Loading...
EAC Agenda 09/06/2006 "*".k, ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA September 6, 2006 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 June 14, 2006&July 5, 2006 Meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. Stormwater in preserves LDC amendment-latest version VIII. New Business A. Presentation of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report on the EAR Amendments IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ************************************************************************** Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 1, 2006 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (213-2987). 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. June 14, 2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, June 14, 2006 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Terrence Dolan James Harcourt William Hill - Absent Lee Horn Judith Hushon Iry Kraut - Absent Nick Penniman Michael Sorrell ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Director of Environmental Services Barbara Burgeson, Sr. Environmental Specialist 1 June 14, 2006 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:00 a.m. II. Roll Call A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Dr. Hushon. Carries unanimously 7-0. IV. Approval of May 3,2006 Meeting minutes Corrections: - Page#3 for Mr. Harcourt it should have been Geologist not Biologist. - Page#3 should have read"tillandsia"not"talanzia". - Page#3 should have read"fox squirrel"not"fox squire" - Mr. Sorrell would like to retract his comments on the Keewaydin subject after finding out that it is public land. Mr. Horn moved to approve the May 3,2006 minutes as amended. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carries unanimously 7-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Penniman will be out of the Country for two months. Mr. Sorrell will not be at the August meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003-AR 4988 "Summit Lakes RPUD" Section 26,Township 48,Range 26 - Presenters were sworn in by Mr. Griffin. Dwight Nadeau reviewed the project: (see Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report for details) - The project will include workforce housing. - Construction is set to begin June of 2007. - Properties have been added to the project over time. - There are two large contiguous preserve areas. 2 June 14, 2006 Mike Myers added that wood storks and panthers will have to be addressed as part of the permitting process. James Anderson, RWA demonstrated the flow pattern on a map. It was brought out that surface water management aspects that will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District as laid out in the Land Development Code is not a part of the Environmental Advisory Committee's charge, though they can ask questions. The charge does include water quality, loadings, and storm water management system relating to preserve areas. It was noted that long skinny lakes can create a stagnant situation; and if they are to be aerated it would need to be at both ends. Dr. Hushon expressed concerns on the report about plant listed species not being found on this property, while conjoining properties have reported them. Mike Myers replied that the primary focus of listed species is for wildlife. If plant listed species are located on the property he agreed to relocate them to the preserve area. The Committee expressed concerns on: a potential spring being in the area, no attempt by the developer to work with the hydrology and projects that are not complete before they are brought before the Committee. Mr. Dolan moved to approve Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2003- AR 4988 with staff recommendations and contingent upon an ERP permit from South Florida Water Management District. Second by Dr. Hushon. Mr. Dolan amended his motion to include a note that items are being approved without full project knowledge. Dr. Hushon amended the second. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Penniman opposed. B. Conditional Use CU-2005-AR-7942 Alternative Treatment Center Section 29, Township 48, Range 27 - Presenters were sworn in by Mr. Griffin. Tim Hancock,Davidson Engineering reviewed the project: (see Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report for details) - The Alternative Treatment Center is a voluntary facility. - It is a fairly encapsulated approach; therefore it will not be a high traffic area. 3 June 14, 2006 - The project will not impact the wetlands. Tim Hall, Terrell & Associates found hand ferns located on the cabbage palms on the site. Thirty-eight hand ferns were located and plotted through GPS (plant locations were demonstrated on a map) that would be impacted by the development. The owners have made a commitment to relocate the cabbage palms hosting the hand ferns within the preserve area to replace the exotic plants that have been removed. Bat houses on the site were suggested. Mike Hess, Green Time introduced the LEED program as a recognized bench mark to determine if you have an environmentally friendly building. The project is aimed to achieve the highest level of Green Certification(he demonstrated what is needed to achieve the platinum award). The Committee encouraged the public to participate in the meetings. Mr. Penniman moved to approve the staff report on petition CU-2005- AR-7942 with the amendment of relocation of the hand fern host trees. Second by Dr. Hushon. Motion carries unanimously 7-0. Terrell & Associates will let the Environmental Advisory Council know how the relocation of the cabbage palms proceeds. The meeting recessed at 10:28 a.m. reconvening at 10:44 a.m. Mr. Penniman commented that there is a common thread on projects brought before the Committee: a lack of information. VII. Old Business A. Update Members on Projects Dr. Hushon gave a letter to the staff to distribute in the information packets next month in support of Rookery Bay protection. Ms. Mason reported: - Palermo Cove was approved by the Board of County Commission 5-0. - Rock Edge was approved by the Board of County Commission 5-0. - Keewaydin will go before the Planning Commission July 20th Dr. Hushon requested to have the Committee notified when the Keewaydin project will go before the Board of County Commission. 4 June 14, 2006 VIII. New Business A. Submittal packaging requirements Ms. Mason asked that groups preparing information for the Environmental Advisory Committee not submit them in a bound system, they can not be shipped. Mr. Hughes would like sites video taped for presentation. B. Proposed LDC Amendment—2006 CYCLE 1 Sections 1.08.02, 2.01.03A.9., 2.01.03B.1.e., 2.01.03G.1.f.: Mr. Penniman moved to recommend. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carries unanimously 7-0. Sections 1.08.02, 2.04.03, 2.06.01, and 4.02.38: Gene Jordan reviewed events of the Smart Growth Committee. Discussion ensued semi pervious paved areas and on the Land Development Code being in conformance with the implementation of the Special Basin Rule. Mr. Penniman moved to recommend approval. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carries unanimously 7-0. Section 2.03.07P: Mike DeRuntz reviews the proposed amendment changes. Mr. Penniman suggested a language change on page #82, 3.c. to the word"may"; Ms. Student-Sterling suggested"be required to meet the requirements of the land code for EIS". Mr. Dolan moved to recommend approval. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carries unanimously 7-0. Section 3.05.02: Barbara Burgeson reviewed the proposed changes. Mr. Penniman moved to recommend approval. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carries unanimously 7-0. Section 3.05.07A: 5 1 June 14, 2006 Mr. Dolan moved to recommend approval. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carries unanimously 7-0. Section 3.05.07.H.1.b: Dr. Hushon suggested clarifying the equation. Mr. Lorenz reviewed the amendment changes giving a Power Point Presentation (see attachment). Mr. Dolan suggested looking at how other local governments deal with contiguous land definitions. Rich Yovanovich, Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson thanked staff on keeping them informed on regulation changes. He suggested taking a step back and addresses mitigation criteria. He thinks that this provision will not affect many of the projects and not reduce time spent with staff. He would like to have more discussion on the subject before its adoption. The staff addressed his concerns. Changing the language as proposed will aid in staff time reduction on projects. Mr. Hughes moved to have this come back at the next regularly scheduled meeting for further review upon the additional information considered today. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carries unanimously 7-0. P"..