Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/06/2005 R April 6, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 6, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Alfred F. Gal Ken Humiston William Hughes Michael Sorrell Judith Hushon Erica Lynne, Ph.D Lee Horn Irv Kraut ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Services Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Specialist Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA April 6, 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 March 2, 2005 Meeting minutes V. land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6192 "The Cook Property PUD" Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6258 "Palermo Cove RPUD" Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East VI. Old Business A. lDC Amendments VII. New Business A. Oustanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations 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 March 30. 2005 if yOU cannot attend this meetina or if yOU have a conflict and will abstain from votina 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. April 6, 2005 I. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Alfred F. Gal at 9:00 AM. II. Roll Call Roll Call was taken - a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda: The Listed Species update will be done after the LDC Amendment under Old Business. Agenda was approved 8-0. III. Approval of March 2, 2005 Meeting Minutes: Ms. Hushon had several corrections to mistyped words and will turn the changes in. Mr. Hughes made a request that the chemical analysis from the dredging be put into public record; this was not in the minutes. Ms. Lynne wanted to emphasize the importance of Barbara Burgeson's presence at the meetings; please add this to the minutes. She wants the county to recognize that this is crucial in order for the EAC to function properly. Mr. Horn made a motion to approve the minutes. March 2, 2005 Meeting Minutes were approved 8-0. IV. Land Use Petitions: A. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6192 "The Cook Property PUD" Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East No Disclosures. Chris Hagan of Johnson Engineering presented information regarding the project via a media presentation. This project is located at the old drive-in and driving range on Davis Boulevard, just east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. It will be for four units per acre. Mr. Kraut asked about which percentage is currently being utilized. Mr. Hagan advised that approximately 30 acres are currently under use. Mr. Gal confirmed that the staff report states that they will be impacting about 7.5 acres of wetland and asked if there will be any mitigation. 2 April 6, 2005 Mr. Hagan advised that they will be looking to do offsite mitigation as well as onsite enhancement. Ms. Hushon noted that would be required anyway. Mr. Hughes asked about pad elevations. Mr. Hagan noted that this is part of the Lely Stormwater Improvement Basin and they will have to raise the elevation of the house pads as well manage the wetlands. Mr. Hagan further explained that during a storm event the water will be directed into the lakes for treatment and then discharged into the wetlands and then to the flo-way. Mr. Chrzanowski explained that the surface water flow is fixed by the Lely Stormwater permi t. Ms. Lynne moves to approve with the staff stipulations. Mr. Kraut seconds. Motion Carries 8-0. B. Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2004-AR-6258 "Palermo Cove PUD" Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East No Disclosures. Dwight Nadeau presented a summary of the project to the committee in a visual presentation. This project is on the west side of Collier Boulevard about Y:z mile north of the intersection with Vanderbilt Beach Road. 38 acres of the project will be saved as preserve as part of a flo-way, this is created in conjunction with Summit Place. There are 131 acres in the property. They are requesting 4 dwelling units per acre. Water and sewer services will be looped and included with county services. There will be shared buffering and commingling preserves among neighboring projects. There has been significant progress with the Water Management District. In addition to the 38 acre preserve there will be approximately 35 mitigation credits. Ms. Lynne: Where is the flo-way? Mr. Nadeau indicates where the flo-way is on the visual presentation. Ms. Hushon asks if the ditch used for the flo-way (near the DiVosta project) is sufficient and is concerned about the canal handling the flow for both projects. 3 April 6, 2005 Mr. Nadeau advises that the professional engineer indicated that this has been analyzed and determined to be sufficient. Ms. Hushon advises that not only is exotic removal important but exotic management is crucial. Mr. Nadeau: I will be using supplemental plantings in the area. Ken Pasarella: You are correct that there is a high infestation of malaleuca on the property. Weare going to physically remove it and replant all of those areas with native vegetation which will minimize the re-infestation of Mala leu ca. We will continue to monitor and remove any re-infestation in the future. Ms. Lynne asks how this process is monitored. Ms. Mason advises that there is a PUD monitoring process. Mr. Kraut asks about the anticipated population at build-out. Mr. Nadeau: About 700 people. Mr. Kraut asks about the Collier Boulevard extension. Mr. Nadeau advises that the Collier Boulevard extension will be complete in 2007 and they should