Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
EAC Agenda 10/05/2005
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 5, 2005 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 September 7, 2005 Meeting minutes V. Land Use Petitions A. Conditional Use No. CU-2003-AR-4647—Continued from September 7 Meeting "Jan's Tram's CU" Sections 23, 24, 25, Township 52, Range 29 East B. Site Development Plan No. SDP-2003-AR-4620 "41 T Corporation Industrial Facility" Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East C. Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7422 "Wolf Creek PUD" Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East D. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 "Sabal Bay PUD" Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 & 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East VI. Old Business A. Update members on projects VII. New Business A. Outstanding Advisory Council Member Nominations B. Environmental Advisory Council Absences C. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson election D. Potential changes to the GMP and LDC and requst from staff to activiate the GMP Subcomittee to review changes. E. Member resignation VIII. Council Member Comments IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2005 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (403-2424). 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. September 7, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMNETAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, September 7, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Terrence S. Dolan Lee Horn Ken Humiston Judith Hushon Iry Kraut Erica Lynne Nick Penniman (Excused) Michael V. Sorrell ALSO PRESENT: Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Review 1 September 7, 2005 Meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM. Roll Call Roll call was taken with Nick Penniman being excused. A quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Humiston moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Kraut. Carried unanimously 7-0. III. Approval of August 3,2005 Meeting Minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approve the August 3,2005 minutes. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carried unanimously 7-0. Lee Horn joined the meeting at 9:02 AM. IV. New Business A. County Attorney's Office Presentation David Weigel, County Attorney gave a power point presentation on the Sunshine Law including the following points: • A manual was supplied to each Committee Member. • A meeting occurs when two or more members of the same committee come together to discuss any matter which will foresee- ably come before that committee. • There are three requisites for meetings: - Open to the public - Reasonable notice - Minutes taken • The Sunshine Law does not apply to staff. • Emails between members with responses that mention a matter that would foresee ably come before the committee would be a violation of the Sunshine Law. • One way email correspondence is permitted. • Conduit use is not permitted. • Special meetings are under the Sunshine Law • Minimal notice of a meeting could be 24-48 hours. • Meetings in restaurants are not advisable. • Penalties could be up to $500 and 60 days in jail. 2 September 7, 2005 Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney gave a power point presentation on Public Records including the following points: • The Policy for the State of Florida was given to Committee Members. • Any record created or received in connection with official business for the purposes of communicating, memorializing, or formalizing knowledge regardless of being in final form is considered public record. • Some notes taken could be deemed public records. • It is advised for Members to have a file to keep any record related to the Committee, when service ends all records can be returned to County Staff. • Disposal of a public record is not permitted. • The right to privacy is subordinate to the Sunshine Law and the Public Records Law. • There are civil and criminal penalties for a violation of the Public Records Act. Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney gave a power point presentation on Ethics including the following points: • Members can not accept bribes. • Public officers are not to do business with the County. • Voting Conflicts-not to vote upon a matter that would give a private gain or loss or the private gain or loss of any principle by whom you are employed, or private gain or loss of a relative or associate. • If a conflict does not exist then voting is required. • Local Ethics Ordinance: - (Hand-out reference) - Research will be done to determine if the Environmental Advisory Council has final decision making power. A written opinion will then be sent out. - No public official may accept a gift directly or indirectly if he or she knows that it was given with the intent to reward or influence him or her in the performance or nonperformance or his or her public duties. Mr. Pettit addressed questions. The meeting recessed at 9:52 AM,reconvening at 10:02 AM. B. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations None 3 September 7, 2005 V. Land Use Petitions /'1 A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5422 "Mercato PUD" Section 34, Township 48 South,Range 25 East -All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Griffin. - Disclosures—None Wayne Arnold, Director of Planning for Q. Grady Minor& Associates, P.A. reviewed the project including the following points: • It is a mixed use project. • Potential interconnection was provided. • The project is based on a main street concept. • Residential will be above retail and office. • (Displays were demonstrated) Stuart W. Miller, Senior Project Manager for WilsonMiller reviewed the project including the following points: • The site is 53 acres. • The site had been farm land in the past. • There is a high level of exotics. • Offsite mitigation was purchased. • Their will be 6.3 acres preserved to meet the 25% native vegetation requirement. • 4.7 acres of wet land will be enhanced and preserved. • One gofer tortoise was observed, the burrow is on the land designated to be preserved. Questions were addressed. Wayne Arnold reviewed the project including the following points: • (Demonstration of development possibilities) • Reviewed progression of modifications to the layout. Questions were addressed. Mark Martin explained connectivity to the surrounding site areas. He also agreed to the relocation of native plans as a stipulation. Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Services addressed access points and demonstrated the best areas to be preserved. 4 September 7, 2005 Jim Carr addressed impervious areas and demonstrates the hydraulic flow. Perimeter berms, drains, and storm pipes were discussed. Mr. Hughes invited the group to the Special Meeting and expressed his concern about the project. Questions were addressed. Dr. Lynne would like to be invited to see where the listed plants have been relocated. Bill Lorenz spoke on the Growth Management Language regarding maintaining preserves verses recreating. It was recommended to define "reasonably accommodate"under this particular situation. Mr. Hughes recommended preplanning for the future. As expressed my Mr. Humiston, due to the nature of the disturbed land project, being a good case for an exception he moved to approve Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-5422, "Mercato PUD", Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East with the stipulation to include staff recommendations #2,#3, and#6 along with the relocation of listed plant species. Second by Mr. Dolan. Dr. Lynne felt that the County Staff has done a great job. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. B. Conditional Use No. CU-2003-AR-4647 "Jan's Tram's CU" Sections 23,24,25, Township 52,Range 29 East -All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Griffin. Donald Murray, Project Planner for Coastal Engineering Consultants Inc. reviewed the project including the following points: • The construction project will be on a quarter acre site that is already disturbed. • The project is for educational and recreational tourism. • Tour buses/trams will travel along a logging road while an airboat will travel along finger canals. Tammy Lyday, Senior Biologist for Earth Balance reviewed the project including the following points: • An overview of the location was presented. 5 September 7, 2005 ■ A wildlife survey was conducted. - Mitch House was sworn in by Mr. Griffin. Mitch House, Owner of Proposed Business noted that this project is to go along with his existing business to the South. The rides are to be slow; therefore the pontoon boat will have little displacement. He has had five year leases on this property for the past eighteen years. Mr. Hughes suggested having a reference video tape of the property before commencement. Heidi Williams, Zoning referenced the conceptual site plans. Exotic removal will be in the management plan as noted by Mr. Murray. The leased lands being placed into conservation in perpetuity would need to be addressed by Mr. Bass, County Commission and the County Attorney. Mr. House's attorney is willing to give a permanent conservation easement for the term of the lease. The road and the affects of the tram on plant life were discussed. Dr. Lynne does not feel that education will play a part in this project due to the lack of knowledge for what is on the site. It was recommended to return with a proposed educational program after an exhaustive survey of plants has been performed. Open discussion commenced. Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the plan with two stipulations of the legality of"perpetuity" and a survey. Mr. Sorrell withdrew the motion. Mr. Dolan moved to continue discussion to the October 5th Environmental Advisory Council meeting; with the applicants producing further research on the Conservation Easement and a flora survey of the project area. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried 8-0. The meeting recessed at 12:18 AM, reconvening at 12:27 AM. VI. Old Business A. LDC amendments—Cycle 2—9.04.02—Port of the Islands Stephen Lenberger reviewed the amendments. 