non residential uses are added together, they represent 19.4 percent of the NC. As a result, the 80.6 percent remaining area of the NC (88.7 acres) demonstrates adequate development potential for achieving the requisite amount of non- residential usage even when the proposed rezone is factored into the future development scenario. Pursuant to the NC designation, Section 4. e., "residential development within the designated Neighborhood Centers shall permit a maximum density of twelve (12) units per gross acre. Residential dwelling units shall be limited to multi-family structures and less intensive units such as single-family and duplexes provided they are compatible with the district." The petitioner is proposing an exclusively multi-family-based residential development which would be consistent with residential uses intended for the NC. From the density perspective, the petitioner is requesting 15 units per acre based upon Residential In-fill Bonus eligibility. Section 2, Density Bonuses, d. Residential In-fill, of the IAMP, lists the following additional criteria, "To encourage residential in-fill, three (3) residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met..." Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary May 7,2008 Page 3 Residential In-fill eligibility criteria is as follows: • "The project is 10 acres or less in size"— subject parcel is 9.33 acres • "At the time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer" — subject parcel is within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District, which will provide water and sewer service • "The project is compatible with surrounding land uses" — see page 7 for Zoning Analysis • "The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property" — there is no indication of any common site development plans with contiguous properties property appraiser records. • "There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels" — there is no common ownership among adjacent properties • "The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the Residential In-fill Density Bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989" — according to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office, the respective parcel was created in its current legal descriptive form on or about 1965. Based upon the above analysis, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre (du/a). Conclusion: Staff deems the subject RMF-16 rezone request consistent with the IAMP based on the following findings. • The site qualifies as a residential infill project which is eligible for three additional dwelling units per acre. • The IAMP allows 12 units per acre. •••••••••r Immokalee LLC Rezone EAC Summary • May 7, 2008 Page 4 Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following: • A density cap of 15 du/a shall be placed on the RMF-16 rezone request at the time of approval, and this density cap shall be included in the rezone ordinance as RMF-16 (15) Environmental Services Recommendation: The preserve selection as proposed on the project master plan is consistent with the ranking and location requirements in the Growth Management Plan. The following items shall be required as part of the next development order: 1. A Preserve Management Plan shall be provided including a replanting plan for the area of invasive exotic vegetation in the preserve area. 2. A listed species update shall be required prior to the next development order including panther and bear telemetry points. 3. Listed species management plans shall be required, including Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel. 4. Mitigation for Florida panther impacts shall be approved by USFWS - US Fish and Wildlife Service Preservation requirements are based on the entire site of± 9 acres. 15% of the total site is 1.4 acres and is shown on the site plan. 1 1 L, • „,„ • „:, l I 'Z O R 1 0 A ()I J-S(‘ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: STANDARD REZONE Petition No.: Date Petition Received: Commission District: Planner Assigned: ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF 1 . General Information: Name of Applicant(s)_Barry Goldmeier Applicant's Mailing Address_250 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 606 City Coral Gables State Florida Zip 33134 Applicant's E-Mail Address: bgoldmeier@aol.com Applicant's Telephone#_(305) 461-2330 Fax # (305) 461-2346 Name of Agent Shaun Mularkey, AICP_Firm_Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc._ Agent's Mailing Address 3106 South Horseshoe Drive City_Naples State Florida Zip 34104 Agent's Telephone# (239) 643-2324 Ext. 147 Fax #_(239) 643-4364 Agent's E-Mail Address: smularkey(acecifl.com COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE-NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE (239) 403-2400/FAX(239) 643-6968 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 41111 *Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. (Provide additional sheets if necessary) Name of Homeowner Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Homeowner Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Master Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip Name of Civic Association: N/A Mailing Address City State Zip 2 . Disclosure of Interest Information: a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. C Name and Address,and Office Percentage of Stock Barry Goldmeier 50% 250 Catalonia Avenue Suite 606 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Lee Goldmeier 50% 61 South Paramus Road, Box 1765 Paramus,N.J. 07652 c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the Cname of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership II li e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers p� below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: C1 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property, acquired ® leased ❑ March 23, 2004 Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section: 9 Township: 47 S Range: 29 E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page#: Property I.D.#: 00134000002 Metes & Bounds Description: The NE 1/4 of the SE % of the NE '/ of Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. Less the right of way for County Road 846. 4 . Size of property: ft. X ft. =Total Sq. Ft. Acres 9.33 5. Address/general location of subject property: Southwest corner of the intersection of County Road 846 and School Road. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 6 . Adjacent zoning and land use: Zoning Land use N (VR)-Village Residential Improved multi-family development (farm worker village) S (E) - Estates Vacant Land Agricultural with mobile E (A- MHO) home overlay Seminole Indian Land—Casino/vacant land W (E)—Estates Improved—vacant portion of school property Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? NO If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section: Township: Range: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page#: Property I.D.#: Metes & Bounds Description: 7 . Rezone Request: This application is requesting a rezone from the (E)—Estates zoning district(s) to the (RMF— 16) residential multi-family zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property:_Residential multi-family development_ 8 . Evaluation Criteria: Pursuant to Section 10.03.05.G. of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. Standard Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.03.05.G.) APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan. The proposed change from the Estates zoning district to RMF-16 would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map of the growth management plan. The subject property is within Immokalee and guided by the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The proposed zoning change would not only meet the current objective of the Master Plan, but it would also meet the presently proposed changes to the Plan. The current Immokalee Future Land Use Map plans the subject property and surrounding area as NC — Neighborhood Center. According to the Master Plan, this category is eligible for up to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. The property is also eligible for an additional three (3) dwelling units per acre as a residential infill. To qualify as residential infill the project must be ten (10) acres or less in size, served by public sewer/water, abut at least one developed property, owned independently of surrounding parcels, and created prior to the provision in the Growth Management Plan. Based on these criteria, the project is eligible for up to fifteen (15) units per acre. The presently proposed changes to the Immokalee Future Land Use Map depict the area as High Density Residential (>15 units/acre). ® A multi-family residential project would provide a quality housing choice in the area. 2. The existing land use pattern. Much of the immediate surrounding area is currently undeveloped. There are scattered developments in the area that include office development to the west, the Bethune Education Center to the northwest, a farm workers village to the north, and the Seminole Casino to the northeast. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This proposed project would provide the residential infill component that is needed in the immediate area as part of the Neighborhood Center district. According to the Master Plan, centers should contain a mix of neighborhood oriented uses such as residential, day care, parks, schools, and governmental activities. According to the Neighborhood Center district, non-residential uses shall be at least 20% of the size of the center. This Neighborhood Center is roughly 97 acres in size. There are currently non-residential uses (school and governmental offices) totaling approximately 10 acres within the Neighborhood Center. Total *kW developed land (including this proposed rezoning) within the center is APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 approximately 26 acres. Therefore, the current percentage of developed land in the district that is non-residential is about 38%. Additionally, there will be roughly 71 remaining acres in which to achieve a wide range of non-residential uses. Rezoning the subject parcel to allow multi-family uses will not adversely impact the total desired mix of uses within the district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property for the proposed change. N/A. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment(rezone) necessary. This area surrounding the proposed project is transitioning. Neighborhood Centers planned in Immokalee are envisioned as mixed-use areas including residential densities greater than is allowed by the existing Estates zoning. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the II neighborhood. The proposed multi-family residential project would positively influence the area and improve the neighborhood by providing additional quality housing choices. C40) 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The proposed rezone to RMF-16 would allow for a maximum density of 15 units per acre for the property according to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. This would equate to approximately 140 residential units on 9.33 acres. This density increase to the area would not negatively impact or be deemed incompatible with the surrounding area which fronts Immokalee Road (CR 846), a key transportation corridor in the area. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed multi-family residential project would manage all stormwater onsite according to Collier County and South Florida Water Management District regulations and would not adversely impact adjacent parcels. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed multi-family residential project will be designed in accordance with surrounding development and County LDC setback and buffer requirements. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area. It is anticipated that the proposed multi-family residential project would positively influence the property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. We believe this proposed multi-family residential project would positively influence the area as well as stimulate and improve the neighborhood. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Granting this change would not constitute a special privilege. Granting this change would bring the property is in conformance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Map. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is incongruent with the envisioned Neighborhood Center that focuses on a mix of neighborhood uses and residential densities to support them. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed multi-family use will meet the intent of the Neighborhood Center district, including the intended mix of uses and densities. The development will be compatible with surroundings and provide an additional housing choice in the area. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The current Immokalee Area Master Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Center with the need for addition residential and non-residential projects. In addition, the presently proposed Master Plan changes for this area designate it as High Density Residential. This proposed zoning change for the subject parcel would allow for a multi-family residential project that would fulfill what is envisioned in both the current and proposed plans. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 The site is currently wooded with a mix of wetland areas and upland areas. A minimum of 15% of the native vegetation will be retained. The majority of existing wetlands on the subject site will remain protected and unchanged. The remaining upland portions of the site will be cleared for development as necessary. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth management plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance[Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are more than adequate public facilities and capacities available to this site. The proposed multi-family residential project would not compromise any current levels of service already available. According to letters received from utility providers, there exists sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The conventional rezone petition for the subject property meets the intent of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and more specifically, the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Development of the property will have no adverse impacts on surrounding areas in terms of stormwater run-off, environmental impacts, compatibility, or property values. The multi-family housing proposed will also serve a need for additional quality housing in the community. 9. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 10. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? NO 11. Additional Submittal requirements: In addition to this completed application, the following shall be submitted in order for your application to be deemed sufficient, unless otherwise waived during the pre-application meeting. a. A copy of the pre-application meeting notes; b. If this rezone is being requested for a specific use, provide fifteen (15) copies of a 24" x 36" conceptual site plan (16 copies if for affordable housing) [and one reduced 46. 8%2" x " copy plan], drawn to a maximum of 1 inch 400 feet, depicting11the followofsiteing [Additional copies of the plan scale may be requestedequals upon APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 completion of staff evaluation for distribution to the Board and various advisory boards such as the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), or CCPC]; N/A • all existing and proposed structures and the dimensions thereof, • provisions for existing and/or proposed ingress and egress (including pedestrian ingress and egress to the site and the structure(s) on site), • all existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas [include matrix indicating required and provided parking and loading, including required parking for the disabled], • required yards, open space and preserve areas, • proposed locations for utilities (as well as location of existing utility services to the site), • proposed and/or existing landscaping and buffering as may be required by the County, c . An architectural rendering of any proposed structures. N/A d. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by Section 10.02.02. of the Land Development Code (LDC) , or a request for waiver if appropriate. N/A e. Whether or not an EIS is required, two copies of a recent aerial photograph, (taken within the previous twelve months), minimum scale of one inch equals 400 feet, shall be submitted. Said aerial shall identify plant and/or wildlife habitats and their boundaries. Such identification shall be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Additionally, a calculation of the acreage (or square feet) of native vegetation on site, by area, and a calculation and location(s) of the required portion of native vegetation to be preserved (per LDC Section 3.O5.O7.B.1.). f . Statement of utility provisions (with all required attachments and sketches); g. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), unless waived at the pre-application meeting; h. A historical and archeological survey or waiver application if property is located within an area of historical or archaeological probability (as identified at pre- application meeting); i . The petitioner must provide a letter of no objection from the United States Postal Service prior to submittal of the application. Please contact Robert M. Skebe, Growth Management Coordinator at: U.S. Postal Service 1200 Goodlette Road Naples, Florida 34102-9998 Phone (239) 435-2122; Fax (239) 435-2160 j . Any additional requirements as may be applicable to specific conditional uses and identified during the pre-application meeting, including but not limited to any required state or federal permits. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 Section 10.O3.05.B.3. of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign (s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign (s) immediately C APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STANDARD REZONE-11/28/2006 C IMMOKALEE ROAD/ SCHOOL DRIVE PARCEL PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared for: Immokalee,LLC 250 Catalonia Ave. Suite 606 Coral Gables,Florida 33134 Submitted to: Collier County Environmental Service Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Prepared by: EarthBalance® 2579 North Toledo Blade Boulevard North Port,Florida 34289 (941) 426-7878 MAY 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the April 16, 2007 protected species survey and environmental assessment for the 9.33 acre Immokalee site in accordance with a rezoning application submitted for the subject parcel. The project site is bordered by School Drive to the north, C.R. 846 to the east, and vacant land to the south and west in Section 9,Township 47S, Range 29E, Collier County, Florida. The purpose of the site visit was to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and conduct a wildlife survey to identify the presence or absence of protected wildlife species, specifically Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). In addition, a protected plant species survey was conducted to determine the presence or absence of protected plant species onsite. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The vegetative communities occurring on the 9.33-acre site were evaluated as potential habitat for protected wildlife and plant species. The upland areas onsite were surveyed for their potential to support the listed gopher tortoise and red-cockaded woodpecker. In addition, Collier County staff has also requested the survey of the site for Big Cypress fox squirrel. Upland and wetland habitats onsite were also surveyed for protected plant species that may occur. Site observations, in conjunction with the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (1998) and aerial photographs, were used to develop a map of the habitats on site according to the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS)— Figure 1. The following is a description of the habitats observed within the property boundaries: FLUCCS CODES HABITAT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE UPLANDS 411/422 Pine Flatwoods/Brazilian Pepper 2.41 422 Brazilian Pepper 3.55 810 Road 0.23 TOTAL UPLANDS 6.19 acres WETLANDS 422-H Hydric Brazilian Pepper 0.63 510 Ditch 1.03 618-1 Disturbed Willow Marsh 0.24 621-1 Disturbed Cypress Slough 0.98 641 Freshwater Marsh 0.26 TOTAL WETLANDS 3.14 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 9.33 1 UPLAND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS Pine Flatwoods/Brazilian Pepper-FLUCCS 411/422 Within this habitat, slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) are dominant. Subdominant species include saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), myrsine (Myrsine sp.), wild coffee (Psychotria spp.), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), cedar(Juniperus spp.), and oak(Quercus spp.). The groundcover is dominated by broom grass (Andropogon virginicus), catbrier(Smilax sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), and other weedy species occur as minor associations within this habitat. No protected wildlife species were observed within this habitat, due to the invasive coverage by Brazilian pepper. Brazilian Pepper—FLUCCS 422 The majority of the site is infested with Brazilian pepper. The Brazilian pepper forms dense thickets throughout this habitat. No protected species were observed or are expected within this habitat due to heavy shading. Road—FLUCCS 810 A road runs along the northern boundary of the property. WETLAND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS Ditch—FLUCCS 510 This habitat is an open water canal dominated by the exotic species, water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and Brazilian pepper, in addition to willow (Salix caroliniana). This feature was most likely excavated from wetlands and appears to be currently used as stormwater drainage for the development to the north. Disturbed Willow Marsh- FLUCCS 618-1 This habitat is dominated by willow and Brazilian pepper and is located along the fringes. This marsh is connected to the freshwater herbaceous marsh and ditch to the north and west. Disturbed Cypress Swamp- FLUCCS 621-1 This habitat is a part of a larger cypress slough system that extends off site to the south and east of the property. The vegetation is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Red maple (Acer rubrum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), and Brazilian pepper are subdominant. The habitat is good quality with the exception of slight invasion of Brazilian pepper along the edge of the wetland area. Freshwater Marsh- FLUCCS 641 This habitat is dominated by maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). Additional species observed in the marsh included alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana), primrose willow (Ludwigia repens), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). There was approximately 4 feet of standing water in the wetland at the time of the survey. This marsh is connected to the ditch that is to the west. 2 3.0 METHODOLOGY A formal protected wildlife and plant survey was conducted on April 16, 2007 to determine the presence or absence of protected wildlife species onsite and the general location, density, and species of protected plants located within the project site. All endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited plants found in Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Chapter 5B-40.0055 Regulated Plant Index were included in the survey. In addition, more mature slash pine and cypress trees were all closely inspected for epiphytic species including Tillandsia sp. that could occur onsite. Survey methods consisted of linear and meandering pedestrian transects throughout the project area and species-specific survey methodology is described below. GOPHER TORTOISE Biologists located suitable gopher tortoise habitat during the preliminary field visits. A formal 100% survey of suitable gopher tortoise habitat was completed for the parcel in accordance with FWC guidelines. BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL Surveys were conducted within areas of the potential Big Cypress fox squirrel habitat. Biologists surveyed for fox squirrels by meandering through all areas of suitable habitat. Biologists stopped, looked, and listened at open locations that allowed visibility of suitable habitat. Biologists looked for signs of fox squirrel activity, such as pinecone remains, nests, scat, and tracks. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER According to the Standardized State-Listed Animal Surveys Procedures obtained from FWC, the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically prefer habitats such as pinelands with mature trees of an age of 60 years or more, habitats that have an open mid-story, and areas where regular burns occur. Although a very limited amount of the project area contains large pine trees, most of this habitat is not suitable for RCW nesting because of the invasion of Brazilian pepper. The area was surveyed for RCW utilization during the wildlife survey. All sides of suitable pine trees were checked for nest cavities, start holes, or birds. 4.0 RESULTS/DISCUSSION During the April 2007 protected species survey, no protected wildlife species or evidence of protected wildlife species were observed onsite. As mentioned, protected wildlife surveys focused on Big Cypress fox squirrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, and gopher tortoise. No fox squirrel nests or day beds were observed in any of the slash pine or cypress trees observed onsite. Similarly, no red-cockaded woodpecker nest cavities were observed in any of the slash pine trees during the survey. In addition, no gopher tortoise burrows were observed within any of the upland habitats observed onsite. 