Loading...
EAC Minutes 03/04/2009 R March 4, 2009 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 4,2009 LET 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 a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman Michael V. Sorrell Dr. L1ew Williams Ninon Rynerson ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA March 4, 2009 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 February 4, 2009 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions - none scheduled VII. Old Business a. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Discussion (this item will be discussed only if it is not completed during the Special EAC meeting on February 27, 2009) b. Proposing EAC Initiatives - to be discussed to send recommendation to BCC c. Update members on projects VIII. Subcommittee Reports IX. Council Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ******************************************************************* Council Members: Please notifv Summer Araeue. Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 2. 2009 if you cannot attend this meetine or if yOU have a conflict and will abstain from votine on a petition (252-6290\. 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. March 4, 2009 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 Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda subject to the following addition: Item VII. d. - Mission Statement Review Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Bishof arrived at 9:02AM IV. Approval of the February 4, 2009 meeting minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approve the minutes of the February 4,2009 meeting. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions - none scheduled VII. Old Business a. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Discussion (this item will be discussed only if it is not completed during the Special EAC meeting on February 27, 2009) Tom Greenwood of Comprehensive Planning submitted a revised document "Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Individual Member Comments Received for Vetting Related to the EAC's Review of the January 2009 Report of the RLSA AdvisOl)' Committee Report Entitled "Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program." The Council reviewed the document for the purpose of providing recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners in relation to the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Area Committee (RLSARC) Phase II Report, dated January 2009. Chairman Hughes noted the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) supports the Rural Lands Stewardship Program (RLSA), which is a voluntary, credit based land use Program for the purposes of preserving Environmentally Sensitive Lands and directing development where appropriate. Many details of the new proposals need to be addressed. Dr. Hushon chaired this item. 1. Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) and Credit Cap (page 1 of document) Dr. Hushon noted: 2 March 4, 2009 The EAC supports the RLSARC recommendation of expanding the current Program to allow additional generation of Sending Area Credits in Open Lands for the purposes of preserving agricultural lands. The RLSARC recommends limiting the total SRA designation to a maximum of 45,000 acres (Policy 4.2). Extensive discussion occurred if the Program should limit the total SRA designation based upon total developable acreage or the number of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) credits generated. The following issues were highlighted: · Concern an excess of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) credits will be generated under the RLSARC proposal and the holder of the credits will be entitled to utilize them creating an expansion of developable area in the future. In addition, potential devaluation ofthe "credit." . Should the Program be expanded to allow the SSA credits generated within the RLSA to be utilized outside of the RLSA in more urbanized western Collier County (incorporated and/or unincorporated areas). · Do the RLSA landowners support utilizing the SSA credits outside the RLSA? · Ramifications of either of these scenarios on Panther habitat and the identified Primary Zones. · The nature and characteristics of the development either scenario would potentially create in the RLSA. Dr. Hushon noted: The EA C was not able to reach consensus on this RLSARC recommendation. Policv 3.7 and 4.13 (Pa!!e 2 of document) Mr. Bis/lOf moved the EA C recommends Golf courses should not be considered passive recreation areas and should not be allowed in Habitat Stewardship Areas. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. 2. Transportation infrastructure to serve future SRAs: (page 7 of the document). Dr. Hushon noted the EAC reached consensus on: Not enough attention has been paid to the secondary impacts (roads, other infrastructure) required to support this expanded developmentfootprint. 3. Florida Panther protection and incentivization: (page 7 ofthe document) Discussion occurred on the concept of Panther Corridors and their viability as proposed by the RLSARC. Discussion occurred on: · The types of possible SSA incentives for developing Panther Corridors within the Program. · Who would determine the location of the Corridors? · The necessity of the Corridors being "viable." · The disagreement between various parties on the necessary widths of the Corridors. 3 March 4, 2009 Mr. Bishofmoved the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) recommends lands within a Panther Corridor as proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be awarded 2 bonus credits for said lands being placed in a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and an additional 8 bonus credits once all lands within the Corridor have been placed in SSA's. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Penniman moved to replace the word ''proposed'' in line 2 of Mr. Bishof's motion with the word "designated." Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 8-0. Break: IO:36AM Re-convened: J 0:45AM Discussion ensued on whether the 8 additional bonus credits awarded for lands within a designated Panther Corridor placed in a SSA should actually be awarded upon completion of "Restoration." Dr. Hushon moved the EA C recommends the 8 additional bonus credits to be awarded for placing lands in a designated Panther Corridor referenced in the motion above not be awarded until "Restoration" to the Federal standard has been completed. Second by Chairman Hughes. Motion carried 6 'yes" - 2 "no." Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Bishofvoted "no. " 4. Water for future SRAs: (Page 9 of the document) Mr. Bishofmoved the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) has determined that inadequate attention has been given to issues related to the quantity and quality of drinking water available for the RLSA. The process needs to focus on more underlying assumptions of water use, offer more guidance on conservation practices, provide greater assurance the effects of withdrawals do not have deleterious affects on existing water users at County expense. Second by Dr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Bishofmoved the EAC recommends all water treatment facilities be placed within the SRAs which they serve. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. 5. Other comments on CRD's and development in the ACSC - (pagelO of the document) Dr. Hushon noted: The EAC agrees with the RLSARC recommendation the "Hamlets" should be eliminated. (Policy 4. 7.3 old) Discussion occurred on Policy 4.7.2 and 4.7.3: 4 March 4, 2009 · The RLSARC recommends villages be allowed in the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Should Villages be prohibited? · Should the density of Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) retain the underlying density of l-unit/5 acres? The RLSARC proposes a density of2 units/acre. · Should buffers between individual CRD's be required? · Should any development be allowed within the ACSC? · Whether credits generated within the ACSC may be utilized outside the ACSC, or vice versa. · It was noted the current Program requires credits generated within the ACSC be utilized in the ACSC. Dr. Hushon moved the EA C recommends the language 4. 7.2, 4.7.3 proposed on page 10 ("Development should be directed away from the A CSc. CRDs should be the only type of SRA considered there and the number of CRDs should be limited to 5 and guidance include regarding how closely they call be located to one another" and "Density in CRD's within the ACSC should be limited to the underlying density of the land of 1 unit/5 acres or a total of 20 units allowed on 100 acres. '? Without a second, the motion was not considered. Dr. Hushon noted: At this point, the EAC did not reach consellsus 011 these issues. 6. Other Comments - (page 11 of the document) Policv 1.6.1 Mr. Standridge moved the EAC has determined it is in favor of allowing landowners to retract SSA designations within 5 years (as proposed by the RLSARC). However, the detail in this policy retiring SSAs should be included in the LDC. Second by Mr. Pellniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. Policv 3.9 The EAC noted the referellce to "aquaculture" was inconsistent between Attachment B and Policy 3.9 of the RLSARC recommendations. (Stricken in Attachment B and included in Policy 3.9). Policy 5.5 Mr. Bishofmoved the EAC recommellds the use of the term "listed and protected species, " etc. should be consistent and defined within the Program. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. Policv 5.7 Dr. Hushon moved that the referenced lighting standards, (the need for an effective reference to Dark Skies Principles in this policy as well in Group 4 policies on SRAs. The LDC will need to define appropriate luminosity as 5 March 4, 2009 well as down shielding guidance. There are many sources for this information and would not recommend focusing on a single source as the Collier County Planning Commission proposed) are recommended by the EAC. Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Standridge moved the EAC recommends the RLSA Program develop lighting standards that are compatible with Rural Development. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 8-0. Discussion ensued on which type of applications within the RLSA Program should require EAC review (SSA's, SRA's, changes in designations, etc.). In addition, would this require LDC amendments and would some of these reviews provide "administrative hurdles" to landowners. Summer Brown, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the existing policy is for Staff to notify the EAC on upcoming applications. rfthe EAC wants to review any applications, a request must be made to the Board of County Commissioners. She will review the Policy with Staff and provide any clarifications to the Council. Mr. Bishofmoved the EAC recommends Policy 4.2 be amended to allow for SRAs to be located outside the RLSA and additionally any requests for zoning changes in Unincorporated Collier County that increase the density or increase of use should be required to obtain credits to compensate for the requested increase. Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. Dr. Hushon moved the EA C recommends in Policy 4.7.2 "Development should be directed away from the ACSC. CRDs should be the only type of SRA considered there and the number of CRDs should be limited to 5 and guidance include regarding how closely they can be located to one another. " Second by Ms. Rynerson. Carried unanimously 7 'yes -1 "no" Mr. Standridge voted "no. ". Dr. Hushon moved the EAC recommends for Policy 4. 7.3 "Density in CRD's within the ACSC should be limited to the underlying density of the land of 1 unit/5 acres or a total of 20 units allowed on 100 acres. Second by Ms. Rynerson. Motion failed 1 'yes - 7 "no." Chairman Hughes, Ms. Rynerson, Mr. Bishoj, Dr. Williams, Mr. Penniman, Mr. Standridge and Mr. Sorrell voted "no. " Mr. Penniman noted at the February 27,2009 meeting ofthe Environmental Advisory Council, 4 members voted to delay the forwarding of the Phase II Report and/or related recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners due to information forthcoming on a variety of issues. It was noted this concern would be relayed to the BCC. 6 March 4, 2009 Tom Greenwood noted the Phase II Report prepared by the RLSARC is being forwarded to the BCC as written. A separate document will be attached containing applicable comments and recommendations from all Parties that provided formal review of the Phase II Report (EAC, CCPC, etc.). Mr. Penniman moved to postpone Items VII.b.c.d - X until the next meeting. Second by Mr. Williams. Carried unanimously 8-0. b. Proposing EAC Initiatives - to be discussed to send recommendation ot BCC Postponed c. Update members on projects Postponed d. Mission Statement Postponed VIII. Subcommittee Reports Postponed IX. Council Member Comments Postponed X. Staff Comments XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:31 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, William Hughes These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 7