EAC Minutes 06/04/2008 R
June 4, 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, June 4, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at
Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Hughes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
Allison D. Megrath (excused)
Roger Jacobsen (excused)
David Bishof
Nick Penniman
Michael V. Sorrell
Dr. Llew Williams
Paul Lehmann
ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCil
AGENDA
June 4, 2008
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of the May 7 meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. land Use Petitions - none
VII. New Business
A. Cycle 1 2008 lDC Amendments
B. EAC motions for approval and discussions - BCC action May 13, 2008
Note: Letter sent to EAC from BCC dated May 16, 2008 was sent to all members
VIII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
B. Create procedure on accepting new information at meetings
IX. Subcommittee Reports
X. Staff Comments
A. Constructing conditions of approval that are enforceable
B. Member absences - discuss members (including alternates) shall be available
year round to attend meetings.
XI. Council Member Comments
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
*******.......*...............******.*......................**.....
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue, Environmental Services Senior Environmental
Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Mav 28. 2008 if vou cannot attend this meetinll or if vou have a
conflict and will abstain from votina on a petition f252-62901.
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
June 4, 2008
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:00AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Stephen Lenberger noted that item VIIl.A includes an update on Stewardship
Sending Area Projects.
Dr. Hushon moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried
unanimously 7-0.
IV. Approval of May 7, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Continued to next meeting.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Dr. Hushon will not be present for the August, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Penniman will not be present for the August, 2008 Meeting. It is possible he
may miss the September 2008 Meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions - none
VII. New Business
A. Cycle 1 2008 LDC Amendments
Dr. Hushon chaired the meeting for this item.
Catherine Fabacher, Land Development Code Manager, provided a document
entitled "Land Development Code Amendment, 2008 Cycle 1, May 2008." In
addition to the document, there were revised Amendment Requests handed out
separately for pages 5-16 and page 33-34.
LDC PAGE: LDC 1:5 and 1:6
LDC SECTION(S): Section 1.04.04 Reduction of Required Site Design
Requirements: 1.08.08 Definitions
It was noted that this was one of the revised handouts encompassing pages 5-16.
Robert Mulhere of RW A, Inc. presented the amendment request stating he has
been sub-contracted by the Transportation Department to prepare the amendment
as he has extensive experience in this issue. He reviewed Policy 3.6 on page 16
of the document which outlined a Growth Management Plan Amendment
effective February 19, 2008 which addressed lands within right-of-way
acquisitions which may be mitigated through appropriate standards. The purpose
of the amendment is to provide greater clarity in terms of how properties would
be treated after having some portion of the property acquired for public use in any
manner, including dedication, condemnation, purchase, gift and the like.
2
June 4, 2008
Dr. Hushon requested clarification on the status of lands "acquired for public
use" containing existing natural vegetation - Specifically, is this area ofland
included in the remaining land area when calculating for native preserve
requirements.
Robert Mulhere stated that those lands would not be included in the native
vegetation preserve calculations for development purposes.
Dr. Hushon noted this provision should be outlined in the amendment and
possibly cross referenced in other areas of the Land Development Code.
Catherine Fabacher noted this revised wording could possibly be addressed on
page 12, 2.c.
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney recommended not including
this type oflanguage in the amendment as it is unnecessary and may create
confusion.
Chairman Hughes moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC
SECTION(S): Section 1.04.04 Reduction of Required Site Design Requirements;
1.08.08 Definitions) subject to Mr. Mulhere adding the suggested language
(discussed above) iffound to be necessary. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried
unanimously 7-0.
LDC PAGE: LDC3:72
LDC SECTION(S): Section 1.08.02 Definitions. Section 3.06.12 Regulated
Development
It was noted that this was one of the revised handouts encompassing pages 33-34.
Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department presented the Amendment Request
and read the language contained in section 3.06.l2.Z.l on page 34 of the handout
noting the Amendment outlines new requirements for excavations or mining
operations in Collier County Well field Protections Zones W-l and W-2. The
requirements are intended to restrict breaching of the aquiclude (confining layer
or unit) or an aquitard (semi confining layer or unit) in these protection zones. It
was noted that these zones were chosen (as opposed to including zones 3 and 4)
based on travel times of contaminants to the well head.