3 Several wading birds were observed during the survey, of which snowy egret, tri-colored heron, and white ibis are listed by the FWC as Species of Special Concern. No wading birds were observed roosting or nesting on site. A review of the FWC eagle nest locator database shows that one known eagle nest is located more than 4 miles east of the project site. No bald eagles were observed and no nests were observed in the canopy on site or within the vicinity of the project boundary. Therefore, there are no known bald eagle nests that affect the site. Protected plant species were observed during the protected species survey (Table 1). None of the identified plants are federally listed, one is listed as endangered in Florida, and one is listed as threatened in Florida. All of the identified protected plant species are epiphytic and are found on the slash pine, Brazilian pepper, and cypress tree within the site. At the time of this survey, the locations of the plants observed were not flagged in the field as these plants were dispersed throughout the habitats onsite. The exact locations of these plants will be flagged and located using a Global Positioning System (GPS) closer to the time of the proposed relocation to ensure the relocation of all plants (new and existing)to the onsite preserve. Density of Tillandsia species varied throughout the upland and wetland habitats onsite. Table 1. Listed plant species observed during the April 2007 survey Species Common Name State Status Federal Status Tillandsia balbisiana Inflated wild-pine T - Tillandsia utriculata Giant wild-pine E - Tillandsia species present on the trees that will be cleared for development will be relocated to suitable pine or cypress trees within the onsite preserve area prior to construction. Relocation of the plants will be conducted by a professional with experience in arboreal plant relocations. The long-term management of the onsite preserve will ensure continued protection to these species upon relocation. 5.0 CONCLUSION All endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited plants found in Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Chapter 5B-40.0055 Regulated Plant Index were included in the survey. Specific protected wildlife species that were surveyed for include Big Cypress fox squirrel nests and day beds, red-cockaded woodpecker nest cavities, and gopher tortoise burrows. None of these protected wildlife species or evidence of these species were observed during the survey. Protected plant species observed within the habitats onsite were observed in limited amounts. Tillandsia species were only observed to occur on more mature slash pine and cypress trees. The density of protected plant species observed varied from low to moderate to high within both upland and wetland habitats. No protected plant species 4 were observed on any Brazilian pepper trees onsite. Any listed species that may be disturbed at the time of the proposed development will be relocated to suitable habitat within the onsite preserve prior to the commencement of construction of the development. C r 5 FIGURE 1 HABITAT/FLUCCS MAP M:1i erg • 7 xy �S t mi - -�. s iii man 1 .11111140.011 yr- 1 hFL#! t Map_02 13 08.dwg 9;�3f�m .,. . 44 . 14 1,.11:4471' � 11,°01,0," � �'"«�. a �a�� « �, may` '4411611k ({ ,�" �:" x ,� -**1 ql a '�' hv+}A _ l #P. .. d f Al l 'r rv. Na:R ro.„..47,*4 _ , 4rjuskitt Ili 1ii flw # Akik. ,� f S ty�`tl. a' �' .d,,. ,� y,' I� fa�Af 8+ , Iisigi M--- AI ii 1 I '` 1, {k 5 . * `w elk +�. "" ...' -trs14°4t" '* *-1‘-'1,,,,„,,, am+r�•.ie�..,^w.ww�«°,v,.+'Mi'� ._ rx .,.».. ,.,t, t, +� * m i t�.i rt • sa, t 0 44 �. , ; , , , 641 . 1 4. „, i � 7 4:r _ iv, vr,. ,u a# ix" w y:-.V`:I Q }. '"4 .,r7 4 ff r*.. may' 9 o-. "., 4 618-1 � °' „: � k =w,- ` »f ;ipa,N, 't "' c �< F ,� x ° a•a •� a" � es Oe... ,N• >�' �1 ''"1r y� it ,.?":.a,,,, ,' : " i,,a Ly } fil �„ . «- 4 * f` k ' y�� . �` . » d o „" » #, .,.... .. ,'g 1 ' Vi 1'' ,.�"�t .,e, x" g {�?. X ' , .c..1,#*.41:''‘,"1; '' 8?ti z +' ,. ,v�0 sr . ':»� ' �''' 4. 3 If �"", b, r 8F£' S. r "lqN' » e w.,^ yrs � �+' ��'�.?' ! �*.. "'� �� ' '� r"' s p" y " 1r;; $ 4 621-1 " � ryJ� ' Wiliiir 510 < ! f MDQ e�j ,' � w` At°' 7 i'r '4,S ' ,..f' 1' .''''4'.111110 10.4 f -of ' il fff *.P.,4. jy: -4. ' '. ' *, tio ** .,,' :. ra :4*.2: .1.,,, '.1 •' ri scn , A $ r. ! s � b- .* ' 40 y, .1,s 411/422 . "�. p 422y t-•4 4- 41.— , SiX t4.0;* '. ,.,ii,..440, � r +y It 140. ,A ii:p4,,. ... .6:,L A * 1'• �� ., �` ' µms '' � �r N.- �v r � a. � �*':. f. a ` +�` +t ..e, r. e+, � '+�, 4 1.•3 4, —evil/4,N 'y' t«."4a [ a a d a" i N ,$ " t ^K +s r, 4 ' ' •• _,y i �. . -gip '� Y ' , �"?�.�-.� '�' � eR.,�a'� � '�, ,. � �"' ��- ,Ci�"c ie,..., , fix,. i, �� " p�E� p ar° V �P° " , to a• • • • "+ .r„' s �>-e', �; ` " w!& i t ° 'L :. �.1i'�^ „, r'-., f" r .d li s „ . 4, ' {1. • i: i :� "•' ayy.. xf� . •; +Ty d" 1 k, 'M(. � "�M �1' T"� y'3„ y� 41c to hatit e - P' �` t ..rt #y a c ' ' li!`�.. 'Ff,` �. .lt } - �.. A r , �qµ .44. r ! ,•, ..5+ at t' • w a.. x >$ a"d34°. .�e -w v�.» +5 t h'14:;* 1,/4 ' -4, ' • " - **�* , LEGEND _{ . G ' -X",ift As sem+2�`. �' x ", 1 . +.° ' t ,- 7°.. _ 0. * ; " Code: Description: Acreage: ` �} ,a: : irje,'--, ,A ger° f„,,,, , t . ' 4e-P Upland: �9_ i o W, ' "1,7, -,, '� � ;� , �' 411/422 Pine Flatwood/Brazilian Pepper 2.41 ac. `, " + ' : Ay • 422 Brazilian Pepper 3.55 ac. " '„ je «` � 810 Road 0.23 ac. :_. ,� �`, �,, �* a� Total Upland Acreage: 6 19 ac � � , , ` $ � � � � e � �� .^' }}�� ' � ,fie,+ g Wetland: r �, ; " �- 1 ,'` iliK�� 422-FI Hydric Brazilian Pepper 0.63 ac. s � • ' ° 1 - 510 Ditch a lig� �� , �� < , � � 1.03 ac. � �2: �� "�" �, . DisturbedWillowMarsh0.24ac. " t.°- =" ; 621 1Disturbed CypressSwamp0.98ac. ...•°" .Iv 41 0.� � 641FreshwaterMarsh 0.26 ac. `w t,*0.4.0, *0 t'i,-- " ,x � ��' TotalWetlandAcreage: 3.14ac. � , , / • io N 1 l " , ,. -" Total Project Acreage: 9.33 ac. � � t• c � i FLUCCS Lines . � � $`"��' . 1 r.r�r..rr..n Surveyed Wetland Lines .' :„4,:::,,,,_ .4 e:, , .--*.' ''' yt ,r °th `.. °% ". ,;' v a y .• !"::. ' a,3. �' ...wr "!..`�' **.„-,,..„4..., �}+a a .. +:.. DATE:02-13-08 FILE: FLUCCS_Map_02 13 08.dwg FLUCCS MAP ,--- •\ earth BaIanCe PROJECT NO: 03416.3 IMMOKALEE ROAD/ 2579 North Toledo Blade Blvd. AERIAL: 2006 TC 6 in st left(Collier) SCHOOL DRIVE PARCEL North Port , FL 34289 p Tel 941 426-7878 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Fox �(941�) 426-8778 SCALE: 1"= 100' .. , • C/ T1 s mr9- now i_ • • ' ` F; "� cn v T W v L/1 ��— 7. Z o o '7 w so VU Q 0 8 0 FJ, O 7 T g O <_ O C N 0 0 0 m .z. f' COL:, --- ' _ N 4 n r C-' rrl . 11:., ..•,_, ,,,,::-::,'' '.- .c. - -4,...--_____x C' 700 � ndye. , Cia 3 x to -,-i.. Zoe { X07'' t 4 rr � ,� / -: i '''''.'' ' - P1 a y �ryf { {4 • 'Ili' ) � { c ,s i �'„".`f`L �.i '� .Y 8x ( t '. 1, ',.I,, i 7 , qpf '$Rag e.3 tt � j .. T.. # •"b'- ' 9,41104S) � ". „*T€ • t i k 4 *s- {� ,,..- • 171 IV . -csF� '0£ •'0- -pili= Y a.y�'�•• • • �.. o '•, ani • `!.moi •IP 614; ' •; it-� o ,, !! `� -10? z c,icai rt-1 � •mss °� Q R r, T air° GC -t ilk • ;• 4.......;ill - `" ''. �f •- itio' i:-'0,),,,°,3(,,D,, p OD o ID 03 A'-•-• � Tr • < •' ® �.- � +� `� ` av 111 ^- • y�r.< ro 4, a•7.•et,t7, ..^....,..,€. •,. '-';.1,41eMP., � 1 4 gEog ngle IitA WIhs Ile Cig UN a1 13 1 111El g 02- Fill pil§ XI g ilt IP 24 <All Ili ha t . ,11112511 M.10.0I.00N Ta..? M14E - - —_ Altl3dltld 113805 LL NSi11M 133!3011001 L 11111 e NOW 30VNIVtla 01111303 L 9 a �i L 3 1 1 92 Ig 1 1 ' I1 Q shi §g � I gtE .ii OW Igg1 112 i l - -f gg IVO ��NN RI .Elf ASO ilg it E ml 71 gR 8 �£ I � > toFA gg R .9 II Pig no II DR1 6, c d 0I ii P i iNi: 4 al, a li ( i lv i 1 N 11 O --°00�- -- -- .. 9)If.S:11111 J % 4? I % - - T.- aa-.F>E waey of .....— i82 m 4. PI. 91 % I .11�a11 3,f,11i5 .0.1511 3.11,32.003 I •a AM"3.f11La0S r-1; `40 1 09 QVOH ALN1100 £ 15 yo it f.04 Egt 101 r6 4 PHA9.m !IM NNy m0> u 2 rn- mm ACm00 n="2Dam rnD m-11omY .O Om OSn 1n 11'•'2 VA yZ En ti 0 0 E)- X6>n > my OZ?-j-.1 mA�La rNN Z. MG E10> O > O 'y_y r, r G KAor,LA y0y z0 CE y 54. . . A2 A> A y �Oz bx IIN m N C s v N lea C~AO 00 �TAn TJQ mat g wpp zEEgol O 1p .2 �K LI. U gR Ai'+a" 0 a R. o> _ A n =m y5j N N> E7,92 to y V- i f i $'8 ;14 i w o x 5 rzAi o O X Oti-z1b A CO Nm a A 5L K �+ NPI Oy 00 +0i SN Oy n N • K z e 0 G n ->I Oxm r6 0U C/1Z 0 rD O 11- 1 O6 1njD Z . , 0< N A A rl 0 W -18 rl R ;g ii D>nx,sp, pp2 O 00 Z x m 0 �r�-p-..OS 8� y 0O '1> O O-,-,.acfN.,XID Ouio �i-'n J EO _ > AP ER 1nm m 0 C m A U A i n c z 1�, o a T"> 6y1�.9'�0�..1R :RA A F. Om rmZ ir 11 <1= z'— J A 6 7.1z go COASTAL CIVIL ENGINEERING CLIENT: wE 011."112. No,K CORM,wo rcn4 E.S¢Nrztl a>:,1E N VI DATE: SCALE: x SURVEY & MAPPING IMMOKALEE LLC 05/29/07 1" = 60.II=7.S X=4 INlEN2 a1.r Eai''"rill`""S .1E 62Ni ENGINEERING COASTAL ENGINEERING DRAWN: F.B. wl"n u an:•rla.Noa^"A,a"nCOASTALcn'".n1c "' zo 'a REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL TITLE: M.M.W. H596 ,,,,' ;,!C i cu w n:mrslnvwas POLL:v1,1uiT LOMITA is¢EI P — CONSULTANTS PLANNING SERVICES BOUNDARY SURVEY CHECKED: R.J.E.PG. 17 INC, BOUNDARY THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE "',A CECT GROUP COMPANY SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, SEC. 9TWP. 47S RNG. 29E 2 — Serving Florida Since 1977 PHONE: (239)643-2324 TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ACAD NO. 04.020 1 5/29/07 MOM REVISED WETLAND UNE AND S0. FT. FAX: (239)643-1143 9 neerl g.com LESS RIGHT OF WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 846 0 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www.coFAX: n 9)64n eom NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 E—Mail: ongcollierOcecifi.eom REF. NO. 040206ND NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION --4 ''k(')k EN Z H m v m 6 'yOz nmm (318ISSOd !I S1N3W3211003N Hume 133N E 0.1 NOELLY1303EA infirm) _ =—E—T - �—r- —E a ..1 IFisE F - 't - -r- t t t — F — E E I �_E --t- 4 +.