reach build out in that year. The Vanderbilt Beach Road expansion will be complete by that time also. There will be a light at Collier Boulevard and Wolfe Road. Mr. Hughes: So your flo-way will remain in an organic form prior to discharge. Mr. Passarella: The fertilizers that are used will first be directed in the storm water management system in the development and then discharged into the flo-way. The South Florida Management District requires that the water is treated before it is discharged. Ms. Hushon asks about the aeration of the ponds. Mr. Passarella: There are no fountains. Ms. Hushon: There doesn't have to be fountains; aeration does not mean fountains. Mr. Passarella: There are no bubblers proposed. Weare relying on the organic living materials to take care of the treatment. I'm not the storm water management specialist. I cannot tell you about retention times but it will be treated in the lake before being discharged into the flo-way and treatment will continue in the flo-way by the interaction of the materials. 4 April 6, 2005 Mr. Hughes: The word treatment is very overstated here. We are allowing nature to do the treatment. Mr. Nadeau: There is 50% more treatment required on our project site than the others. Our discharge rate will provide sufficient treatment. Mr. Hughes: One of my concerns county wide is the nitrogen runoff from all of the developments seriously impact our sanctuaries. Mr. Chrzanowski: That is currently under review with the water management district. I have been going to a series of workshops. The more organic material you run it through before it discharges, the more it binds up, but after a certain point it clogs up. Mr. Lorenz: This is somewhat of a new requirement; within the £IS we are requiring an acceptable methodology for post-development water quality versus pre-development. Within your EIS document there was a Harvey Harper requirement. It is my understanding that post-development pollutant loadings would be less than pre- development pollutant loadings. The issue of monitoring is difficult because you need some type of action. If you do not have an adequate trigger for an adverse affect on water quality, the monitoring is for nothing. That is why we require the post- development analysis. Mr. Hughes: We have an overall situation that is serious with nitrogen running off into our lands and estuaries. Weare aware of this problem. There has to be some type of management for these sites. We have never heard a legal definition of in perpetuity. Ms. Student: When there is no definition of in perpetuity you have to look to the dictionary for the meaning but, to me, it means eternity. Mr. Chrzanowski: I would like to get a plug in for 100 square miles of Golden Gate Estates that has absolutely no control on it at all. That makes this seem insignificant. Mr. Hughes: Personally, I would like to see the whole thing plumbed and there would be no impact. This is so large as to our future welfare. I know Bill's department and Joe Schmitt's department are doing everything they can. Mr. Lorenz: I'm not suggesting that we should have post water quality monitoring from a county perspective. My point is that if we are to recommend monitoring we also need to recommend what a trigger will be if you get to some particular actions level and what steps will have to be taken. Mr. Chrzanowski: There will be an analysis after construction but there is no baseline established from before. 5 April 6, 2005 Mr. Hughes: At least this is a start. We should start looking to alternatives to the heavy irrigation. Dry is great; brown is in and the more green we push the more we are poisoning ourselves. Mr. Chrzanowski: I've often said that grass is the worst thing you can grow in Collier County; it's an exotic. Ms. Hushon advises that the street overlay in Exhibit A is outdated and needs to be updated. Mr. Humiston moves to recommend approval; Mr. Hughes seconds. Motion carries 8-0. V. Old Business Ms. Hushon indicates that there are data sheets included in the packets are insufficient and does indicate sample points from the Haldemen Creek dredging. There is no key and the information is not clear. There needs to be more characterization of the data. Ms. Burgeson: That is the follow up information from the last meeting. We can have someone come in and present that to you at the next meeting. A. LDC Amendments Ms. Burgeson: We have a couple of changes that are in those packets. There are two items that have been withdrawn. The other items that were sent to you include the modified CCSL and the sea turtle amendment which was directed by the BCC for staff to modify to remove the prohibition to sea turtle areas to do emergency repair to sea turtle walkovers. We have re-presented this to the Development Services Advisory Committee and they have accepted these changes. 