Dr. Hushon noted that the language should include a requirement of an area wide
underground topographic survey to identify the location and depth below grade of
the aquiclude and/or aquitard.
Dr. Hushon moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC SECTION(S):
Section 1.08.02 Definitions, Section 3.06.12 Regulated Development) with the
concept included of a topographic map of the aquitard and aquiclude being
generated by the geologists prior to any excavation requiring an excavation
permit. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 7-0.
LDC PAGE 3:48 - 52
LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields
(Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Wellfield)
3
June 4, 2008
LDC PAGE 3:48-52
LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Well fields
(Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Wellfield)
LDC PAGE 3:48-52
LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields
(Orange Tree Wellfield)
LDC PAGE 3:48-52
LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields
(Ave Marie Utility Company Wellfield)
LDC PAGE 3:51
LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields
(Ave Maria Language Change)
Pages 23-32 of the document.
Ray Smith, Pollution Control reviewed the Amendment Requests noting the
purpose is to remodel the Well field Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay
Zones for the existing wellhead protection zones (Collier County Utilities Golden
Gate Wellfield, Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City
Wellfield, Orange Tree Wellfield), and the addition of Ave Marie Utility
Company Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone and
related language.
Chairman Hughes moved to approve all 5 Amendment Requests. (LDC PAGE
3:48 - 52, LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields (Collier County
Utilities Golden Gate Wellfield); LDC PAGE 3:48-52, LDC SECTION(S)
3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields (Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden
Gate City Wellfield); LDC PAGE 3:48-52, LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated
Wellfields (Orange Tree Wellfield); LDC PAGE 3:48-52, LDC SECTION(S)
3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields (Ave Marie Utility Company Wellfield);
LDC PAGE 3:51, LDC SECTION(S) 3.06.06 Regulated Well fields (Ave Maria
Language Change.) Second by Mr. Lehmann. Carried unanimously 7-0.
Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities and Engineering Department was present and
answered a Council's question from a previous meeting, noting the ASR (Aquifer
Storage and Recovery) wells are deeper than 500 feet.
LDC PAGE: 3:38 and 3:42
LDC SECTION(S) 3.05.07 and 3.05.08 Preservation Standards and Requirement
for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation
Pages 119-125 of the document.
Susan O'Farrell of Code Enforcement presented the Amendment Request
noting it is to require individuals applying pesticides or herbicides in preserve
areas maintain certifications from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services for these categories: "Natural Areas Weed Management and Aquatic
Plant Management."
4
June 4,2008
A discussion ensued on whether an individual applying the chemicals could
operate under the license of a supervisor, or is each individual physically applying
the chemicals required to hold a certification.
Susan 0' Farrell noted that it was her understanding an individual could work
under a licensed individual. The Council determined that it is advantageous to
require the licensee to be on-site during the application of chemicals.
Speaker
Lane Schwarzberg of Ecosystem Technologies addressed the Council noting he
works in the Landscape Maintenance Industry and stated this is a favorable
amendment to protect the misuse of chemicals applications which leads to the
eradication of unintended species. The certification policy requires the individual
holding the certification to be within a certain travel distance of the operation (2-4
hrs), not on-site.
It was his opinion that the Amendment would not have an undue fiscal impact on
Companies that participate in this activity; however it may have a fiscal impact on
the persons or communities contracting the work.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3:38
and 3:42 LDC SECTION(S) 3.05.07 and 3.05.08 Preservation Standards and
Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation) subject to the
following conditions:
That the Amendment includes the language that "The individual holding the
certification must be on-site during the treatment of exotic vegetation in
preserve areas." Said wording to be added to the proposed language change on
the top of page 121 and 124, (Section 3. 05. o 7.H. 19.ii and 3. 05. 08.A. 6). Second
by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 7-0.
The Council commended Susan O'Farrell for her work in bringing this problem to
the County's attention.
Break - JO:30AM
Reconvene - 10:42AM
LDC PAGE 1:27
LDC SECTION(S) 1.08.02 Definitions
Page 137 of the document
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager presented the Amendment Request noting
it is to define the term "Passive Recreation" as found in the Land Development
Code.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE 1 :27,
LDC SECTION(S) 1.08.02 Definitions.) Second by Mr. Lehmann. Carried
unanimously 7-0.