\ The meeting recessed at 12:39 p.m. reconvening at 1:25 p.m. Lee Horn did not rejoin the meeting at its reconvening. Section 3.05.07.H.1.d: Mr. Lorenz reviewed the amendment changes through a Power Point Presentation(see attachment)regarding storm water going into County Preserves the impacts, adequate water quality treatment and water quality treatment definition within the Land Development code. There is no provision within the Land Development Code for monitoring preserves receiving storm water. It was brought out by the Committee that there is no way of knowing the water quality unless water tests are run. Mr. Dolan explained how monitoring is performed on wetlands for the first five years noting that the information is there it is just not provided to the County Staff Discussion ensued on the possibility of monitoring the wetland preserves and surrounding areas where storm water is aloud, with the suggestion to publish the results. Dr. Hushon requested to have the document have consistent spelling of "storm water". Speakers- 6 June 14, 2006 Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed appreciation on the concerns for monitoring. The Conservancies concerns are to the preserves used as part of the storm water treatment plan, the water being detrimental to native vegetation, water quantity being too much for the area and remain for an unhealthy duration of time, and the quality of water going into the area. She suggested eliminating the language on".7 below and above",tie in wetland reporting and setting up a penalty for noncompliance. Mr. Lorenz addressed the investigation into UMAM scores delegation of authority to the County Staff. Dr. Hushon suggested setting the language at the 25 year storm for the threshold of a berm, with the uplands set at 3 feet and monitoring preserves receiving storm water. Mr. Hughes moved to have further adjustment to this proposal brought back in 30 days and have South Florida Water Management District brought back. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carries unanimously 6-0. Section 3.05.07.H: Dr. Hushon would like the following language change under the heading REASON: "This requirement was created prior to the current GMP and LDC when staff did not have specific criteria for selecting the preserves...it required that the developer select at least 75% of the preserves for the project when the PUD master plan was developed. Its original purpose was to reduce conflicts..." Rich Yovanovich, suggested that identifying 100%of the preserve area is an unnecessary significant expense to developers. Ms. Burgeson replied that most projects come in with 100% of preserve identification. Mr. Penniman moved to adopt the language as the staff has presented it. Second by Mr. Hughes. Motion carries 5-1 with Mr. Dolan opposed. The meeting recessed at 2:56 p.m. reconvening at 3:08 p.m. Mr. Harcourt did not rejoin the meeting at its reconvening. Section 4.06.02: Dr. Hushon moved to ask Zoning and Land Development Review in a future cycle to look at an LDC amendment that would take into account 7 June 14, 2006 the storm and hurricane worthiness of trees and make recommendations regarding selections of plantings. Second by Mr. Hughes. Motion carries unanimously 5-0. Section 5.03.06: Mr. Dolan moved to approve staff recommendations. Second by Mr. Penniman. Motion carries unanimously 5-0. Section 8.06.04: Mr. Penniman moved to approve. Second by Mr. Dolan. Motion carries unanimously 5-0. Mr. Dolan brought out that the website still shows a requirement of an annual report. Mr. Lorenz agreed to look into it. Sections 10.02.02.A.2, 10.02.02.A.4.h, and 10.02.02.A.7: Ms. Burgeson reviewed the changes including a language change of item "A.2.d.iv. A previous EIS is more than 5 years old and preserve areas have not been previously established through approval of a development plan."And item"A.2.d.v. Preserve areas are not in compliance with current Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code requirements." Mr. Penniman moved to approve with changes as submitted and amended today. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carries unanimously 5-0. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member comments None XI. Public Comments Mr. Hughes gave kudos to Mr. Griffin. Mr. Penniman notified the Committee to be alert to the Basin Rule coming in about 6 months. He would like to recommend to the Board of County Commission to partially rely on this Committee to deal with the issue of water quality. n 8 June 14, 2006 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:27 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 9 July 5, 2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, July 5, 2006 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Terrence Dolan James Harcourt William Hill Lee Horn Judith Hushon Iry Kraut Nick Penniman - Absent Michael Sorrell - Absent ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney July 5, 2006 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:04 AM. II. Roll Call A quorum was established with Nick Penniman and Michael Sorrell being absent. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Burgeson stated that Mirasol PUD extension needs to be moved from section VIII. "New Business"to section X. "Council Member Comments." Mr. Hill moved to approve the agenda with this change. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carried unanimously 7-0. (During discussion of Mirasol PUD extension, this item was moved back to the New Business section, as noted in the Minutes below.) IV. Approval of June 14,2006 Meeting minutes The June 14, 2006 Meeting minutes were not ready at the agenda mailing time; approval will take place at the August 2, 2006 meeting. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences No comments. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Ms. Burgeson reported that Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist asked her to note that the Keewaydin project is still scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on July 20th B. Continue Proposed LDC Amendment—2006 CYCLE 1 Dr. Hushon led discussion of two LDC Amendment Requests, one concerning the shapes of preserves, and the second concerning allowing treated stormwater in preserves. Section 3.05.07.H.1.b. Minimum dimensions: Dr. Hushon stated that the concept is to have a single contiguous preserve area no narrower than fifty feet, and to have it approach a SFR(Shape Factor Ratio) of 1.0, which is a circle. The goal is to have preserves set aside first for protected species and then high quality land, either upland or wetland. In big projects suitable land can always be found to set aside because there is a big area to look at for it. In a very small project it can be difficult to meet the criteria to set aside preserve land. Accordingly, should a minimum project size be added (i.e., a 2 • • July 5, 2006 project size less than some small size to be determined would have no preserve requirement), and what might make sense for the minimum size project to be? The alternative might be to postpone this discussion until the next Cycle. Ms. Burgeson stated there will be an LDC process next year that will address minimum preserve sizes and minimum size projects in relationship to the ability to have some preserves mitigated or offsite. Not enough research has been done to enable a final conclusion to be made concerning minimum sizes for offsite preserves, so it was not possible to come up with the appropriate minimum sizes for the amendment in the meeting. She suggested tabling it until the next LDC Cycle. Following general discussion among Committee members, Mr. Hill moved to take the concept of a minimum size for the SFR ratio and have it looked into more closely for small projects in the next round. Mr. Hughes seconded. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Hill moved to require the SFR of the Preserve Area to be equal to or greater than 0.7 (replacing the current 0.6 requirement) unless the Preserve Area qualifies for any of the listed exemptions. Mr. Hughes seconded. Carried unanimously 7-0. SPEAKER Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation remarked that the Committee is taking votes before asking for public comment. She suggested that public comment be taken prior to voting as these comments may influence Committee member votes. Section 3.05.07.H.1.d. Allowable uses.in preserves: Dr. Hushon stated that this LDC Amendment Request concerns the introduction of stormwater into wetland preserves. She noted that a number of changes that this Committee has recommended have been added, such as a monitoring program. Ms. Burgeson and Mr. Chrzanowski noted that the current Amendment Request language does not require that stormwater is fully treated before it is released into a wetlands preserve area, but it does call for the removal of"floaters and sinkers." Mr. Hughes asked if water quality would be sampled occasionally to determine if there is any deeper contamination. He expressed concern about the over- application of pesticides and herbicides, and downstream effects. Mr. Harcourt noted that he would favor some minimum monitoring, but he also noted that would add costs. 