6 September 7, 2005 Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida felt that the mangroves in the area are nice. The mangroves would provide protection for the low lands. She made a recommendation to have a heightened level of review and recommendation. Dr. Lynne moved to approve LDC amendment-Cycle 2- 9.04.02- Port of the Islands. Second by Mr. Humiston. Carried unanimously 8-0. B. LDC amendments—Cycle 2—Update on exotic removal for TDRs Bill Lorenz gave an update on the amendments noting that each exotic removal arrangement would be a case by case basis for perpetuity of maintenance. He addressed questions, and Mr. Hughes suggested having an account open to handle the perpetuity maintenance funds. C. Assessment of the EAC: Functions and Alternative Options Bill Lorenz reviewed a report that was sent to the Board. Mr. Hughes concern was on citizens giving up rights to manage government itself; a demise to the culture. He also mentioned that due to the Environmental Advisory Council function it is imperative that all things are discussed in a public and open form. He feels that the Environmental Advisory Council should continue as a watch dog over critical resources for mutual survival. Dr. Hushon distributed a letter she had written and gave an overview. Dr. Hushon moved to have the Committee Members sign the letter in order to have copies sent to each County Commissioner Board Member. Second by Dr. Lynne. Carried unanimously 8-0. Dr. Lynne commented for the record that the biggest problem of integrating the Environmental Advisory Council function into the Planning function is the water being muddied in terms of the recommendations to the Board. Nichole Ryan agrees with the letter written by Dr. Hushon, and does not believe there is an existing problem. She recommended to have a representative from the Environmental Advisory Council speak to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hughes asked Committee Members to let the staff know if they are unable to attend the Environmental Advisory Council meetings. D. Special Meeting date and time 7 September 7, 2005 Special Meeting- Monday September 19th at 9: AM in the front room of the BCC Chamber. It will be televised. /1 E. Update members on projects None VII. Council Member Comments None VIII. Public Comments Bob Krasowski introduced himself. He suggested air quality to be among items the Environmental Advisory Council reviews, along with efficient use of material and waste management. An air quality monitoring system was advised. Mr. Hughes would like a review of the 21 cubic feet of methane being released from the dump. A presentation from the Solid Waste Department along with the Pollution Control Department will be arranged by the Staff. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:12 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 8 At€e vtf,o r� Mevtbers : Itevvt V.A is A otvw.eo1 tevi.t fvom the A c3 .st sYd vu.eetLwg awd the matev1,21, sHouId be brovhttvtkis vu,eettwg . Thcivk fou. Item V. B ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF October 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Site Development Plan SDP-2004-AR-4620 Petition Name: 41 T Corporation Industrial Facility Applicant/Developer: Old 41 T Corporation Engineering Consultant: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Old US 41, just north of Sun Century Road, in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped parcels. ZONING DESCRIPTION North- Industrial (I) Improved and vacant property South—Industrial (I) Improved and vacant property East—Industrial (I) Vacant property West—N/A Old US 41 ROW IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the construction of a 13,830-square-foot industrial office/warehouse building comprising ten units on an unimproved 6.69-acre parcel. EAC Meeting Page 2 of 8 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed use is consistent both with the County's Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards". To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of this policy in that it attempts to enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing the wetlands as a filter marsh to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element for the following reasons: Fifteen percent of the existing native vegetation is required to be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas. The project as proposed preserves twenty percent of the native vegetation existing on site. Selection of preservation areas was found to be consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. The scrub area east of the railroad ROW is immediately adjacent to Conservation Collier property. Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans have been included as part of the Site Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plan submittal. Approval of these plans is required prior to final SDP approval. Preserve areas shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 8 Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Agency permits have been obtained and are included in the EIS. As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the q site development plan. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Recorded permanent conservation easements will be required prior to occupying the building or within 90 days of SDP approval, whichever comes first. A wildlife survey for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 is included as Exhibit F. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are part of the EIS submitted and will be required to be part of the construction plans for the SDP. Technical assistance has been sought from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Further information on this issue is contained under the listed species section to follow. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Engineering Review staff has reviewed this site for compliance with our requirements for water quality retention and peak flow quantity attenuation and has approved the design for those considerations. Flood plain compensation for the entire site will be required in the design of any future phases. Environmental: Site Description: The 41 T Corporation Industrial Facility is 6.69± acres and is located in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The project site is located on the east side of Old U.S. 41 just south of the Garguilo packing plant. The property is bisected by a railroad right-of-way on the east half and a Florida Power and Light (FPL) right-of-way on the west half. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 8 The subject property is approximately 200 feet wide by over 1,600 feet long. The property is split by an active railroad right-of-way approximately 132 feet wide passing through the property in a north/south orientation. This right-of-way eliminates 0.49± acre from the east side of the site leaving 6.19± acres on the west side of the railroad right-of-way. The 0.49± acre area on the east side of the project site will be preserved. In addition, 0.63± acre of an impacted wetland on the west side of the project site will be preserved. Remaining areas will be developed to include buildings, parking, roads, and storage areas for recycled materials. Wetlands: Approximately 1.90 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands and 0.35± acre of"other surface waters" have been identified on the property. The SFWMD wetland lines were approved by the SFWMD during an October 14, 1999 site visit. The wetlands are composed of four FLUCFCS types: Brazilian Pepper, Hydric; Willow, Hydric, Disturbed; Cypress, Disturbed; and Pine/Cypress, Disturbed. The SFWMD "other surface waters" are composed of one FLUCFCS type: Drainage Canal. Table 3 in the EIS provides a breakdown of the wetland and "other surface waters" acreages for the site by FLUCFCS type. According to the Collier County Soils Map, the following soil types are found on the property (Figure 3): Unit 7 — Immokalee fine sand; Unit 17 — Basinger fine sand; Unit 34—Urban land-Immokalee-Oldsmar, limestone substratum, complex; and Unit 39—Satellite fine sand. The project has an existing SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit for impacts to wetland and "other surface waters." Mitigation to offset wetland impacts included the purchase of 1.91 mitigation credits from Panther Island Mitigation Bank as permitted by SFWMD Permit No. 11-02000-P and USACE Permit No. 200003312 (IP-MN). A letter modification from SFWMD has been received for impacts to the xeric oak area and additional stormwater treatment has been required and is shown on the construction plans. Listed Species: No listed wildlife species were located on-site during the most recent surveys. In previous surveys, gopher tortoise burrows and the endangered Curtiss' milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) was observed on site. Curtiss' milkweed are sometimes only present underground and are difficult to distinguish from other vegetation even when they are in flower(Putz, Minno 1995). The entire scrub habitat west of the railroad line is proposed to be impacted as part of this SDP. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 8 The SFWMD and USACE permits both show no impacts to the scrub habitat on site. Those permitting processes include review and comments from the appropriate wildlife agencies. The applicant now proposes to impact much of this rare habitat so technical assistance from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has been sought. As of now, the following has been received from FWC: {We want a review and will provide comments after we see and understand the proposal. At a minimum the area to be impacted would need to be mitigated since it was set aside as preserve in the initial permit reviews. Xeric scrub s one of the rarest upland habitats in Collier County and its loss should be avoided and minimizes as much as possible; and mitigated if avoidance and minimization is not possible. As reported in my 1993 study of xeric habitats in southwest Florida for the Florida Academy of Sciences "In 1986, 1,031 to 1,161 acres of the xeric oak scrub remained in southwest Florida. Based upon the historical estimates, this represented only 1% to 1.5% of the original extents of these habitats. Stated from a different perspective, 98.5% to 99% of the xeric oak scrub communities have been altered or removed by land development activities, based upon an analysis of suitable soil acreage known to support scrub vegetation. In 1986, Collier County contained approximately 665 to 798 acres of xeric oak scrub (approximately 68 % of the region's xeric oak habitats). Examination of the 1986 LANDSAT images reveals that the (Collier County) xeric oak scrub is concentrated on the Gulf of Mexico coastal ridge, along riverine drainages of the Cocohatchee River, and on the Immokalee Ridge. Coastal strand is found dominantly on state and county owned lands, such as the Delnor-Wiggins State Recreation Area, the proposed Key Island acquisition, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Ten- Thousand Islands in Everglades National Park. Scrubby flatwoods are notably present in the coastal ridge west of US 41, western Golden Gate Estates, northern ridges along Immokalee Road, and at Rookery Bay. "} EAC Meeting Page 6 of 8 As part of the USACE permit, the FWS has approved an indigo snake management plan. This plan should be part of the SDP construction plans and implemented during construction. Technical assistance from the FWS has not been received at this time. Any required reduction of impacts or mitigation will be verified prior to approvals of the clearing plan. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Engineering: None Environmental: Environmental staff recommends approval of Site Development Plan SDP-2004- AR-4620, 41 T Corporation Industrial Facility only if the following conditions are approved: 1. To be consistent with CCME Policy 7.1.2, all areas of scrub habitat/xeric oak (FLUCFCS Code 421) must be removed from clearing plan and no site work is allowed in this area until all listed species requirements of FWS and FWC have been addressed and any required mitigation performed. 2. All preserve and habitat management plans must be on 24" x 36" sheets and part of the SDP construction plans. 3. Approved indigo snake management plan is required to be implemented prior to beginning any construction including site clearing. Name and contact information of qualified biologist who will be monitoring work must be supplied to Environmental Services staff at the pre-construction meeting. 4. Permanent conservation easements dedicated to the County will be required over preserves within 90 days of SDP approval or prior to CO of the building, whichever comes first. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: gift S AN CHRZANOWS , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE APMASON R ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT fi /tie� q >_57dJ DA 1i ED 14000 DATE PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 8 of 8 n REVIEWED BY: LatinIicG, ' .. /. 9-16-05-' BARBARA S. BURGESO� DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRO TAL SPECIALIST i 1/ -/Sa._ 6/44-0.c At JAM D. LOREN , Jr., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR i, 1 il .._.... vt it.. VMAS '4111 STEVEN GRIFFIN 41 DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: / � • EPH K. S HMITT D A T ••MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR f n n Item V. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF October 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: PUD Rezone,No. PUDZ-2005-AR-7422 Petition Name: Wolf Creek PUD Applicant/Developer: Prime Homes, Inc. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Assoc. Environmental Consultant: Hoover Planning&Development, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862). The petition would add 30.41 acres for a total of 178.1 acres to be contained within the Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) is bordered by the Island Walk DRI to the west, Palermo Cove PUD to the north, the proposed Sonoma Oaks PUD and the Mission Hills PUD to the east, and by Carolina Village PUD to the south. Most of the neighboring uses will be residential development. Both the Carolina Village PUD and the Mission Hills PUD permit commercial development. ZONING DESCRIPTION North: Palermo Cove PUD Future residential East: A, Mission Hills CPUD Future residential, commercial South: Carolina Village CPUD Future commercial West: Island Walk DRI Residential IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed PUD Amendment would add 30.41 acres to the existing Wolf Creek PUD for a new total of 178.1 acres in this district. The amendment seeks to add an additional 117 dwelling units, for a new maximum development potential of 708 dwelling units. The petition, if approved, would reduce the maximum allowable height of multi-family dwellings from three stories to two stories, not to exceed 38 feet. It would also eliminate nursing homes, private schools, adult living facilities and churches as allowable uses within the PUD. EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 2 of 8 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed- Use District, Urban Residential Sub district) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. Relevant to this petition, this Sub district permits a variety of residential unit types at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) and limited to a maximum of 16 DU/A, as allowed under the Density Rating System. No density bonuses are requested and no density reductions are applicable. Therefore, the site is eligible for 4 DU/A. The requested density is 3.98 DU/A. Per FLUE Policy 7.1, access to the project has been provided via Vanderbilt Beach Road. With regard to FLUE Policy 7.2, internal access has been provided to neighboring commercial to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires that all new developments are compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses. The Comprehensive Planning Department leaves this determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Dept. staff as part of their review of the petition in its totality. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the proposed uses and density for the subject site can be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2. of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals,rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards". To accomplish that,policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of storm water runoff, storm water systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water(discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of runoff leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during and after storm events. The project will meet some of the requirements of Goal 6 of the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME)regarding retaining and or preserving 25% of the viable EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 3 of 8 naturally functioning native vegetation on-site, including both the under-story and the groundcover. Twenty-five percent(25%) of the existing naturally functioning native vegetation is 32.80 acres. However, the preserve selection does not emphasize the largest contiguous areas possible. The indigenous vegetation was preserved with fox squirrel habitat having the first priority (not yet confirmed by FFWCC); followed by wetlands with a functionality of higher than .7 UMAM (not yet confirmed by SFWMD). Approximately 98% of onsite wetlands are being preserved. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Storm water Management: The addition of these contiguous tracts to the existing Wolf Creek PUD allows for a more efficient storm water collection, treatment and discharge system. The expanded storm water management system must be reviewed, approved, and permitted by the South Florida Water Management District prior to the issuance of any approvals for Site Development Plans or Plats/Plans. Environmental: The Wolf Creek PUD has provided a preserve in the north part of parcel 2 in order to tie into a major wetland flow-way that is being preserved by the Palermo Cove PUD and Summit Place PUD to the north. The applicant states in the EIS, "that the upland corridor has been provided along the west and north of parcel 3B in the Wolf Creek PUD in order to provide a connection between the large wetland preserve on parcels 4 & 11 and the aforementioned flow-way to the north for wildlife." However, County review staff comments state, "If claiming that it will function as a wildlife corridor, then provide correspondence from FWC that states the proposed preserve will function as a wildlife corridor."That correspondence has not been provided. The applicant states on page 14 of the EIS that the corridor provided on parcels 2, 3A, and 3B, "... will allow wildlife the possibility of moving between wetland preserves within the project and to wetland preserves on the adjacent projects to the north." However, on page 36 of the EIS the applicant states, "Squirrels such as gray or Big Cypress fox squirrels may use the property. No other listed species have been observed." There were five Protected Species Surveys done on various parcels on April 1, 2002; April 4, 2003; February 6, 2004; March 10, 2005; March 23, 2005. One of the five surveys prepared on April 4, 2003 indicated a single Big Cypress Fox Squirrel was seen along Wolfe Road just outside of the area of the proposed fox squirrel preserve. As requested, the applicant has not provided written technical assistance from the State or Federal agencies stating that the provided wildlife corridor is wide enough, sufficient, or appropriately located for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel that may exist on the property. EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 4 of 8 Site Description: The property contains about 131.18 acres of native vegetation. This includes Palmetto Prairie (1.42 ac), Pine Flatwoods (48.65 ac), Cypress (9.63 ac), Drained Cypress (6.67 ac), Cypress with Melaleuca(1.68 ac), and Pine/Cypress/Cabbage Palm(63.13 ac). Wetlands: Wetland jurisdictional lines have been provided for all but one parcel in the PUD (parcel 11). There are approximately 11.31 acres of Collier County& SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands on the property. Within the Wolf Creek PUD, 148 acres is covered by 3 separate SFWMD wetland jurisdiction lines done at different times. Wetland jurisdictional requests were made to the SFWMD in February of 2005 for the parcels being added to the PUD (parcels 9, 10, & 11). A wetland jurisdictional was conducted on parcels 9 & 10 on June 13, 2005 by Krista Gentile. South Florida Water Management District found no jurisdictional wetlands and will be sending written confirmation. The project proposes approximately 0.25 acres of impact to wetlands on the property which equates to 2.2%of onsite wetlands. Preservation Requirements: The PUD requires preservation of 25% (32.8 acres) of the existing naturally functioning native vegetation all of which is being provided. Approximately 95% (31.3 acres) is currently shown on the Wolf Creek PUD Master Plan. The proposed site plan will impact 1.42 acres (100%) of the Palmetto Prairie, 43.48 acres (85.7%) of the Pine Flatwoods, .25 acres (2.5%) of Cypress, 6.13 acres (92%) of the Drained Cypress, and 47.10 acres (74.6%) of the Pine/Cypress/Cabbage Palm. Listed Species: The EIS states, "Squirrels such as gray or Big Cypress fox squirrels may use the property. No other listed species have been observed." Regarding correspondence with other agencies, the EIS states, "No correspondence has been received from the FWC or the USFWS. The FWC had opportunities to express any concern with the project during the ERP process by commenting on the SFWMD permit." However, the SFWMD permit only covers Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Big Cypress Fox Squirrel observed was seen on Parcel 3A. Therefore, the FWC has had no opportunity to comment about the sufficiency of the width of the Wildlife corridors provided by the applicant. EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 5 of 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Storm water Management: 1. A modification of the existing SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit must be obtained prior to final County Development Order approval. Environmental: 1. For the following reasons, Collier County staff recommends denial of this project: a. An approved SFWMD Wetland