5
June 4,2008
LDC PAGE 3:14 and 3:23
LDC SECTION(S) 3.04.0lGenerallv: 3.04.02 Species Specific Requirement:
3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants: 3.04.04 Penalties for Violation: Resort
to Other Remedies
Page 139-154 of the document
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist presented the Amendment
Request noting it is to include criteria for protection of selected listed plants and
to correct Scrivener errors in section 3.04.02. The related list of plants provided
on page 153 were developed via numerous Environmental Advisory Council
subcommittee meetings as well as Stakeholder and Expert Consultant's input.
Dr. Hushon noted that there was Subcommittee discussion to include provisions
for removing threatened or endangered species from a site and re-Iocate them to
an acceptable area; this language may want to be included in the Amendment.
A discussion ensued on the proposed language in the Amendment Request,
including who would determine the interpretation of the term of "where feasible"
and the language in Section 3.04.0lA; etc.
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council noting
the changes are favorable however based on recent studies, that Section 3.04.02.A
should address the density for Gopher Tortoise re-Iocations and suggested the
density be limited 2 Gopher Tortoises per acre. Further, she recommended
broadening the list of plant species shown on page 153 and would like to provide
a proposed list to Staff.
Stephen Lenberger stated he has a copy of the list of species proposed by the
Conservancy and it is fairly extensive and did consider the plants listed in
developing the proposed list. Further, a lot of the species on their list are not
located in the Coastal areas.
The Council recommended that the Conservancy submit a significantly narrowed
down list (3-4 additional plants) for consideration by Staffto add to the Section.
Further, that adding a density limit to Gopher Tortoise re-Iocation language
should be considered.
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
LDC PAGE 1:35 -1:36. 3:28: 10.89: 10.91: 10.96
LDC SECTION(S) 1.08.02 Definitions: 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected
Vegetation: 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits
Page 155-161 of the document
Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist noted the Amendment
Request is for providing a vegetation removal permit and provide determining
criteria for removal of vegetation containing nests or cavity trees of protected or
6
June 4, 2008
listed animal species. Some ofthe changes are to correct Scrivener errors as well
as adding the ability to protect dead woody plants that have a nest or cavity for
listed or protected animal species.
The Council suggested that the list or definition of "Protected Species" should be
clarified.
Barbara Burgeson noted that the County would process any violations as
necessary and then report them to the State of Florida for further actions. The
County is limited to a maximum fine of $5000 per violation.
The Council requested Staff to review this limitation and determine if any other
penalties may be levied at the County level.
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
It was noted that Amendment Request LDC Page 10:46, Section 9.03.01 and
Section 10.02.03 (pages 127-129 of the document) do not require review by the
Environmental Advisory Council's (EAC).
Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Planning Review was available to the Council to
answer any questions regarding the Amendment Request.
A discussion ensued on the issue of Site Development plans changing after the
EAC approves a related Environmental Impact Statement and whether the EAC
should review these changes.
It was noted that if a Site Development Plan change triggers a revision to the
application's EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the revised EIS would
require EAC review.
LDC PAGE 3:28:1 - 3:28:2
LDC SECTION(S) 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 163-170 of the document
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist presented the Amendment
Request noting it is mainly to revise the native vegetation definition and
requirements and to include criteria for off site vegetation retention for proposed
and established preserves.
A discussion ensued regarding the following items:
· Page 165, paragraph 7, line 6 eliminating the word "native"
· Page 166, paragraph 9, a possible acreage limit for this exemption
· Page 167, paragraph 2 and 3, the issue of allowing mismanaged preserves to
mitigate off-site without penalties
· Ensuring not to penalize proposed sites that contain low quality potentials
for on-site preservation
· Page 169, paragraph I, suggesting removing the language "up to 25
percent" and revising to "25 percent"
7
June 4,2008
· Ensuring the Amendment does create an incentive for existing preserves to
be mismanaged to allow for potential alternative uses within an existing
development
Sneaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council, stating
that the size limits for the applicable parcels is adequate and further wants to
ensure that there are not burdens created on tax payers on the management and
maintenance of these off site parcels. They support the 25 percent flat fee
requirement for grantors in management of the parcels, (which should also apply
to donators ofland within this category as well.)