3 July 5, 2006 Dr. Hushon stated that another option would be to require a higher engineering standard. Discussion followed among Committee members concerning possible monitoring schedules and frequency. SPEAKER Clarence Tears - Director of Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District, stated that the District is planning to move permitting to Collier County under the Big Cypress Basin. They are in a transition phase now, moving most surface water permits and code compliance locally to avoid the need to go to Ft. Myers for these permits. He also noted that the South Florida Water Management District is recommending that UMAM scores should be handled by the County to prevent reliance on State agencies for unrelated local land use decisions. Ms. Burgeson stated that it would probably be a five-year process before County staff could take over the UMAM scoring process. She added that perhaps training of County staff could take place earlier so that they would be capable enough to do UMAM scores to get through the permitting process. Mr. Hughes opined that the South Florida Water Management District should remain involved as a review agency, as a check and balance to insure no improprieties take place. SPEAKER Bruce Lehman - Senior Ecologist with Wilson Miller stated that he was told by County staff that the reason for the proposed code was that smaller projects are trying to minimize their stormwater management, and some were coming forth with putting stormwater directly into upland preserves that are being required as part of native habitat preservation. The concern was that these areas do not normally have standing water on them and it could hurt vegetation. He suggested that the Code should be directed towards putting stormwater in the County only preserves and not dual use preserves. He indicated that he had spoken with Water Management District compliance staff who indicated that where they do monitoring they have vegetation mortality about once a year, sometimes due to too much water, but more often because not enough water is being put into the preserves. He requested that the draft be modified to apply to County only preserves and not the dual jurisdiction ERP/County preserves. Mr. Harcourt moved to make the water quality requirements for discharge to uplands in the stormwater discharge amendment at least equivalent to the Water Management District's requirements for discharge to the wetlands. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried 6-1 with Mr. Dolan opposed. 4 July 5, 2006 Mr. Dolan moved to accept the five year monitoring period language as written in the amendment with the stipulation that the EAC will re-review for possible water quality monitoring to be implemented at a future time. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 7-0. Barbara Burgeson noted that she had an additional issue to discuss regarding Preserve standards, Sec. 3.05.07, which states that all preserves have to be identified at the time of the first development order of submittal. The following change is being recommended: Preserves on an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended administratively so that they don't have to go through a full PUD amendment if it is consistent with the GNPs and LDC environmental regulations at the time of the amendment and the amendment does not exceed other thresholds that would not permit the amendments to be done administratively. Mr. Hughes moved to accept the recommendation described by Ms. Burgeson with the caveat that the EAC must be notified any time that a Preserve is amended administratively. Second by Mr. Harcourt. Carried unanimously 7-0. Barbara Burgeson commented that at the last EAC meeting the LDC amendment specific to the EAC was changed to add two alternate members to allow for the ability to maintain a quorum at meetings. Two other items need to be cleaned up in the amendment: (1)the re-codification of the LDC that took place a couple of years ago included a change to the appeals process that has been completely rewritten by an unknown party, and that language needs to be returned to the previous language, and (2) exceptions to allow an applicant to not have to come to the EAC for review if the surface water management aspect of the petition is being reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District. The EAC recommends adding the following language: "except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged in preserves as allowed in section 3.05.07." This would enable the EAC to review in those circumstances where South Florida Water Management District regulations are less restrictive than EAC regulations. Mr. Hughes moved to accept the recommendations described by Ms. Burgeson. Second by Mr. Harcourt. Carried unanimously 7-0. Break 11:10 AM Reconvened 11:23 AM VIII. New Business A. DEP letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP Dr. Hushon commented on a Department of Environmental Protection letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP concerning the benefits of mangroves. The letter was �-. in favor of County Water Management Plans. 5 July 5, 2006 B. Mirasol PUD extension Dr. Hushon reported on the Mirasol project, a golf course community proposed to be built in wetlands in northern Collier County. She reviewed a memorandum that she drafted to the Collier County Board of Commissioners from the EAC stating the following: "The Mirasol project was initially approved prior to the appointment of the EAC, and thus has never been reviewed by this organization. It has been reported that after the project failed to receive a permit approval from the USACE, the developers have redesigned the project without the canal and with a series of internal lakes plus 941 acres of offsite mitigation credits. Because of the many environmental issues involved, the hydrological complexity of this project and the implications for other nearby developments (Terrafina, Parklands and Olde Cypress) we are requesting to review this project before it is evaluated by the CCBC. We would prefer that it come before you along with our recommendations rather than without this in depth environmental review by your panel of advisors. If you want us to review this project,please request the County staff to put it on our August or September agenda. " Mr. Hughes noted that this PUD came before the old EAB in 2000, and he agrees with Dr. Hushon's proposed memo. Ms. Student-Stirling noted that if this is a PUD extension request, additional requirements cannot be put on the developer. In reviewing a PUD extension request the County Commissioners would determine whether or not to extend it for a period of time or to require a PUD amendment, which enables additional requirements to be put on the developer. Ms. Burgeson stated that the PUD has expired or sunsetted, so the developer has to request a PUD extension, and she understands that the Board could place additional requirements on the developer. Dr. Hushon stated that the intention of her memo was to enable the EAC to recommend to the County Commissioners whether to extend or make an amendment. SPEAKER Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation stated that she is here to support the request not to extend the PUD. She said that there are significant environmental issues that need to be reviewed, addressed and explored by the EAC. She noted that the Growth Management Plan has changed significantly 6 July 5, 2006 since the original filing, and she went through the history of the parcel which has gone through a number of changes since it was first proposed. Ms. Burgeson noted that the developer was notified that the project was on today's agenda in case they wanted a representative to attend and comment. No representative from the developer was in attendance. Dr. Hushon indicated that she would change her memorandum to the County Commissioners to request that they deny the extension and require a PUD amendment. Ms. Burgeson noted that a memorandum is not needed,that staff will make this part of their executive summary to the Board Ms. Student-Stirling stated that because the Council is making a recommendation,this topic should be moved back under section VIII. "New Business" on the agenda. Dr. Hushon moved to return Mirasol to "New Business" on the agenda. Second by Mr. Horn. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Hughes moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that this extension be denied, and to require the developer to make a PUD amendment that would come before the EAC through the full environmental review process. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carried unanimously 7-0. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments None XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:52 AM. COLLIER COUNTY EVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 7 r-. LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Community Development and Environmental Services Division AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services AMENDMENT CYCLE # OR DATE: Cycle 1, 2006 LDC PAGE: LDC 3:36 LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07.H.I.d. Allowable uses in preserves CHANGE: Add criteria to allow for treated stormwater in wetland preserves or in hydric preserves, or in very limited circumstances upland preserves, when the additional storm water will either benefit the preserve or will have no negative impact on the native vegetation in the preserve, or any listed species in the preserve. REASON: There are times when it is appropriate for stormwater to be directed into preserves and this amendment defines those times. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: This will increase the time staff spends on requests of this type since there will be additional criteria to evaluate and to conduct site visits to confirm the submitted analysis. It may also cost more for the applicant to provide substantive data and analysis if they choose to propose to direct treated stormwater into preserves. However, these costs are likely to be offset by a substantial savings in land costs if the preserve area could also be used as part of the stormwater system design. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: This version dated March 10, 2006; amended June 15, 2006; July 13, 2006, august 22, 2006. Amend the LDC as follows: 3.05.07 Preservation Standards. 95 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc H. Preserve standards. 1. Design standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * * h. Allowable uses within preserve areas. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any ening required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. For the purpose of this section, passive recreational uses are those uses that would allow limited access to the preserve in a manner that will pathways, benches and educational signs. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species section 3.04.01 D.l.c. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. h. Allowable uses within preserve areas. For the purposes of this Section, preserve areas are those that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of Section 3.05.07. Only the following uses subject to the associated design criteria have been determined to ensure that the ecological functions of the preserve areas are maintained and are allowed within preserve areas. i. Passive recreational uses subject to the following criteria. a) Passive recreational uses are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. These uses would allow limited access to the preserve, in a manner that will not cause any negative impacts to the preserve, such as pervious pathways, benches and educational signs. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species section 3.04.01 D.l.c. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. 96 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc ii. Subject to the following criteria, treated stormwater and specified support facilities are allowed in Preserve Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of Section 3.05.07. The criteria apply to South Florida Water Management District preserves only when they are used to satisfy the County's native vegetation retention requirements. a) For FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) classifications not otherwise identified below, the County shall allow stormwater in Preserve areas. b) Treated stormwater may be discharged into a Preserve Area containing the following upland FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) classifications providing the average ground elevation of these FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) areas is more than 3 feet above the control elevation of the stormwater system: • 413 Sand Pine • 421 Xeric Oak • 432 Sand Live Oak • 436 Upland Scrub Direct discharges to the above FLUCFCS classifications shall be prohibited. Deviation from this 3-foot threshold shall be permitted if an analysis of the stormwater system demonstrates the water levels generated from a 10 year storm will not exceed the ground elevations of these FLUCFCS areas for more than 24 hours. c) Treated stormwater may be discharged into a Preserve Area containing the following upland FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) classifications that either individually or in combination comprise more than 5% of the Preserve Area, providing the average ground elevation of these upland FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999) areas is more than 1 foot above the control elevation of the stormwater system: • 321 Palmetto Prairie • 411 Pine Flatwood Deviation from this 1-foot threshold shall be permitted if the underlying soil type, on-site groundwater monitoring wells, or hydrobiological indicators suggests a wetter base hydrology. 97 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc d) Treated stormwater is allowed in Preserve Areas that are created pursuant to Section 3.05.07 H. i.e. of the LDC. The selection of plant material shall be based on the hydroperiod expected from the management of the stormwater. e) Stormwater is prohibited in Preserve Areas where there are listed species in a non-wetland preserve, unless there is written technical assistance from all of the agencies with jurisdiction over that species providing evidence that the stormwater will not have any negative impact on the species or its habitat which includes the associated vegetation. Technical assistance will not be accepted for listed species preserves that pertain to any site where an incidental take or take permit was issued, or will be issued. If written technical assistance is received that would allow the stormwater, it shall be allowed in the preserve but must be fully treated in accordance with the criteria in subsection (3.05.07.H 1.h.ii.f.(2)(a)). f) Stormwater must be treated before it enters a Preserve Area which is used to satisfy either all or part of the County's native vegetation retention requirements. (1) For all situations, treatment shall meet the following requirements: (a) The Preserve Area may not be used to satisfy the volumetric water quality treatment requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. (b) Prior to discharge to the Preserve Area, the stormwater must pass through a treatment mechanism employing best management practices to treat sediment, oil and grease, and floating debris. Such mechanisms include wet or dry retention/detention treatment areas, vegetative filter strips, baffle boxes, skimmers or other devices accepted n 98 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc • by the South Florida Water Management District. (c) Discharge of treated stormwater into a Preserve Area shall be in a controlled manner to prevent erosion, scour, and to promote even distribution. A maintenance plan to service the device must be incorporated into the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.O5.07.l0.H.1.g. of the LDC. (2) For Preserve Areas comprised of wetlands having a pre-development UMAM score of 0.7 or greater, the following criteria shall apply: (a) Stormwater entering the Preserve Area must be treated to meet the water quality volumetric requirements of Section 5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review For Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District, (SFWMD February 2006); (b) The stormwater entering the Preserve Area must pass through the treatment system that provides the full pre- treatment volume for the contributing area. (c) The location of the discharge point within the treatment system used to convey the treated stormwater to the preserve must be located such that short-circuiting does not occur. (3) For Preserve Areas not comprised of wetlands having a pre-development UMAM score of 0.7 or greater, the County shall accept the stormwater treatment in accordance with the permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District addressing water quality treatment. 99 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc g) For those projects where stormwater is allowed in Preserve Areas, the associated stormwater facilities such as low berms (taking up less than twenty feet in width and planted solely with native species compatible with the surrounding preserve vegetation), conveyance systems, or discharge facilities, may be located within the Preserve Area, but the area of the facilities can not count towards the native vegetation preservation requirement required in Section 3.05.07. of the LDC. These facilities are not subject to setback requirements found in Section 3.05.07.10.H.3. of the LDC. Protective covenants required for Preserve Areas pursuant to Section 3.05.07.H.1.d of the LDC will allow maintenance of these facilities as a permitted use within the Preserve Area. h) Where stormwater is allowed in a Preserve Area, the Preserve Management Plan as required in Section 3.05.07.10.H.1.g of the LDC must address potential maintenance problems from the preserve receiving stormwater and require that an assessment be conducted if 20% of the preserve vegetation is lost. The assessment must consider the effects of stormwater on the preserve vegetation and determine a re-planting plan that considers the effect of stormwater on the hydro period of the Preserve Area. The Preserve Management Plan shall also provide for a monitoring program. A monitoring program must be implemented for Preserve Areas that will receive stormwater. The monitoring program must include provisions to record monthly ground and surface water levels and appropriate protocols to conduct annual vegetation surveys. The monitoring program must extend for a period of 5 years, with annual reports submitted to the County. A baseline report and annual reports must be submitted in accordance with a schedule contained in the Preserve Management Plan. The County will accept wetland monitoring reports submitted to the South Florida Water Management District as long as the reports conform to the 100 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc minimum requirements provided herein and address all of the Preserve Area receiving stormwater. 