The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/12/2002 S COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 12, 2002 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". 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 THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1 June 12, 2002 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA DRAFT OF COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS ADDRESSING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL ORDER (AC-99-02) ISSUED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION ON JUNE 22, 1999, FOR THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING). 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 June 12,2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT OF COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS ADDRESSING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL ORDER (AC-99-02) ISSUED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION ON JUNE 22, 1999, FOR THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING). OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners review for Transmittal the attached draft GMP Amendments intended to address the requirements of the Final Order, for the Eastern Lands portion of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment). CONSIDERATIONS: Backl~round Pursuant to the Final Order imposed by the Govemor and Cabinet on June 22, 1999, the State of Florida has mandated certain revisions to Collier County's Growth Management Plan. The Final Order directs the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment (the "Assessment") to collect the appropriate data, gather public input and to develop amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Major issues to be addressed by the Assessment include: protecting wetlands, wildlife and their habitats; protecting prime or unique agricultural lands from the premature conversion to other uses; and, assessing the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of these rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations. All of this is to occur while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. The Final Order acknowledges there must be a balance between meeting these regulatory requirements and protecting private property rights. The creative techniques may include, but are not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development. The Final Order allows the County to conduct the Assessment in phases. Accordingly, Collier County has divided the Assessment into two geographical areas - the Rural Fringe Area, and the Eastern Lands Area, also known as the "Immokalee Area Study" (and sometimes referred to as the "Rural Lands ,Area"). The Final Order requires that the County adopt GMP Amendments developed as a result of the Assessment process by June 22, 2002, excluding the "Eastern Lands Area", for which adoption of the GMP amendments is required by November 1, 2002. As part of this process, Collier County has established the (ELAC) to address the planning for each respective area. The Final Order notes that public participation will be the "hallmark" of this planning effort. The primary mechanisms to involve and inform the public and solicit community input during the Assessment process have included: advertised meetings of the advisory committees; an interactive Rural Assessment web site containing all pertinent documents, meeting agendas and minutes; presentations to various BCC advisory committees and community, civic, and professional organizations; presentation to various stakeholder groups; and, several special, public JUN 1 2 2002 meetings and workshops. The ELAC, for example, has held 33 advertised meetings over the past two and one half years. The GMP Transmittal amendments only apply to the Eastern Lands portion of the Assessment Area. The Rural Fringe amendments also included some policies with countywide applicability, less the Eastern Lands. Data Collection and Analysis Within the Eastern Lands Area, the County previously authorized a scope of services wherein WilsonMiller, as consultant to several large property owners in the area, collectively known as the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO), to collect and analyze data that will form the basis for the proposed amendments in the Eastern Lands Area. Accordingly, WilsonMiller has provided a series of data sets addressing land use, land cover, wildlife and other resource information that were updated and field verified to establish a Geographical Information System (GIS) data base that is current to November 2001. These data have been used in the study to address the requirements of the Final Order, to guide the design of various planning alternatives (scenarios), and to assist in the formulation of Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs). This information is summarized in the document entitled "Report and Recommendations of the Collier Count~' Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study, Ma), 2002." The Committee's recommended GOPs as of April 29, 2002 can be found in Section X of this Report. The Eastern Lands portion (Immokalee Area Study) of the Rural Assessment encompasses approximately 195,000+ acres, the vast majority supporting agicultural uses. Approximately 113,000 acres (58%) of the area is classified as Agriculture with infrastructure. Grazing leases account for another 63,600 acres (33%). Public lands account for approximately 13,000 acres (7%). Other uses such as residential, commercial, mining, etc. account for only 3,600 acres (2%). Water accounts for 2,000 acres (1%) As to land cover classifications in the Study Area, wetland land cover comprises 74,900 acres (38% of the area's land cover), and includes 19,200 acres of permitted agricultural water retention areas; uplands comprise 20.300 acres (10%); a~icultural land cover was mapped at 93.800 acres (48%): and. other land cover classifications account for 6.000 acres (3%). Within the Study Area, the major Public areas are the Corkscrew Marsh (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Lands) and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. Existing preservation lands account for approximately 7% of the Study Area. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Big C.vpress National Preserve occur along the southern boundary of the Study Area. Privately held lands account for approximately 182,300 acres (93%). The interim NRPAs (Natural Resource Protection Areas) comprise approximately 41,000 acres, or 21% of the area. An objective of the Assessment is to evaluate the interim NRPAs as suitable natural resource protection mechanisms for the Study Area. The interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas approved by the BCC in November 1999, were evaluated in the Inunokalee Area Study. As further described, the Study has recommended the interim NRPAs be replaced by the delineation of Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). These areas total 85,000 acres. ~.PaF. NOA ITF. J~ JUN I 2 2002 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Strategy The primary basis for providing natural resource protection and addressing the Final Order requirements in the Study Area is the establishment of a Rural Lands Stewardship program through the creation of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will become a feature of Collier County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and be governed by the adoption of the proposed Growth Management Plan policies. The Rural Lands Stewardship Program is an incentive-based program that rewards property owners for voluntarily agreeing to protect important natural or agricultural features. For example, the program compensates property owners for preserving environmentally sensitive land, open space and/or certain types of agricultural operations. Compensation to the property owner occurs through the awarding of "stewardship credits" which can then be used in "receiving" areas that will require the credits in order to be developed. Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the Overlay area that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). Credits are calculated using a specific methodology set forth in a Stewardship Credit Worksheet. Natural resource values of the land are measured by the Natural Resource Stewardship Index as specified on the Worksheet. Credits can be transferred only to lands within the Overlay area that meet defined suitability criteria. These lands are defined as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). SPAs are the target areas for a compact mixed use development pattern, rather than the traditional single-family 5-acre tract development that characterizes rural residential uses. SPAs have the least envirmm~ental sensitivity and must have a Natural Resource Index value of 1.2 or less to receive Credits. A minimum of eight (8) Credits must be expended to develop each acre of an SPA. An individual SPA shall be at least 20 acres in size and meet various development criteria. Although there are 115.300+ acres of potential SPAs (Private lands less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development. It is estimated that only 6,700 acres would be needed to meet the Study Area's population projections for the year 2025. Mapping areas of highest ecological value, using the best available data and analysis established in Stage One of the Immokalee Area Study, has led to the mapping of wetland flow ways and native habitat areas. Wetland flow ways are mapped as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and natural habitats are mapped as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). Within the Stewardship Overlay System, FSAs and HSAs are defined as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), and are precluded from being Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). FSAs comprise approximately 31,000 acres; HSAs comprise approximately 36,000 acres. Combined, FSAs and HSAs represent roughly one third of the Study area. The Stewardship Overlay also has identified Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as having a unique status. These areas (18,000 acres) are part of the permitted stormwater management system for agricultural operations, yet typically are considered wetlands and have an important ecological function. The proposed policies will allow WRAs to be either SSAs or be incorporated into SPAs. If they are incorporated into SRAs, then any modifications to the WRA shall ensure that there will be no net loss of habitat functions. JUN 1 2 2002 Of the 78,000 acres of wetland land cover mapped in the Overlay, staff has estimated that approximately 51,000 acres are located in FSAs and HSAs, and another 14,000 acres of wetland land cover are located in WRAs. Thus approximately 65,000 acres, or 83% of the Overlay's wetland land cover is located in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. Additionally, the attached Report states that approximately 91% of panther telemetry points have been recorded in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. Minimum Regulatory Requirements The basic premise of the Stewardship Overlay Program is that the economic incentive for generating credits by preserving environmentally sensitive land, open space and/or certain types of agricultural operations, will discourage landowners from developing land within FSAs and HSAs; or, conversely, will encourage landowners to transfer development rights out of FSAs and HSAs. Thus, the primary focus of the strategy is an incentive-based program designed to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and listed species habitats in addition to preventing the premature conversion of agricultural lands. The proposed policies, however, do provide for some minimum regulatory standards. Key among the policies for habitat protection is the requirement that, when a property owner does not participate in the Stewardship program, site clearing and alteration within FSAs and HSAs - outside the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) - be limited to 30% of the property, of which no more than 50% may be non- permeable surfaces. Areas within the ACSC (approximately 63,700 acres, or 33% of the Study Area) will still be subject to the ACSC regulations, e.g. 10% clearing standard. Additionally, the design of SRAs shall demonstrate that ground water table draw-down will not adversely impact adjacent FSA, HRAs, WRAs or Conservation land. Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within an SRA adjoining an FSA, HSA, or existing Conservation land. Allowable Land Uses Properties outside of an FSA and HSA, not participating in the program, will experience no change in the current residential density (1 unit per 5 acres), permitted uses, or property rights of their land. For properties located within an FSA, and not participating in the program, all uses are prohibited except for agriculture. Properties located within an HSA, and not participating in the program, will experience no change in the current residential density (1 unit per 5 acres), permitted uses, or property rights of their land; however, site alteration (for non-agricultural uses) will be limited to 30%. However, once a landowner has voluntarily designated property as a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA). by petitioning the Board of County Commissioners, the allowable land uses on that property become strictly defined. SSA designation is considered to be perpetual; in essence, it runs with the land and cannot be removed. Properties designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SPAs) are allowed higher residential density, and possibly other types of land uses as well, depending upon the number and types of credits used, as applied to the Receiving Area Characteristic Table, and depending upon the size of the receiving property. Densities within SPAs shall not be less than 1 unit per 2 acres (0.5 units per acre), and cannot exceed 4 units per acre. An individual SPA must be at least 20 acres in size. An SRA is established via a petition submitted by the property owner to the Board of County Commissioners; the location, size, and density of each SPA will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This petition must include a master plan that demonstrates the SRA: complies with applicable policies of the Overlay; is designed to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and critical habitat areas designated as FSAs and HSAs; and, is designed to discourage urban sprawl. The SRA master plan must 4 JUN 1 2 2002 also identify the mixture of uses to be provided, which, in addition to residential uses, must include necessary support services and facilities. The uses allowed include: residential, office and retail commercial, schools, parks, recreational facilities, churches, civic and govemmental, libraries, and essential services. The form of development for SRAs - which are to be compact and contain a mixture of uses (or be proximate to) - may include towns, villages and hamlets; these developments may include commercial centers and "smart parks." Adequate infrastructure to serve the SRA is required concurrent with demand. The perimeter of each SRA must provide for a transition to uses outside the SRA; the transition area may consist of setbacks, landscape buffers, recreation/open space uses, and other appropriate uses/techniques. Where agricultural uses exist on the adjoining lands outside of the SRA, the SRA must be designed in such a way as to allow for the continuation of the agricultural use and to minimize potential conflicts bem'een the agricultural use and SRA uses. Where an FSA, HSA or conservation land exists on the adjoining lands outside the SRA, open space and recreational uses shall be provided as a buffer. It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastem Lands area, but rather result in a re-allocation of the density and population allowed under the baseline standards (pre-Final Order conditions) from a land-consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, clustered developments. However, not unlike the Rural Fringe amendments, the potential certainly exists for an increased amount of commercial development and other non-residential development in the allowed compact, mixed-use developments (towns, hamlets, villages). The following table illustrates currently permitted land uses and limitations thereon, and those under the proposed GMP amendments: Land Use FSA~) HSA(~} WRA ! SRA Par/Non Par/Non Par/Non I Par/Non Agriculture P/P P/P P/P P/P Residential N/N NIP N/N PIP Golf Course N/N P/P P/N P/P N/N P/P P/N P/P Conditional Uses, e.g., Excavations, Essential Services, etc. Commercial NIN N/p<2) NIP(2) Par = participating in Stewardship Program; Non = not participating in Stewardship Program; P = Permitted Use; N= Not Permitted after participation in the Stewardship program. 1. A 70% site preservation requirement (i.e., a limitation on clearing no more than 30% of the site) in HSAs and FSAs applies for both participating and non-participating properties. 2. Commercial is allowed subject to the Rural Commercial Subdistrict (not part of the Stewardship Program), which contains limitations such as spacing and size criteria. 3. ACSC limits clearing to 10% of the site and also has other limitations, including limits on impervious area, regardless of participation and Stewardship designation. Transfer of Development Riehts/Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Comparison: Since the BCC is more familiar with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program proposed for the Rural Fnnge area, a comparison of the TDR program and Rural Lands Stewardship Area program may be helpful. In both programs, areas of greater and lesser environmental value are identified, and minimum protection standards established, though the standards are different; both programs contain provisions for sending development rights from areas of higher environmental value to areas of lesser environmental value; participation in both transfer programs is strictly voluntary; the RLSA program also contains provisions to protect agricultural uses; some uses are eliminated, and densities reduced, for some properties within the Rural Fringe and Eastern Lands areas - especially Sending Lands, and FSAs and HSAs, respectively; all "receiving" properties in the Rural Fringe are eligible for a density increase via TDRs; a provision for mixed use development is available in the Rural Fringe (Rural Village) via BCC approval; a comparable mixed use development is allowed in the Eastern Lands area via BCC approval, but it is the only mechanism to increase density; the TDR program only allows the transfer of residential development rights; the RLSA allows the transfer of development rights in layers which translate into credits (point values) which, when accumulated, allow for a variety of land uses; the TDR program establishes rather fixed Sending and Receiving Lands boundaries on the Future Land Use Map at time of Adoption of the Rural Fringe amendments; the RLSA Receiving area boundaries are established upon request by the property owner. Pepper Ranch Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, made a presentation to the ELAC regarding some + 2500 acres of land of which + 2270 acres are within the Rural Stewardship Overlay Area and 235 acres are within the Immokalee Urban Area. The Urban lands, designated RT on the hnmokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP), contain a high degree of wetlands and have significant habitat value. These lands are adjacent to Lake Trafford and to the Camp Keais Strand (and FSA). Staff has worked with Mr. Duane to develop a Density and Intensity Blending policy, which is included with the draft GOPs for your consideration, which is only applicable to the RT designation and adjacent lands under same ownership along the northwest side of Lake Trafford. (An analysis bv Mr. Duane revealed that the earlier language would have had a much broader application, perhaps affecting 4,500 acres along the periphery of the lAMP boundaries.) The IAMP should also be amended to cross-reference this FLUE policy. FISCAL IMPACT: Implementation of these GMP amendments will require a significant number of Land Development Code revisions. Development of these revisions may require consulting ser,,,ices in addition to staff time. In addition, there will be future operational impacts that will likely necessitate additional staff resources, particularly in the area of environmental review. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: These amendments are necessitated by the Final Order. Conclusions Staff recognizes that the proposed Stewardship Program is an innovative and incentive-based approach to protect agricultural land and natural resources in the Eastern Lands Area. The Stewardship Credit program is designed to provide landowners incentives to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species and their habitats. Much of the areas's natural resources are found within the FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. The FSAs and HSAs combined acreage of 67,000 acres exceeds the interim 6 ACIF. J~ID A ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 NRPA acreage of 41,000 acres by 26,000 acres. The Overlay also identifies and provides for the protection of approximately 18,000 acres of WRAs. These three areas combined contain 83% of the area's wetland land cover; additionally, FSAs and HSAs contain approximately 91% of the area's panther telemetry points. In addition to the incentive program, the Overlay also contains some minimum standards for protecting the area's natural resources. Recognizing the innovative nature of this incentive-based program, Staff is generally supportive of the proposed Overlay and its policies. However, Staff has offered some specific recommendations to strengthen the Overlay's natural resource protection mechanisms. Also, staff recognizes additional analyses are needed regarding impacts upon public infrastructure; and, some other GMP Elements will need to be amended at time of Adoption to reflect, and correlate with, the proposed FLUE Overlay. ELAC Recommendations The ELAC met on June 3, 2002, to review the recommendations of staff, the EAC and the CCPC. Their recommendations are contained in Attachment "A," EAC, CCPC, ELAC and Staff Recommendation. EAC and CCPC Recommendations The EAC met to consider these amendments on May 22 and 23, 2002. The CCPC hearing to consider these amendments was held on May 24, 2002. Their actions are contained in Attachment "A." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Board Transmit the attached GMP Amendments to the Department of Community Affairs. subject to the specific Staff recommendations identified in Attachment "A." PREPARED BY: David Vqeeks, AICP, Chief Planner Comprehensive Planning Section S~a~Litsinger, Aic~P ~ Comprehensive Planning Manager Interim Planning Services Director /~o/eph K. Sch¢itt, Administrator, (//~6mmuni~_ Development and EnX'ironmental Services Division BCC ExSurn E., Lar~ds Transmittal DRAI Date Date Date JUN 2 2002 ATTACHMENT "A" EAC, CCPC, ELAC and Staff Recommendations regarding Transmittal of Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Eastern Lands portion of the Rural Lands Agricultural Assessment Area ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) The EAC held a special meeting on May 22 and May 23, 2002 to discuss and vote on the Transmittal of the Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Rural Lands Agricultural Assessment Area. On May 23, 2002, the EAC unanimously approved the following motion (5-0): The EAC supports the transmittal of the Growth Management Plan Amendments only if all of the following points are integrated into and addressed in the plan: 1. All County. Staff recommendations icontained in the EAC Staff Report, Ma)' 22, 2002 EAC Meeting] shall be included in the plan, except item 2.d. on page 5. 2. The highest prioriW receiving areas shall be identified within the total receiving area and justified, in order to assist future planning. 3. Implement a bonus credit program only if the market demonstrates it is absolutely necessary. [Policy 1.21] 4. Evaluate the FSA, HSA and WlEa. concept's value for listed species protection relative to the N~,PA program. 5. Solicit independent expert opinions from both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning the appropriate width of a wildlife corridor for panthers in the Camp Keais Strand stewardship area and incorporate [the recommendations] into the plan. 6. Solicit independent expert opinions from the South Florida Water Management District, FFWCC and USFWS, concerning appropriate buffers, to protect the hydrologic integrity of Fioxx~ way and Habitat areas from development in receiving areas and incorporate [the recommendations] into the plan. 7. Conservation easements shall be required for lands protected by removal of credits, and these easements must specify basic resource management requirements that include exotic plant control, prescribed burning and hydrologic integrity monitoring. 8. Buffers shall be entirely native vegetation and shah not include golf courses. [Policy 4.13] 9. Delete Policy 3.4. They reiterated that if all of the above points were not incorporated into the document the EAC did not support the Plan. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) The CCPC held a special meeting on May 24, 2002 to discuss and vote on the Transmittal of the Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Eastern Lands portion of the Rural Lands Agricultural Assessment Area. The CCPC voted (8:0) to support the transmittal of the Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Rural Lands Agricultural Assessment Area supporting the staff recommendations contained in the Ma3' 24 CCPC staff report and attached herein as Exhibit "A" subject to the following additional recommendations: 1. Modify Policy 1.4 to reference the provisions of Group 5 which are applicable when a property owner does not elect to utilize the provisions of the Overlay. Policy 1.4 The Overlay does not change the underlying density, permitted uses and property rights of land within the Overlay Area, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Overlay. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. 2. Delete Policy 1.21. Policy 1.21 The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the Overlay Area. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a FSA, HSA, or WRA. The early entry bonus shall be available for three years from the effective date of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC, unless extended by the BCC. 3. Delete Policy 2.5. Policy 2.5 The Rural Lands Assessment has demonstrated that the issues and needs of rural Collier County are substantially different than those applicable to the coastal urban areas of the County. Collier County formerly had two planning advisory commissions, one for the coastal area (Coastal Area Planning Commission) and another for the rural area (Immokalee Area Planning Commission). In order to facilitate greater public participation of rural residents in the implementation of policies and standards applicable to both the Overlay Area and Immokalee, Collier County shall re-establish a rural area planning commission to serve as the local planning agency to the BCC for land use matters in the Overlay Area and the Immokalee'Urban Area. 2 JUN 1 2 2002 4. Delete Policy 2.6. Policy 2.6 Since agriculture is such an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being, agriculture is a preferred activity in the Rural/Agricultural District and shall be protected from duplicative regulation. Collier County acknowledges and supports the Flodda Right-to-Farm Act found at {}823.14, F.S., and specifically {}823.14(6), F.S. which prohibits local regulation of bona fide agricultural activities where there are implemented best management practices in place. Revise Policy 3.4 such that parties other than the property, owner may request refinements to the boundaries of FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs; and establish threshold criteria for these boundary refinements that do not require a GMP amendment. Policy 3.4 FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map based upon the best information available at the time of the Immokalee Area Study. FSA, HSA, and WRA boundaries are subject to review and refinement if more definitive scientific data is provided. Such refinements to the Overlay Map may be made at the request of a property owner and approved by the County Commission by resolution without amending the Growth Management Plan. Accept the staff/WilsonMiller proposed modifications to Policy 3.6, as depicted by underlined/strike-through language below: Policy 3.6 Residential uses, 3nd gGeneral eConditional uses, Earth Mininq and Processinq Uses (except as provided below), and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix wi!! shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mininq layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an inte.qral part of a restoration or mitiqation pro.qram within a FSA. Accept the staff/WilsonMiller proposed modifications to Policy 3.7 as depicted by underlined/strike-through language below, but to also add incentives for public golf courses and to require that golf courses be directed to previously cleared areas first. Policy 3.7 Residential uses (as layer 1) listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. General Conditional Uses, Earth Minin.q and Processin.q Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only subject to a conditional use approval by Collier County which demonstrates that clearinq of native veqetation has been min nizeO4~Nl)~ JUN I 2 2002 such uses will not siqnificantty and adversely impact listed species and their habitats or that such use is an inteqral part of a restoration or mitiqation proqram within a HSA. Golf Course desi,qn, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply either the best manaqement practices of Audubon International's Siqnature Proqram and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the followinq recommended standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: · Clearinq of native veqetation shall not exceed 30% of the native veqetation on the parcel, · Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native veqetated areas, · Bufferinq to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. o Amend Policy 3.12 to incorporate the underlined language proposed by WilsonMiller and to develop a specific process to be followed for achieving restoration-based credits. Policy 3.12 In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to locations where flow ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Should a property owner of such land be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities, additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for restoration value on a case- by-case basis. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also volunteer to undertake restoration improvements, this may be rewarded with additional Credits, other forms of compensation, or be addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. In allocatinq additional Credits for restoration, priority shall be .qiven to restoration within FSAs. HSAs and the Camp Keais Strand. 9. Amend Policy 3.14 to cross reference Policy 3.7. Policy 3.14 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Objective. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (.5) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. 10. Change Policy 4.3 to state: "The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency .... "rather than "The BCC shall approve the petition...". 4 AC, FJqDA ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 Policy 4.3 Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The BCC shall approve the petition if it finds that the property owner's request for such designation is consistent with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, complies with the LDC Stewardship District, and that the applicant had acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SPA uses. 11. Revise Policy 4.7 to reference densiW blending provisions. Policy 4.7 An individual SPA shall include not less than twenty acres and achieve a gross residential density of not less than one unit per two acres and not more than four units per acre. The location, size and density of each SPA will be determined on an individual basis during the SPA designation review and approval process. 12. Revise Policies 4.8 to provide a cross-reference to Policy 4.13. Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas. SRA may contain a WRA in accordance with Policy 1.11. A 13. Accept the staff/WilsonMiller proposed modifications to Policy 4.10 as depicted bx' underlined/strike-through language below. Policy 4.10 A SPA will provide open space, water management and recreational lands adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA. Open space, water management and recreational lands shall comprise not less than thirty five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA, and may shall include contiguous lands greater than one acre within the SRA with Natural Resource Stewardship Index values of greater than 1.2. 14. Revise Policy 4.13 to require that golf course turf areas be located no closer than 200 feet to conservation lands. Policy 4.13 Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within a SRA adjoining a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space and recreational use contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary Of the such areas may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 100 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. JUN I 2 2002 15. Accept the staff/V¢ilsonMiller proposed modifications to Policy 1.17 as depicted by underlined/strike-through language below. Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different owners or utilized by a single owner (clustering), subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. A covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, where the credits have been transferred, running with the land in favor of Collier County and either the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust. For each SSA, a stewardship a.qreement will be established that will identify the specific land manaqement measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. 16. Accept the staff/WilsonMiiler proposed modifications to Policy 1.22 as depicted by underlined/strike-through language belo~v. Policy 1.22 A comprehensive review of the Stewardship Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of the Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship program since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration throuqh participation in the Stewardship program since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in the Immokalee urban area. 17. Revise Policy 2.4 to read "By June 1, 2004, the BCC ma), adopt..." rather than "By June 1, 2004, the BCC will adopt..." Policy 2.4 The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. By June 1, 2004, the BCC will adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that may be required to implement policies that support agriculture activities. 18. Add provisions for wildlife crossings. 19. Add wildlife protection policies from the Rural Fringe amendments to the Group JUN 1 2 2002 EASTERN LANDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS On June 3, 2002, the ELAC met and considered the recommendations of the EAC and the CCPC and the recommendations of staff and WilsonMiller in response to the EAC and CCPC recommendations, and adopted the following motion (11:0): To forward the transmittal GMP amendments for the Eastern Lands portion of the Rural Agricultural Assessment Area to the BCC with the following revisions. 1. Revise Policy 1.4 (consistent with the CCPC recommendations) as follows: Policy 1.4 Except as provided in Policies 5.1 throuqh 5.3, there shall be no Tho Ovor!ay dooc not change to the underlying density, permitted uses and property rights of land within the Overlay Area, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Overlay. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. o Revise Policy 1.17 (consistent with the EAC and CCPC recommendations) as follo~vs: Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different owners or utilized by a single owner (clustering), subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. A covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, where the credits have been transferred, running with the land in favor of Collier County and either the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust. For each SSA. a stewardship agreement will be established that will identify the specific land manaqement measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. 3. Revise Policy 1.21 as follows to address, in part, the recommendations of the EAC and CCPC: Policy 1.21 The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the Overlay Area. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a FSA, HSA, or WRA. The early entry bonus shall be available for three years from the effective date of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC, unless extended by the BCC:., and shall only apply to lands outside of the ACSC. ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 4. Revise Policy 1.22 as follows to address, in part, the recommendations of the EAC and CCPC: Policy 1.22 A comprehensive review of the Stewardship Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of the Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship program since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration throuqh participation in the Stewardship program since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. 5. Support CCPC motion to revise Policy 2.4 as follows: Policy 2.4 The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. By June 1, 2004, the BCC wi!! may adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that may be required to implement policies that support agriculture activities. 6. Retain Policy 2.5 in its entirety: Policy 2.5 The Rural Lands Assessment has demonstrated that the issues and needs of rural Collier County are substantially different than those applicable to the coastal urban areas of the County. Collier County formerly had two planning advisory commissions, one for the coastal area (Coastal Area Planning Commission) and another for the rural area (Immokalee Area Planning Commission). In order to facilitate greater public participation of rural residents in the implementation of policies and standards applicable to both the Overlay Area and Immokalee, Collier County shall re-establish a rural area planning commission to serve as the local planning agency to the BCC for land use matters in the Overlay Area and the Immokalee Urban Area. JUN 1 2 200 _ Pi. 7. Revise Policy 2.6 as follows to address, in part, the recommendation of the CCPC: Policy 2.6 Since agriculture is such an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being, agriculture is a preferred activity in the Rural/Agricultural District and shall be protected from duplicative regulation. Collier County acknowledges and supports the Florida Right-to-Farm Act ~ .... ,~ .-* ~823.!,~ ,--,,~ .....'~,..,,,,, ~,),~ d.nm~ c ~ ,,,~,~,.~, .......... F.S ....... ~ ........· a ...... ~, ............. o Delete Policy 3.4 in its entirety. [Note the EAC and CCPC recommended revisions to this policy.] 9. Revise Policy 3.6 as follows (consistent with the EAC and CCPC recommendations): Policy 3.6 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mininq and Processin.q Uses (except as provided below), and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchanqe for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mininq layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or miti.qation pro.qram within a FSA. 10. Revise Policy 3.7 as follows (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 3.7 Residential uses (as layer 1) listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchan.qe for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchanqn for compensation. General Conditional Uses, Earth Mininq and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only subject to a conditional use approval by Collier County which demonstrates that clearinq of native veqetation has been minimized and that such uses will not siqnificantly and adversely impact listed species and thei h~hi'r~t~ 9 JUN 1 2 200; such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a HSA. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply either the best manaqement practices of Audubon International's Signature Proqram and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the followinq recommended standards shall be considered by Collier County as meetinq the requirement for minimization of impact: · Clearing of native veqetation shall not exceed 30% of the native veqetation on the parcel, · Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas, · Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. · Public golf courses shall be eliqible for incentives such as, but not limited to, the Collier County fast tract incentive process. 