--.1 --4.-- ±.----E __i_ _- 6_L tE_4 EEE 4 4 4E 4E EE 4E 4 EEE 4 ; E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EFEEE E E E 1NE EE <-711,4 \------7 1 1 ofOf 4 E f -I t- -1 / ^ n 7 E 4 4 4 mr E E E E` N. CA \ ; t Z m) - E E f 1411440 4 I . Z I /. E E 4 IEl E E E • \- �) 6 f fd - E ' E ` ` J E E fm II ,- Z E E E E E I � o c 3. \\\) Ay mc,ZmFIE 6 fC O :E E A_ ME 4 E 4 R�Z *S K • MJ J III I \ E E E N = E I '^ mz N g g y nm E E 2 F 4 t P �m m c aco 0 4 E E tiq E f F z o \m \ P f / t0 E 4 - N 23 A �' / I I I 1 E I E �� F E ' ` CP I a� PI E E SCA E R �xm \ I ) C C ) ( z F E rt' E E E E Q' E E 4 / I \\\V I\\\\ F E E E ♦ E 33 m 1 ( r*1z_ I 1 I I I F 4- 4 DC7 E E E 4 Z m E E f -< N E 111140 JF E�N � I I J ji),1"� J I II J J� -clz~ o VIII I rI c s11 I . ,J IIJ 1 1 I .1 n1 - - - _ .. � m ZI '4Z CD c il in XIm /HSYUI W --I1 SI _ 0 _ ..- --HUMS ,0, 3dA1 ,St _ _ L (316ISSOd 41 S1.143/4321100321nuns 133E4 01 NOIIY13O3A 1YNl1YN) �m >z J/ i \ —4 -, I 1 — 917$- &V0el AIN f03- - - - - - - - r O L'61 H p IC01 O r O< m C ; q r= CO 0 =m o� sip \ E E mm� D CO0 00 * � >aDv » � � m�v � � to(J) � 0N c 0 V2 L; 'n `ol' -0> o O o O frail Ns- O D Z fr7 i,4=1 O C O sr"i F * r*1w 117 M oSm < C z< C o .Z7 Mmin DN wm -073 z my_ \ E E D H. V) ?; Z zloy vZ1 �o .Z-1 m3 o.. �� H- ora — o0 \ E c IA -f y �1 :(7 z -"to OO moo -I K I - — 1'1 DD m - Z0 0C) 0...) >; > CFg N N CO CO O c NVQ C > ND mo m D rn co vm m ajo N i..-.-� R' C r v m o ozm o N _. r- m II m m x \\N w>>. C z m (.01 O rni I"F fT1 H- > .73 - C7 Z C c n Z .-. son 73 O Z Z m • m moc 0 Z Z m N=Z < x 1I DOD m<XI-I '1 :f:� Cm U) I- O D m D zH' � o„iCO Z O 0 C7 --I n mDo A0C o `2 `2 C o $AXl • O r v Z O�V '� _ = r _'^ m _' m *,m�N r D D -1 G�_ (.11 co — O x =' m r z Z I 3.c H- m .-. z2,Q8, v_ v_ D a m-r ice; m C) (7 K tic 17)XD o O 0 .- -- -< m n -i _-I I- 12 c m Z m Cf= Z7 rri pa ti o U) > O 74 c v P1 O IA `i-I Z m m n Z I o m DD ora En = o -i o 0)m m 0 D el m x ' COASTAL ENGINEERING COASTAL IMMOKALEE, LLC DRAWN: SSV S - CLIENT: THIS DOCUMENT,AND TIE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HERON,AS m CONSIILTANIS.INC. , Survey & Mapping AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE,IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE aDRIDA ENGINEERING �Engineering CHECKED: MTP AND CLIENT FOR*NCH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE O AND IMPROPER Z Coasts En ineerin REUANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND o AIRNORQATgN N0.2454 ! Real Estate Services TITLE: PROD. NO. 04.130 ,• F.B. ADAPTATION BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC.(CEO)OR ITS CONSULTANTS �Pc. SUBSIDIARIES SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CECT OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES. ' I I INC. CONCEPT PLAN REF. NO. 04.130 w A CEO GROUP COMPANY SCALE: AS SHOWN' Serving FloridaSince 1977 Phone: (239 643-2324 SEC. TWP. RNG. - UIDIAFI L Vali g ,___ S.._..2..._ ..._ D\IC-1 C /�e\ or9nur I Item VI C ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF May 7, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Conditional Use No. CU-2006-AR-10805 Petition Name: Hogan Island Quarry CU Applicant/Developer: Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., Barron Collier Companies Engineering Consultant: RWA, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (original document: WilsonMiller, Inc.) II. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located 3/4 of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) / Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida.. (See location map Exhibit I in EIS) III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Zoning Description North: A-RLSA/HSA row crops East: A-RLSA/ Portions designated WRA & HSA Water retention areas/row crops South: A-RLSA/ Portions designated WRA Water retention areas/row crops West: A-RLSA row crops IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioners are requesting conditional use of an "earth-mining" operation and related processing of materials in a Rural Agricultural (A) — Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District as specified pursuant to Section 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) on approximately 967.65± acres for a project to be known as the Hogan Island Quarry. The Conditional Use seeks approval of a limestone and sand quarry (mine) on 967 acres to allow the following: • 600 to 700 acre maximum excavation area; • Aggregate processing plant • System of internal roadways • 12.77-acre on-site preserve • 0-acres of wetland Page 1 of 13 Mining activities will involve excavating overburden and underlying limestone deposits through the creation of various cell pits. Two or three cell pits may be built at a time. As new cells are built, old cells are excavated to remove remaining underlying limestone. Blasting will likely be necessary as part of the mining operation, which would occur 6 to 8 feet below ground, but would only be conducted during day light hours. Actual mining activities, however, would be implemented twenty-four hours a day. The aggregate processing plant, consisting of crushers and conveyors, would involve the processing of excavated materials. Stock piles of raw and processed product (limestone aggregate, sand) would be stored here. The plant would operate 12 to 16 hours per day. The office/asphalt plant would contain a small office building, maintenance shop/storage facility(s), parking areas, above ground fuel and oil storage tanks, as well as the asphalt batch plant. A system of haul roads would be built within the mining area around and throughout the various cell pits. These roads would lead to the processing plant near stock piles of excavated materials on-site. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) ANALYSIS: Future Land Use Element: The subject property has two land use designations: Agricultural/Mixed Use District and Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) according to the Future land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). According to the Agricultural/Mixed Use District of the FLUE, "[E]arthmining, oil extraction and related processing" are permissible activities within these land use designations. The "Rural Land Stewardship Area" (RLSA) of the FLUE also specifies under Policy 3.7 that, "General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on Habitat Sending Area lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less." Because the property is located in that which is referred to as "Open Area" in the RLSA and has a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of less than 1.2, the proposed mining operation would be an authorized use under the FLUE. Policy 3.7 of the RLSA of the FLUE also states the following: In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of Conditional Uses, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats, and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Comprehensive Planning defers to the Environmental Services Department for consistency review of the Petitioner's response under this RLSA Policy. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). B. Conservation & Coastal Management Element Page 2 of 13 Policy 1.3.2: The RLSA District contains policies to direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs in order to protect wetlands, upland habitats, and listed species within the RLSA. The project lands are located entirely within the RLSA overlay. All the proposed development activities will occur in areas designated as "open lands". The excavation and eventual reclamation activities associated with the mine are considered compatible uses within this designation. A portion of an HSA overlay extends into the property, occupying approximately 2.7 acres in the eastern portion of the site. This HSA will be preserved within the project's on-site preserve area and protected by a permanent conservation easement. The project's off-site mitigation for on-site wetland impacts includes preservation and restoration off-site in areas primarily classified as HSA. The applicant asserts that the operational guidelines, preservation areas, and habitat and species management plans provided will minimize off-site impacts and will not negatively impact any areas identified as Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), or Water Retention Area (WRA) overlays. Objective 2.2: States that "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 because the only substantial pollution danger from silt and erosion will be retained on-site by berming. The fill piles will be screened and otherwise protected for erosion control, and the site will be protected from fluid spills from fill trucks and construction vehicles by berming and screening Policy 2.2.3: The applicant will attempt to use appropriate biological and