101 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc This page intentionally left blank. n 102 C:\Documents and Settings\cherirollins\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3A\3 05 07 stormwater in preserves final 8-22- 06 BB.doc OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: 06-1ER COLLIER COUNTY I. CONSISTENCY WITH RULE 9J-5,FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (F.A.C), & CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES (F.S.) Introduction: Collier County has submitted a package of amendments to implement the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The amendment involves changes to all the elements of the County's comprehensive plan. No future land use map amendment is proposed. As noted below, the Department has objections relative to certain fundamental planning components, including the planning timeframe and population projections. Clarification of these issues may result in necessary revisions to data and analysis regarding infrastructure needs and necessary changes to the capital improvements element. Subsequent to that the Department will then review for compliance with state requirements. It is important that these fundamental issues be resolved early on to ensure that any subsequent analysis is based on correct data. The Department has identified the following objections to the proposed changes. Capital Improvements Element: 1. The EAR-based amendment does not establish a long-term (10-year or greater) planning period for the comprehensive plan. Under State law a local comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five-year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall ten-year period, the combination of which becomes the planning timeframe for the comprehensive plan. [Chapter 163.3177(5)(a), & (8) F.S. and Rule 9J-5.005(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to establish the long-term planning timeframe for the County's comprehensive plan. 2. The EAR-based amendment is not supported by a projected population of the County for the next planning timeframe, based on a professionally acceptable methodology, and upon which the land and infrastructure needs of the County shall be based. Policy 1.2 establishes the formula that the County will use to calculate public facility demands. It is stated that the formula uses a"weighted"recalculation of the population projections made for the County by the University of Florida. However, the term "weighted" is not defined in the plan; instead, the definition is deferred to the land development regulations. Because these regulations could be changed without an amendment to the comprehensive plan, the formula used to predict the population of the county is unpredictable and unreliable. The 1 • County's approach is contrary to State law which requires that local governments use the mid range projections made by the University of Florida, or, use the high or low range projection if sufficient justifications are presented to support their use; or make their own projections based a professionally acceptable methodology approved by the State. The proposed population projection methodology described in this policy is not professionally acceptable. Also, the County varies the population figures used for calculating the need for the different public facilities. This is inconsistent with State law because the comprehensive plan must utilize a consistent population projection figure for the County through the planning timeframe. [Chapter 163.3177(2), (6)(a), (8), & (10)(e), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), (c), & (e), 9J-5.006(1)g., 9J-5.016(1)(a), (2)(b),FAC] Recommendation: Include with the amendment a projected population of the County derived from a professionally acceptable methodology indicating the population figures upon which the land use and infrastructure needs of the County will be based during the next planning timeframe. The County should utilize the mid-range projections made by the University of Florida, and if that will not be used sufficient justification should be provided for using either the lower range or high range University of Florida projections. If the County chooses to utilize a population projection other than the one provided by the University, the methodology for the projection must be professionally acceptable and approved by the state land planning agency prior to its application. The formula for calculating the public facilities needs of the County stated in Policy 1.2 should be revised to be consistent with the population projections for the plan as a whole and must not defer certain other aspects to the land development regulations. 3. The County proposes to establish a dual LOS standard for the Southeast and Northeast Sewer Service Areas of the County. For Southeast, the LOS will be 100 and 120 gallons per capita per day, while for the Northeast it would be 120 and 125 gallons per capita per day. This dual LOS system makes the LOS standard uncertain and it also makes the determination of the impact of developments on sewer systems difficult to establish. No data and analysis have been provided to support the establishment of a dual LOS standard for these service areas, nor has the plan identified the specific adopted LOS standard that will be used for sewer capacity impact analysis in these service areas. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), 163.3180(1)(a), F.S., and Rule 9J- 5.005(3), 9J-5.055(1)(a), (2)(a) and 9J-5.011(2)(c)2., FAC.] Recommendation: Revise the policy to clarify the application of the dual level of service standards for sewer in the Southeast and Northwest Service Areas and provide data and analysis to justify the use of a dual LOS standard for these service areas. Also, establish the specific LOS standard that will be used for 2 public facility analysis. Alternatively, establish a single LOS standard based upon appropriate data analysis. 4. The EAR-based amendment does not include an update of the Capital Improvements Element identifying the capital projects derived from other elements of the comprehensive plan based on the projected population of the County, the projected land needs and the projected infrastructure demands during the planning timeframe as well as the planning strategies to address the demands of growth, the identified deficiencies, and improvement priorities and timing. On July 21, 2006, the County submitted the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements it intends to adopt. The late submittal of this document did not provide adequate time for the Department to conduct a full review; however, it appears that the County has not provided adequate information to demonstrate that the improvements shown on that schedule correspond to the prioritized deficiencies and projected public facilities demands generated by the land plan. It is also not clear whether deficiencies exist which are not include in the Five-Year Capital Improvements Schedule, and if other deficiencies will be included in a long-term concurrency management program or addressed through long-term strategies. The Schedule does not properly describe the location of the projects in a manner that will enable their identification and does not specify the sources of funding for each listed project. In addition, the projection of revenues and expenditures during the planning period for all the sources of revenues that the County intends to use to fund capital projects is not provided, without which it is difficult to assess the financial feasibility of the schedule of capital improvements. Exhibit A shows the costs and revenues by type of public facility; however, the table shows the lump sum from each source and not a yearly projection of the revenues from each of these sources for the five years of the schedule. It is not clear, also, from the schedule the particular projects that will be funded with money from a particular source in the group of sources listed for that facility type. Since the source of money for each project is not identified in the schedule it is not possible to determine if the County is using money from committed sources of revenues during the first three years of the schedule, and committed or planned sources during years 4 and 5 as required by state law. [Chapter 163.3164(32), 163.3177(2) & (3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a), (c), (8), & (10)(e), F.S., and 9J-5.005(2)(a), (c), & (e), 9J-5.055(2)(a), 9J-5.006(2)(a), 9J- 5.011(1)(b), (f) & (2)(b) & (c) and 9J-5.016(4)(a), FAC] Recommendation: Analyze the public facilities needs of the County during the planning timeframe, based on the projected population of the County, and the anticipated development/land plan for the planning timeframe. Based on the analysis, identify deficiencies and establish the County's improvement priorities for those deficiencies. Using the established priorities adopt a financially feasible schedule of capital improvements to correct the deficiencies prioritized by the 3 County for funding in the first five years. For deficiencies that are identified through the analysis, but are not addressed in the schedule, the County should adopt a long term system or identify planning strategies that will address these deficiencies. The County must demonstrate for the first three years that the funding is coming from committed sources, while for the 4`1 and 5th years it may come from committed and/or planned sources. The location of each project on the schedule should be properly described to enable their identification; for example, in the case of roads, the exact segment of the roadway should be described. Also, the sources of funds for each listed item must be identified. The revenues projection for each of the listed sources for the five years of the schedule, as well as the projected expenditures during this period should be provided in order to enable an assessment of the financial feasibility of the schedule. The County should demonstrate from the projection of revenues and expenditures that sufficient money is available to fund each project. 5. Existing Transportation Element Policy 5.8 allows the use of proportion share payments for a constrained roadway link and/or a deficient roadway link only within a TCMA. However, pursuant to Senate Bill 360,F.S., the use of proportionate share contribution is not limited to only projects located within a TCMA. [Chapter 163.3180(16),F.S.] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include guidelines for the use of proportionate share consistent with Senate Bill 360. Please note that the implementing concurrency land development regulations for proportionate share need to be adopted by December 2006. Transportation Element: Objections: 1. The update to the Transportation Element does not identify the projected roadways that will be needed to meet the demands of growth during the next planning timeframe based on the land plan for the County, nor, does it identify the roadways on which deficiencies currently exist or are anticipated to occur during the 10-year planning timeframe (short-term of 5 years and long-term of at least 10 years) [Chapter 163.3177(2), (6)(b), F.S., 9J-5.016(1)(a), & (4)(a), 9J-5.019(3)(a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) & (i), & (4)(b), and 9J-5.016(1)(a), (4)(a), FAC] Recommendation: Include with the plan update all the information listed above. The projected needs shall be consistent with the planning timeframe of the plan upon which the land use map is based (see earlier objection in the CIE section) 4 �-. covering a period of at least the first five years subsequent to the adoption of these amendments, and extend for at least an overall 10-year period or greater. 2. The EAR-based amendment is not accompanied by a Future Transportation Map showing the roadways intended to serve the demands of growth during the identified planning timeframe consistent with the long-term horizon of the Future Land Use Map for the County. [Chapter 163.(2), Rule 9J-5.016(1)(a) & (4)(a), 9J-5.019(5)(a) & (b), FAC] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include a Future Transportation Map identifying all the roadways either in place or planned to serve the demands of growth during the identified planning timeframe. The timeframe set for the Transportation Map must be consistent with the long-term planning timeframe of the Future Land Use Map, and should include all the major roadways in existence or planned to be constructed during that planning timeframe. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 163.3180 (5)(g), F.S., Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) in existence prior to July 1, 2005, must be updated by July 1, 2006 or at the time of the EAR-based amendments to meet the new requirements. The EAR-based amendment does not address new requirements such as consultation with FDOT on impacts of the TCEA on the SIS facilities and addressing mobility strategies other than TDM strategies, funding of the strategies, urban design, density/intensity of land uses, mix of land uses and the evaluation criteria for the next EAR. Similarly, the amendment does not update the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) after consultation with the FDOT to determine impacts to the SIS facilities. Additionally, TCMAs must be evaluated periodically, at a minimum, during the EAR process; and during this EAR-based amendment process, to include criteria to be used for evaluating TCMAs during the next EAR. [Chapter 163.3180(5)(g), F.S.] Recommendation: The County should conduct, as part of the EAR-based amendment, an evaluation of its existing TCEA and TCMAs for consistency with s. 163.3180(5)(g), F.S. The County should then include appropriate revisions in the amendment to ensure the consistency of the TCEA and TCMAs with the new statutory requirements. Collier County has agreed to become part of our study regarding establishing guidelines for the creation and evaluation of TCEAs. This study will make recommendations to update the Collier County TCEA for consistency with the new statutes. This study is scheduled for completion by September 2006 and should be used to assist in the update of TCEAs. Please coordinate the update with the FDOT. 4 The associated policies for Objective 1, pertaining to the maintenance of transportation LOS standards do not include a policy adopting the FDOT LOS 5 standards (Rule 14-94) for SIS and TRIP facilities. The County's plan currently, includes no mention of the SIS or TRIP facilities and no map of the Collier County SIS and TRIP facilities has been included in the Transportation Element. [Chapter 163.3180(7),F.S.] Recommendation: Revise the plan to include a policy addressing FDOT LOS standards, and SIS as well as TRIP facilities. Also include a map of these facilities and the map should not be limited to roadways only, but, include rails and airport hubs. Comment: It appears from the map of the Transportation Exception Area (TCEA) included in the amendment that the boundary of the TCEA is proposed to be reduced. This may be appropriate since TCEAs are supposed to be compact. However, no explanation is provided for the reduction. Provide an explanation for the reduction and how the TCEA can still meet its purpose within a reduced area. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element: Objections: 1. The planning update for this sub-element is not supported by a projection of the sanitary sewer needs of the County based on the projected population and the land needs for the next planning timeframe. The analysis should identify any existing and projected deficiencies during the planning timeframe. Appropriate improvements should be included in the CIE to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards. Recommendation: Demonstrate, through appropriate data and analysis, a projection of sanitary sewer needs to support the County's projected population through the planning timeframe. The projections should address the short-term (five-years) and the long-term(10-year or greater) planning periods. The analysis should identify any existing and projected deficiencies during the planning timeframe. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c); 9J-5.011(e), (f), & (2)(c),FAC] Potable Water: Objections: 1. The planning update for this sub-element is not supported by a projection of the potable water needs of the County based on the projected population and the land needs for the next planning timeframe. The analysis should identify any existing and projected deficiencies during the planning timeframe. 6 [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c); 9J-5.011(2)(e), (f), & (2)(c), FAC] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the information listed above. The projections should address the short-term (five-years) and the long- term (10-year or greater) planning periods. 2. The proposed revision to Policy 1.3 states that the County will utilize the water sources identified by the Water Management District. This is vague because it does not identify the future sources of water for the County, and also does not establish a meaningful guideline regarding water sources during the next planning timeframe. [Chapter 163.3167(13), 163.3177(6)(a) & (c), & 163.3177(8),F.S.] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to identify the sources from which the County will derive potable water for the next planning timeframe. It should be demonstrated that adequate water is available at the identified sources to meet the County's needs during the planning timeframe. Also, revise the policy to commit to using water from those sources as well as from alternative sources as needed to meet the County's needs. Drainage: Objections,: 1. The proposal to delete, from Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, the references to the drainage studies planned for various areas of the County, and instead, defer such studies to a future date between 2008 and 2010, is inappropriate because it will not ensure the protection of natural resources and drainage basins. Deferring these studies to a future date without the establishment of adequate interim guidelines will not ensure the protection of these areas. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), F.S; 9J-5.011(1)(g) & (h), (2)(b)5, & (2)(c)4.] Recommendation: Revise the policies to include adequate interim guidelines pending the completion of the study after which a more permanent program should be established. The analysis should identify any existing and projected deficiencies during the planning timeframe. 2. The EAR-based amendment does not identify the drainage LOS deficiencies that exist in the County, as well as the future drainage needs of the County and the plan to correct those deficiencies within the planning timeframe to address the needs of the future. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3180(2)(a), F.S; 9J-5.011(1)(g) & (h), (2)(b)5, & (2)(c)4.] Recommendation: Revise the plan to identify the drainage deficiencies that currently exist in the County as well as the future drainage needs of the County. 7 Housing Element: Objections: 1. The update of the Housing Element does not include a projection of the anticipated number of households by size and income range derived from the population projections and the housing needs of the current and anticipated future residents of the jurisdiction including affordable housing needs assessment. Also, the land requirement for the total estimated housing needs and the portion of the housing needs which could be projected to be met by the private sector is not provided(see earlier objections in the CIE and Future Land Use Element). [Chapter 163.3177(6)(f), F.S; Rule 9J-5.010(2)(a), (b), (c), & (d), FAC]. Recommendation: Included with the amendment an updated housing analysis which will support the Housing Element as required. 