11. Revise Policy 3.12 as follo~vs (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 3.12 In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to locations where flow ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Should a property owner of such land be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities, additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for restoration value on a case- by-case basis. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also volunteer to undertake restoration improvements, this may be rewarded with additional Credits, other forms of compensation, or be addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. In allocatinq additional Credits for restoration, priority shall be given to restoration within FSAs. HSAs and the Camp Keais Strand. The specific process for assiqnment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. 12. Revise Policy 3.14 as folloxvs (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 3.14 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Objective. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (.5) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. (Please refer to Policy 3.7) 10 JUN i 2 200~ 13. Revise Policy 4.3 as follows (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 4.3 Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The Dc, c, ,.~,.,, ........ · ~"";"""*I"'"; ..... ;"+""* basis for approval shall be a findin,q of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, ~ compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant had acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. 14. Revise Policy 4.7 as follows (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 4.7 An individual SPA shall include not tess than twenty acres and achieve a gross residential density of not less than one unit per two acres and not more than four units per acre, unless increased throuqh the density blending process. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. 15. Revise Policy 4.8 as follows (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas. A SRA may contain a WPA in accordance with Policy 1.11, subiect to the requirements of Policy 4.13. 16. Revise Policy 4.10 as follows (consistent with the EAC and CCPC recommendations): Policy 4.10 A SRA will provide open space, water management and recreational lands adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA. Open space, water management and recreational lands shall comprise not less than thirty five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SPA, and ma:,' shall include contiguous lands .qreater than one acre within the SPA with Natural Resource Stewardship Index values of greater than 1.2. 17. Revise Policy 4.13 as follows (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 4.13 Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within a SRA adjoining a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space and recreational use contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of the such areas may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other 11 turf areas are allowed within the first 100 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. 18. Not to revise Group 5 policies to include Policy 5.4 and Policy 5.5 below. [Wildlife crossing and wildlife protection policies were supported by the CCPC. See CCPC recommendations 18 and 19. The following proposed language was presented to the Committee by WilsonMiller.] 12 AGENOA ITEM JUN 1 ~ 200~ PS., STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the BCC transmit the Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Eastern Lands portion of the Rural/Agricultural Area Assessment as recommended by the Eastern Lands Advisory Committee (depicted with single underline/st~-~4~-oug~) with the following exceptions/revisions depicted as double underlineCsl~'~nlgh to the Committee's recommended language: 1. Consistent with the CCPC recommendation, revise Policy 1.4 as follows: Policy 1.4 Except as provided in Policies 5.1 through 5.¢5, there shall be no 2D:.e ©:'er!ay ~^..e: .':et change t__o the underlying density, permitted uses and property rights of land within the Overlay Area, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Overlay. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee ~nterest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Although this is a purely policy matter for the BCC to consider, staff supports the CCPC recommendation to delete proposed Policy 2.5. A separate Immokalee Area Planning Commission is presumed to have additional fiscal and operational impacts (e.g., staff', advertising, report preparation) and may conflict with Florida Statutes requirement to have a Local Planning Agency (one v. re'o). Revise Policy 2.6 to reflect the BCC's stated policy regarding the importance of, and limitations on, agriculture in Collier County. Policy 2.6 Since agriculture is such an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well- being, agriculture is a preferred activity in the Rural/Agricultural DistricL and shall be protected from duplicative regulation as nrovided by the Florida Rieht to Farm Act. JUN 1 2 2002 Clarify Policy 3.14 to indicate that properties voluntarily designated as SSAs within targeted restoration areas adjacent to FSAs are also subject to the pro,4sions to Policy 3.7 (consistent with the CCPC recommendations): Policy 3.14 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Objective. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaioacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (.5) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. (~ Subject to the provisions of~ Polic~' 3.7) Revise Policy 4.13 to exclude required yards and setbacks in meeting the required 300 foot buffer. Yards of individually platted lots are not appropriate for buffers to conservation lands. Policy 4.13 Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within a SRA adjoining a FSA. HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space and recreational use contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of the such areas may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first l an~vv 200 feet. passive recreational areas and parks., rcq',:irz~ .... : ...... -~ ~--~ ~_,~* *-~-~ .......... ...... and other natural or man-made open space. Add Policy 5.4 [Wildlife crossing policies were recommended by the CCPC. See CCPC recommendation 18. Language below was recommended by WilsonMiller and staff added the reference to private property owners.] Policy 5.4 Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies and private property owners concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. Add Policy 5.5 [Wildlife protection policies were recommended by the CCPC. See CCPC recommendation 19.] policy 5.5 Non-a .m-icultural develooment, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats bv comr~lying with the following .guidelines and standards: (1) A wildlife survey shall be reauired for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species are directly observed on the site. The su~'ev shall be conducted in accordance with the rec ........ a,=.-~.f.l~li~,- Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fi~ h and'~d~e ~ JUN I 2 2002 14 Service CLISFWS) waidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed snecies that may be discovered. (2~ Wildlife habitat management nlans for listed st~ecies shall be submitted for County at>nroval, A plan shall be required for all nroiects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site. or the site is canable of sunr>orting wildlife. These nlans shall describe how the r>roiect directs incomnatible land uses away from listed sr>ecies and their habitats. (a) Management nlans shall incornorate proner techniaues to protect listed snecies and their habitat from the negative imnacts oft~roposed develonment. Develonments shall be clustered to discourage imnacts to listed snecies habitats. Onen snace and vegetation nreservation reauirements shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be r~rovided to minimize development imf>acts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Annropriate roadway crossings, undernasses, and si_.~nage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors 1. The following references shall be used. as apnronriate, to t~rer~are the required management t>lans; a. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999. b. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region, USFWS. 1987. c. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gor~her Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemuxj Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale Development in Florida, Technical Report No. 4.. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987. d. Ecolo~v and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida Scrub Jab' (Aphelocoma coerulescensj. Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991~ 2. The County. shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and thc FFWCC: sub. ject to the nrovisions of para~aph (3) of this r~olic¥. 3. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such a~ denning, foraging or other indications, pnoriw shall be given to preserving the listed species habitats first, as a part of the retained native vegetation requirement contained in Policy 6.1.1 and Policy 6.1.2 this element. The County. shall also consider the recommendations of other agencies, subject to the provisions of para..eyaph (3) of this policy. (b) For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopher~ts pol),phemus), _priority shall be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the ~reatest number of active burrows, and for providine a connection to off site adjacent eonher tortoise preserves_ (c) Habitat r)reservation for the Florida scrub lay (Arhelocoma coerulescens) shall conform to the waidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fis~ Commission. 1991. The required management plan shall also provide for a maintenanc_e t>rom'am and specify, an apnropriate fire or mechanical r>rotocols to maintain the natural scn~b community.. The nlan shall also outline a t~ublic awareness pro.m-am to educate residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These rgx:ky_irement_s shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery. Plan. May 1999~ sub. j ect to the provisions of para~aph (3) of this policy. (d) For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocerhalus), the reouired habitat management t)lans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest resthctin~ certain activities. The t~lans shall also address restricting certain tvr~es of activities during the nesting season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Rccove_ry P~lan_ ~ May 1999, subject to the provisions ofnaram'aph (3) of this policy_. 15 J 20O2 p~ ..~:~ (¢) For the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the reouired habitat protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts t_o foramng habitat. Where adverse effects can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and comt)ensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These reauirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Sr)ecies Recovery Plan, May 1999. subject to the provisions of Daram'aDh (3) of this policy. (lq In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus atnericanus tJoridanus) may be present, the management plans shall require that garbaee be t)laced in bear-proof containers., at one or more central locations. The manaeement t>lan shall also identify, methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management t>lan~ (e'~ For r~roiects located in Priority_ I and Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the manaeement plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are r)referred by the_ Florida panther (Fells concolor cory. i! by directine intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In mm. these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity !and uses ee.e., parks, passive recreational areas, eolf courses). Golf courses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District shall be desi..tmed and managed using standards found in that district. The management plans shall identify ap_Droeriate liehting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity, to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire- adapted preserved vegetauve communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, Ma~cc~t ~Qd~e~u. rovisions of paraerar)h (3) of this policy. (h) T~e Management P~l_ans shall contain a monitorine orozram for developments ..re'eater than 10 acres. (3) The County may consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish ~nd Wildlife Service in issuin~ development orders on t)roDerty_ containing listed species It is reco..znized that these .~ggFcy recommendations, on a case by case basis, ma.,,' change the requirements contained )vithin these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistenLwith the Growth Management Plan. 16 AGENDA~ {TEM I ~-~ JUN 1 2 2002 Exhibit "A" Staff Recommendations from the CCPC Staff Report referenced in the CCPC's Motion of 5-24-2002 Recognizing the innovative nature of this incentive-based program, Staff is generally supportive of the proposed Overlay and its policies. However, Staff offers the following specific recommendations to strengthen the Overlay's natural resource protection mechanisms: 1. Golf courses and most conditional uses should not be allowed in FSAs. These areas have been identified as the areas having the highest ecological value and should be provided the highest degree of protection by prohibiting incompatible uses within these areas. 2. Golf courses and most conditional uses should be discouraged in HSAs, unless they can demonstrate a positive environmental benefit. These areas have been identified as the areas having the highest ecological value and should be provided the highest degree of protection. If allowed, a Conditional Use should be required and ensure that the uses meet specific criteria. These criteria should include: a. Clearing should be limited to the 30% requirement noted in Po]icy 5.3. b. Areas that have been already cleared should be used preferentially to other vegetated areas. c. The project should provide a significant restorative component to the HSAs and demonstrate that its design will result in an overall environmental benefit to the area. d. Appropriate buffering to Conservation Lands will be provided. 3. A more specific vegetation-retention standard should be specified in Policy 4.10. The 35°/; open space requirement should require that lands having certain environmental characteristics and/or having a minimum Natural Resource Stewardship Index value shall be retained as part of the open space. The proposed Overlay and its policies will be incorporated into the GMP's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as an Overlay District. Staff recognizes that the attached policies will ultimately be included in the FLUE and will be transmitted as amendments to the FLUE. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) addressing NRPAs (Policy 1.3.1) will also need to be amended to reflect that the interim NRPAs for this area will be eliminated in lieu of protection provided by the FSAs and HSAs. The Immokalee Area Master Plan may also need to be amended to cross-reference the FLUE policy for Density and Intensity Blending [specific language provided below] applicable to the property designated as RT in the LAMP, located on the north boundary of Lake Trafford. Staff also envisions that the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-elements will need to be amended to be consistent with the Overlay - to allow provision of central water and sewer to serve the residential communities (Towns, Hamlets, etc.) allowed by this Overlay. Such service might be from on-site package plants and/or from a governmental or quasi-governmental authority (e.g. future County service, or the Immokalee Water and Sewer District). Further, since the provisions of this Overlay may result in an increase in intensity and/or density, a complete public infrastructure analysis will be needed (for all category A public facilities - roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage fac 17 JUN 1 2 2002 waste facilities, parks and recreation facilities) prior to adoption to identify any potential impacts to adopted LOS standards as result of the adoption of this Overlay, and the adoption hearings would need to include any amendments to other GMP Elements necessitated by this Overlay. In addition to the above, staff also recommends the Areas of Environmental Concern Overlay be removed fi.om the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), just as was recommended as part of the Rural Fringe amendments; it is generally considered outdated, at least for some areas of the county, and the Overlay pattern results in some distortions to the FLUM designations as new colors and patterns are established via these amendments, and the Rural Fringe amendments. The Areas of Environmental Concern Overlay is informational only, it has no regulatory effect. The following additional language was presented to, and reviewed by, the EAC, CCPC and ELAC, and recommended for approval by all three committees. Single underline language was proposed as part of the Rural Fringe GMP amendments and is provided herein for context; double underline language is now proposed as part of the Eastern Lands GMP amendments. FLUE DensiW Rating System d. Density Blending This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within projects that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts, or the Immokalee Urban Area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under unified control as of June 22, 2002, the allowable gross density and/or intensity for such properties in ag~egate max' be distributed as follows: for lands that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Frino~e Mixed Use Districts, density may be distributed throughout the proiect, regardless of xvhether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted for that under this Plan; or, in the case of lands that straddle the Immokalee Urban Area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area, density and intensity may be shifted from the urban designated lands to lands within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Receiving Area on an acre per acre basis. These Density Blending provisions are subject to the following conditions and limitations: Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub-Distr/ct and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral and Receivin.~ Lands: (a) Density ... Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub-District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sendinz kands: JUN 1 2 2002 18 o (a) (b) (a) The Proiect... Density and Intensity Blendin~ conditions and Limitations for prOperties Straddline the Immokalee Urban Areas and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area: (c) (d) The oroiect in a~m'et, ate must be a minimum of 200 acres in size and be zoned Residential/Tourist District (RTl in the lmmokalee Area Master Plan. It must be demonstrated the lands desienated Urban have a himh natural resource value as indicated by the presence of Group 1 or Group 2 FLUCCS Codes (as identified on the Land Use Stewardshir> Matrix) and a score of m-eater than 1.2 on the Natural Resource Stewardshiv Index; Density and Intensitv may only be shifted from the Urban Lands containing the high natural resource value (as measured above), on an acre per acre basis, to lands within the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Receiving Area having a Natural Resource Stewardship Index score of 1.2 or less; and Lands within the Urban area, from which the density and/or intensity has been shifted shall be vlaced in a conservation easement in perpetuity. 