mechanical control methods to eradicate and suppress the spread of aquatic weeds in the project's lakes. It is likely chemical spraying will still be necessary to control aquatic weeds in some instances. Any such spraying will be conducted by or under the direct supervision of a duly licensed pesticide applicator in accordance with EPA guidelines and the chemical manufacturer's labeling instructions. GOAL 3: The applicant states that due to the proposed method of excavation (wet mining), groundwater resources will not be affected by this project. According to the applicant the project site is not located in an area where quarry excavation activities might pose the threat of potential saltwater intrusion. Most of the property is currently used to produce small vegetable crops and as such requires irrigation. The supplemental irrigation is supplied by groundwater resources via wells. The applicant states that the proposed project will require less water use than that demanded by the existing crop fields. GOAL 4:According to the applicant, the proposed project will have no net negative effect on the County's fresh water resources. Objective 5.1: The project involves the extraction and use of mineral resources. All project activities and operations will comply with applicable industry and government standards/requirements pertaining to health, safety, and environmental protection. Policy 5.1.3 --Mineral extraction operations shall comply with standards and criteria as provided in the County's Excavation and Blasting Ordinances. Page 3 of 13 The proposed mining operations will comply with applicable standards and criteria set forth in the cited ordinances. The applicant will apply for and obtain the necessary County permits, including an excavation permit, required by these ordinances. Objective 5.2: The proposed quarry will be reclaimed in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 62C-36, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires a mine reclamation plan to be submitted to FDEP for their review and approval prior to the initiation of mining activities. FDEP will review the proposed reclamation plan concurrently with their review of the project's Environmental Resource Permit application. Mine reclamation will be conducted in accordance with specific requirements FDEP places on the reclamation plan. Policy 6.1.3: The proposed project preserves existing native vegetation on the property in accordance with the minimum standards specified in Policy 5.5.2.a.iii of the RLSA Overlay portion of the FLUE. This policy requires at least 40% of the existing native vegetation to be retained. The proposed on-site preserve will protect and preserve 44% (11.90 acres) of the existing native vegetation areas currently present on the property. An additional 0.87 acres within this preserve currently does not meet the definition of native vegetation. Policy 6.1.4: Prohibited exotic vegetation removal will be required from the entire project boundary in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.08. Policy 6.1.7 (4): The project's stormwater management system has been designed to comply with applicable RLSA policies. Following completion of a particular quarry pit lake, shorelines will be stabilized in accordance with the applicable design specifications set forth in the reclamation requirements specified in Chapter 62C-36, FAC. Specifics of the treatment of pit lake shorelines will be determined during the Environmental Resource Permit application process since the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will review the mine plan/reclamation plan concurrently with the project's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application. Policy 6.1.8: The Environmental Impact Statement document has been provided for the proposed project. Policy 6.2.8:Although the proposed project will impact wetlands on the property, these impacts will be mitigated off-site consistent with GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) D RLSA Policy 5.6 3 f. Policy 6.2.1: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will be the agency responsible for processing the project's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application and will verify the wetland lines delineated by the environmental consultant during the ERP review process. Objective 7.1:All the proposed development activities will occur in areas that are designated as "open lands" in the RLSA Overlay. The only HSA with the project boundary will be preserved on-site and HSAs in the OM Areas will be preserved and restored. No evidence of listed animal species residing or nesting on the property other than alligators has been found. However, the site is classified as both Primary Zone and Secondary Zone panther habitat conservation area. Policy 7.1.3: The EIS includes a draft listed species management plan to be finalized prior to approval of the excavation permit for this site. This plan is intended to provide protection during Page 4 of 13 project construction and mining activities (see Appendix C of the EIS document). This plan addresses the listed species (wading birds, alligators, sandhill cranes) documented on the project site as well as some additional listed wading birds that may utilize the property for nesting, and/or foraging. In addition, the plan also addresses those listed species that are known to inhabit areas nearby or adjacent to the property (black bear, crested caracara, and burrowing owls) Mitigation for impacts and the management plan for Florida panther will be required as part of the excavation permit review. Policy 7.1.4: Development of the proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) concerning state listed species will occur during the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) permitting process while coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning federal listed species will occur during the USACE permitting process. Correspondence between staff and FFWCC is included in the EIS as Exhibit 8. The applicant will comply with the specific listed species protection and habitat management required by the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and USAGE permits. GOAL 11: According to The State Historic Preservation Officer there are no archaeological or historical sites or artifacts on the project site. If, during the course of site development and mining activities, an archaeological or historical artifact, or other indicator is discovered, development/mining activities at that specific site shall be immediately stopped and the appropriate agency notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT D. RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Policy 5.5.1: A survey for listed plant and animal species as well as for other wildlife species was conducted and is discussed in Appendix B of the EIS document. According to the listed species survey, the only listed species observed were wading birds including little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and wood stork, alligators, and Florida sandhill cranes. A specific-purpose survey for crested caracaras and their nests was later performed and the only listed species observed on the property during this survey were wood storks, sandhill cranes, and white ibis. Policy 5.5.2: As required, management plans for the listed species observed during wildlife survey are provided in Appendix C of the EIS. The management plans also contains information related to black bears, crested caracaras, and burrowing owls. An eastern indigo snake management plan has also been provided. Policy 5.5.2.a.iii:A minimum of 40% of native vegetation in open lands must be preserved. This project meets that requirement with the proposed on-site preserve encompassing 11.90 acres or 44% of the total acreage of native vegetation on-site. Policy 5.5.2.g: The proposed project is located on lands classified as both Primary Zone and Secondary Zone panther habitat conservation areas. According to the applicant it is likely US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will require a Section 7 consultation for the project during the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting process; primarily to address mitigation of the project's impacts to Primary and Secondary Zone lands. Any necessary panther Page 5 of 13 410. • management or mitigation will be determined during the consultation process. Acceptance of required mitigation for panther impacts will be confirmed and management plans included in construction drawings prior to issuance of the excavation permit. Policy 5.6: The proposed project will impact a total of 10.95 acres of isolated wetlands on the property. None of the affected wetlands are located in an FSA, HSA, or WRA and the project is not located within the ACSC. Policy 5.6.3.b: A Uniform Wetland Assessment Method (UMAM) scores for the wetlands to be impacted and for the wetlands in the off-site mitigation areas is