Loading...
EAC Minutes 07/05/2006 R July 5, 2006 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, July 5, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Terrence Dolan J ames Harcourt William Hill Lee Horn Judith Hushon Irv Kraut Nick Penniman - Absent Michael Sorrell - Absent ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review Manager MaIjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA July 5, 2006 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. A roval of June 14 'tI. .,t;readYFllt mlllliqg time, V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects B. Continue Proposed LDC Amendment - 2006 CYCLE 1 VIII. New Business A. DEP letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP B. Mirasol PUD extension IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ************************************************************************** ****************************** Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Deoartment no later than 5:00 o.m. on June 30, 2006 if vou cannot attend this meetinG or if vou have a conflict and will abstain from votinG on a oetition (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. July 5, 2006 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Hughes at 9:04 AM. II. Roll Call A quorum was established with Nick Penniman and Michael Sorrell being absent. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Burgeson stated that Mirasol PUD extension needs to be moved from section VIII. "New Business" to section X. "Council Member Comments." Mr. Hill moved to approve the agenda with this change. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carried unanimously 7-0. (During discussion of Mirasol PUD extension, this item was moved back to the New Business section, as noted in the Minutes below.) IV. Approval of June 14,2006 Meeting minutes The June 14,2006 Meeting minutes were not ready at the agenda mailing time; approval will take place at the August 2,2006 meeting. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences No comments. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Ms. Burgeson reported that Susan Mason, Senior Environmental Specialist asked her to note that the Keewaydin project is still scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on July 20th. B. Continue Proposed LDC Amendment - 2006 CYCLE 1 Dr. Hushon led discussion of two LDC Amendment Requests, one concerning the shapes of preserves, and the second concerning allowing treated stormwater in preserves. Section 3.05.07.H.1.b. Minimum dimensions: Dr. Hushon stated that the concept is to have a single contiguous preserve area no narrower than fifty feet, and to have it approach a SFR (Shape Factor Ratio) of 1.0, which is a circle. The goal is to have preserves set aside first for protected species and then high quality land, either upland or wetland. In big projects suitable land can always be found to set aside because there is a big area to look at for it. In a very small project it can be difficult to meet the criteria to set aside preserve land. Accordingly, should a minimum project size be added (i.e., a 2 July 5,2006 project size less than some small size to be determined would have no preserve requirement), and what might make sense for the minimum size project to be? The alternative might be to postpone this discussion until the next Cycle. Ms. Burgeson stated there will be an LDC process next year that will address minimum preserve sizes and minimum size projects in relationship to the ability to have some preserves mitigated or offsite. Not enough research has been done to enable a final conclusion to be made concerning minimum sizes for offsite preserves, so it was not possible to come up with the appropriate minimum sizes for the amendment in the meeting. She suggested tabling it until the next LDC Cycle. Following general discussion among Committee members, Mr. Hill moved to take the concept of a minimum size for the SFR ratio and have it looked into more closely for small projects in the next round. Mr. Hughes seconded. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Hill moved to require the SFR of the Preserve Area to be equal to or greater than 0.7 (replacing the current 0.6 requirement) unless the Preserve Area qualifies for any ofthe listed exemptions. Mr. Hughes seconded. Carried unanimously 7-0. SPEAKER Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation remarked that the Committee is taking votes before asking for public comment. She suggested that public comment be taken prior to voting as these comments may influence Committee member votes. Section 3.05.07.H.1.d. Allowable uses in preserves: Dr. Hushon stated that this LDC Amendment Request concerns the introduction of stormwater into wetland preserves. She noted that a number of changes that this Committee has recommended have been added, such as a monitoring program. Ms. Burgeson and Mr. Chrzanowski noted that the current Amendment Request language does not require that stormwater is fully treated before it is released into a wetlands preserve area, but it does call for the removal of "floaters and sinkers." Mr. Hughes asked if water quality would be sampled occasionally to determine if there is any deeper contamination. He expressed concern about the over- application of pesticides and herbicides, and downstream effects. Mr. Harcourt noted that he would favor some minimum monitoring, but he also noted that would add costs. 3 July 5, 2006 Dr. Hushon stated that another option would be to require a higher engineering standard. Discussion followed among Committee members concerning possible monitoring schedules and frequency. SPEAKER Clarence Tears - Director of Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District, stated that the District is planning to move permitting to Collier County under the Big Cypress Basin. They are in a transition phase now, moving most surface water permits and code compliance locally to avoid the need to go to Ft. Myers for these permits. He also noted that the South Florida Water Management District is recommending that UMAM scores should be handled by the County to prevent reliance on State agencies for unrelated local land use decisions. Ms. Burgeson stated that it would probably be a five-year process before County staff could take over the UMAM scoring process. She added that perhaps training of County staff could take place earlier so that they would be capable enough to do UMAM scores to get through the permitting process. Mr. Hughes opined that the South Florida Water Management District should remain involved as a review agency, as a check and balance to insure no improprieties take place. SPEAKER Bruce Lehman - Senior Ecologist with Wilson Miller stated that he was told by County staff that the reason for the proposed code was that smaller projects are trying to minimize their stormwater management, and some were coming forth with putting stormwater directly into upland preserves that are being required as part of native habitat preservation. The concern was that these areas do not normally have standing water on them and it could hurt vegetation. He suggested that the Code should be directed towards putting stormwater in the County only preserves and not dual use preserves. He indicated that he had spoken with Water Management District compliance staff who indicated that where they do monitoring they have vegetation mortality about once a year, sometimes due to too much water, but more often because not enough water is being put into the preserves. He requested that the draft be modified to apply to County only preserves and not the dual jurisdiction ERP/County preserves. Mr. Harcourt moved to make the water quality requirements for discharge to uplands in the stormwater discharge amendment at least equivalent to the Water Management District's requirements for discharge to the wetlands. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried 6-1 with Mr. Dolan opposed. 4 July 5, 2006 Mr. Dolan moved to accept the five year monitoring period language as written in the amendment with the stipulation that the EAC will re-review for possible water quality monitoring to be implemented at a future time. Second by Mr. Hughes. Carried unanimously 7-0. Barbara Burgeson noted that she had an additional issue to discuss regarding Preserve standards, Sec. 3.05.07, which states that all preserves have to be identified at the time of the first development order of submittal. The following change is being recommended: Preserves on an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended administratively so that they don't have to go through a full PUD amendment if it is consistent with the GNPs and LDC environmental regulations at the time of the amendment and the amendment does not exceed other thresholds that would not permit the amendments to be done administratively. Mr. Hughes moved to accept the recommendation described by Ms. Burgeson with the caveat that the EAC must be notified any time that a Preserve is amended administratively. Second by Mr. Harcourt. Carried unanimously 7-0. Barbara Burgeson commented that at the last EAC meeting the LDC amendment specific to the EAC was changed to add two alternate members to allow for the ability to maintain a quorum at meetings. Two other items need to be cleaned up in the amendment: (1) the re-codification of the LDC that took place a couple of years ago included a change to the appeals process that has been completely rewritten by an unknown party, and that language needs to be returned to the previous language, and (2) exceptions to allow an applicant to not have to come to the EAC for review if the surface water management aspect of the petition is being reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District. The EAC recommends adding the following language: "except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged in preserves as allowed in section 3.05.07." This would enable the EAC to review in those circumstances where South Florida Water Management District regulations are less restrictive than EAC regulations. Mr. Hughes moved to accept the recommendations described by Ms. Burgeson. Second by Mr. Harcourt. Carried unanimously 7-0. Break 11:10 AM Reconvened 11 :23 AM VIII. New Business A. DEP letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP Dr. Hushon commented on a Department of Environmental Protection letter to Jim Mudd regarding GMP concerning the benefits of mangroves. The letter was in favor of County Water Management Plans. 5 July 5, 2006 B. Mirasol PUD extension Dr. Hushon reported on the Mirasol project, a golf course community proposed to be built in wetlands in northern Collier County. She reviewed a memorandum that she drafted to the Collier County Board of Commissioners from the EAC stating the following: "The Mirasol project was initially approved prior to the appointment of the EA C, and thus has never been reviewed by this organization. It has been reported that after the project failed to receive a permit approval from the USA CE, the developers have redesigned the project without the canal and with a series of internal lakes plus 941 acres of offsite mitigation credits. Because of the many environmental issues involved, the hydrological complexity of this project and the implications for other nearby developments (Terrafina, Parklands and Olde Cypress) we are requesting to review this project before it is evaluated by the CCBC We would prefer that it come before you along with our recommendations rather than without this in depth environmental review by your panel of advisors. If you want us to review this project, please request the County staff to put it on our August or September agenda. " Mr. Hughes noted that this PUD came before the old EAB in 2000, and he agrees with Dr. Hushon's proposed memo. Ms. Student-Stirling noted that if this is a PUD extension request, additional requirements cannot be put on the developer. In reviewing a PUD extension request the County Commissioners would determine whether or not to extend it for a period of time or to require a PUD amendment, which enables additional requirements to be put on the developer. Ms. Burgeson stated that the PUD has expired or sunsetted, so the developer has to request a PUD extension, and she understands that the Board could place additional requirements on the developer. Dr. Hushon stated that the intention of her memo was to enable the EAC to recommend to the County Commissioners whether to extend or make an amendment. SPEAKER Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation stated that she is here to support the request not to extend the PUD. She said that there are significant environmental issues that need to be reviewed, addressed and explored by the EAC. She noted that the Growth Management Plan has changed significantly 6 July 5, 2006 since the original filing, and she went through the history of the parcel which has gone through a number of changes since it was first proposed. Ms. Burgeson noted that the developer was notified that the project was on today's agenda in case they wanted a representative to attend and comment. No representative from the developer was in attendance. Dr. Hushon indicated that she would change her memorandum to the County Commissioners to request that they deny the extension and require a PUD amendment. Ms. Burgeson noted that a memorandum is not needed, that staff will make this part of their executive summary to the Board Ms. Student-Stirling stated that because the Council is making a recommendation, this topic should be moved back under section VIII. "New Business" on the agenda. Dr. Hushon moved to return Mirasol to "New Business" on the agenda. Second by Mr. Horn. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Hughes moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that this extension be denied, and to require the developer to make a PUD amendment that would come before the EAC through the full environmental review process. Second by Mr. Dolan. Carried unanimously 7-0. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments None XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :52 AM. COLLIER COUNTY EVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 7