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
Break 12:15PM
Re-Convene 1:09PM
Dr. Williams did not return
LDC PAGE: 3:30 - 3:34
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Pages 171-178 ofthe document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to include
wetland protection standards for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District subsection
of the code.
Chairman Hughes moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE:
3:30 - 3:34) LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards. Second by Mr.
Penniman. Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 3:35 - 3:36
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Pages 179-181 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to provide
criteria for dimensional requirements for preserves.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3 :35 -
3:36 LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards) subject to the
following change: Page 180, 3. 05. 07B.2 to read ''for property equal to or
greater than ten acres and less than twenty acres..." Second by Mr. Sorrell.
Carried unanimous(v 6-0.
8
June 4,2008
LDC PAGE: 3:36
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 183-184 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to include a
size threshold for which conservation easements are required.
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council seeking
clarification that preservation areas greater than 1 acre will still be required to
maintain conservation easements.
Stephen Lenberger noted this would still be a requirement.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3 :36
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standardstsubject to the following
change: Page 184, 3. 05. 07.H. 1.d, paragraph 4, replace the word "consistent"
with the word "compatible" in the text. Second by Chairman Hughes. Carried
unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 3:36-3:38
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 185 -190 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to provide
criteria when creation or restoration of native vegetation is allowed.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3 :36-
3:38, LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards). Second by Chairman
Hughes. Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 3:38-3:39
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Page 191-198 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to implement
requirements of the GMP (Growth Management Plan) with regard to Preserve
Management Plans and how they address natural diversity, Stormwater
Management Plans and agency approved Listed Species Management Plans.
A discussion ensued regarding the following items:
· Page 192, Section 3.05.07H.l.g.ii line 8, addition ofthe word "the" before
the word "vegetation"
· Page 192, Section 3.05.07H.l.g.ii, adding language that the approved
herbicide be used in a manner according to the label approved by the
9
June 4, 2008
Environmental Protection Agency (and/or Florida Department of
Environmental Protection)
· Page 192, Section 3.05.07H.l.g.ii, removal of the last underlined sentence
regarding mechanical removal of vegetation
· Altering Page 192, Section 3.05.07 H.l.g, after the first sentence, add a
statement "criteria i, ii and vi below are required for all preserves" or
similar language
· Clarification oflanguage on Page 194, Section 3.05.07 H.1.g.vii regarding
monitoring requirements
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council noting
the language is confusing over the standards required for the different size
preserves. Further, the requirements should address those preserves receiving
treated stormwater where necessary and agrees on the clarification for the
language regarding the monitoring requirements.
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
LDC PAGE: 3:39
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 H Preservation Standards
Pages 195-197 ofthe document
Barbara Burgeson presented the Amendment Request noting it is for adding
criteria to define allowable passive recreation uses in preserves.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3 :39;
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 H Preservation Standards) subject to the following
changes: Page 196, 3.05.07.H.1.h.i.a.ii to read "Pathway shall be kept to a
maximum width of 5 feet"; striking of the word "impervious" in Sections
3.05.07.H.h.1.a.i and Section 3.05.07.H.h.1.a. vii of the Amendment Request.
Second by Mr. Lehmann.
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council
supporting the Amendment Request.
Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 3:39
LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
Pages 199-202 ofthe document
10
June 4, 2008
Barbara Burgeson presented the Amendment Request noting it is to add criteria
to allow treated stormwater within wetland or hydric preserve areas when the
additional stormwater will either benefit the preserve or will have no negative
impact on the native vegetation or listed species in the preserve or to the upland or
listed species within, or adjacent to the preserve. She noted that this Amendment
Request was reviewed, but not approved by the Board of County Commissioners
in the last Cycle of Amendments.