3.040.2 B4 - The paragraph that starts "the sands may be required to stay in place." We want to make sure that it's not obligatory and it meets the required conditions. We didn't want this to amend anything that has already been approved. Mr. Humiston: I had expressed concern over the restrictive nature of this. In paragraph 5 D it says permitting shall not be permitted during sea turtle nesting season. You should not expect the prohibitions or exceptions to be only during sea turtle nesting season. Ms. Burgeson: These are prohibitions just during sea turtle nesting season. Outside of sea turtle nesting season the prohibition does not exist at all. Mr. Chrzanowski: There are three amendments. One is for land development code 326 and LDC 4, 107-108 and LDC 1052. They're related in a certain way. Years ago we gave permission to developments to clear 25 acres of house lots to store excess fill onsite. With the economy change projects are pre-selling and people are buying the lots well 6 April 6, 2005 ahead of time. The developers know the details of their plans well ahead of time and present much more detailed site plans due to additional requirements. It is getting very inefficient for these people to dig and haul fill. We have looked at the building rates and have determined that 200 acres is sufficient to clear and fill when there are presales in place. The amendment to 326 allows for clearing when an environmental inspection is complete. We have had projects that are held up for a small detail. We see no reason not to let him clear as long as he has completed his environmental and water management reVIew. Mr. Gal: Are you giving pennission for them to start work before we review it? Mr. Chrzanowski: No, it has been through you many times. Ms. Burgeson: We will not approve an early work authorization prior to the EAC review if an EIS is requirement. There will not be a situation where early work is approved before your review. Ms. Hushon: There is an issue with digging the lakes and the silt runoff. Mr. Chrzanowski: The lakes are there to hold the silt. We prefer that the lakes are there to retain the silt prior to build out. Mr. Gal: I was thinking of a specific project where the staffhad approved and the EAC rejected it. I didn't want to get into a situation where they get an early work authorization without getting approval from us. Ms. Burgeson: The EAC would approve the areas that would be required to be set aside for preservation in all cases. It states that we need to have all final state and federal agency permits. We are assured that all permits have been issued and all county staffhas done their review prior to an early work authorization being issued. The risk is outside of the environmentally sensitive areas and outside of the buffers. It wouldn't be an area that we have preserved in the final assessment. We are looking at projects that are moving fairly quickly. Where you have a project that takes longer there may be an issue with the neighbors seeing the cleared area. Mr. Hughes: Nothing starts until the planning commission approves, correct? Ms. Burgeson: If a project does not require approval from the planning commission it will not go before the planning commission and will just have an administrative review. If a project requires additional reviews, they will be completed before any approval is granted. Ms. Hushon: 200 acres sounds like a lot to me. Mr. Chrzanowski: Island Walk is 600 acres. We do require a schedule. It's nothing for someone to say they will build it out in a year. 7 April 6, 2005 Mr. Hughes: My concern is if we approve the early clearing and then the project is held up for some other infrastructure issue, a project is held up. Mr. Chrzanowski: From our point of view we rather have a project done as fast as possible. The neighbors prefer that as well. If any fill is stockpiled for more than eighteen months it will be required to be put back into place and re-vegetated. We do require a re-vegetation bond. Ms. Lynne: You indicated that the reason this is going to work is because of the pre- sales. Is that a condition? Mr. Chrzanowski: No, that is not a requirement, but the economy could also change, in which case the pre-sales may not mean anything. Ms. Burgeson: The purpose of this is two fold. The one for the early work is so that people can start the clearing process. The second is to allow for them to clear and fill that larger area so that they can prep that 100 acres and stock pile on another. If you didn't change the numbers they could still do the early work but they couldn't prep the larger area. It also allows for some fill to be brought in from another site as well, 100 acres of lot prep fill coming in from another site. This is a request from the development community because of the price of materials. They want to prep these lots and get them built as quickly as possible. Mr. Gal: Could they finish all their infrastructure work and still not have their SDP approval? Ms. Burgeson: Right now, yes, but if approval is not given within 30 days ofthe work starting they have to stop work. Mr. Gal: Is there a chance that they could get permission to do early work but not get approval on the SDP? Ms. Burgeson: There is a chance but we require that they have all the agency permits prior to approval for early work. Should the SDP not be approved, the property owner will be required to re-vegetate the site. The chances are so slim that they will not get their final SDP, they may have to amend it, but it should be approved. Mr. Gal: My other concern is a builder expecting approval because of an early work authorization. Mr. Chrzanowski: Before the approval for early work we have looked at all plans and all permits have to be issued. The small issues that hold up a project are for things like landscaping and fire reviews. They are not issues that kill a project. If a project is not going to be approved we know about it well ahead of time. Mr. Hughes: Worst case scenario, if they fail, they have to re-vegetate. 