included in the EIS. This assessment has not yet been accepted by FDEP. The UMAM will be presented to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reviewers as part of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) permitting and any modifications to these score will be presented to the County as part of the project permitting, prior to issuance of the excavation permit. Policy 5.6.3.e: There will be no wetlands preserved on the property. The proposed project will provide buffers between the on-site limits of development features and off-site wetlands. These buffers or setbacks are at least 50 feet wide (distance from limits of construction/development to wetland limits). Policy 5.6.3.f:An off-site mitigation program is required to compensate for the project's wetland impacts. The mitigation program will take place in the areas designated as off-site mitigation areas OM-1 and OM-2 that total 32.47 acres, 26.23 acres of which are existing wetlands. Wetland restoration and creation activities as well as upland exotic removal activities in the OM Areas will expand the extent of existing wetlands to 27.77 acres and are designed improve the wetland functions. VI. MAJOR ISSUES A. Stormwater Management As with all ongoing excavations, stormwater management in the traditional sense is not an issue with this project. The excavation sits within six contiguous Sections of Agriculturally zoned land and will encompass approximately 967.65 acres. Much of the site is already under Surface Water Management Permit1l-00113-S as Hogan Island Farms. The permit will have to be modified for the excavation. Unless they are dewatering offsite, mining operations are not a source of water quantity concern. They generally dewater into other existing excavations within their own site, if at all. Mines of this size that sort aggregates must be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The only water quality concerns will be from construction vehicle fluid leaks, dust, and sediment transport; which are standard concerns for all construction projects and all of which will be controlled at the site. r The petitioner states that the depths of the excavations will be in the range of 35 to 45 ft. Page 6 of 13 • The site sits in an area identified in the Collier County Drainage Atlas as the Fakahatchee Strand Basin or the Corkscrew Slough Basin, although the topography indicates that the western portion of the site probably drained historically to the west toward the Cocohatchee River basin, so the site seems to straddle the basin boundaries. B. Environmental 1. Site Description Site visits by County staff have confirmed that the Hogan Island Quarry property mainly consists of actively managed row crop fields and to a lesser degree cattle pastures. The project proposes to develop a limestone and sand quarry along with related facilities on the 968-acre. The area to be mined is shown on Exhibit 6, of the EIS document, as the "maximum excavation area" (approximately 740 acres). Mining will involve excavating overburden and the underlying limestone deposits using typical equipment such as draglines, drill rigs, excavators, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. The total depth of excavation will generally range from 35 to 45 feet below the existing grade. A system of haul roads will be built within the mining area around and among the various cells (pits), from crushed limestone obtained on-site. These roads will extend to the processing facilities proposed at the southern end of the property where the excavated materials will be stockpiled and processed on-site. There will typically be two cells being excavated simultaneously and applicant proposes that the actual excavation process may be conducted 24 C. hours per day. Modifications to this work schedule may result from discussions with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and FWS. Shorter hours of operation may be necessary along the eastern boundary to minimize potential impacts to large ranging mammals such as panthers and black bears. This will be finalized pending further discussions with agency personnel as part of the state and federal permitting for this project. Final operating hour limitations will be made part of the County's excavation permit approval. The quarry (mine) pit cells will be excavated "in the wet" rather than dewatering an entire individual pit. Some blasting will occur roughly 3 times per week initially to open a given cell and may be reduced. The blasting would be conducted 6 to 8 feet below ground and only in daylight hours (about 10 AM to 3 PM, possibly later if there are storm delays), and will comply with the County's blasting ordinance (i.e. Chapter 55 of the County Code). The far south end of the property will contain various facilities and a tailings pond. An aggregate processing plant (crushers, conveyors, etc.) will be built in the area as "product stockpile location". This portion of development will require a Site Development Plan with review and approval by all relevant staff. This area will encompass the plant for processing the excavated materials and stockpiles of the raw and processed product (limestone aggregate, sand). The aggregate processing plant will operate roughly 12 to 16 hours per day. The "office/asphalt plant location" area will contain a small office building, small maintenance shop/storage facilities, parking areas, aboveground fuel and oil storage tanks with proper containments, and an asphalt batch plant. The asphalt batch plant will obtain its necessary aggregate materials directly from the on-site aggregate processing plant. A stormwater containment berm will be constructed around the outer perimeter of "developed" portions of the project. The crest of this earthen berm, stabilized with grass, will be built to an elevation such that the berm will contain all storm events up to and including the 25-year event. Page 7 of 13 Thus, all runoff from the mining area and the southern facilities area will be contained on-site and will either percolate through the soil or flow to the quarry pit lakes or tailings pond. Stormwater will discharge offsite via outfall control structures in the quarry pit lakes only after the lake waters (stormwater) have received appropriate treatment and attenuation (i.e. treatment and attenuation that satisfies water quality and water quantity design standards specified in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of SFWMD's Basis of Review). Mining activities will progress over time with new cells started as each preceding one is completed. It is presently estimated that there will ultimately be one large lake created at the completion of mining and that this lake may be transected by one or two causeways. The lake will occupy a total of about 600 to 700 acres; however these are preliminary estimates only. Final completion of mining activities is estimated to occur within 8 to 10 years after project construction is initiated. 2. Wetlands Within the property there are 5 wetland areas totaling 10.95 acres. These on-site wetlands are identified as wetlands W-1 through W-5 in the EIS document. All of the wetland areas are proposed to be impacted by the project and are depicted on Exhibits 2 and 3 of the EIS document. Two off-site mitigation areas, shown as OM-1 and OM-2 in Exhibit 6 of the EIS document, will be preserved and protected as part of the mitigation requirement contained in the FLUE - D RLSA Policy 5.6 3 f. Wetland enhancement, restoration, and creation activities coupled with enhancement of existing uplands will take place in the off-site mitigation areas. The two proposed mitigation areas total 32.47 acres and will contain a total of approximately 27.77 of wetlands following completion of mitigation efforts. 3. Preservation Requirements The project includes establishment of a single on-site preserve adjacent to the eastern property boundary. The proposed preserve area is 12.77 acres and it is shown in Exhibits 6, 7, and 9 of the EIS document. There is a total of 27.33 acres in the project boundary that meet the definition of native vegetation. These areas, occupying less than 3% of the total site, are illustrated in Exhibits 3 and 7 of the EIS document. Native vegetation preservation requirements applicable to the property are addressed in Policy 6.