A discussion ensued regarding the following items:
· The Amendment Request cross referencing Section 3.07.02 of the Land
Development Code regarding the 150 percent volumetric stormwater
treatment requirement prior to discharges into preserves
· Concerns of discharging treated stormwater into preserves with a
combination of hydric as well as non-hydric soils without installation of a
control structures
. Referencing a definition of a hydric soil
· Ramifications ofthe different locations of installed stormwater control
structures and their impacts (positive and negative) on the quality of
wetlands or non-hydric soils
· Possible language for parameters for the installation of stormwater control
structures
· Ramifications of allowing the discharge of treated stormwater into
preserves with non-hydric soils and upland vegetation (Section
3.05.07.H.l.h.ii.c, Page 200) and possible removal ofthis Section and allow
these applications to be covered by Section 3.05.07.H.l.h.ii.h (Page 202)
· Adding the word "treated" before the word storm water in Section
3.05.07.H.l.h.ii.g (Page 201)
· Language in Section 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii.e (Page 201) to ensure that stormwater
treatment structures are located adj acent to, or outside the preserve area
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council stating
that areas that contain non-hydric soils and upland vegetation should not receive
treated stormwater unless it is part of a deviation process provided in Section
3.05.07.H.l.h.ii.h (Page 202) and the requirement of specific management and
monitoring criteria. She noted allowing this treated storm water to enter these
areas are not part of the natural re-hydration cycle.
A debate ensued on whether or not there are benefits of allowing treated
stormwater in preserves containing non-hydric soils or upland vegetation and if it
is a positive or negative impact on any wetlands that may be hydrologically linked
with these areas.
Dr. Hushon requested that any individuals may provide proposed language for
this Section to Stephen Lenberger for review.
11
June 4,2008
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
LDC PAGE: 3:50 and 4:32
LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.04 Groundwater Protection: 4.02.14 Design Standards
in Developments in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts.
Pages 203-206 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to clarify in
the code, the process used to regulate groundwater protection special treatment
overlay zones and cross-reference this requirement to other applicable sections of
the code.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 3:50 and
3:42, LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.04 Groundwater Protection; 4.02.14 Design
Standards in Developments in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts). Second by
Chairman Hughes. Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 4:196 and 4:200
LDC SECTION(S): 4.08.07 SRA Designation
Pages 207-208 ofthe document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to correct
citations.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 4: 196 and
4:200, LDC SECTION(S): 4.08.07 SRA Designation.) Second by Chairman
Hughes. Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 8:11- 8:12
LDC SECTION(S): 8.06.03 Powers and Duties 8.06.04 Membership
Pages 209-215 of the document.
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is adding criteria
for a Petitioner to request a waiver to the Environmental Advisory Council
hearing requirements when specific conditions are met.
Mr. Penniman moved to approve the Amendment Request (LDC PAGE: 8: 11-
8:12, LDC SECTION(S): 8.06.03 Powers and Duties 8.06.04 Membership)
subject to the following changes:
Section 8.06.03.0.1, line 2 (Page 212) - from "when the following conditions
are met: "to "when one of the following conditions is met:"
Section 8. 06. 03. O.J.c, line 1 (Page 212) -from "An EIS was previously
approved by the EAC and the..." to "An EIS was previously approved by the
EA C and is less than 5 years old and the... "
12
June 4, 2008
Second by Mr. Lehman. Carried unanimously 6-0.
LDC PAGE: 10:06-10:14
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.02 Submittal Requirements for All Applications
Pages 217-234 of the document
Stephen Lenberger presented the Amendment Request noting it is to revise the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) sub-section of the LDC implement EAR-
based GMP amendment to Policy 6.1.8 of Conservation and Coastal Management
Element (CCME).
Mr. Bishofnoted that Section 10.02.02.A.2.a.ii (Page 219-220) regarding wetland
functionality scores is inconsistent with the Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
Stephen Lenberger requested Mr. Bishof to forward any Sections of the F AC
applicable to this Section of the Amendment Request to him for review.