8 April 6, 2005 Mr. Chrzanowski: Yes, and we have them bond everything to guarantee the money is there to do the re-vegetation. Ms. Burgeson: The early work authorization only applies to SDPs and PPLs. Mr. Gal: It seems like a PUD would be included in that as part of a development order. Ms. Student: I think that it should be clarified there because a PUD could be part of a development order. Mr. Chrzanowski: I'll put in exclusion for PUDs. Ms. Burgeson: Actually the language would prohibit the early clearing; it would not prohibit the other early work. I can take this language out of the clearing section and put that into the early work. And that will indicate that the early clearing will be allowed as part of the final review of the SDP and PPL. I think that was a good catch on your part. Ms. Hushon: When you talk of the 100 acres, it is part of the total 200 acres, correct? Ms. Burgeson: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Gal: Wouldn't it be better to try to issue the final order sooner than to allow early work? Mr. Chrzanowski: You have gone through the required permitting and reviews and are held up for something minor that will not kill the project. We want to be able to allow them to clear if something small is holding it up. If you ask for special permission, currently, you can clear 25 acres and hold the fill on-site. Ms. Mason: With commercial buildings you can clear for the building pads. Ms. Hushon: I'm not really in favor but I could see with lowering the amount that could be cleared. I don't feel comfortable with 200 acres, I feel more comfortable with 100 acres. Mr. Hughes: Where did the 200 acres come from? Mr. Chrzanowski: That is based on past projects. Mr. Hughes: So we can cut this in half. Mr. Chrzanowski: Right now they come in for 25 acres at a time and they come in three or four times in a row. So we can have them come in twice if they need 200. Ms. Burgeson: The amount you are approving is the amount that staff can administratively approve. They can still go before the BCC to request additional acres. 9 April 6, 2005 Through that the developer is required to provide a schedule for construction. This acreage is not site acreage this is the acreage of the lots. Mr. Chrzanowski: Like I said, they come in successively for the 25 acres. Mr. Hughes: I think its too much land. Mr. Gal: I'm not sure I fully comprehend what could occur. Mr. Chrzanowski: The worst case scenario is that the developer goes bankrupt and we use the re-vegetation bond. Ms. Lynne: Amending the land development code takes a lot of staff time and we hear that the staff doesn't even have enough time to enforce the code as it is. Mr. Chrzanowski: We spend a lot of time on these pre-clearing permits and preparing executive summaries for developers that want more than 25 acres. It would save a lot of time if I could administratively approve additional acres. Ms. Lynne: I'm sure your job would be easier if you could administratively approve a lot of things. I just want to see a proper allocation of county resources. Mr. Gal: I support this change. Ms. Hushon: I would like to see the acreage cut in half. Ms. Burgeson: Before you make a motion and vote on this I would like to note the changes that you have discussed. One item is to tighten up that language in the first paragraph so that it only allows for the final development orders. PUDs will be excluded. Requiring that it will be final SDPs or final construction plans will require that it has already gone through the other processes. We will add the bond requirement. We will also include a requirement for the development schedule to provide for an eighteen month build out. We will add that all underlying approvals will be complete prior to an early work authorization. Finally, we can identify when you may want a stop of work. Mr. Gal: My concern is that by allowing them to begin work you are doing a de-facto approval of the SDP. Mr. Chrzanowski: By the time they get all of the approvals, they are spending so much money that they are serious about the project. Mr. Gal: By allowing them to begin work and start spending money they will argue that the county cannot deny their SDPs. A legal argument could be made. Mr. Hughes: I say cut it in half. Most ofthese projects are well below this amount. 10 April 6, 2005 Ms. Student: I think proceed at your own risk language would be appropriate because we don't want to hear that anyone was vested. There's always an issue in vesting where you cannot draw a bright line. The courts will look at each situation individually. Mr. Chrzanowski: We already have an early work authorization procedure and the authorization letter can include a proceed at your own risk provision as well as the bond requirement. As far as the acreage, you can forward your recommendation to the board and I will go to Joe Schmitt and see if he wants to cut it down. It's still four times the amount that it was before. Mr. Hughes: With all that I would make a motion to approve with the 100 and 50 acres, as opposed to 200 and 100 acres. Mr. Gal: I think there is some major re-write to the ordinance and I think it should come before the board again. Ms. Burgeson: When we make the changes we will e-mail and send it out to all of the EAC members. There is opportunity to re-write it and bring it back to you in May. Mr. Hughes: I withdraw my motion. Mr. Humiston moves to request that staff brings back the amended ordinance with all discussed changes; Mr. Hughes seconds. Motion carries 8-0. Ms. Hushon moves to approve 3.04.02 B4 as discussed. Mr. Hughes seconds. Motion carries 8-0. A. Listed Species Mr. Lorenz: We had a workshop with the BCC on February 15th. They directed amendment to the policy 7.1.2. That policy had some inconsistencies within it. We had prepared an amendment to the growth