19 Memorandum TO: FROM: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COMMIfNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION PLANNING SERVICES DEPT., COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION and NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DATE: R£: May 16, 2002 DRAFT OF COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS ADDRESSING THE EASTERN LANDS PORTION OF THE RURAL AND AGRICULTLrRAL ASSESSMENT AREA (Transmittal Hearing) Background Pursuant to the Final Order imposed by the Governor and Cabinet on June 22, 1999, the State of Florida has mandated certain revisions to Collier County's Growth Management Plan. The Final Order directs the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment (the "Assessment") to collect the appropriate data, gather public input and to develop amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Major issues to be addressed by the Assessment include: protecting wetlands, wildlife and their habitats; protecting prime or unique agricultural lands fi.om the premature conversion to other uses; and, assessing the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of these rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations. All of this is to occur while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixedruse development. The Final Order allows the County to conduct the Assessment in phases. Accordingly, Collier County has divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Lands Area, also known as the "Immokalee Area Study" (and sometimes referred to as the "Rural Lands Area"). The Final Order requires that the County adopt GMP Amendments developed as a result of the Assessment process by June 22, 2002, excluding the "Eastern lands Area", for which adoption of the GMP amendments is required by November 1, 2002. As part of this process, Collier County has established the Rural Fringe Area Oversight Committee (RFAC) and the Eastern Lands Area Oversight Committee (ELAC) to address the planning for each respect Final Order notes that public participation will be the "hallmark" of this planning ~ primary mechanisms to involve and inform the public and solicit community input Assessment process have included: advertised meetings of the advisory committee ye area. The ['fort. ~s~t~A an ' r~c i Rural Assessment web site containing all pertinent documents, meeting agendas and minutes; presentations to various BCC advisory committees and community, civic, and professional organizations; presentation to various stakeholder groups; and, several special public meetings and workshops. The ELAC, for example, has held 32 advertised meetings over the past two and one half years. There arc numerous differences between the Rural Fringe and Eastern l_ands portions of the Assessment area, including: Eastern Lands area (.~_195,000 acres) is about twice the size of Rural Fringe area (.~_93,000 acres); most Eastern Lands parcel sizes are quite large (often hundreds of acres) whereas most Rural Fringe lands are much smaller (typically, tens of acres or less); Eastern Lands are under ownership of a few hundred different entities whereas Rural Fringe lands are under ownership of a few thousand different entities; the majority of the Eastern I_ands acreage contains agricultural activities, primarily track farms (tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, melons, etc.), citrus, and cattle ranching; a far lesser percentage of the Rural Fringe area contains agricultural activities, those activities are primarily small operations, and the uses are typically tree farms, plant nurseries, ornamental nurseries, etc. - many of which supply needed vegetation for urban developments; urban development pressures are essentially non-existent for the Eastern Lands area and there is minimal development aside from agricultural operations, whereas the Rural Fringe area is under tremendous development pressure and contains a sizeable residential component; and, the Eastern Lands are utilized more by the Florida panther, as measured by telemetry observations. Data Collection and Analysis Within the Eastern Lands Area, the County previously authorized a scope of services wherein WilsonMiller, as consultant to several large property owners in the area, collectively known as the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO), to collect and analyze data that will form the basis for the proposed amendments in the Eastern Lands Area. Accordingly, WilsonMiller has provided a series of data sets addressing land use, land cover, wildlife and other resource information that were updated and field verified to establish a Geographical Information System (GIS) data base that is current to November 2001. These data have been used in the study to address the requirements of the Final Order, to guide the design of various planning alternatives (scenarios), and to assist in the formulation of Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs). This information, together with the Committee recommended GOPs, is summarized in the document entitled "Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study" attached to this staff report. (The complete data set and report, known as the Stage 1 Report, can be found on the county's website at www.nasites.com/collier.) The Eastern Lands portion (lmmokalee Area Study) of the Rural Assessment encompasses approximately 195,000-~_ acres, the vast majority supporting agricultural uses. Approximately 113,000 acres (58%) of the area is classified as Agriculture with infrastructure. Grazing leases account for another 63,600 acres (33%). Public lands account for approximately 13,000 acres (7%). Other uses such as residential, commercial, mining, etc. account for only 3,600 acres (2%). Water accounts for 2,000 acres (1%) As to land cover classifications in the Study Area, wetland land cover comprises 74,900 acres (38% of the area's land cover), and includes 19,200 acres of permitted agricultural uplands comprise 20,300 acres (10%); agricultural land cover was mapped at and, other land cover classifications account for 6,000 acres (3%). 2 ter r~,~rl~i~; 3,801[1o~. cres (48%); JUN 1 2 2002 -9, Within the Study Area, the major Public areas are the Corkscrew Marsh (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Lands) and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. Existing preservation lands account for approximately 7% of the Study Area. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Big Cypress National Preserve occur along the southern boundary of the Study Area. Privately held lands account for approximately 182,300 acres (93%). The interim NRPAs (Natural Resource Protection Areas) comprise approximately 41,000 acres, or 21% of the area. An objective of the Assessment is to evaluate the interim NRPAs as suitable natural resource protection mechanisms for the Study Area. The interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas approved by the BCC in November 1999, were evaluated in the Immokalee Area Study. As further described, the Study has recommended the interim NRPAs be replaced by the delineation of Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). These areas total 85,000 acres. Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Strateg3' The primary basis for providing natural resource protection and addressing the Final Order requirements in the Study Area is the establishment of a Rural Lands Stewardship program through the creation of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will become a feature of Collier County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and be governed by the adoption of the proposed Growth Management Plan policies found in the attached report. The Rural Lands Stewardship Program is an incentive-based program that rewards property owners for voluntarily agreeing to protect important natural or agricultural features. For example, the program compensates property owners for preserving environmentally sensitive land, open space and/or certain types of agricultural operations. Compensation to the property owner occurs through the awarding of "stewardship credits" which can then be used in "receiving" areas that will require the credits in order to be developed. Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the Overlay area that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). Credits are calculated using a specific methodology set forth in a Stewardship Credit Worksheet. Natural resource values of the land are measured by the Natural Resource Stewardship Index as specified on the Worksheet. Credits can be transferred only to lands within the Overlay area that meet defined suitability criteria. These lands are defined as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). SRAs are the target areas for a compact mixed use development pattern, rather than the traditional single-family 5-acre tract development that characterizes rural residential uses. SRAs have the least environmental sensitivity and must have a Natural Resource Index value of 1.2 or less to receive Credits. A minimum of eight (8) Credits must be expended to develop each acre of an SRA. An individual SRA shall be at least 20 acres in size and meet various development criteria. Although there are 115,300-Z-_ acres of potential SRAs (Private lands less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the "8 credit requirement" will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area for clustered development. It is estimated that only 6,700 acres would be needed to meet the Study Area's popui ation~ffg'J96th~ for the year 2025. ~' -' JUN I 2 2002 Mapping areas of highest ecological value, using the best available data and analysis established in stage one of the Immokalee Area Study, has led to the mapping of wetland flow ways and nati*e habitat areas. Wetland flow ways are mapped as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and natural habitats are mapped as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). Within the Stewardship Overlay System, FSAs and HSAs are defined as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), and are precluded fi.om being Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). FSAs comprise approximately 31,000 acres; HSAs comprise approximately 36,000 acres. Combined, FSAs and HSAs represent roughly one third of the Study area. The Stewardship Overlay also has identified Water Retention Areas (WR.As) as having a unique status. These areas (18,000 acres) are part of the permitted stormwater management system for agricultural operations, yet typically are considered wetlands and have an important ecological function. The proposed policies will allow WRAs to be either SSAs or be incorporated into SRAs. If they are incorporated into SRAs, then any modifications to the WRA shall ensure that there will be no net loss of habitat functions. Of the 78,000 acres of wetland land cover mapped in the Overlay, staff has estimated that approximately 51,000 acres are located in FSAs and HSAs, and another 14,000 acres of wetland land cover are located in WRAs. Thus approximately 65,000 acres, or 83% of the Overlay's wetland land cover is located in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. Additionally, the attached report states that approximately 91% of panther telemetry points have been recorded in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. Minimum Regulatory Requirements The basic premise of the Stewardship Overlay Program is that the economic incentive for generating credits by preserving environmentally sensitive land, open space and/or certain types of agricultural operations, will discourage landowners from developing land within FSAs and HSAs; or, conversely, will encourage landowners to transfer development rights out of FSAs and HSAs. Thus, the primary focus of the strategy is an incentive based program designed to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and listed species habitats in addition to preventing the premature conversion of aghcultural lands. The proposed policies, however, do provide for some minimum regulatory standards. Key among the policies for habitat protection is the requirement that, when a property owner does not participate in the Stewardship program, site clearing and alteration within FSAs and HSAs - outside the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) - be limited to 30% of the property, of which no more than 50% may be non-permeable surfaces. Areas within the ACSC (approximately 63,700 acres, or 33% of the Study Area) will still be subject to the ACSC regulations, e.g. 10% clearing standard. Additionally, the design of SRAs shall demonstrate that ground water table draw-down will not adversely impact adjacent FSA, HRAs, WRAs or Conservation land. Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within an SRA adjoining an FSA, HSA, or existing Conservation land. Allowable Land Uses I.andowners not participating in the program will experience no change in the currer density (1 unit per 5 acres), permitted uses, or property rights of their land - though, within an FSA, HSA, or WRA, site alteration (for non-agricultural uses) will be limi However, once a landowner has voluntarily designated property as a Stewardship Sc t res~ ~Tr~ f loci~ked :ed to 30%. ~di~da2 2002 (SSA), by petitioning the Board of County Commissioners, the allowable land uses on that property become strictly defined. SSA designation is considered to be perpetual; in essence, it runs with the land and cannot be removed. Properties designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) are allowed higher residential density, and possibly other types of land uses as well, depending upon the number and types of credits used, as applied to the Receiving Area Characteristic Table, and depending upon the size of the receiving property. Densities within SRAs shall not be less than 1 unit per 2 acres (0.5 units per acre), and cannot exceed 4 units per acre. An individual SRA must be at least 20 acres in size. An SRA is established via a petition submitted by the property owner to the Board of County Commissioners; the location, size, and density of each SRA will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This petition must include a master plan that demonstrates the SRA: complies with applicable policies of the Overlay; is designed to direct incompatible land uses away fi.om wetlands and critical habitat areas designated as FSAs and HSAs; and, is designed to discourage urban sprawl. The SRA master plan must also identify the mixture of uses to be provided, which, in addition to residential uses, must include necessary support services and facilities. The uses allowed include: residential, office and retail commercial, schools, parks, recreational facilities, churches, civic and governmental, libraries, and essential services. The form of development for SRAs - which are to be compact and contain a mixture of uses (or be proximate to) - may include towns, villages and hamlets; these developments may include commercial centers and "smart parks." Adequate infrastructure to serve the SRA is required concurrent with demand. The perimeter of each SRA must provide for a transition to uses outside the SRA; the transition area may consist of setbacks, landscape buffers, recreation/open space uses, and other appropriate uses/techniques. Where agricultural uses exist on the adjoining lands outside of the SRA, the SPA must be designed in such a way as to allow for the continuation of the agricultural use and to minimize potential conflicts between the agricultural use and SRA uses. Where an FSA, HSA or conservation land exists on the adjoining lands outside the SPA, open space and recreational uses shall be provided as a buffer. The first 300 feet of the buffer may contain preserves, lakes, passive parks, required yard and setback areas, golf courses - provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed in the first 100 feet, and other natural or man-made open space. It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re-allocation of the density and population allowed under the baseline standards (pre-Final Order conditions) from a land-consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, clustered developments. However, not unlike the Rural Fringe amendments, the potential certainly exists for an increased amount of commercial development and other non- residential development in the allowed compact, mixed-use developments (towns, hamlets, villages). JUN 1 2 2002 The following table illustrates currently permitted land uses and limitations thereon, and those under the proposed GMP amendments: Non- SSA (but non- Participating Land Use HSA/FSA HSA and WRA SPA ACSCm Landowner(2) FSA Agriculture P P P P p p Residential P N N P P p Golf Course P P P P p p Conditional P P P P p ' p Uses, ie., Excavations, Essential Services, etc. Commercial N N N P P p P = Permitted Use; N'- Not Permitted after participation in the Stewardship program. 1. ACSC limits clearing to 10% of the site and also has other limitations, including limits on impervious area. 2. If a property owner chooses not to participate in Stewardship program, there is a 70% site preservation requirement (i.e., a limitation on clearing no more than 30% of the site) in HSAs, FSAs, and WP, As. Transfer of Development Rights/Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Comparison: Since the CCPC is more familiar with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program proposed for the Rural Fringe area, perhaps a comparison of the TDR program and Rural Lands Stewardship Area program would be helpful. In both programs, areas of greater and lesser environmental value are identified, and minimum protection standards established, though the standards are different; both programs contain provisions for sending development fights from areas of higher environmental value to areas of lesser environmental value; participation in both programs is strictly voluntary; the RLSA program also contains provisions to protect agricultural uses; all properties within the Eastern Lands retain the baseline standard uses and densities (pre-Final Order conditions) whereas some uses are eliminated from some properties within the Rural Fringe area, especially Sending Lands; all "receiving" properties in the Rural Fringe are eligible for a density increase via TDRs; a provision for mixed use development is available in the Rural Fringe (Rural Village) via BCC approval; a comparable mixed use development is allowed in the Eastern Lands area via BCC approval, but it is the only mechanism to increase density; the TDR program only allows the transfer of residential development rights; the RLSA allows the transfer of development rights in layers which translate into credits (point values) which, when accumulated, allow for a variety of land uses; the TDR program establishes rather fixed Sending and Receiving Lands boundaries on the Future Land Use Map; the RLSA Receiving area boundaries are established upon request by the property owner. Pepper Ranch Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, made a presentation to the ELAC regarding some + 2500 acres of land of which + 2270 acres are within the Rural Stewardship Overlay Area and 235 acres are within the Immokalee Urban Area. The Urban lands contain a high degree of wetlands and habitat value.-These lands are adjacent to Lake Trafford and to the Camp Keais Mr. Duane's proposal was to create a new subdistrict that would place a conserva these environmentally sensitive Urban lands and allow a transfer of the density these lands to impacted lands within the Rural Stewardship Overlay Area (contigu 6 randn[~and FSA). ?. on easement on int~litly~ri~2 ~us to ~e Urb~ designated lands and under the same ownership). In addition, the proposed subdistrict would place an additional + 972 acres of lands within the Interim Camp Keais NRPA into a conservation easement. Staff indicated support conceptually but expressed a concern that the objective be accomplished, as much as possible, within the framework already established via the Rural Stewardship Overlay. The ELAC voted to conceptually support the Pepper Ranch proposal, and asked that staff work with Mr. Duane to finalize this language. Staff has worked with Mr. Duane to develop a Density and Intensity Blending policy, which is included with the draft GOPs for your consideration. Since distributed to the EAC in their agenda packet, the text has been further refined so as to only apply to the RT designation in the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) and adjacent lands under same ownership along the northwest side of Lake Trafford. An analysis by Mr. Duane revealed that the earlier language would have had a much broader application, perhaps affecting 4,500 acres along the periphery of the IAMP boundaries. The lAMP should also be amended to cross-reference this FLUE policy. ELAC Recommendations The Eastern Lands Advisory Committee voted unanimously on April 29 to forward the attached draft GOPs to the Board with a recommendation for approval. Individual members noted that they might have additional comments or concerns, which they would forward to WilsonMiller and to staff during the time leading up to the Committee's final meeting. Should the Committee revise its recommendation, or take any action with respect to revision to the draft GOPs that may be made between their final meeting and the CCPC meeting, staff will advise the CCPC of any such action. Staff Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recognizes that the proposed Stewardship Program is an innovative and incentive-based approach to protect agricultural land and natural resources in thc Eastern Lands Area. Thc Stewardship Credit program is designed to provide landowners incentives to direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, listed species and their habitats. Much of the areas's natural resources arc found within thc FSAs, HSAs and WP, As. Thc FSAs and HSAs combined acreage of 6%000 acres exceeds the interim NRPA acreage of 41,000 acres by 26,000 acres. Thc Overlay also identifies and provides for thc protection of approximately 18,000 acres of WRAs. These three areas combined contain 83% of the area's wetland land cover; additionally, FSAs and HSAs contain approximately 91% of the area's panther telemetry points. In addition to the incentive program, thc Overlay also contains some minimum standards for protecting the area's natural resources. Recognizing the innovative nature of this incentive-based program, Staff is generally supportive of the proposed Overlay and its policies. However, Staff offers the following specific recommendations to strengthen the Overlay's natural resource protection mechanisms: 1. Golf courses and most conditional uses should not be allowed in FSAs. These areas have been identified as the areas having the highest ecological value and should be provided the highest degree of protection by prohibiting incompatible uses within these areas. 