2. Objectives 1 and 2 of the of the Housing Element are proposed to be revised to establish a new target of 1000 affordable housing units to be built in the County every year during the next planning period. Increasing the target from 500 to 1000 units per year is very encouraging. However, the County has not shown the relationship between the 1000 units per year target and the scope of the affordable housing problem in the County. That is, no data and analysis have been provided to demonstrate the extent to which the construction target of 1000 units per year will help address the affordable housing situation in the County. In addition,the County has not identified, and demonstrated the range of programs that will enable the achievement of this target. Also, other necessary planning mechanisms such as monitoring and tracking of the location of these units are not established, without which it would be difficult to assess the program in order to determine success or failure. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(f), FS., and 9J-5.010(3)(b)1., & 3., FAC] Recommendation: Please revise the plan to establish a full range of meaningful and predictable planning initiatives that will enable the achievement of this target and demonstrate how these programs will contribute to the achieving of this target. Also, include in the plan monitoring and tracking guidelines that will enable the assessment of the success or failure of the program in the future. Recreation and Open Space Element: Objection: 1. The proposed revision of Policy 1.1.1 to require weighted population figures for the determination of LOS for community and regional parks is not professionally acceptable. Please see previous objection to this methodology stated in the Capital Improvements Element. 8 [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), (8), & (10)(e), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), (c), & (e), FAC] Recommendation: Please revise the policy to require the utilization of population figures from an established professionally acceptable population projection methodology and the same figure should be used consistently for the calculation of the demand for all type of public facilities. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objections: 1. Existing Objective 2.1 required the County to prepare Watershed Management Plans by 2000. The County is proposing to extend the timeline for preparing the plan by 10 years; the new timeline requires the preparation of the plan to start in 2008, and be completed in 2010. The proposed extension is inappropriate because it will not ensure the protection of the natural resources within watersheds and estuarine areas. Furthermore, no interim adequate guidelines have been established for the protection of watersheds and estuarine areas, pending the completion of such a study. Instead new language is proposed to be introduced into the plan in various policies delaying the establishment of guidelines for the protection of these areas until the completion of the watershed studies (see Policies 2.1.5, 2.1.8, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.7, and other provisions in the Future Land Use Element). [Chapter 163.3177(6)(d) & (g), F.S.; 9J-5.012(3)(b)1, 2., & (3)(c)2., 9J- 5.013(2)(c)6., FAC]. Recommendation: Revise the policy to establish adequate interim standards that will ensure the protection of these areas pending the completion of the study and the establishment of a more specific and permanent guidance for protecting these watersheds and estuarine areas. 2. The existing Policy 2.2.5 stated that, "by December 31, 1998, the County shall identify stormwater management systems that are not meeting State water quality treatment standards". The County is proposing to revise the policy to state that, "by December 31, 2008, Collier County shall have identified a process to identify stormwater management systems that are not meeting State water quality treatment standards in effect at the time of project approval." The proposed revision is inappropriate for three reasons: 1) the policy defers to the future an activity that should have been accomplished since 1998; 2) it mandates the identification of"a process" for identifying systems instead of identifying the existing systems that are not meeting standards as required by the existing policy; and 3) the proposed revision shifts the intent of the policy to new projects only instead of addressing the existing situations as well as new developments as originally intended. 9 �-. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), 3178(2)(c), F.S; 9J-5.011(1)(g) & (h), (2)(b)5, & (2)(c)4.,] Recommendation: Revise the policy to identify the stormwater systems that are not meeting State and Federal water quality regulatory standards, and establish adequate guidelines and standards that will correction the problem and ensure future attainment of the standards. [Chapter 163.3177(d); 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, 9J-5.011(2)(c)4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)1.1 3. Existing Objective 3.1 states that, "ground water quality shall meet all applicable federal and state water quality standards by January 2002 and shall be maintained thereafter". The proposed revision removes the commitment to achieve Federal and State standards, and instead removes standards which it does not feel it can achieve. This is inappropriate because it makes the policy vague and unpredictable and unclear with respect to the standards that shall apply in order to ensure the protection of the quality of the ground water of the County. [Chapter 163.3177(d), 9J-5.006(3)9(c)6, 9J-5.011(2)(c)4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)1.] Recommendation: Leave the policy as it is and add language that will require monitoring and tracking of activities and attainment status in order to ensure that development activities do not contribute the degradation of the quality of the underground water of the County. Also, provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County is meeting Federal and State regulatory standards for ground water quality. 4. The proposed revisions to the existing Policy 6.1.1 defer the establishment of guidelines for the preservation of open space to the land development regulations. In part (5) of the policy it states that "passive recreational uses that do not impact the minimum required vegetation or cause a loss of function to the preserved area" will be allowed. However, the definition of what constitutes "loss of function" is deferred to the LDR. Furthermore, the proposed revision to part 9 of the policy, not only defers to the LDR the establishment of guidelines, but in addition it would allow the payment of money to satisfy the native vegetation preservation retention requirement which will defeat the purpose for requiring the retention of native vegetation. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) and(d), F.S., and 9J-5.013(2)(c)31 Recommendation: Revise the policy to remove deference to the LDR and define all relevant terms in the plan. Also establish in the plan all appropriate guidance to be used for implementation and as well guide the preparation of the more detailed LDR. In addition, the acceptance of monetary payment to satisfy the retention of native vegetation requirements should be removed or modified to identify how the payment will be used to further this policy. 5. The existing Objective 12.1 required the County to maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 28 hours for a category 3 storm event. The County is 10 to revise the Objective to state that the Countywill "attempt to proposing J P maintain a hurricane evacuation clearance time for a category 3 hurricane event at a maximum of 18 hours." The use of the word "attempt"makes this objective vague and unpredictable. Also, the proposal to use, as an alternative to the • Southwest Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, any other study conducted by the local emergency management director and approved by the County Commissioner is inconsistent with state law. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(g), & 3178(2)(d), 163.3178(9); and 9J-5.012(3)(b)7.] Recommendation: Revise Objective 12.1 to remove the word "attempt" and commit to the reduction or maintenance of hurricane evacuation times as required by state law. Also the methodology for evaluating evacuation should be that established by the state. Future Land Use Element: 1. In order to encourage affordable housing (see page 26) the County allows a bonus of 8 additional units for development in certain Urban Designated sub-districts (except in areas within the CHHA), and in the Golden Gate and Immokalee areas provided the project meets the definition and requirements of the affordable workforce housing established in the land development regulation (LDR). The following concerns are associated with this proposal: a) By deferring the establishment of guidelines for the location of affordable housing to the LDR, the policy does not provide the predictability and guidance needed in order to properly direct the program; and b) The addition of eight units per acre as a bonus for affordable housing was already in the plan; however, the bonus is to be expanded to more areas, which is encouraging. However, no assessment of the potential impact of the additional units on the ability of the County to provide water, sewer and other public facilities including roads has been provided. While the Department supports efforts that will increase the availability of affordable housing in the County, it is important not to exclude the potential impact of these units when calculating the demand for public facilities. [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), (f), F.S., 9J-5.006(c)3., 9J-5.011(2)f., (2)(c)1., 2., &9J- 5.010(3)(b)1.3., FAC] Recommendation: Revise the plan to include appropriate and relevant guidelines for the location of affordable housing in the County. The definition of what constitutes affordable units and the requirements for their provision should be included in the plan. In addition, the potential impact of these additional units should be estimated and included in the calculation of public facilities demands. 