management plan. The board chose not to make those changes. The board stated that our language was fairly workable and would be a good starting point for the next amendment cycle. That is the language that we will bring back through the cycle. The second issue is the habitat conservation planning process. We would look at listed species on a county level and develop criteria for certain species. This would have to be presented to the BCC and then go through the federal process. We recommended that we have a formal advisory committee that would take that task. The board accepted that direction and specified that the listed species would be limited to red- cockaded woodpeckers and that we establish that ad-hoc committee at a future board meeting and report back at the end of the summer. The BCC will then decide ifthey want to proceed. If they decide they want to proceed, it will already be included in the budget process. The BCC will include the ad-hoc committee discussion in their April 1 ih meeting. 11 April 6, 2005 Ms. Hushon: We have a chance to be leaders in this effort to other counties as we often are. I think the science coming from fish and wildlife has been shown to be sufficiently flawed. Mr. Sorrell: Fish and wildlife have no idea how many panthers or Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers are out there. They aren't even tracking the Gopher Tortoises. Ms. Lynne: I am concerned about the science also. A letter was distributed by Mimi Wolok that the science needs to be acceptable. Also we need references for all ofthe facts provided. We need real information published in journals. Mr. Lorenz: The challenge for the committee will be to determine ifthere is sufficient data. There will be another committee to follow through on the recommendations of the ad-hoc committee. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the challenge of determining a source of reliable information in this process. In addition, mitigation opportunities are not sufficient and do not necessarily compensate for the taking of a member of a listed species. There is a need for unbiased research organizations to provide the needed data. Mr. Lorenz: I am not asking for any action today. Ijust wanted to update you on the progress VI. New Business Ms. Hushon presented information on the Ave Maria project approval to begin construction. A newspaper article was quoted. "Knowing the immensity of the project and the application that had to be made and the complexity of the environmental issues, I can only say that we are extremely gratified that this hurdle has finally been overcome." I just want to point out that nothing from Ave Maria has come before this committee. I know portions of this proj ect are wetland and panther habitat. Mr. Lorenz: For the Stewardship Receiving Area there is a Resolution; it is very specifically written that it doesn't come before the EAC for review. Ms. Hushon: I really would like all of you to look into this to see if we are able to look at any portion of this development. Ms. Mason: My understanding is that it is a DR! as well as a SRA and it is a PUD process. Mr. Lorenz: I understand that a DRI comes before the EAC. The SRA does not require an EIS. The environmental assessment will come before this body with a DR!. 12 April 6, 2005 Ms. Mason: They did get a preliminary development agreement and that is for a smaller, more central area. Mr. Lorenz: This whole process is governed by the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay which has its own standards and process. Staff may want to look at if the EAC can request a review. It's my understanding that the DRI does require an EAC review. A. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Nominations Mr. Hughes: I wanted to make a formal nomination of Alfred Gal for Outstanding Advisory Committee Member. Ms. Lynne seconds. Motion carries 7-0. (Mr. Gal abstained) VII. Council Member Comments Mr. Sorrell: Several things came up today. We can make recommendations but it seems that no one follows up on them. The Gopher Tortoises are not being tracked. The discharged water is not being checked. We just received these chemical analyses sheets that do not show where the samples come from. Where does our work make a difference? It would be easier on us if we had more reliable information and began tracking things. Ms. Lynne: We work very hard getting laws in place but we don't check ifit's being followed up on. Mr. Lorenz: Your recommendations go directly to the BCC. If you want to provide a recommendation that is going to require a lot of resources or policy direction you need to be able to put together a report for the BCC. You may want to consider establishing some sub-committees to develop recommendations for the BCC. You would have to meet the sunshine requirements of the sub-committee just like this group. You can establish some topics that you are concerned about. Maybe set aside an annual date to review those topics. Certainly staff will be willing to help you with those projects. Mr. Hughes: We haven't produced a board report for a number of years. That's up to us to produce that. I would suggest that individually we make a list of topics to address so that in a public forum we can discuss it and become pro-active as opposed to reactive. I think over the next few months we should have this as part of the meeting. VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Ms. Hushon moves to adjourn meeting. Mr. Hughes seconds. 13 April 6, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman Alfred Gal 14