Jurisdictional Line has not been provided for parcel 11. The SFWMD Environmental Resource Standard General Permit only shows parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Parcels 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 are not included in the SFWMD permit; however Parcel 11 is the only parcel with wetlands that have not been delineated by SFWMD. Therefore, in accordance with Policy 6.2.6., Collier County staff cannot make a determination of the wetland preservation areas at this time. Please refer to Policy 6.2.6 below: Policy 6.2.6: Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, [required] wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form of conservation easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed in Policy 6.2.5(5)d of this element and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. b. SFWMD accepted UMAM(Wetland Functionality)scores have not been provided for Parcel 11. These scores are what Collier County staff uses to determine if this is a high quality wetland that would fulfill our Preserve criteria in Policy 6.1.1. Therefore, Collier County staff cannot make a determination in accordance with Policy 6.2.6. of the native preservation areas at this time. Please refer to Policy 6.2.6 above. c. The Preserve selection shown on the PUD Master Site Plan, specifically on Parcels 2 and 3 is not in accordance with Collier County LDC section 3.05.07. A. EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 6 of 8 1. , which states that the largest contiguous area possible be preserved. However, the applicant maintains that these strip Preserves are designed as such for a wildlife corridor for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel. Collier County has not received any technical assistance from FFWCC or USFWS stating that these Preserves are sufficient or if they will even function as a wildlife corridor. Therefore, Collier County staff cannot make a determination of whether this Preserve selection is in accordance with our GMP and LDC at this time. 2. If the Environmental Advisory Council does not propose a denial and recommends approval, then staff recommends that the following conditions be included in their recommendation: a. The final location of the Preserves is tentative. Upon submittal of an approved Wetland line for Parcel 11, accepted UMAM scores, and a letter from the agencies stating the proposed wildlife corridors are required and sufficient, the PUD shall be obligated to identify the boundaries of the final preserves; they shall be consistent with the priorities in the CCGMP and CCLDC. More impacts to high quality wetlands with a UMAM score of greater than .7 or if technical assistance from the agencies does not support the selection of Preserves as a wildlife corridor for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel then an amendment to the PUD will be required. Amendments to the Master Plan shall require a PUD amendment including a public hearing before the EAC, CCPC, and BCC. EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY:4il 4" 1 „/ -203-Ep 6,i- STAN CHRZANOW , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER 4/I . 0.2 3 ALP---C 'SUMMER B. ARAQU D TE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ias- - HEIDI LLIAMS DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER EAC Meeting 10/05/05—Wolf Creek PUD Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED BY: BARBARA S. URGESON� DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 20 DS- ILLIAM D. L•" NZ, Jr., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /Z-VC) E . w''Ni,,tjP'' STEVEN GRIFFIN DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNE OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: • PH K. SCH ITT DATE • MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR n Item V.D. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 2005 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 Petition Name: Sabal Bay PUD Applicant/Developer: WCI Communities, Inc. CDC Land Investments, Inc. Engineering Consultant: RWA Consulting, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is comprised of 2,416 acres in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. In general the property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S. 41, north and west of Wentworth Estates PUD, and east of the Naples Bay Intercoastal Waterway in the western portion of Collier County. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Surrounding properties include both developed and undeveloped parcels to the north and east, and primarily undeveloped land to the south, west and south east of the project site. Internal to the project are lands zoned VR-BMUD-R3, RSF-3, A and A-ST, most of which are undeveloped except for single-family residential units located at the north end of the in-holdings, near the southern terminus of Bayshore Drive. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- PUD (Naples Botanical Gardens) Partially Developed RMF-6-BMUD-R1 Partially Developed PUD (East Naples Community Park) Developed R.O.W. Thomasson Drive EAC Meeting Page 2 of 15 S - A-ST Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve E - R.O.W. U.S. 41 PUD (Wentworth Estates) Undeveloped W- PUD (Hamilton Harbor) Undeveloped City of Naples Undeveloped IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A large portion of the subject property was originally rezoned to the Planned Unit Development zoning district as the CDC PUD, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 1986. In conjunction with that zoning action, the Board of County Commissioners also approved the CDC DRI for the subject property, which has also been known as the Collier DRI and the Sabal Bay project. In a companion request, that DRI is proposed to be abandoned because the original DRI parcel has been divided into separate tracts and is being i-. developed differently that originally planned. The Botanical Gardens PUD was carved out of what was the original CDC PUD and the Hamilton Harbor development has taken a different development path as well. Development of the Hamilton Harbor property, by mutual agreement, will be governed by the City of Naples rather than Collier County. The PUD is being amended now to add Agriculturally zoned property as shown on the petitioner's exhibit entitled, "Sabal Bay MPUD Zoning Map," that is included in the Application for Public Hearing, officially change the name of the project to Sabal Bay, and to reduce the intensity below the DRI thresholds. For example, the original PUD allowed development of 4,000 residential units; the current PUD document has reduced the residential component to allow 1,999 residential units. The project was approved as a mixed used project and would remain the same under the current proposal. Currently the Shoppes at Hammock Cove, a Publix grocery store- anchored shopping center with several developed or developing outparcels has been developed on site. Some transportation related improvements have been completed in conjunction with the requirements of the DRI Development Order and various agreements between the developer, the state and/or the county. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 15 The PUD is intended to allow development of a mixed use project that could have access points serving the project from US 41 (Tamiami Trail, East), Thomasson Drive and Bayshore Drive. Ultimately, access issues will be addressed as part of Site Development Plan application review. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed-Use District — Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict provides transitional densities between the Conservation designated area and the Urban designated area. Residential densities in this subdistrict are limited to a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Density Rating System. This subdistrict can accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use planned unit developments. A portion of the proposed project lies within Mixed-Use Activity Center#17 near the corner of Thomasson Drive and US-41. The Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create a focal point within the community. The commercial portion of the proposed Sabal PUD in Activity Center #17 is 58.14± acres. The agricultural piece to the southeast is 1.8± acres. To date, 87,038 square feet of retail has been developed (Publix Shopping Center 72,638 square feet plus Eckerd Drug Store 14,400 square feet. = 87,038 square feet). For the residential component, the Density Rating System in the FLUE indicates the site is eligible for three dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is also located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, resulting in a one unit per acre (DU/A) reduction. Base Density 4 DU/A Traffic Congestion Area -1 DU/A Eligible Density 3 DU/A The proposed project total acreage of 2,416±, minus the ±72± commercial acreage, yields 2,344± acres, from whence the residential density is calculated. The petitioner is requesting 1,999 dwelling units, thus yielding a density of 0.85± dwelling units per acre (1,999 dwelling units - 2344± non-commercial acres = 0.85 dwelling units per acre). EAC Meeting Page 4 of 15 This project is also subject to Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Policy 5.1 states: "All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Property zoned prior to adoption of the GMP (January 10, 1989) and found to be consistent through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and designated on the FLUM series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Zoning changes will be permitted to these properties, and to other properties deemed consistent with this FLUE via Policies 5.9 through 5.12, provided the amount of commercial land use, industrial land use, permitted number of dwelling units and the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, are not increased. However,for these properties approved for commercial and residential uses, an increase in the number of dwelling units may be permitted if accompanied by a reduction in commercial area such that the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district is not increased. Further, though an increase in overall intensity may result,for these properties approved for commercial uses, residential units may be added as provided for in the Commercial Mixed-Use Subdistrict. The Collier Development Corporation Planned Unit Development (PUD), in Sections 4.02-4.03 of the original PUD document approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 1986, contains references to the principal uses and structures for both the village center and the commercial district. FLUE Policy 5.1 maintains that, in order for a project to qualify as Consistent by Policy, the amount of commercial land use, permitted number of dwelling units, and the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, are not increased. The proposed Sabal Bay Village Center and commercial district's permitted uses and structures (e.g. amusement, recreation, health services, communication services, food stores, car washes, etc.) qualify as either a permitted or a conditional use in Section 2.03.02 of the LDC (C-1 to C-4). These uses and/or structures cannot increase in intensity from the existing Collier Development Corporation PUD, per limiting language of the PUD, thus the uses would meet the criteria of Consistent by Policy. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and the PUD document to ensure the PUD document contains the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element, Policies 5.1 and 5.2, and has offered no objection to the proposed PUD amendment. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 15 GMP Conclusion: The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to PUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. The Future Land Use Element designation is a portion of the overall finding that is required. The proposed uses are consistent with the property's future land use designation as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is also consistent with GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards". To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system". This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing lakes and interconnected wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1 & 6.5.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement has been provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review. In accordance with Objective 6.5 and Policy 6.5.2, proposed preserve areas have been located contiguous to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1, 25 % of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on-site and set aside as preserve areas with conservation easements prohibiting further development. Pursuant to Policies 6.1.1 & 7.1.2,preserve areas have been selected based on their utilization by listed species. Preserve areas are interconnected to adjoining off-site preserves and represent the largest contiguous area possible. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 15 Habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included in the PUD document. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Wildlife surveys and habitat management plans for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Technical assistance/approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) shall be required prior to Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval, to allow for impacts/development within bald eagle nest protection zones. In accordance with Policy 7.1.2 (3), "agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan". Pursuant to Policy 7.1.4, all development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection. A copy of the EIS has been forwarded to the USFWS and FFWCC for their review. Correspondence from the USFWS is included in the EIS. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 15 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The Sabal Bay MPUD is located south of Thomasson Drive and west of Tamiami Trail in Collier County, Florida. The project is generally located within the Lely Main Canal Drainage basin. There are two existing drainage canals that serve existing developments upstream of the property that are either abutting the property or pass through the property. The Lely Main Canal passes through the property in a general northeast to southwest direction through the center of the property. The Lely Manor Canal is located along the southeastern property line. These existing canals will be maintained and convey off-site flows through and around the project in accordance with the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan(LASIP). In addition to the two existing off-site inflows, there are commitments in prior development approvals that will be accommodated in the design of the project. These two planned inflows are the Avalon School Outfall and the Fern Street Relief Outfall. These facilities are needed to provide improved drainage for existing developments that were generally constructed prior to the implementation of current water management design criteria. Flows from Avalon School and Fern Street will be routed around the project and will not be accepted into the water management system. Within the project boundaries the existing and proposed drainage patterns are southwesterly into wetlands that sheet flow to Naples Bay. The stormwater management system for the project will be designed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SFWMD. The proposed conceptual plan as presented herein is conceptual only and may be modified during the permitting process. The wet season water table elevations (control elevations) and dry season water table elevations as presented herein are subject to change and are based upon review of adjacent permits, extensive ground water data, and the permit application for the LASIP. The project has been preliminarily divided into eight major sub-basins with two, B-1 and B-2, further divided into minor sub-basins. Sub-basins B-lA, B-1B, and B-1C with control elevation (CE) = 4.0 are the northern most minor sub-basins with B-lA already permitted and constructed to discharge directly into the Lely Main Canal. Sub-basin B1-B will discharge directly into the Lely Main Canal. Sub-basin B-1C will discharge into sub-basin B-2A. Sub-basin B-2A with CE = 3.5 will discharge via control structure to the proposed Lely Main Spreader Lake with CE = 2.5. Minor sub-basin B-2B with CE = 3.5 will discharge via control EAC Meeting Page 8 of 15 n structure to the propose Avalon School Outfall Canal. Again, please remember that this is conceptual based on approvals. Sub-basin B-3 and B-4 with CE = 4.0 are the eastern most sub-basins. They will discharge via control structure directly into the Lely Manor Canal along the northern boundary of Wentworth (Treviso Bay). Sub-basin B-5 with CE = 2.8 is located adjacent to the western boundary of Wentworth and is proposed to discharge via control structure to the Lely Manor Canal, which will ultimately discharge to the proposed Lely Manor West Spreader Lake. Sub-basin B-6 with CE = 2.8 is located west of B-5 and proposed to discharge southwesterly via control structure into the adjacent wetlands,which sheet flow to Naples Bay. Sub-Basin B-7 with CE = 2.5 is located immediately wet of the Lely Main Spreader Lake at the terminus of the Lely Main Canal. B-7 is proposed to discharge via control structure to the Lely Main Spreader Lake. Sub-basin B-8 with CE= 2.5 is the western most sub-basin and is adjacent to Hamilton Harbor. B-8 will discharge via control structure to the west into tidal wetlands that flow to Naples Bay. The water quality analysis modeling according to the Harper methodology is required for all projects of any consequence and will be performed as part of the permitting of this project through the SFWMD. Environmental: Site Description: The project site is approximately 2,416.08 acres in size and consists of a variety of upland and wetland habitat types. Non-native habitats on-site total approximately 178.04 acres and include an existing commercial shopping center at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Thomasson Drive, open water bodies and agricultural land/cleared land. Major native habitat types on the property include mangroves, pine flatwoods and cypress/pine/cabbage palm. Also on-site are unique habitats described as scrubby pine flatwoods, xeric oak and live oak. A complete listing of the habitats on-site is provided in Table 1 on page 3 of the EIS. Wetlands: The project contains approximately 1,494.53 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)/Collier County jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 52.19 acres of Other Surface Waters (OSW). Wetlands on-site consist of both saltwater and fresh water systems, including mangrove swamp, cypress, wetland shrub, mixed wetland forest, hydric pine flatwoods, wax- myrtle/willow, cypress/pine/cabbage palm, mixed wetland hardwoods, willow, EAC Meeting Page 9 of 15 fresh and saltwater marsh, wet prairie, cabbage palm and saltern. Also on-site are open water systems and exotics dominated habitats. Construction of the project will result in wetland impacts to approximately 460 acres of on-site jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 12 acres of OSW. The wetland mitigation plan for the project preserves approximately 1,256.24 acres of native habitat on-site (52% of the project site). Mitigation involves enhancement and preservation of 1038.20 acres of wetlands and 177.62 acres of uplands, and preservation of 40.42 acres of OSW. Wetlands with greater than 50 percent coverage by exotic vegetation are generally located on the north and eastern portions of the property, with the level of exotic infestation generally decreasing towards the southwest portion of the property. Since the site plan was designed to avoid impacts to higher quality wetlands, development is generally located on the eastern portion of the property and along U.S. 41. As part of the plan, native upland buffers and preserves will be located adjacent to proposed wetland preserves. Where road crossings separate preserves, wildlife crossings under the roads to facilitate the movement of wildlife between preserves are proposed. Proposed preserves connect to preserves off-site on adjoining projects and to Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (See EIS Exhibit 10). Adjacent projects with preserves abutting the project site include the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD, Hamilton Harbor PUD, East Naples Community Park and Wentworth Estates PUD. Seasonal water elevations for preserved wetlands will be maintained by routing surface water flows from proposed development areas through stormwater management facilities into the wetland preserves. Treated stormwater will discharge into wetland preserves as far upstream as possible. Control elevations for the stormwater management system will be established based on elevations of biological indicators of wetland water levels. These design features will ensure that surface water levels within preserved wetlands are maintained and length of inundation improved. Elevations for wetland water level indicators are provided in section 3.8.5.5 (B) of the EIS (page 24). Preservation Requirements: The site plan was designed to preserve higher quality habitats on-site and to locate development in former agricultural land and in lower quality exotic infested habitats. Specifically, the site plan minimizes impacts to saltwater wetlands on- site. Preserves are also designed to protect as much of the higher quality scrub where feasible. In accordance with section 3.05.07 of the Land Development Code and Policy 6.1.1 of the Growth Management Plan, areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife through the site shall be given