2. Golf courses and most conditional uses should be discouraged in HSAs, unless they can demonstrate a .positive environmental benefit. These areas have been identified as the areas having the highest ecological value and should be provided the highest deg~ allowed, a Conditional Use should be required and ensure that the uses m These criteria should include: a. Clearing should be limited to the 30% requirement noted in Policy 5.3. b. Areas that have been already cleared should be used preferentially to othc :e o~6~ll~lm~ If" ;et Sl~c_ific criteria. JUN 1 2 2002 , vegetated areas. c. The project should provide a significant restorative component to the HSAs and demonstrate that its design will result in an overall environmental benefit to the area. d. Appropriate buffering to Conservation Lands will be provided. A more specific vegetation-retention standard should be specified in Policy 4.10. The 35% open space requirement should require that lands having certain environmental characteristics and/or having a minimum Natural Resource Stewardship Index value shall be retained as part of the open space. The proposed Overlay and its policies will be incorporated into the GMP's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as an Overlay District. Staff recognizes that the attached policies will ultimately be included in the FLUE and will be transmitted as amendments to the FLUE. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) addressing NRPAs (Policy 1.3.1) will also need to be amended to reflect that the interim NRPAs for this area will be eliminated in lieu of protection provided by the FSAs and HSAs. The Immokalee Area Master Plan may also need to be amended to cross-reference the FLUE policy for Density and Intensity Blending applicable to the property designated as RT in the lAMP, located on the north boundary of Lake Trafford. Staffalso envisions that the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-elements will need to be amended to be consistent with the Overlay - to allow provision of central water and sewer to serve the residential communities (Towns, Hamlets, etc.) allowed by this Overlay. Such service might be from on-site package plants and/or from a governmental or quasi-governmental authority (e.g. future County service, or the Immokalee Water and Sewer District). Further, since the provisions of this Overlay may result in an increase in intensity and/or density, a complete public infrastructure analysis will be needed (for all category A public facilities - roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage facilities, solid waste facilities, parks and recreation facilities) prior to adoption to identify any potential impacts to adopted LOS standards as result of the adoption of this Overlay, and the adoption hearings would need to include any amendments to other GMP Elements necessitated by this Overlay. In addition to the above, staff also recommends the Areas of Environmental Concern Overlay be removed from the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), just as was recommended as part of the Rural Fringe amendments; it is generally considered outdated, at least for some areas of the county, and the Overlay pattern results in some distortions to the FLUM designations as new colors and patterns are established via these amendments, and the Rural Fringe amendments. The Areas of Environmental Concern Overlay is informational only, it has no regulatory effect. Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) Recommendation: The EAC hearing will be held on May 22, 2002. Their recommendation will be presented at the CCPC hearing. ~lliam D. Lorenz~J~r., P.E. Natural Resources Director David Weeks, AICP, Chief Planner Comprehensive Planning Section 8 Date / JUN 1 2 2002 REVIEWED~_~_~~BY: Stnn LRsi~ger, AICP Comprehensive Planning Manager Sus~Murray, AICP InCerim Planning Services Director Date: Date: APPROVED BY: omh K. SchoOl(t, .~,dministrator, unity Development and Environmental Services Division Staff Report for May 24, 2002 CPCC meeting. NOTE: This petition has been advertised for the June 12, 2002 BCC meeting. Date: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNLNG COMMISSION: MR. KEN ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN E.Lands FINAL Transmittal CCPC Staff Rpt. G, Comprehensive, David dw/ AGENOA ITEM May 15, 2002 Via Email & U.S. Mail Mr. David Weeks Collier County Planning Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34102 Re: Pepper Ranch I-tM File No. 2001111 De~Mr. Wee~: I have evaluated the lands in the Immokalee Master Planning Area as a follow up to the policy Bob Mulhere and I draited for Density Blending between the Rural Assessment Area and the Immokalee Planning Area last week. The results of this desk top analysis was based on taking FLUCCS data from the Rural Area Assessment Area and overlaying it on a map of the Immokalee Master Planning Area. Property ownership data was also utilized from the Property Appraiser's office. The policy as written would have affected ± 4,500 acres and allowed for the transfer of± 16,000 units out of the Immokalee Master Planning Area. If the policy were revised to include lands only with 25% or more of Group 1 and 2 FLUCCS Codes ±1,700 acres and more than 6,000 units would be eligible for transfer into stewardship lands, which is to great in my opinion. In closing, I am revising the attached density blending policy to include for only RT zoned lands in Immokalee to the affected by this policy, which would in affect only apply to the Pepper Ranch until such time as the Immokalee Area Master Plan is amended to allow for additional RT zoned lands. Very truly yours, Hole Montes Inc. P~Obort L. ~uane (siOned electronically) Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P. Planning Director C:~OCUME~ 1 \weeks_d~LOCALS~ 1 \TempkDW020515.doc Cc: Bill Lorenz with attachments Robert Mulhere with attachments Frank Pepper with attachments Tom Taylor with attachments JUN 1 2 2002 - pi,. 3~ d. Densi ,ty Blendinp This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within proiects that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts, or the lmmokalee Urban Area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under unified control as of June 22, 2002, the allowable gross density and/or intensity for such properties in aggregate may be distributed as follows: for lands that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts, density may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted for that under this Plan; or, in the case of lands that straddle the Imrnokalee Urban Area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area, density and intensity may be shifted from the urban designated lands to lands within the Rural I.ands Stewardship Overlay Receiving Area on an acre per acre basis. These Density Blending provisions are subject to the following conditions and limitations: Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub-District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral and Receiving Lands: (a) Density... 2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Sub-District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands: (a) The Project... 3. Density and Imensitv Blending conditions and Limitations for Prooerties Straddlint, the Immokalee Urban Areas and the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area: (a) Co/ (c] (d~ The nroiect in aem'eeate must be a minimum of 200 acres in size and be zoned Residential/Tourist District (RT) in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. It must be demonstrated the lands desimaated Urban have a hit, h natural resource value as indicated bv the nresence of Grout> 1 or Grout> 2 FLUCCS Codes (aK identified on the Land Use Stewardshit> Matrix) and a score of re'eater than 1.2 on the Natural Resource Stewardshit~ Index: Density and Intensity may only be shifted from the Urban Lands containin~ the high natural resource value (as measured above), on an acre ocr acre basis, to lands within the Rural Lands Stewardshin Overlay Receiving, Area havint, a Natural Resource Stewardshit~ Index score of 1.2 or less: and Lands within the Urban area: from which the density and/or intensity has been shifted shall be t>laced in a conservation easement in peroetuitv. C:q;K)CUME-I \weeks_d~LOCALS~l \Temp~Density Blending language 0205 ! 5.doc Additions to Current Rural Fringe Transmittal Draft double-underlined; deletions double JUN 1 2 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-.~ A RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSMITTAL AMENDMENTS TO: THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND RELATED MAPS AND THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE EASTERN LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA PORTION OF THE RURAL AND AGRIGULTURAL ASSESSMENT AREA INCLUDING CERTAIN OF THE INTERIUM NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STUDY AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA ALL TO IMPLEMENT THE FINAL ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION. ENTERED ON JUNE 22, 1999 IN CASE NO. ACC 99-02 (DOAH CASE NO. 98-0324GM). Whereas, on April 6, 1996, Collier County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Growth Management Plan (GMP) as required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes; and Whereas, on November 14, 1997, Collier County adopted the EAR-based amendments to its Growth Management Plan; and Whereas, on December 24, 1997 the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the County's EAR-based amendments, and to find certain of the EAR-based Objectives and Policies to the Growth Management Plan not in compliance as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and Whereas, following a hearing the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order on March 19, 1999, finding the EAR-based amendments at issue in non-compliance; and Whereas, the Administration Commission on June 22, 1999 found the EAR-based amendments not in compliance and entered a Final Order directing Collier County to perform a 3 year Rural and Agricultural Assessment of the Growth Management Plan to identify measures to protect agricultural areas, direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands and upland habitat and assess the growth potential of the area; and Whereas, the Final Order provides that the County may conduct the Assessment in phases; and Whereas, the County has divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Lands Area; and Whereas, on August 3 and September 14, 1999 the BCC created the Eastern Lands Oversight Committee (ELOC) to assist in the assessment of the area of the County commonly referred to as the Immokalee Area Study; and Whereas, the ELOC, with the collaboration of the public, and county planning and environmental staff have completed the Assessment for the Eastern Lands Area and have developed amendments to the County's Growth Management Plan; and Whereas, the Collier County Planning Commission has considered the proposed Eastern Lands Assessment Area Amendments to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and has recommended approval of said Eastern Lands Assessment Area Amendments to the Board of County Commissioners; and Whereas, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Eastern Lands Assessment Area Amendments, the DCA wilt review the Eastern Lands Assessment Area Amendments as set forth in Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. AGENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves, the proposed Eastern Lands Assessment Area Amendments and any maps related thereto attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as composite Exhibit A for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating the required State evaluation of such Amendments prior to final adoption and State determination of compliance with the Final Order of the Administration Commission, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance. THIS Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this __ day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk 2002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Attest as to Chairman's Signature only. BY: JAMES N. COLETTA, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney 2002 Resolution/Rural Fdnge Area Assessment/June 22, 1999 Administration Commission's Final Order REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA STUDY Prepared on behalf of the Committee by: WilsonMiller, Inc. May 2002 AGENDA ITEM JU~ 1 2 2002 FORWARD "Science never appears so beautiful as when applied to the uses of human life, nor any use of it so engaging as agriculture & domestic economy." THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1798 Over the past 2% years, the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee has had the opportunity to participate in guiding the work that has resulted in the Goals, Objectives and Policy (GOP) Amendments to Collier County's Growth Management Plan included in this report. During the period, the Committee spent countless hours reviewing and commenting on data, analyses, and complex concepts, and most importantly, providing valuable input into and guiding the development of the tools and strategies that form the foundation for the GOPs that follow. Along the way, dudng their "educational process", the Committee received reports and presentations from numerous experts in agriculture, ecology, stewardship, planning, and economics. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and acknowledge their valuable assistance, and although space limitations preclude the reproduction of their entire body of materials, excerpts of the information provided have by including in this report. I would also like to acknowledge the participation of the WilsonMiller Team, County Staff and the members of the interested public, all of whom provided valuable input each step of the way. Lastly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee, for their dedication to the process and the study, and their willingness to participate in such a comprehensive planning effort. Without the Committee, this collaborative process would not have been possible. The report that follows is a summary compilation of 2% years of work, condensed into what I hope is a manageable summary of the process, findings, results and recommendations of the study effort. On Apdl 29, 2002, the Rural Lands Oversight Committee voted unanimously to forward the accompanying Goals, Objectives and Policy Amendments to the Board of County Commission. Ron Hamel, Chairman Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee JUN 1 2 2002 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION SECTION II - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CITIZEN OVERSIGHT SECTION III - STUDY AREA CONTEXT AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES RESIDENTAL SECTION IV - DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS THEME MAP DESCRIPTIONS SECTION V - SCENARIO DESIGN AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY SECTION VI - SCENARIO ONE SECTION VII - SCENARIO TWO SECTION VIII - SCENARIO THREE SECTION IX - RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP SECTION X - GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT REFERENCES CITED APPENDICES Page 4 6 10 12 13 14 15 2O 22 3O 33 38 42 54 55 JUN 1 2 2002 4 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION On June 22, 1999, the State of Florida Administration Commission adopted Final Order No. AC- 99-002, which directed Collier County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. The Final Order provided for the County to conduct the Assessment in phases. Accordingly, Collier County divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Lands Area, also known as the "lmmokalee Area Study." The Immokalee Area Study (Study) represents that part of the Assessment mandated by the Final Order that includes approximately 195,000 acres of rural lands in northeastern Collier County surrounding Immokalee. The Study Area Map (Appendix "A") shows the boundary of the Study area, which is designated Agricultural/Rural on the Collier County Future Land Use Map, and includes the majority of lands in Collier County in agricultural production. The Final Order requires that the County adopt Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments resulting from the Study by November 1, 2002. During the Study process, Collier County was directed to temporarily prohibit specific uses that were allowed under existing zoning and GMP districts, and was required to adopt certain remedial amendments to the GMP. Collier County has fulfilled these obligations under the Final Order. The Final Order established the purpose of this Assessment to be: "1. Identi~, and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas. Such measures should prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintai~ the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The Assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricuhural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services." JUN 1 2 2002 5 A four-stage planning process was approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and overseen by a citizen committee (Committee). The process included the collection and analysis of data on natural resources and manmade features, preparation of future land use scenarios, evaluation of selected alternatives, and the preparation of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The Committee reached consensus on an expanded set of objectives for the Study based upon the requirements of the Final Order, summarized as follows: · Prepare a comprehensive long range plan for the future of the Study Area through a collaborative and community based effort of the residents, property owners, and other stakeholders in the study area with the support and participation of appropriate local, regional, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. · To accurately inventory important environmental resources and develop long term strategies to protect listed species habitat in the study area. Policies will be designed to direct incompatible uses away from listed species habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and to protect listed animal and plant species and their occupied habitats. · To identify prime agricultural lands and propose measures to protect agricultural uses and prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to other uses. · To assess the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from listed species habitat and encouraging development that utilizes innovative land use planning techniques. · To maintain the economic viability of agricultural and rural land uses, create strategies to diversify the rural economic base, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of needed public facilities and services for rural residents. · To ensure that the residents, property owners, and stakeholders within the study area take a leadership role in creating a long term, sustainable, and economically viable strategic plan for the future of the study area. · To obtain appropriate Comprehensive Plan policy and map amendments to ensure the protection of listed species habitat, protection of private property rights, and properly direct the future growth of eastern Collier County. This report is a summary of that process, which occurred over an approximate 2 1/2 year time frame and resulted in a unanimous recommendation of the Committee on a set of Growth Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. The Immokalee Area Study has created the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, a plan that provides the means to achieve the Final Order objectives. Upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, the Overlay will be implemented by policy and through the creation and adoption of the Rural Lands Stewardship District of the Land Development Code. ITEM I JUN 1 2 2002 6 SECTION II - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CITIZEN OVERSIGHT The Final Order states: '~ublic participation will be the hallmark of this planning effort. The participation must be wide in scope with broad community input. State and Regional agencies are hereby directed to participate and assist in the effort. The County shall ensure community input through workshops, public opinion surveys, and committees as necessary to undertake various tasks in the stud)'." The Study was a collaborative community-based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. The Study was jointly funded by a group of property owners in the Study area (Eastern Collier Property Owners) and by Collier County. The professional consulting team was led by WilsonMiller, Inc, and included certified planners, ecologists, biologists, GIS experts, economists, agricultural experts, civil engineers, landscape architects, water resource specialists and transportation planners. The Collier County staff served as process facilitators, coordinated public input and provided technical support. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisted of nine state and federal agencies coordinated by the Department of Community Affairs and provided periodic reviews and comments on technical work products. Experts from a variety of fields were invited to provide testimony and input during the study process. A list of the professional team members, county staff, and TAC members is included in Appendix "B". The primary means to involve and inform the public and solicit community input during the Assessment was the creation of a Board of County Commissioners (BCC) appointed citizen oversight committee. The BCC established the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee (Committee) with a diversified membership representing all aspects of the community including business, agricultural, environmental, and civic interests. Their first meeting was held on October 13, 1999, at which time, the description of the Committee's duties was provided by County staff, and the proposed scope of the Study presented. The Committee discussed scope of work, process and goals at several meetings culminating in an approved strategy in January 2000. The Committee has met thirty (30) times, their most recent meeting was held on April 29, 2002, at which time they unanimously adopted a recommended set of Growth Management Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The Committee operated under the Sunshine laws. All meetings were advertised, open to the public and "General Public Comment" was an item on every agenda. The members of the Committee as of May 2002 are: Chairman Ron Hamel, Executive V.P./General Manager, Gulf Citrus Growers Assoc. Vice Chair Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Executive Director, Collier County Housing Authority Michael Bauer, Florida Audubon/Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Joseph Boggs, Professional Surveyor and Mapper Floyd Crews, Owner, Southwest Florida Service and Supply Rodney D. Harvey, Realtor, Naples Realty Services, Inc. James Horner, Retired College Professor and Administrator James S. Howard, Senior V.P., First Union National Bank JUN 1 2 2002 Grady Miars, Project Manager, Bonita Bay Group, Inc. Ann Olesky, Business Owner, Lake Trafford Marina Kathy Prosser, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida David Santee, Agency Manager, Florida Farm Bureau Neno Spagna, Ph.D., Planning Consultant Sonya Tuten, Business Owner, AgTronics Irrigation Computer Technician Additionally, the following citizens served on the Committee during the Study process: Barbara Berry, former County Commissioner David Guggenheim, former representative of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida Dick Botthof, Banking (retired) Andrew Mackie, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Dawn Jantsch, Naples Area Chamber of Commerce Wes Wilkins Jim Rideoutte, Accountant (Retired) Richard Smith Stephen Bortone, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida In addition to the Committee meetings, an extensive number of supplemental presentations and workshops were held with non-governmental organizations and governmental agencies that expressed an interest in the Study. The following is a partial list of these presentations: 9/21/00 9/23/00 10/12/00 2/6/01 2/20/01 5/11/01 5/25/01 8/23/01 9/26/01 10/11/01 11/6/01 11/9/01 1/7/02 1/15/02 1/17/02 1/25/02 2/22/02 4/11/02 4/18/O2 4/19/02 Leadership Collier, Naples Florida Chapter of American Planning Association, Tampa The Urban Land Institute Smart Growth Forum, Bonita Springs The Leadership Institute, Naples Florida Chamber Growth Management Short Course, Orlando Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, Immokalee Association of Florida Community Developers, Orlando The Nature Conservancy, Naples Collier County Board of County Commissioners Workshop Department of Community Affairs field visit, Naples Western Everglades Coalition at the Conservancy, Naples Leadership Florida, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Naples Western Everglades Coalition at the Conservancy, Naples Florida Chamber Growth Management and Environmental Short Course, Orlando Leadership Collier, Growth Management Session Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District, Naples Pelican Bay Rotary Club, Naples Rural Lands Stewardship Council, Tallahassee Collier County Environmental Advisory Board sub committee Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee AC,~d~A ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 An interactive Assessment web site was created (www.nasites.com/collied) and maintained by Collier County for the Assessment to keep the public informed and to publish all documentation relative to the Study. Documents, including all Committee presentation materials, correspondence, reports, agendas, and meeting minutes, are published on the web site. The Committee held two public visioning workshops on June 6th and June 18th, 2001, facilitated by Dr. Jerry Schoenfeld of Florida Gulf Coast University. Members of the public and Committee members provided input as to their vision of what the assessment should accomplish, and the process established and prioritized specific recommendations on tools, techniques and strategies to be considered in the Study. On September 26, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a 1/2 day televised public workshop specifically for the Immokalee Area Study. A detailed presentation was made on the status of the Rural Lands Area Assessment/Immokalee Area Study. Video, multi media, and live presentations were made, with a question and answer period and public input following. These materials were subsequently rebroadcast on Collier County's public information television channel. The presentation slides are included in Appendix "C". Statewide public input also played a significant role in the Immokalee Area Study. As the Study was getting underway, Governor Bush convened a select committee of diverse citizens from across Florida to study the current issues facing our state in growth management and community planning. After nearly a year of study and public workshops throughout Florida, a Final Report was issued in February 2001. One of the chapters of the report deals specifically with rural land use planning, and is highly relevant to this Study. The Report states: 'The Commission recognizes the long-term value of retaining rural lands for agriculture, open space and conservation uses. A thriving rural economy with a strong agricultural base, healthy natural environment, and viable rural communities is an essential part of Florida's present and future vision. Rural areas also include the largest remaining intact ecosystems and best examples of remaining wildlife habitats as well as a majority of privately owned land targeted by local, state and federal agencies for natural resource protection. The growth of Florida's population and the demand for Iow density and moderately priced housing to serve it create increasing pressure to develop rural lands. Florida's growth management policies have not successfully controlled, and have in many instances accelerated rather than reversed this trend. There is a direct relationship between land values and the ability of rural landowners to keep their properties in agricultural production. Florida's agricultural economy is land rich and cash poor. The value of agricultural lands as collateral for borrowed capital needed to support agricultural operations is based in large part on the underlying development rights for non- agricultural uses. These underlying development rights have been reduced over time as a byproduct of ineffective land use policies. Regulatory controls do not stop growth or permanently assure the protection of habitats or ecosystems. Where permanent protection and management has been achieved, this has occurred primarily through programs such as voluntary land conservation easement and acquisition programs, and incentives based on cooperation by landowners, such as resource conservation easements. /~C~NOA CrEM JUN 1 2 2002 Even with the best efforts at urban infill, the pressures for development will impact almost every rural county. Florida lacks a comprehensive growth management policy, which proactively and realistically addresses both the pressures of population growth and the unique characteristics and multiple needs of rural Florida. The Commission recommends that land acquisition agencies be more aggressive in their use of conservation easements, that development rights be acquired and that the viability of Florida's agricultural economy be maintained and protected through innovative development strategies in rural areas and the use of incentives that reward landowners for good stewardship of/and and natural resources. Along with incentives for maintaining agriculture and good natural resource stewardship, such stewardship should be rewarded through a new program of agricultural land conservation and natural resource conservation agreements. The fundamental basis of the State's rural po/icy should be the restoration of rural land values, enhancement of the ability of land owners to obtain economic value from their property, and protection of private property rights." The Governor's Growth Management Study Commission identified the need for a new incentive based strategy for the protection, enhancement, and diversification of rural land and the rural economy -- a strategy that would provide balance among the competing needs: conserving natural resources, promoting rural economic diversification, protecting property rights, supporting the agricultural economy and accommodating future rural population growth. This led to the adoption of new legislation during the 2001 session to promote rural land stewardship (Chapter 163.3177(11 ), F.S.), included for. reference in Appendix "D". The Immokalee Area Study accepted the challenge of developing a new strategy and generated an innovative planning concept based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined therein. As a result of public input and analysis, the primary strategy selected by the Oversight Committee was based upon rural land stewardship, using the principles described in Chapter 163.3177(11 ), F.S., which became effective on July 1,2001. Rural land stewardship was evaluated in the first scenario, and carried through each scenario as a preferred technique. Unlike traditional approaches to environmental preservation and transfer of development rights, rural land stewardship is able to differentiate among a wide variety of physical and use characteristics of land, all within a sophisticated and interactive technological model. Incentive-based stewardship uses a formula that generates credits based on specific natural resource characteristics of the land. The greatest incentives are given to selectively eliminate the most intensive permitted uses on land with the most valuable natural resource assets. The program is incentive driven, but designed to work in concert and complement existing local, state and federal regulatory programs. The Growth Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies contained herein, along with the Land Development Code district will implement the Rural Lands Stewardship system recommended by the Committee. The Policies explain in detail the Rural Lands Stewardship system and other strategies identified to meet the intent of the Final Order. The report will summarize each step of the planning process that led to the recommended Growth Management Plan Stewardship Overlay. ,~GENDA ~TE~ JUN 1 2 2002 10 SECTION III - STUDY AREA CONTEXT AGRICULTURE. (Excerpted from and with acknowledgement to Dallas Townsend) The first significant modern agricultural activity in Southwest Florida was the cattle industry that was started in the area well before 1900. Initially, the cattle industry utilized native range and, little land development activity occurred during that time. It wasn't until 1928 when the Tamiami Trail (US 41 ) was completed and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad reached Everglades City from Immokalee along with State Road 29 that commercial vegetable production began in Collier County. Prior to that time, there simply was no road infrastructure by which the produce could be transported to the market from the interior areas. Citrus production prior to 1920 was limited to a small grove that was planted at Deep Lake, the Roberts Ranch Grove in Immokalee, a grove in Felda, and small groves along the coast near Fort Myers and along the Caloosahatchee River. Crops were produced only during the late winter and spring months because the area was too wet for fall production. There was no irrigation and almost no water control ditching. During World War II, pine and palmetto flatwoods became utilized for vegetable production. These areas made them useful for crop production because they were elevated above the swamps, sloughs and ponds and did not have subsurface rock except at the deeper zones. This allowed farmers to dig ditches and build dikes around the fields to keep water from running into the field, and excess water was pumped over the dike and out of the field. Farmers were then able to produce fall, winter and spring crops. The County Agricultural Cooperative Extension Department was created in 1950. Under this organization's direction, and with the assistance of the University of Florida Agricultural Experimental Station and the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the first soils map in Southwest Florida were produced for Collier County. Vegetable growers used the soils map to select the best flatwoods soils because it was necessary to move fields on a frequent interval due to the build up weeds and diseases. It was very rare that vegetables would be produced on the same field for more than two years. After AGENOA ITEJ~4 JUN ! 2 2002 11 being used for vegetable production for approximately two years, a field would be abandoned and the cattle industry would then plant improved pasture grass on the old field. By the late 1960's, it was apparent that suitable undeveloped pine and palmetto flatwoods areas were becoming scarce. As a result, growers began to experiment with soil fumigation and plastic mulch culture to control weeds and diseases. By the late 1970's, growers had almost universally adopted the soil fumigation and plastic mulch culture of growing vegetables. As a result, very little clearing of flatwoods has occurred in Collier County since 1980. The citrus industry began to move into Collier County about 1960 with a few small groves in the Immokalee area. The citrus grove development was given a dramatic boost by the freeze of 1962, which destroyed a large acreage of citrus in Central Florida. In addition, the research by the University of Florida had shown that the flatwoods soils could produce good citrus groves if adequate water control was achieved. Another surge in development of the citrus industry in Southwest Florida occurred in the 1980's when devastating freezes again occurred in Central Florida. Today, the major agricultural industries in Collier County are citrus, vegetables, and beef cattle. Improved agriculture and associated water retention areas occupy approximately 113,000 acres or 58% of the study area, and grazing leases occupy an additional 33%. Total acreage in agriculture has remained steady in the past 15 years. Citrus acreage increased from 10,063 acres in 1986 to 35,302 acres in 2000, primarily through the conversion of cattle pastures, not natural areas. Land in lease status for row crops, primarily vegetables, vary each year, and is currently 28,063 acres. To understand the long-term prospects for continued agricultural use, agricultural experts Thomas Spreen of the University of Florida and Fritz Roka of the UF Agriculture Extension Office presented a workshop discussion of the economics, expansion potential and long-term viability of agricultural use in the County. This information assisted the Oversight Committee and team in developing a better understanding of both the current conditions and factors influencing agriculture as well as projecting future scenarios. The workshop revealed the following information: · Collier County ranks 9t~ among Florida counties for citrus production; Florida is the 2°d largest citrus producer in the world, after Sao Paoio state, Brazil. · The citrus industry in Collier County is relatively young, the freezes in the central part of the state in the 1960's and1980's stimulated a southward move in citrus production. · The majority of orange production in Collier County is processed into orange juice. There are no processing plants in Collier County, which makes producers in this area vulnerable, as the citrus processing sector is consolidating. · Florida is the primary domestic supplier of fresh vegetables in the US market in the period from November to May. Vegetable producers face tough competition from Mexico and are at significant economic risk from international market forces. It is often difficult for growers to achieve a product and price ratio that is economically viable. AGENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 The beef cattle operations in Collier County are primarily breeder cows. This is a Iow- input-low-return business, but provides a reliable income stand-by for landowners. Even small increases in costs could jeopardize the viability of beef cattle in Collier County. NATURAL RESOURCES During the past several years of study and analysis associated with Collier County's comprehensive planning process, it became apparent that Collier County lacked an accurate, cohesive and reliable set of natural resource data from which to make well-informed decisions about the future of the Study area. Although there existed numerous sources of data, no one had ever compiled, consolidated and refined it into a useable and consistent format for planning. Land cover is a fundamental consideration in land use planning, and alternatives proposed to address requirements in the Final Order could not be thoroughly and fairly evaluated until accurate, up-to-date landcover, natural resource, and other data were compiled for the study area, and incorporated into an appropriate planning tool. As the first stage of the Study, WilsonMiller performed a comprehensive data gathering and mapping effort, inventoried information on the existing conditions of the study area, with a focus on the location, type and quality of existing natural resources and land uses. A major component involved detailed land cover mapping on digital aerial imagery. The principal work product is an integrated and accurate foundation of existing data and analysis incorporated into Collier County's first Geographic Information System (GIS) based planning tool. The data sets compiled from local, state, federal, and private sources reflected in the Stage 1 report represent the most extensive, updated data available for the Study area. The land use and landcover mapping was verified using scientific statistical procedures, and its accuracy exceeds federal standards for vegetation mapping. As such this constitutes the best available information for planning purposes. A summary of Stage 1 findings are included herein; the complete report can be found on the county website. In accordance with the Final Order, Collier County established interim Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) that included 40,895 acres or 21% of the study area. The NRPA designation generally covers two systems, the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. The interim NRPA boundary does not include Corkscrew Marsh (approximately 7156 acres) or the majority of the Okaloacoochee State Forest (approx. 