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP) and in Policy 5.5.2.a.iii of Section D of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. These requirements are echoed in Section 4.08.05.J.2 of the County's Land Development Code (LDC), which indicates that if listed species are observed on the project site then a minimum of 40% of the native vegetation on site must be retained. The proposed on-site Preserve will protect a total of 11.90 acres of the existing vegetation present on the property and 0.87 acres will be restored within the preserve boundary bringing the onsite preserve acreage to 12.77 acres. The on-site Preserve will be protected by requiring a conservation easement pursuant to LDC 3.05.07.H.1.d (i.e. in a conservation easement dedicated to the County) prior to excavation Page 8 of 13 permit approval. Category 1 invasive exotic vegetation identified in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's (EPPC) "List of Invasive Species" will be eradicated and controlled throughout the Preserve, in accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.g.ii. Following completion of the initial exotic eradication efforts, native upland trees, shrubs, and ground cover species will be planted as necessary within the Preserve areas that do not presently constitute native vegetation habitats to restore these areas, totaling 0.87 acres. The replanting plan will be reviewed and approved by County staff as part of the excavation permit approval and issuance. The two off-site mitigation areas (OM-1 and OM-2), which encompass an area of 32.47 acres, will provide the required mitigation for the proposed impacts to State jurisdictional wetlands. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) accepted Uniform Wetland Assessment Method (UMAM) scores shall be provided prior to the Excavation Permit issuance. A portion of HSA overlay extends onto the property and encompasses approximately 2.70 acres. It is located near the eastern property boundary and can be seen in Exhibits 10 and 11 of the EIS document. The proposed on-site Preserve protects this entire HSA zone, which is situated in the northeast portion of the future Preserve. 4. Listed Species The listed species survey and its results are discussed in Section 3 of Appendix B of the EIS document and Exhibit 14 of the EIS shows the approximate locations of listed animal species observation on and near the project boundary during the course of the referenced survey. The listed species observed on—site included American alligator, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, wood stork, and Florida sandhill crane. No listed plant species were found on the project lands. Collier County Environmental Services review staff have been on the project site twice and during site visits listed species were observed including Florida sandhill crane; wood stork; American alligator and little blue heron. The GMP does not require specific buffers to FSA or HSA areas. Section 4.08.05 J 3 a i and ii of the Collier County Land Development code (LDC) requires that open space and vegetative buffers be established between the wildlife habitat areas and the areas dominated by human activities. In April of 2007, a meeting between Collier County Environmental Services Review staff, a Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) biologist and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) biologists was held at the request of the FWC staff. The topic of the meeting was to ensure adequate protection and compliance with both State and GMP requirements for listed species, especially large mammal, protection. A major area of concern was potential impacts to Corkscrew swamp to the north and northeast of the project site. To adequately protect the large mammals ranging in this area, buffers of 300 feet along northeast portion close to Corkscrew and reduced to100 ft. elsewhere were recommended by all agency biologists in attendance. County staff incorporated these buffers and other comments as technical assistance from FWC and RPC. Since that time, FWC staff has issued a letter stating that consultation is ongoing and has not been finalized. Staff has requested the applicant propose a minimum buffer at this time, however, none has been proposed. No fencing, walls or other obstructions are proposed as required in the LDC section 4.08.05 J 3 ii. County staff will require management plans, permits and agency acceptance for any required mitigation to be provided prior to approval of the excavation permit. Page 9 of 13 4011. Primary Zone and Secondary Zone panther habitat conservation overlays encompass the property as discussed in Appendix B of the EIS document and illustrated in Exhibit 13 of the EIS. The project activities will impact panther habitat conservation zones. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may require mitigation for the proposed impacts. A Section 404 permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct the mitigation activities proposed in the project's off-site mitigation areas. Applying for this permit will most likely include engaging in the Section 7 consultation process with the USFWS. The necessary mitigation for the project's impacts to panther habitats and the specifics of the mitigation will be determined as part of the consultation with USFWS. Proof of consultation and acceptance of proposed mitigation by the USFWS must be provided to County staff prior to excavation permit approval. C (1100 Page 10 of 13 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Stormwater Management: None Environmental: The following items will be required prior to Excavation permit or Site Development Plan approval: 1) Prior to issuance of excavation permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Policy 5.6. 3. f. If agency permits have not provided wetland mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies prior to approval. 2) At next development order, the wetland line shall be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and delineated on the site plan. 3) Restoration planting plan and conservation easement approval for on-site and off-site preserves will be required prior to approval of the excavation permit or development order prior. Recording of the conservation easement will be required within 90 days of first development order approval. 4) To be consistent with Section 4.08.05 J 3 a i and ii of the Collier County Land Development code requiring that open space and vegetative buffers be established between the wildlife habitat areas and the areas dominated by human activities, the applicant shall obtain, and make the excavation permit construction drawings consistent with, written Technical Assistance from US Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission prior to issuance of this permit. yI Page 11 of 13 3 l .end UDAR 1VIrl:',,, - ELEVATION X22.6-23 t'r_,..` ' 22.1-22.5C 21.6-22 21.1-21.5 20.6-21 ' 20.1-20.5 ` NMI 19.6-20 X19.1-19.5 111111 18.6-19 MI18.1-18.5, .-- IN-10-18 'ALL GRADES NAVD , Icoo z000 ..00er..1 v.�•• „. -2*,* .,., — a.*, ,_ ,_: ': .. •-.,-17:- :-,--4.:!,..,- - ' • a'it1. "_ ki 4L§- - _ t } L. h A/-y .!'"'V'''' r — p —_`v IIIMIMIMI * '.• 4 / 9ra. , t a� t y 'c% ,',:i:,,i.! . I i C 01 r ti tr..” �n � ` -,.'t.;,---, ` , 1 a r 4; ,,x+ t 3 i 1 a �� . . , 40 -, A, !2 2I�. ; dt iii 3._ • a_ ` 0 '1 . . ._:.' : `lam d s �� 9 c • � J` •1 1 FILE.F CREATED BY CDES GISICAD,MAPPING DEPARTMENT 2 "R {a +` '•'�• :ILINDSEYISTAMLIDARCREATIONSNoganislana MED DATE.41113108 -4, - ;':.e41m-w ,,, __ PREPARED BY: ►, .�� in (logos STAN CHRZANOW` I, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT -" n /- WED%./__ (1-11-0? CLAUDIA ' OTRO-ICZ DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 43Lit- owy) L-k WILLIE BROWN DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Page 12 of 13 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Auk Stormwater Management: None Enviro ental: The ollowing items will be required pr. to Excavation permit or Site Development Plan ap%royal: 1) ' 'or to issuance of excavation permit, the applicant s.= demo,state compliance with Policy 5.6.f..,-1 , _ . i' If agency permits h- -e not pre ided wetland mitigation consistent with this p• icy, Collier County w. require mi ation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agenci-s prior to approval. 2) At next develop nt order wetland li.- shall be ap oved by FDEP and delineated on the site plan. 3) Restoration pl.nting plan and onservation a ement approval for on-site and off-site preserves w. be required .rior to approv of the excavation permit or development order prior. Recording • the conservati easement will be required within 90 days of first devel' pment ord= approval. 4) A portio of the - operty northeas of WO-6 was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clean•• for which no permit can be located; in order for clearing to be conside -• -gal and re-creation :f vegetation removed not be required an after-the-fact clearing fee will be required for he clearing of approximately 15.0 ac -- • '• o approval of the excavation permit. Page 11 of 13 REVIEWED BY: AA. ,moi 41 - �., . l.i.. .ZZ-De' BARBARA S. BURGESONdllDATE MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL SER. CES REVIEW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /4/ , . _ 04.23-o 0 GV LLIAM D. LORE Z, Jr., P. DATE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR V if ri 1193 JE "IGHT DA E ASS 'ANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: -----... .,),4...-4-47/ HZ� J S PH K. SCHMITT D E O MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR 6 Page 13 of 13