2. The intensity standards for non-residential uses in the Goodlette/Pine Ridge commercial Infill Sub-district specified on page 42 are based on "gross leasable 11 area"; the correct reference should be "gross square feet", since state guidelines for development, for example in a development of regional impact, require gross square feet. [163.3177(6)(a), and 9J-5.006(3)(c)1.,] Recommendation: Revise the provision to replace the term "gross leasable" with "gross square feet". 3. The plan update does not include a projection of the amount of land needed by the County during the next planning timeframe, based on the projected population for the County, and the projected housing needs, upon which the Future Land Use map was prepared (see earlier objection in the CIE section). [Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; and 9J-5.006(2)(c), FAC] Recommendation: Include with amendment a projection of the amount of land needed to meet the future needs of the County during the next planning timeframe and upon which the Future Land Use Map is prepared. Also, include as part of the plan update the table of existing land uses at the time of the adoption of the EAR-based amendment. 4. The EAR-based amendment does not include an update of the future conditions map and a Future Land Use Map for the next planning timeframe. Also, the map included that is labeled "Future Land Use Map" does not have the future timeframe for which it is intended (see earlier objection in the CIE section of the report). [Chapter 163.317795)(a), (6)(a); 9J-5005(4), and 9J-5.006(4)(b), FAC] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include a Future Land Use Map for the next planning timeframe. The planning timeframe should be clearly stated on the map. In addition, include a Future Land Use map series that covers all the relevant future conditions such as the location of existing and planned potable water wells and wellhead protection areas. II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment does not adequately address and further the State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (163.3177(9):) Water Resources Goal (7)(a), Policies (b)9., & 10., regarding the protection of ground water; Coastal and Marine Resources Goal (8)(a), Policy 6, pertaining to the protection of sensitive coastal resources; Natural Systems and Recreational Lands Goal (9)(a), Policy 1, 7., regarding the protection of wetlands and marine resources; 12 • Land Use Goal (15)(a) and Policy (b)3., &6., regarding the regulation of land uses; Public Facilities Goal (17)(a) and Policy (b)6., regarding implementation of fiscally sound and cost-effective techniques for financing public facilities.; and Transportation Goal (19) and Policy (b)2.,regarding the coordination of investments in travel corridor to enhance system efficiency and promotion of comprehensive transportation. Recommendation: Revise the proposed amendment, as indicated in the. objections and recommendations of this report, in order to be consistent with the above goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. 13 ASHTON BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH & PRESERVATION INSTITUTE 14260-331 W. Newberry Rd Newberry, Florida 32669 Tortfarm2 a► aol.com www.ashtonbiodiversitv.org To: Collier County Environmental Department From: Ray Ashton Ashton Biodiversity Research&Preservation Institute, Inc. Gopher Tortoise Conservation Initiative RE: Release of Storm Water into Tortoise Relocation Sites 15 August 2006 Having reviewed the LCD Amendment Request, as a biologist that has studied gopher tortoises since the 1970's, especially habitat management and relocation site development, I find this proposal to be unacceptable. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. We do know that tortoises can and do remain in flooded burrows. In fact, during rare occasions, they remain in these burrows, under natural conditions and cycles for more than a month at a time. This has been documented in the literature. However,the issue of storm water inflow into enclosed tortoise reserves is not the same thing as those conditions that occur in nature. In fact many of these habitats have extremely rapid perk rates and standing overflow rarely if ever occurs. 2. There are a number of key issues that have not been evaluated nor,to my knowledge data available to demonstrate whether or not the release of storm water flow into tortoise preserves would be benign. Here are a few points. a. The length of time, seasonality, soil types, size of the preserve, area covered by over flow and many other variables may cause potential harm to gopher tortoises. Gopher tortoises complete their burrows with the end chamber sitting in the ground water table. The concept is to sustain high relative humidity, modified temperatures which this table permits. It rarely dries out and very rarely has standing water over the hard pan. Your recommendations have no comment on the need to know the depth of the water table in each location and the number of days the end chamber, not just the whole burrow would be impacted. We do know that long term exposure to wet situations increases shell rot disease and is likely a stressor that may cause other diseases including the possibility of URTD to show up. b. Tortoises will move after a period of time due to flooding on the surface because it may cause a decline in adult and juvenile foraging. Most of these sites are small (less than 25 acres) are enclosed or surrounded by development. The combination could be fatal since tortoises may move out pending the quality of the forage and the elevation levels. c. The comments in the document sent to me does not provide or suggest information regarding impact to nests, hatchlings and tortoises under adult n size. There are no records that we have found in the literature or in our research to show that these small class sizes will survive even a few days of inundation. Those hatchlings being washed out of their burrows into a flood on land are likely to perish. d. There is not question that tortoise eggs cannot sustain inundation for more than a few hours. Therefore any flow over the and saturating the soils for days at a time, during the nesting season would eliminate that year's off spring. Some models show that tortoises must replace themselves in the community within 20 years for that population to survive. It appears that especially in small populations, a few years of total loss could lead to the sustainability of the population. e. Storm water treatments are known to fail during large rainfall events and, not all potentially hazardous materials are totally removed in today's methods of treatment. We know very little about many substances found in storm water and their effects on all life stages of the gopher tortoise or other co-inhabitants of the tortoises burrow. In conclusion, there are little or no positive impacts to the protected speciesand the protected area of the tortoise preserves or mitigation areas. This appears as a method of using acreage given up for conservation to serve multiple purposes not related to the original effort to sustain populations of tortoises in Collier County in perpetuity. It would appear that development interest should be required to provide overflow areas for storm water as mitigation in its own right. This appears as it is written in the LDC Amendment to be double dipping at the expense of a species that is in route to not only listing as a state threatened species but as a federally listed threatened species as well. As the members of the Collier County government may know that I have been retained to represent the tortoise in several issues related to development. In every case, we found ways to protect resident tortoises in a better fashion than was proposed and, at the same time support proper development as approved by the County. In this case, it appears that the biological aspects of the impacts of gopher tortoises, other listed species and some that may be listed in the future, have been skimmed over or ignored. There may be ways to make this work. However, as written, it is my opinion that this could cause both short and long term negative impacts to tortoises and their conservation. We have to remember that the Tortoise Preserves were created to conserve tortoises, not set aside open land for future human needs. It is likely that a well throughout plan could be acceptable to wildlife including the tortoise. That will take some study. This plan as presented is biologically "shooting in the dark". Finally, under the state constitution, local governments can make or amend rules to protect state listed species. However, these rules must in fact, do a better job of protecting these species. They cannot lessen protection. I propose that the LCD Amendment Request does not meet these standards and is therefore unconstitutional.