4842 acres). Approximately 5,000 acres of uplands (1/4 of total uplands in the study area) and 3,000 acres of agricultural lands were included in this interim NRPA designation. The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) occupies approximately 63,700 acres (33%) of the study area. The uses in this area are strictly regulated by state law pursuant to The Big Cypress Conservation Act of '1973, Chapter 380.055, F.S. Six federally listed species have been documented within the study area, and an additional 10 state-listed species have been recorded. The list includes several wading bird species, reptiles such as the gopher tortoise and American alligator, and mammals such as the Big Cypress fox squirrel, Florida black bear, and Florida panther. Updated land cover map and listed species occurrence points were used, along with additional analysis, to define areas with the highest AGENDA' ITFJ~ JUN 1 2 2002 .g. 13 habitat values. Special emphasis was placed on defining the large continuous areas of natural vegetation that serve as both natural habitat and as wildlife corridors RESIDENTIAL Collected data shows that in 2000, the Study Area had a population of 1,091 persons in 368 dwelling units, and experienced nominal growth from 1990 to 2000, adding only 106 persons and 38 units during that period. The Immokalee Urban Area, which lies in the center of the Study Area, experienced more rapid growth during the decade, from 13,604 Persons in 4,489 units in 1990 to 17,953 Persons in 5,956 units in 2000. Substantially faster growth occurred in the area lying west of the Study, in northeastern Golden Gate Estates and Orangetree, which grew from 1,041 persons in 396 units in 1990 to 5,377 persons and 2,072 units in 2000, a five fold increase in population during the decade. This demonstrates that while the Study area has yet to experience population growth pressures, adjacent urban and estate areas are experiencing significant population growth. In summary, the Immokalee Study Area has experienced minimal change since 1985. There has been no significant agricultural land converted to non-agricultural uses, population growth has been minimal, and urban growth pressures have had no impact on the land. Only 3% of the land area has been converted from natural vegetation to agricultural since 1985. The vast majority of the area is used for agricultural purposes, ranging from row crop production and citrus cultivation to cattle grazing. An analysis of parcel size shows that the entire study area contains only138 parcels of 40 acres or less. This indicates that subdivision of land or conversion to urban use is not occurring. JUN 1 2 2002 pg. ~-~ SECTION IV - DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The first stage of the Immokalee Area Study involved the collection, updating, correcting, and compilation of data sets necessary to characterize the existing conditions of the study area. The primary tasks were to 1) collect and compile available local, state, and federal data for the study area, in the form of publications, maps, electronic GIS data files 2) to produce updated, scientifically accurate maps of land use and landcover within the study area at scales suitable for local planning; and 3) integrate the various data files and digital maps into GIS for analyzing and overlaying various data sets. The available data sets, publications, and maps obtained for the Stage 1 report are summarized in Table 1. WilsonMiller prepared a county-scale land use/landcover (LULC) map, since previously existing LULC maps were outdated, not mapped at local scales, or exhibited positional and/or classification errors. These data sets, which now represent the best available information on the study area, were used for subsequent stages of the Study. GIS allowed the team to sort, query, analyze, and integrate these large data sets in a variety of ways, and to summarize complex spatial relationships in map or table formats. GIS and the extensive data sets enabled the development of rational planning alternatives, analysis of their potential benefits and impacts based upon specific criteria, and the iterative design and testing of various planning alternatives. The heart of the Stage 1 data collection effort was the production of an updated, accurate land use/landcover (LULC) map that delineated the location of natural and man-made features within the study area. This was accomplished by extensively updating and correcting the 1997 SFWMD land use map for the area, and field verifying the updated map via a scientifically- accepted statistical procedure. The classification system used for LULC mapping was the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS), (FDOT, 1999) on a Level III order of detail. An in-depth account of the mapping procedures is provided in the Stage 1 Report, available publicly since early 2001 on the Collier County web site. The mapping base for all updated LULC mapping was the 1995 USGS digital ortho quarter- quad (DOQQ) false color imagery, which was the most recent rectified digital imagery available at the time of the Stage 1 work. The DOQQ imagery was chosen as a map base because it is digitally rectified aerial photography (corrected for spatial distortion), which allows map lines and other digital data sets to be accurately overlaid on the imagery in GIS. Additionally, in contrast to a simple thematic map, the aerial photography map base allows technical reviewers, county staff, state and federal agencies, and the public to see the landscape features that were mapped and classified. The updated LULC mapping was compiled at a scale of 1"=1000', or a 1:12,000 map scale. The accuracy of the LULC map was assessed in the field according to published scientific statistical procedures utilized by the US Department of Interior, National Biological Service (NBS) and National Park Service (NPS) (US Department of Interior, 1994). The NBS/NPS mapping accuracy standard for national parks is 80% correct classification. The Stage I LULC mapping achieved a statistical accuracy estimate of 91% correct classification. This result greatly exceeded the NBS/NPS standards for mapping accuracy, and to our knowledge represents the most accurate LULC map of such a large area (-195,000 acres) in the state u; ;-;'"~,~A CrEM NO. JUN 1 2 2002 15 An important distinction exists between the terms "landcover" and "land use". Landcover refers to the physical and vegetative features present on the land surface, without regard to how these features are utilized by humans. For example, a state park area with pine flatwood habitat would be classified as "pine flatwood" landcover. Land use defines areas where certain human activities occur. In the previous example, the land use for the same area would be "recreation" or "preservation." Some landcover and land use designations overlap and essentially cannot be separated. Examples include agricultural and residential areas, where the physical features present (e.g., row crops or houses) are synonymous with a human activity. These distinctions must be considered when interpreting the data (e.g., acreage tables) for planning purposes. The following subsection will summarize each of the primary theme maps from Stage 1, which are included in Appendix "E". Please note that all acreages shown on these maps are approximate. The total acreage of the Study Area was adjusted following Stage 1 by approximately 766 acres as a result of mapping refinements during the course of the study and inclusion of additional acreage. The total acreage used in the final area calculations is 195,846 acres. THEME MAP DESCRIPTIONS Landcover Map The thematic landcover map for the study area (Appendix "E", Exhibit 1 ) summarizes the vegetation and physical features of the study area as they occur on the landscape. Vegetated, non-cultivated areas used as permitted agricultural stormwater retention areas are included in the '%~/etlands" landcover category, even though the actual land use is agricultural. Existing Natural Veqetation Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 2 is derived from the landcover map, and shows only those areas with natural vegetation landcover. The purpose of the map is to highlight the spatial distribution of natural vegetation within the study area. As with the landcover map, wetland areas used for agricultural stormwater retention are included in this landcover map, although they are an integral part of the agricultural infrastructure. Soils Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 3 displays the spatial distribution of non-hydric and hydric soil map units within the study area. Generally speaking, non-hydric soils are associated with uplands, and hydric soils with wetlands. Soil map units mapped by USDA-NRCS necessarily contain some mix of soil types (non-hydric versus hydric) at the scale of a soil survey map. Therefore, these maps should be considered to be general guide to the location of non-hydric and hydric soils, and are not precise indicators of jurisdictional wetlands. As mapped, non-hydric soil map units comprise 44% of the study area hydric soil map units comprise 56%. Hydric soil map units are most prevalent in the major slough systems (Camp Keais and Okaloacoochee) and the JUN 1 2 2002 -! r-- 16 southern portions of the study area. Only the wettest hydric soils are associated with major flowways within the study area. Existin.q Land Use Map The map of existing land uses (Appendix "E", Exhibit 4) details where various human activities occur within the study area. These uses of the land must be taken into account during the development of planning alternatives, just as the landcover must be considered. Grazing leases exist on nearly all natural vegetation and rangeland areas within the study boundary. Agricultural Land Use Map Agricultural land uses are broken down into sub-categories that include row crops, citrus groves, pasture, and grazing lease areas on Appendix "E", Exhibit 5. It is important to note that the distribution of various agriculture types can vary substantially over time as agronomic and economic factors change. This map reflects conditions as of November 2000. Agricultural Surface Water Management System Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 6 illustrates the relationships between the agriculture drainage infrastructure (canals, reservoirs, agricultural water retention areas) and the general surface hydrology of the study area. It is obvious that existing surface water management is an integral part of the overall existing land use. Oil And Gas Map Southwest Florida is one of two known onshore areas within the State that produces oil and gas. Oil and gas resources have been explored for and produced from fields located beneath the Study area, and also beneath the current conservation areas outside of the Study area, since the 1930s. These existing uses are expected to continue. The resources are located beneath the surface and cover very large areas, however the related surface facilities are relatively small in size, as evidenced by pads such as those shown on Appendix "E", Exhibit 7. Existing and Proposed Preservation Lands Map Within the study area, the two main existing preservation areas are the Corkscrew Swamp and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest (Appendix "E", Exhibit 8). Existing preservation lands total 12,933 acres, or 7 percent of the study area. Proposed public acquisitions within the study area are the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands around Corkscrew Swamp and the Camp Keais Strand. Proposed public acquisitions total 27,754 acres, or 14 percent of the study area. Two large public preservation areas occur along the southern boundary of the study area: the 27,000-acre Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FpNwR), and the northwest corner of the 727,000 Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). AGENOA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 17 Interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 9 depicts the location and extent of the interim Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) and special study areas as approved by the Collier County Board of Commissioners in November 1999. Since the Stage 1 Report was completed, the interim NRPAs and special study areas have been subjected to detailed analyses to determine what, if any, modifications were required for delineating significant regional flowways and listed species habitat. These analyses eventually resulted in the delineation of Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), which define areas that receive additional layers of natural resource protection for regional flowways and listed species habitat under the proposed plan. Water Resources Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 10 shows the regional water resources within the study area, including major flowways and public water supply wellfields. The depicted wellfields are outside of the Study area, but the zones of influence for potential groundwater contamination cross into the study area and were considered in planning alternatives. The wellfields within the Immokalee Urban Area serve Immokalee, while the wellfields between Everglades and Desoto Boulevards are owned by the City of Naples. Listed Species Occurrence Points, excludinq Panther Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 11 includes listed species occurrence data from both the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) databases. Florida panther telemetry points (Appendix "E", Exhibits 12 and 13) were presented separately since they would obscure other species points. Because observation of several species often occurs at any given point for FNAI and FVVC data, a unique symbol for each species could not be accurately placed on the map. Occurrence points may be queried in GIS and accounted for in any analysis. Among the species listed within the study area are various wading birds, wood storks, bald eagles, Florida scrub jay, and swallow-tailed kites. Florida black bear road kill data are also included. The publication of updated wading bird rookery data by FWC is not yet available as of May 2002. Panther Telemetry Points Within South Florida Reqion Map Panther radio telemetry points for 90 panthers (including living and deceased cats), covering the period from January 1981 through June 2000 are presented on Appendix "E", Exhibit 12. This map provides a regional perspective for the panther, and illustrates the relationship of panther occurrence to previously designated Priority I and II panther habitat (Logan and others, 1993) and existing and proposed preservation lands. The regional perspective is crucial to understanding the context of the study area regarding panther ecology and preservation efforts within the larger framework. The current adult panther population was estimated at 60-70 individuals as of June 2000, of which 37 were collared (Shindle and others, 2000). Each data point on the map represents one observation of a single panther on a single day, and that th~ data points represent an average of three observations per panther per week .v~, ~_Nb~l-r_~ JUN 1 2 2002 18 period (approximately 150-200 points per cat per year). The Priority I and II habitat designations were developed using telemetry data and data from Closinq the Gaps (Cox and others, 1994), and were delineated rather crudely along section lines. Telemetry data indicate that much of the designated Priority habitat is not utilized. Panther Telemetry Points Within Study Area Map Appendix "E", Exhibit 12A shows the same telemetry point data set at the scale of the study area. The data were used within the study area for a variety of analyses involving general patterns of panther occurrence, habitat utilization, and movements across the landscape. The high quality of the updated LULC map assisted in validation of habitat models and ranking of potential habitat, confirming the general conclusions regarding preferred, tolerated, and avoided panther habitat reported by Maehr and Cox (1995). AGENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 0 z 0 0 20 SECTION V - SCENARIO DESIGN AND ANAYSlS METHODOLOGY Scenario Design The Final Order called for the balancing of three major goals, natural resource protection, continued agriculture viability, and sustainable development. The Committee determined that the most appropriate approach was to develop and test scenarios that recognized, contributed to and balanced all goals simultaneously. The method selected was to design the first scenario using a prioritized set of tools, techniques and strategies from the visioning workshops, in such a way that all of the goals of the Final Order were addressed, and then analyze, improve and refine each subsequent scenario. At the end, the final scenario would be the fine-tuned version of all of the tools, techniques and strategies tested and selected during the process A wide variety of tools, techniques and strategies were explored, discussed and analyzed during the scenario phase of the study. Three scenarios were created to project the conditions of the horizon year of 2025 based on an established set of parameters. The foundation for all scenarios was rural land stewardship. As envisioned, the stewardship concept would yield a flexible, incentive-based program that would address the complex interrelationship of land characteristics, natural features, and property rights. Scenario Analysis A technical analysis of the economic, environmental, transportation, public service, utility and water resource impacts was performed. The analysis process was designed to assist the Committee and public in selecting tools, techniques and strategies that maximize the potential benefits, minimize adverse impacts and achieve the goals set forth in the Final Order. The methodology for the analysis of scenarios was established over several months in collaboration with the Committee. In general, the methodology included the establishment of the Horizon Framework for the year 2025, the establishment of a baseline reference scenario to use for comparison to each scenario, and the selection of a representative sub-area of the overall study area within which each scenario could be described and tested. A brief description of each of these analysis elements follows. Horizon Framework The horizon framework is the collective set of parameters within which scenarios are evaluated. A horizon framework ensures that variables being tested can be benchmarked to a common reference. Framework parameters are based on state policy (ACSC), county policy (Immokalee Urban boundary), approved methodology (MPO model), or consensus (horizon year). The horizon framework is depicted on a map previously provided and includes: A Horizon year of 2025. The MPO 2025 projected road network, population, traffic analysis zones, and travel demand model. Interim NRPA boundaries as adopted. The current boundary of the Immokalee Urban Area. The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, and regulatory framework therein. Existing public lands. The natural resource and land use inventory as delineated in Stage I of the Assessment. Employment estimates and demographic indexes to establish support sen Adopted level of service standards in the Collier County Growth Managem .~nt pl~,~d~. ~ rrF..