A discussion ensued regarding the following items:
· Section 10.02.02.A.2.a.iii line 11-12 (Page 220) suggesting changing the
language in the last sentence to from "must demonstrate no increase in
nutrient... in the post development scenario" to "must demonstrate not to
violate State Water Quality Standards in the post development scenario" (or
similar language)
· Section 10.02.02.A.2.b.ii (Page 220) discussion over management plan
requirements for sites that "contain potential habitat for listed or protected
species"
· Section 10.02.02.A.2.c.i (Page 221) including language to incorporate for
"legally cleared lands"
· Section 1O.02.02.A.2.c.iii (Page 221) referencing the most recent version of
FLUCFCS - it was noted an opinion should be provided by the Assistant
County Attorney regarding the legal ramifications of citing specific versions
of documents, studies, ordinances, etc. in the Land Development Code
Break- 3:00PM
Re-convene - 3:10PM
· Section 1O.02.02.A.2.c.vi (Page 222) rewording this Section for clarification
on the specific type oftopography data required in certain areas and
possibly removing lichen lines as biological indicators
· Section 10.02.02.A.2.d.ii line 1 (Page 222) change wording from "known
environmental contamination" to "known or suspected environmental
contamination"
· Section 10.02.02.A.2.d.v (Page 222) line 2 rewording from "old farm
fields..." to "farm fields. ..." or "former farm fields" or define the term old
with a specific time frame. Also define the parameters of "Community
Facilities. "
13
June 4, 2008
· Section 10.02.02.A.I.A.3 (Page 224) line 3 reword from "development or
site alteration:" to "development or site alteration of"
· Section 1O.02.02.A.5.e.i (Page 227) concern over requiring a wetland
determination "to be verified by the South Florida Water Management
District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, prior to
submission to the County" and the negative impact on the applicants timing
in submitting applications to the County (having to wait for this
determination before submitting applications to the County for review)
Stephen Lenberger noted this is a Comprehensive Plan requirement and a
change in this wording may require a revision to the Comprehensive Plan.
It was noted that any individuals may submit comments on the Amendment
Requests to Stephen Lenberger for review.
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
LDC PAGE: 10:104 -10:109
LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for All Applications
Pages 235- 242
It was suggested that Section 1O.02.06.I.2.d. (Page 238) should contain a time
limit for issued A TV permits.
The Council determined that the Amendment Request should be reviewed by
Staff and altered as necessary based on the discussion and re-submitted for the
Council's review.
B. EAC motions for approval and discussions - BCC action May 13, 2008
Note: Letter sent to EAC from BCC dated May 16, 2008 was sent to all members
Chairman Hughes acknowledged receipt of a letter from Commissioner Tom
Henning, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners reiterating the Duties
and Scope of Authority for Advisory Boards. The letter was sent to members of
all Advisory Boards in Collier County.
Chairman Hughes noted that there was to be a presentation under this item by
the Assistant County Attorney regarding the Powers and Duties of the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney stated that Assistant County
Attorney Jeff Wright (Council to the EAC) could not be present for the meeting
today.
Chairman Hughes moved to continue the discussion on this item to next month.
Second by Mr. Lehmann. Carried unanimously 6-0.
VIII. Old Business
14
June 4, 2008
A. Update members on projects
Stephen Lenberger submitted a copy of a memorandum prepared by Laura
Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist dated May 23, 2008 to the Council regarding
an SSAll application.
B. Create procedure on accepting new information at meetings
The Council discussed procedures for accepting new information submitted by
applicants at or before Environmental Advisory Council hearings (information
not part of the regular distribution package.)
Chairman Hughes moved to require that any new information submitted by
applicants be received 30 days in advance of the hearing for Staff members and
7 days (calendar days) in advance of the hearing for Council members. Second
by Dr. Hushon. Carried unanimously 6-0.
IX. Sub-Committee Reports
None
X. Staff Comments
None
A. Constructing conditions of approval that are enforceable
Dr. Hushon noted that the Planning Commission has requested that Council
members indicate why they are voting "no" on a particular application. Further,
provide an explanation for the reason a condition is placed on an application
approval.
B. Member absences - discuss members (including alternates) shall be
available year round to attend meetings.
No discussion.
XI. Council Member Comments
Mr. Sorrell requested any information on the issue raised last meeting whether
County School projects are required to submit Environmental Impact Statements for
review.
Stephen Lenberger requested Mr. Sorrell to forward any information on a particular
project to Susan Mason for her to investigate and report back to the Environmental
Advisory Council with any explanations necessary. He stated that the parameters of a
School Board project review are determined by County Staff on a case-by-case basis.
XII. Public Comments
None
15
June 4,2008
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:08 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Chairman William Hughes
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended
16