priority when selecting preserves. Listed species utilization by EAC Meeting Page 10 of 15 habitat preserved is provided as Exhibit 29 in the EIS. Exhibit 12 in the EIS identifies the location of proposed preserves along with eagle nest and gopher tortoise burrow locations. In total, the project site is approximately 2,416.08 acres in size, of which approximately 2,238.07 acres have been identified as native vegetation. In accordance with the LDC and GMP, 25% (.25 x 2,238.07 = 559.52 acres) of the existing native vegetation on-sire is required to be retained. This requirement is satisfied by the 1256.24 acres of Preserves identified on the PUD master plan. Listed Species: Listed wildlife species observed on the subject property include American alligator (Alligator mississippienis), gopher tortoise (gopherus polyphemus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), white ibis (Endocumis albus) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In addition, five listed plant species, butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), inflated wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana), stiff leaved wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata), and narrow strap fern (Campyloneurum angustifolium), were observed on the property. Details of the listed species surveys/findings/etc are provided in section 3.8.5.7 (page 29) and in Exhibits 21-32 of the EIS. Active gopher tortoise burrows have been observed on the project site in association with pine flatwoods, scrubby pine flatwoods and xeric oak habitats. A specific gopher tortoise survey was conducted during the month of August, 2004. The survey identified a total of 708 gopher tortoise burrows (444 active & 264 inactive) within the project site. Accounting for survey coverage, the total number of active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows on the project site is estimated to be 804. The estimated tortoise population on the project site is calculated to be 327. The project will preserve 68 acres of suitable gopher tortoise habitat on-site. This includes the preservation of 51 acres of scrub habitat. Relocation of gopher tortoises to on-site preserves will not exceed a maximum population density of up to five tortoises per acre as required by the LDC. Four bald eagle nests have been identified on or adjacent to the subject property. These include bald eagle nests Co-009, CO-009A, CO-024A and CO-028. Three nests are located in slash pine trees, while one, active this past season, is located in a cypress tree. Two of the four eagle nests were active during the 2003-2004 season (CO-009A & CO-024A). Bald eagle nest CO-009 was last active during the 2000-2001 season. A fifth bald eagle nest historically occurred on the property. Bald eagle nest CO- 024 was located in a pine tree approximately 1,000 feet southeast of bald eagle EAC Meeting Page 11 of 15 nest CO-024A. Nest CO-024 was documented as fallen from the tree on May 21, 2002. The nest has not been rebuilt during the last three nesting seasons. Under the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (USFWS 1987) nest CO-024 is considered "lost" as of completion of the 2004- 2005 nesting season. As such, the USFWS nest protection zones no longer apply. The lost nest determination is based on more than two consecutive breeding seasons of loss of the nest. The applicant is in the process of obtaining confirmation from the USFWS for the lost nest determination. No residential, commercial or golf course construction is proposed within the 750 foot primary nest protection zones for active eagle nests on-site. Construction of stormwater management lakes no closer than 500 feet to the nest trees is proposed. Proposed activities within the 1,500 foot secondary nest protection zones include residential development (not to exceed 50 feet in height) and golf course. Since the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region restrict residential, commercial and industrial development, tree cutting, logging, and construction and mining within the primary nest protection zone, technical assistance from the USFWS and FFWCC shall be required prior to Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. One abandoned red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity tree was observed in pine flatwoods habitat in the central portion of the property. A 14 day nesting season survey and a 14 day non-nesting season survey for RCWs were conducted on the property from April 20 through May 3, 2004 and October 15 through 28, 2004, respectively. No RCWs were observed or heard on the property. American alligators were observed in open water habitats on the property. Four potential American alligator nests were observed on the southern most portion of the project site in association with mangroves and mixed wetland forest. White ibis and snowy egret were observed on the project site in association with the drainage canal. No nesting sites for these species were observed. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies list no bird rookeries on the subject parcel. The nearest recorded bird rookery site is No. 620022 located along the east side of Collier Boulevard in Rookery Bay, approximately three miles away in Section 9, Township 52 South,Range 26 East. EAC Meeting Page 12 of 15 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-A-2004- AR-6126 "Sabal Bay PUD"with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: 1. This project must obtain all applicable Federal, State, and local permits. Environmental: 1. Add the following conditions to section 8.7 of the PUD document. Upon receipt of technical assistance from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), all proposed improvements may be required to be removed from the Bald Eagle Primary Nest Protection Zone. ,.� Approximately 60 acres of the project site are identified as old agricultural operation. Soil sampling within this former agricultural area shall be required at the time development is proposed within these areas. Sampling shall provide soil analysis for herbicides, pesticides and heavy metals. Measures needed to clean up the site shall be addressed prior to site plan/construction plan approval. 2. The bald eagle management plan shall be included as an exhibit attached to the PUD document. 3. Amend section 8.7 (C) of the PUD document to read as follows. All preserve areas shall be placed under conservation easements with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. 4. Replace section 8.7 (B) of the PUD document with the following condition. A preserve area management plan shall be provided to Environmental staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval, identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. EAC Meeting Page 13 of 15 5. Amend section 8.7 (E)(2) of the PUD document to read as follows. If the eagles relocate to a tree that is not located on the subject property and the primary and secondary protection zones of the tree are located entirely outside of any area of the PUD proposed for any type of development; then the bald eagle management plan shall be administratively updated to reflect any of the following: new nest location; new primary zone location; new secondary zone location. If the eagles relocate to a tree and the primary or secondary protection zones of the tree are located on any area of the PUD proposed for any type of development; then the bald eagle management plan shall be amended and shall require a PUD amendment including public hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC). EAC Meeting Page 14 of 15 PREPARED BY: it ) ?.1OSEFOS STAN CHRZANOW c , P.E. DATE ENGINEERING RE W MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ""'W GHQ 'cvs STEPHEN LENBERGER DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 9-�o-05 KADLSELEM, AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EAC Meeting Page 15 of 15 REVIEWED BY: ah L. 1 q-670ar- - BARBARA S. BURGESON DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT -,, - ©9_zo_c.)s LIAM D. LI' NZ, r., '.E., DIRECTOR, DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /1 Z°AC STEVE GRIFFIN DA lh ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNE OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: ► Ai%L�.., O:EPH K. S MITT, ADMINISTRATOR, A E C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION /'*\ Proposed Action Plan Implementing Various Changes to Environmental Provisions of the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code September 2005 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC Overview In June 2002, the County adopted a series of comprehensive Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments that were responsive to the 1999 Governor and Cabinet's Final Order to bring the County's GMP into compliance with State requirements. The Final Order required the County to develop policies that "direct development away from wetlands and upland habitat to protect water quality, quantity, and natural water regime and to protect listed species and their habitat." These protections measures, while they may vary from one area of the County to another based upon the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and habitat areas, had to be applicable throughout the County. While the Final Order identified the Rural & Agricultural Assessment as the process by which these policies were developed, protection policies had to be applicable throughout the County. Thus the County adopted what were then termed as minimum standards for the entire County, including the Urban designated area. Subsequent to implementing the GMP amendments and associated LDC provisions, County staff has applied the requirements to projects that have been submitted for review. During this time numerous examples have arisen where these provisions have been difficult to apply. Some of these difficulties have arisen from imprecise language. In other situations, the resulting outcomes could have been better with other criteria, especially in the Urban Area where much of the development is infill in nature. In any case, these examples point to the need to review the current GMP and LDC requirements and to recommend better language or different approaches. There are a number of areas where improvements can be made to the existing GMP and LDC, either to provide for a better outcome or to improve our efficiencies in the review process. These improvements are categorized as follows: 1. Allowing stormwater in Preserves, 2. Providing for off-site preservation alternatives to meet on-site vegetation retention requirements, 3. Establish more workable criteria to determine when creating preserves on site will be allowed in lieu of preserving existing vegetation, 4. Evaluating the need for conservation easements in all situations where preserves are to be established, 5. Reducing the scope of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or the types of projects requiring EIS s. The purpose of this paper is to outline the problems encountered with applying the GMP amendments and LDC provisions, identify possible solutions, and provide an action plan to implement the recommendations. Page 2 of 11 • September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC Summary of Improvements 1. Allowing Stormwater in Preserves Problem Statement GMP Policy 6.1.1(5) of the CCME states that: "Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation." LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.h. (Allowable uses within preserve areas) provides for the implementing regulations for this CCME Policy 6.1.1(5) and states: Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing 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 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.1.c. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. These regulations specify criteria as to what can be allowed in preserves. Staff has been applying the above provisions to disallow the use of a preserve to function as a stormwater management system or part thereof since the GMP and LDC language addresses the allowable use (passive recreational uses) and does not specify a listing of prohibited uses. However, staff has allowed stormwater into wetland preserves where the stormwater can be shown to be important to re-hydrate the wetland for the continued success of the preserved area and received approval from the SFWMD. This is consistent with the requirement for a preserve management plan that is required to identify actions that must be taken to "ensure that the preserved areas will function as proposed" (Policy 6.1.1(6)). Applicants have been requesting the ability to introduce stormwater into preserves. An opportunity does exist for stormwater/stormwater systems to be appropriately incorporated into both wetland and upland preserves. Criteria could be established to ensure that (1) the preserve is not "harmed" by the stormwater and (2) that the combined preserve/stormwater system ensures a higher degree of water quality improvement than minimally required for stormwater discharged offsite. It should be noted that the SFWMD is in the process of adopting a rule establishing supplemental water quality criteria for Environmental Resource permits issued in the Southwest Florida Basin. These criteria will require projects to provide 50% more retention/detention water quality treatment that that currently required. It will also require the project to implement several Best Management Practices (BMPs) from an approved list of BMPs. County staff are following this effort to ensure that our proposed Page 3 of 11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC amendments are consistent with and do not conflict with the SFWMD's proposed rules. Some of these BMPs also address created wetlands and marshes. These BMPs could also be incorporated into the criteria for Recreated Preserves as noted below. Recommendations Staff has already drafted working GMP language for allowing stormwater in preserves. More detailed criteria will be needed to apply this to the LDC. The detailed criteria will need to address the following: a. Stormwater treatment prior to the Preserve. Standards should be established to provide for an appropriate degree of treatment of the stormwater prior to its discharge to a preserve. The SFWMD has proposed the use of sediment trap structures as a stormwater conveyance and pretreatment BMP. To be consistent with the SFWMD proposals, the County could require this type of BMP for treating stormwater prior to discharge to a preserve. b. Defining "no adverse impact" to the Preserve. Criteria will need to be established to define "no adverse impact" to preserves. This task will not be easy. It could be as simple as providing a list of native vegetation communities and soil types that would not qualify for accepting stormwater. More complex criteria could include the specification of hydrologic/hydroperiod criteria, e.g., the applicant shall demonstrate that an"x"year storm will not result in water elevations deeper than"y" feet for more than"z"hours. 2. Offsite Preservation for Native Vegetation retention requirements Problem Statement Within the Urban area, the GMP does not allow the offsite preservation of any portion of the required native vegetation that is required to be retained. This is not the case for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). For the RFMUD, CCME Policy 6.1.2(7) allows for off-site preservation for satisfying a portion of the vegetation retention requirements: a. Within Receiving and Neutral Lands, off-site preservation shall be allowed for up to 50%of the vegetation retention requirement. 1. Off-site preservation areas shall be allowed at a ratio of 1:1 if such off-site preservation is located within designated Sending Lands or at a ratio of 1.5:1 anywhere else. 2. Like for like preservation shall be required for Tropical Hardwood and Oak Hammock vegetative communities. b. Within non-NRPA Sending Lands, off-site preservation shall be allowed for up to 25% of the site preservation or vegetative retention requirement, whichever is controlling. 1. Off-site preservation areas shall be contiguous to designated Sending Lands and shall be allowed at a ratio of 3:1. c. Off-site preservation shall not be allowed in NRPA Sending Lands. Within the Urban Area, there is a need to allow for some of the native vegetation retention requirements to be satisfied by ways other than requiring the preservation to occur on site. Such an allowance would provide for additional flexibility in site design, Page 4 of 11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC especially critical for smaller sites. In some cases, the application of the required percentages may result in a preserve area so small that it begs the question as to whether the area provides any appreciable environmental benefit. In other cases, flexibility could assist in other environmental benefits such as increased stormwater treatment areas as noted above. Recommendations Staff has reviewed some approaches to provide for appropriate off-site preservation alternatives. A brief description of these approaches is described below: a. Establish a minimum size threshold for required on-site preservation. Currently staff is working with the recommendation that the required on-site preservation areas should be more than one (1) acre. (This size could change based on further research and public input.) This will allow more flexibility for smaller sites and recognize that small preservation areas have less ecological benefit than larger areas. As an example, Figure 1 shows under what circumstances that off-site preservation alternatives could be used for commercial land uses assuming current native retention requirements and a 1-acre threshold for on-site preserve areas. Providing on-site preserve areas smaller than the specified threshold will be allowed if proposed by the applicant. b. Offsite preservation requirements/Payment to the Conservation Collier Program. Staff has evaluated two options for offsite alternatives to include purchase of land off site and a cash payment to the Conservation Collier Program. The current proposal is to limit the off-site alternatives to a cash payment instead of purchase of off-site lands. Staff considers the cash payment as being a more efficient and simplified process. The value of the payment would be based on the cost to Conservation Collier for acquiring land and the cost of subsequent land management. d. Affordable Housing. Staff is currently evaluating the ability for qualified affordable housing to satisfy up to 50% of the required native vegetation requirement to be preserved using the proposed offsite alternatives. e. Essential Services/Publicly Owned ROW. Staff is recommending that the entire vegetation retention requirement be satisfied by the offsite alternative. Action Plan All of the above proposals will require a GMP amendment and then subsequent LDC amendments to implement the GMP. 3. Criteria for evaluating requests to recreate vegetation Problem Statement Within the Urban Area, CCME Policy 6.1.1(7)provides for exceptions to the native vegetation retention requirements: Exceptions, by means of mitigation in the form of increased landscape requirements shall be granted for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and the proposed activity. Criteria for allowing these exceptions include: Page 5of11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC (a) Where site elevations or conditions requires placement offill thereby harming or reducing the survivability of the native vegetation in its existing locations; (b) Where the existing vegetation required by this policy is located where proposed site improvements are to be located and such improvements can not be relocated as to protect the existing native vegetation; (c) Where native preservation requirements are not accommodated, the landscape plan shall re- create a native plant community in all three strata(ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. Staffs intent in drafting the language was to allow the required native vegetation to be created on site if the existing vegetation would be harmed (a) or where site improvements cannot be relocated (b). The ability to recreate preserves on site is also addressed in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.e. where additional criteria allowing creating the preserves was identified: Created preserves. Created Preserves shall be allowed for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area and the proposed activity. i. Applicability. Criteria for allowing created preserves include: (a) Where site elevations or conditions requires placement of fill thereby harming or reducing the survivability of the native vegetation in its existing locations; (b) Where the existing vegetation required by this policy is located where proposed site improvements are to be located and such improvements cannot be relocated as to protect the existing native vegetation; (c) Where native preservation requirements cannot be accommodated, the landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata(ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. These areas shall be identified as created preserves. (d) When a State or Federal permit requires creation of native habitat on site. The created preserve acreage may fulfill all or part of the native vegetation requirement when preserves are planted with all three strata; using the criteria set forth in Created Preserves. This exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the project. (e) When small isolated areas (of less than 1/2 acre in size) of native vegetation exist on site. In cases where retention of native vegetation results in small isolated areas of 1/2 acre or less,preserves may be planted with all three strata; using the criteria set forth in Created Preserves and shall be created adjacent existing native vegetation areas on site or contiguous to preserves on adjacent properties. This exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the project. (f) When an access point to a project cannot be relocated. To comply with obligatory health and safety mandates such as road alignments required by the State, preserves may be impacted and created elsewhere on site. ii. Required Planting Criteria: (a) Where created preserves are approved, the landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground cover, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. Such re- vegetation shall apply the standards of section 4.06.05 C. of this Code, and include the following minimum sizes: one gallon ground cover; seven (7) gallon shrubs;fourteen (14)foot high trees with a seven foot crown spread and a dbh (diameter at breast height) of three inches. The spacing of the plants shall be as follows: twenty to thirty foot on center for trees with a small canopy (less than 30 ft mature spread) and forty 1 ' foot on center for trees with a large canopy (greater than 30 ft. mature spread),five foot on center for shrubs and three foot on center for ground covers. Plant material shall be planted in a manner that mimics a natural plant community and shall not be Page 6 of 11 4- September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC maintained as landscaping. Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric habitats where smaller size plant material are better suited for re- establishment of the native plant community. (b) Approved created preserves may be used to recreate: (1) not more than one acre of the required preserves if the property has less than twenty acres of existing native vegetation. (2) not more than two acres of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than twenty acres and less than eighty acres of existing native vegetation; (3) not more than 10% of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than eighty acres of existing native vegetation. (c) The minimum dimensions shall apply as set forth in 3.05.07H.1.b. (d) All perimeter landscaping areas that are requested to be approved to fulfill the native vegetation preserve requirements shall be labeled as preserves and shall comply with all preserve setbacks. Although some detailed criteria is specified in the LDC (3.05.07.H.1.e. i. (a) — (f) and 3.05.07.H.1.e .ii. (b) (1) — (2)), the phrase "cannot reasonably accommodate" brings into question as to when and to what degree a project can recreate preserve areas. More precise language of this GMP Policy and LDC Section addressing recreated preserves is required. Guidelines for when recreated preserves are appropriate need to be more explicitly stated. Recommendations This has been a difficult problem to address. The intent of the current policy is to recognize that there are conditions that may exist for a particular site where the application of the native vegetation retention criteria could entirely prohibit the site's development or severely limit the use of the site. The GMP policy and LDC provisions attempted to establish some criteria for staff to determine want could be recreated to provide this flexibility. The wording of the policy has been problematic and has been found to be difficult to apply. Two basic approaches to rectify this problem can be identified. One approach is to establish more specific criteria for staff to apply on each project. The problem with this approach is that there are a myriad of conditions that may be presented which the criteria would not apply; it is virtually impossible to anticipate all valid conditions where recreation is appropriate. Another approach would be to create a variance/appeal procedure where an applicant can dispute a staff decision. The variance would also have general criteria to apply, but this process would result in a public decision. The current recommendation is to propose more precise language for staff to apply in allowing for recreation under certain circumstances and to craft a variance process to allow for recreation of native vegetation. Components of this process would include: 1. More precise criteria for staff to apply that would allow for recreation to occur. Current working draft language specifies the criteria for where other requirements of the GMP, land development regulations, including the location of transportation access points, or other County, Federal or State mandates require specific site improvements that can not be re-located to meet the requirements of the vegetation retention policy. Page 7of11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC 2. Creation of a variance process. Staff will recommend a specific variance process to be included into the current LDC. The purpose of the process would be to create a process where a higher administrator, formal advisory committee, or BCC could review information and adopt a finding for a specific project that it could not reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area and the proposed activity. The process would also result in a decision for what has to be retained and what can be recreated. 3. The goal will be to adopt criteria that will minimize the number of projects needing to go through the variance procedure. Also, the provisions for allowing vegetation retention requirements to be met with off site alternatives should be considered in any changes to the recreation criteria. Action Plan It may be possible to create the LDC amendments prior to any GMP amendments to further define how the County will apply the current phrase "can not reasonably accommodate both the required on-site preserve area and the proposed activity." This would then allow staff to address this issue in a timelier manner. Staff would still amend the GMP to further clarify any remaining issues. 4. Conservation Easements Problem Statement CCME Policy 6.1.1(3) requires a conservation easement placed over the preserve area that fulfills the required native vegetation retention requirement: Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of this policy shall be set aside as preserve areas. All on-site or off-site preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and protected by a permanent conservation easement to prohibit further development, consistent with the requirements of this policy. Applying this policy has necessitated staff to create an extensive process to create and verify the legal documentation. Staff would like to determine if there are other less costly and more efficient alternatives than identifying the preserve areas as "separate tracts" and to recommend LDC criteria as to when these mechanisms can be applied. Action Plan All of the above proposals will require a GMP amendment and then subsequent LDC amendments to implement the GMP. 5. Reduced thresholds for requiring an EIS and associated review procedures Problem Statement CCME Policy 6.1.8 provides for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to `provide a method to objectively evaluate the impact of a proposed development, site alteration, or project upon the resources and environmental quality of the project area and the Page 8 of 11 • September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC community and to insure that planning and zoning decisions are made with a complete understanding of the impact of such decisions upon the environment, to encourage projects and developments that will protect, conserve and enhance, but not degrade, the environmental quality and resources of the particular project or development site, the general area and the greater community". Projects include: 1. Any site with an ST or ACSC-ST overlay, or within the boundaries of NRPAs. 2. All sites seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary that are 2.5 or more _ —acres. 3. All sites landward of the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary that are ten or more acres. I 4. Any other development or site alteration, which in the opinion of the development services director, would have substantial impact upon environmental quality. The EIS may be waived for agricultural uses and for any land or parcel of land has been so altered as to have irreparable damage to the ecological, drainage, or groundwater recharge functions; or that the development of the site will improve or correct the existing ecological functions or not require any major alteration of the existing landforms, drainage, or flora and fauna elements of the property. For the purpose of this policy, major alteration shall mean greater than 10% of the site. Although the February 2004 LDC amendments implementing the GMP significantly .-� streamlined the LDC requirements for the content of an EIS, the cost of preparing and time for reviewing an EIS is still considerable. We should review the situations in which we are requiring an EIS and further explore streamlining the content of an EIS in order to reduce the time of preparation and reviewing EISs. Recommendations Staff recommends that the EIS requirements be streamlined to cover those projects where the EIS is truly needed and to make recommendations that will limit the requirement for an EIS for projects that do not have a significant impact. Amendments to the GMP and LDC will be necessary for this to occur. Action Plan All of the above proposals will require a GMP amendment and then subsequent LDC amendments to implement the GMP. Page 9of11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC Schedules As noted above, some of the proposed changes will require amendments to the GMP. Staff has prepared amendments to meet the for the EAR Amendment schedule that is summarized below. For those changes that do not require GMP amendments, staff anticipates making the appropriate revisions to the LDC according to the tentative schedule for Cycle 1 2006 LDC amendments. GMP Amendments (EAR Schedule) • Staff Development/Stakeholder Review October-December 2005 • EAC Review for Transmittal January 2006 • CCPC Review for Transmittal February 2006 • BCC Transmittal Hearing March 2006 • EAC Review for Adoption June 2006 • CCPC Review for Adoption July 2006 • BCC Adoption Hearing August- October 2006 • Amendments become Effective December 2006 LDC Amendments (2006, Cycle 1)---Tentative • Staff Development/Stakeholder Review October-December, 2005 • Staff Review Draft January 2006 • EAC February/March 2006 • CCPC March/April 2006 • BCC May/June 2006 Page 10 of 11 September 2005 Action Plan to Address Environmental Changes in the GMP and LDC Figure 1. Conditions under which Preserves are required on site for Residential and Mixed Uses assuming the On-site Preserve Requirement is 1 or more acres. Residential and Mixed-use Non-Coastal High Hazard Area Preserve Area greater or equal to 1 acre 100% 90% 80% 70% 860% ca On site Preserves a) Required > 50% c m 40% a) a 30% 20% Off site Vegetatio Reteniton Alternatives 10% -i allowed 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Site Size(acres) Page 11 of 11