~ JUN PC. 1 2 200 21 Baseline Reference Scenario The County's Growth Management Plan (Plan) goals, objectives, and policies coupled with existing zoning regulations and other land development regulations in effect at the time the Final Order was adopted, when applied to the Study area and projected forward establish a future condition that results from no change to the Plan. This is the baseline reference scenario, sometimes described as the "do nothing" plan, used to assess whether and to what extent the application of various tools will achieve the results desired under the Final Order. Sub Area A sub area of the overall Study Area was delineated and presented to the Committee on October 22, 2001. It includes a representative amount of various types of land cover and land use found in the overall study area and was used to test alternative scenarios. The projected 2025 dwelling units and populations are derived from the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. Sub-Area Acreage: 19,946 acres (approximately 10% of study area) Sub-Area 2025 Dwelling Units: 1614 (approximately 10% of study area) Sub-Area 2025 Population: 4,035 persons (2.5 persons per Dwelling Unit) The following table shows the existing land cover of the sub area used in each scenario: SUB AREA LAND COVER AGRICULTURAL AREAS Acreage !% of Areal PASTURE 6969 FALLOW 148O WATER RETENTION (uplands and wetlands) 1443 CITRUS 1317 ROW CROP 1290 RANGELAND 454 SPECIALTY 197 BARREN 19 SUBTOTAL 13168 66% DEVELOPED AREAS TRANSPORTATION (Road R/W) 248 RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL 71 WATER 32 SUBTOTAL 351 2% NATURAL AREAS WETLANDS 3760 NATIVE UPLAND 2667 SUBTOTAL 6427 32% TOTAL SUB AREA 19946 100% m · 6ENOA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 22 SECTION VI - SCENARIO ONE Scenario One Overview The first scenario was based on the premise that privately owned rural lands in the Immokalee Area Study boundary would be included in a Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, using tools and incentives designed to give flexibility in the application of resource protection measures and the transfer, distribution, conversion and concentration of specific land based rights (stewardship credits) to accomplish the vision. The Stewardship overlay is designed to address the unique rural characteristics of Collier County's rural agricultural lands. A stewardship system is an alternative to publicly funded acquisition of property to promote both natural resource protection and continuing agricultural use. Success will result from an innovative and incentive based system that will not be dependent on a regulatory approach. Using the data and analysis in stage 1, land within the study area was indexed based on its characteristic set of natural resource attributes. Vegetation, habitat, soils, hydrology, and location are all indicative of a natural resource value of the land. With a described set of identifiable characteristics attributed to each acre, a set of natural resource indices that distinguish the natural resource "value" of one parcel of land from another was established. Lands within the Study Area are generally zoned "A-Agricultural", forming the basis for all land use entitlements under the Collier County Land Development Code and the Collier County Growth Management Plan. A set of land uses and land use rights is permitted by right or conditional approval on any A-Agriculturally zoned land. To establish a workable stewardship credit system, specific uses were consolidated into functional groups or "layers". Conceptually, a stewardship program could allow one or more layers to be eliminated, leaving the remaining layers in place, providing a continuing albeit reduced economic use to the owner. If each layer had an assigned index value, the total credit value of land would be established by the sum of all of the layers of permitted land use. The credit system uses the natural resource factor and the land use layer value to arrive at a credit value. Establishing appropriate natural resource index factors within each category was accomplished by testing various combinations and by examining the results in each of the scenarios that were developed. Scenario One involved the initial application of the Natural Resource Index Factors and incorporated the early development of the stewardship strategies. Scenario 1 also introduced the Receiving Area Characteristics and the Baseline Reference that would be used throughout the remaining scenarios. The Baseline Reference established the benchmark for comparing the various scenario results to the underlying standards currently in place, the "status quo" (e.g., zoning, Growth Management Plan, etc.). Privately owned rural lands in the Immokalee Area Study boundary will be included in an overlay, tentatively named "lmmokalee Area Rural Stewardship Overlay". The overlay will' not change the underlying land uses, development rights, or zoning that existed prior to the Final Order, instead it will create public/private tools and incentives designed to give flexibility in the. application of resource protection measures and the transfer, distribution, conversion and concentration of specific land based rights (stewardship credits) to accom 3lish the vision. The AGENDA ITEM JUN Pi. 1 2 2002 overlay will be implemented through the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 23 Primary Assumptions: · At the horizon year, there will be a dynamic balance of land uses in the Study area that each contribute to the primary objectives: a viable agricultural industry, protection of natural resources, and economic prosperity within and diversification of the area. · The ability to reach the objectives will rely on an innovative and incentive based system that will not be dependent on a regulatory approach. · There may be new sources of public revenues to support programs such as purchase of environmentally sensitive land and agricultural subsidies, but such funds will likely be limited and insufficient to accomplish all natural resource protection or agricultural viability goals. Primary Tools to Test: · Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (BCACSC) Regulations · Transfer of rights through a credit overlay system · Sending and receiving area criteria · Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) guidelines · Private ownership incentives · Public acquisition techniques · Clustering · Open space ratios · Preservation techniques · Environmental design · Conservation easements and incentives · Economic and tax incentives · Mixed uses · Best management practices (BMP) · Wildlife corridors and flow ways · Rural villages · Flexible regulations and creative community planning · Design guidelines · Economic diversification tools Primary Strategies: · Stewardship sending areas will be designated based on the characteristics of the land, and there may be different categories of sending areas. · The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (BCACSC) within the Study Area will be a sending area. · Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) will be sending areas. · BCACSC lands and NRPA lands are likely to remain substantially in private ownership. · Techniques such as conservation easements and stewardship agreements used in conjunction with the stewardship credit system will be used to protect environmental resources. · Permitted water retention areas will continue to function for this purpose, serving both existing and new uses. Water retention areas may be designated as sending areas or rights may adjacent properties that they serve. be clustered onto AGENOA ITEM Ne. JUN 1 2 2002 24 · Stewardship credits will be variable. For sending areas variation may be based on level of rights to be eliminated from the sending land, the benefit of the remaining use, and the environmental value of the land. For receiving areas, variation may be based on location, incentives for economic diversification, and other factors. · Receiving areas will be designed so that incompatible land uses will be directed away from critical habitat. · Receiving areas will be designed so as to discourage urban sprawl as it is defined in Florida planning law. · The receiving area designation will be implemented by criteria, as a function of zoning. Stewardship Credit Calculation The credit analysis was based upon one possible scenario of credit generation. This analysis assumes that all areas within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (10,597 acres) will be used as sending areas and generate stewardship credits, with land scoring 1.2 and less on the natural resource scale retaining full agricultural use rights (AG 1) but eliminating residential and conditional uses and lands scoring higher than 1.2 retaining only passive agricultural grazing (AG 2) and conservation uses. All areas designated as interim NRPA are included in the sending area. The resulting credits are shown on the following table. Sub-Area 0.1 0.2 3 0.6 0.3 245 73.5 0.4 1,193 477.2 0.5 3.518 1,759.0 0.6 2,614 1,568.4 0.7 1,232 862.4 0.8 3,649 2,919.2 0.9 1,151 1,035.9 1.0 1,155 1,155.0 1.1 817 898.7 1.2 379 454.8 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 884 1,149.2 1,021 1,429.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 18 9.0 0.6 5 0.6 215 129.0 0.6 77 0.7 828 579.6 0.6 348 0.8 3,227 2,581.6 0.6 1549 0.9 1,151 1,035.9 0.6 622 1.0 929 929.0 0.6 557 1.1 132 145.2 0.6 87 1.2 163 195.6 0.6 117 1.3 828 1,076.4 0.9 969 1.4 1,021 1,429.4 0.9 1286 1.5 348 522.0 0.9 470I 1.6 227 363.2 0.9 327 1.7 123 209.1 0.9 188 1.8 193 347.4 0.9 313 1.9 576 1,094.4 0.9 985 2.0 296 592.0 0.9 533 2.1 14 29.4 0.9 26 2.2 238 523.6 0.9 471 2.3 70 161.0 0.9 145 2.4 2.5 348 522.0 227 363.2 123 209.1 193 347.4 576 1,094.4 296 592.0 14 29.4 238 523.6 70 161.0 _ ..-:19,946 17,625 2.6 · ~. ~.~'10,597 0.6 0.9 3 245 1,1 93 3,500 2,399 404 422 226 685 216 56 60% credit for retiring all land ~;~ ,~g-Group 1 90°/° credit for retiring all land ! GEJ~A IT--r.~ ,::; -'~. 9,349 25 Alternative Blend of Stewardship Receiving Area Development An alternative blend of receiving area uses was prepared and reviewed by the Committee to demonstrate how the concepts of rural villages and hamlets might unfold in the sub area. The scenario included a rural residential village, a commerce village, and a hamlet. The following table summarizes the land use allocations in the horizon year of 2025 used for scenario one analysis. The commerce village is larger than the needs of the sub area population but was included because of the sub area's proximity to the Immokalee regional airport. It would provide a location for diversified high wage job employment opportunities for residents throughout the entire study area. Receivin9 Area Alternative Acres Units Commercial sf ,Rural Village Residential 351 1150 Commercial 11.5 115,000 Civic, Cultural, Government 12.5 Park, Preserve Open Space 100 Roads, Utilities 25 Village Sub Total 500 1150 115,000i Commerce Villa~le Residential 80 416 Commercial 165 1,650,000 Civic, Cultural, Government 0 Park, Preserve Open Space 70 Roads, Utilities 35 Commerce Sub Total 350 416 1,650,000i Hamlet Residential 49 48 Commercial 0.5 4,800 Civic, Cultural, Government 1.5 Park, Preserve Open Space 7.5 Roads, Utilities 1.5 Hamlet Sub Total 60 48 4,8001i I~11 Receivin~l Areas Residential 480 1614 Commercial 177 1,769,800 Civic, Cultural, Government 14 Park, Preserve Open Space 177.5 Roads, Utilities 61.5 JUN 1 26 Stewardship Receivinq Area Land Conversions The following table indicates the current land cover of areas identified as stewardship receiving areas for scenario one. This represents the conversion of land required to accommodate the projected 2025 population and provide uses that will help to expand and diversify the economic base of the study area. Not all areas converted are required to be cleared, for example the receiving area blend allows for approximately 177 acres of park, preserve and open space. STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS- LAND USE CONVERSIONS PASTURE 512 CITRUS 166 WETLANDS 98 NATIVE UPLAND 35 FALLOW 32 SPECIALTY 22 BARREN 17 WATER 17 MISCL. 11 TOTAL 910 Baseline Reference Scenario Land Conversions The following table indicates the current land cover of areas identified as converting to residential subdivisions to accommodate the same projected 2025 population as shown in the stewardship scenario using current zoning and growth management plan policies. 3ASELINE REFERENCE SCENARIO - LAND USE .~ONVERSIONS PASTURE 2767 CITRUS 2036 NATIVE UPLAND 955 ROW CROP 836 WETLANDS 742 SPECIALTY 196 RANGELAND 181 FALLOW 151 TRANSPORTATION 142 WATER 24 URBAN 22 BARREN 18 TOTAL 8070 AGENDA ITEM JUN t 2 2002 27 Comparison of Land Conversion The following table compares the baseline and stewardship alternatives to show the relative reduction of land conversion required to accommodate the same projected 2025 population. COMPARATIVE LAND USE CONVERSION -BASELINE TO % STEWARDSHIP BASELINE STEWARDSHIP CHANGE REDUCTION PASTURE 2767 512 -2255 81% CITRUS 2036 166 -1870 92% ROW CROP 836 0 -836 100% SPECIALTY 196 22 -174 89% RANG ELAN D 181 0 -181 100% FALLOW 151 32 -119 79% AGRICULTURE 6167 732 -5435 88% NATIVE UPLAND 955 35 -920 96% W ETLAN DS 742 98 -644 87% NATURAL AR EAS 1697 133 -1564 92% TRANSPORTATION 142 0 -142 100% WATER 24 17 -7 29% URBAN 22 0 -22 100%! BARREN 18 171 -1 6% MISCL 0 11 11 DEVELOPED 206 45 -161 78% Because the stewardship system is incentive based and flexible, sending and receiving areas are designated by criteria, suitability factors and demand. Therefore, the comparative analysis shown above is one example of myriad possible results. The actual generation of credits, selection of receiving areas and ultimate reduction of land conversion could be more or less than the totals shown above, but should be representative as an order of magnitude result. Findings of Scenario One Analysis The sub-area comparative impact analysis for the scenario one stewardship concept compared to the baseline reference scenario projected to the horizon year of 2025 yielded the following findings: Natural Resource and Agricultural Land Use Allocations · The stewardship scenario will reduce the footprint of land required to accommodate the projected 2025 population by 89 % compared to the baseline reference scenario. Put another way, the baseline reference scenario consumes 9 times as much land as the stewardship scenario. · The stewardship scenario results in 3,934 acres of land placed in passive agricultural and conservation stewardship (AG-2) as a result of 5713 stewardship credit transfers; the baseline reference has no provision or mechanism to accomplish this. ' JUN 1 2 2002 · The stewardship scenario results in 6,663 acres of land placed in agricultural stewardship (AG-l) as a result of 3363 stewardship credit transfers; the baseline has no provision for this. · The stewardship scenario converts 901 acres from current uses to stewardship receiving areas; the baseline scenario requires 8,070 acres to be converted to accommodate a comparable population. · The baseline reference scenario will involve the clearing and filling of approximately 1330 acres within residential sites (10% of each 5 acre site in the BCACSC and 20% of each site not in the BCACSC ). The stewardship villages accommodate the same residential population with 480 total residential acres, a reduction of 850 acres of residential clearing and filling. · The stewardship scenario reduces agricultural land conversion by 88% or 5435 acres. · The stewardship scenario reduces natural land conversion by 92% or 1564 acres. Although all natural areas converted under the baseline reference are not necessarily cleared, the construction of roads and drainage canals will serve to fragment natural areas within residential lots. Conversely, the clustering accomplished with the stewardship approach minimizes such fragmentation. · There are 1829 acres of land designated as NRPA (interim) within the sub area. The stewardship natural resource index scores 1817 acres (99%) of interim NRPAs greater than 1.2, and under scenario one they will receive passive agricultural/conservation designations in exchange for credit transfers. · The stewardship natural resource index also scores approximately 1,500 acres of Special Study Area at greater than 1.2 and under scenario one they also receive passive agricultural/conservation designations in exchange for credit transfers. Public Services · The stewardship scenario provides approximately 200 acres for civic, cultural, parks, preserves, open spaces, and governmental facilities; the baseline scenario has no allocation, although civic-use land may be randomly developed throughout the area using the conditional use process. · The stewardship scenario accommodates public and retail service sites within ~ to 1/2 mile of village residents; the baseline reference range averages approximately 5 miles. Utilities The stewardship scenario will serve 97% of the 2025 population with central potable water and wastewater treatment utilities; the baseline reference scenario has no provision for central utilities, which would be cost prohibitive, and would therefore require 1614 wells and septic tanks. Water Resources The stewardship scenario will reduce the estimated impervious surfaces by approximately 5%. Impervious road surfaces in stewardship areas are substantially reduced, which is offset by additional impervious surfaces to accommodate civic, cultural and economic development uses. The stewardship scenario will reduce the demand for residential irrigation by approximately 68%. AGENDA ITED~ JUN 1 2 2002 Pl.~ The stewardship scenado will allow for approximately 300,000 gallons per day of potential water re-use from the distribution of treated effluent. Transportation · The stewardship scenado reduces the average tdp length for all tdps generated by rural land uses by and average of 1-2 miles. · The stewardship scenado reduces the number of trips required to use the arterial/collector roadway network to satisfy shopping and personal business needs by 25%. · The stewardship scenado reduces the number of employment tdps required to use the arterial/collector roadway network by 27%. · The stewardship scenado reduces the number of new roadways intersecting the artedal collector network from 14 to 6. · The stewardship scenario reduces the number of new driveway connections intersecting the artedal collector network from 104 to 5. · The stewardship scenado reduces the needed miles of local roadway construction from approximately 75 miles to approximately 8 miles. · Land area cleared for new local roadways is reduced tenfold from approximately 458 acres to 44 acres. · The average annual maintenance costs of local roads is estimated by County staff to be $50,000 per mile; therefore the annual overall maintenance cost will be reduced by approximately $3.3 million. AGEND~A ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 30 SECTION VII - SCENARIO TWO Scenario Two Overview A primary assumption of Scenario One was that public funds will be limited and insufficient to accomplish natural resource protection or agricultural viability goals, and therefore the system would be driven by market-based demand for acquisition of stewardship credits. Although this approach has the advantage of not being reliant on discretionary public funding, one disadvantage is the length of time it may take to realize a substantial transfer of credits from sending to receiving areas, as the market timing for the uses that will eventually demand stewardship credits is not yet known. The Committee chose to examine this in Scenario Two. Building on the general concept of stewardship described in Scenario One, a blend of public funding, outside private funding sources such as private conservation organizations and private incentives could accelerate the protection of the highest priority natural resources and at the same time may reduce the total number of credits required to accomplish a balanced result. Therefore, the approach for Scenario Two was the addition of external public and private revenues to acquire conservation easements, stewardship credits, or land in order to meet the objectives of the Final Order. Scenario Two incorporated an analysis of the impacts of a significant infusion of public funding into the mix without quantifying the dollars that might be available, rather and assumption of land that might be affected by an acquisition program was made. This process tested the integrity of the overall system in light of what is today an unknown and unpredictable variable. At our request, the Department of Community Affairs identified a range of State, Regional and Federal fund programs that may be available for conservation land acquisition, however, no estimate of potential yield was provided. The Florida Stewardship Foundation provided a more detailed analysis that was distributed to the Committee on January 28. The Stewardship Foundation estimated that local programs such as general obligation bonds and property taxes could generate $2 million to $25 million annually, State and Federal programs (not including the Farm Bill) could generate $9.5 to $12 million annually; and Farm Bill programs could generate $7.5 to $13 million annually. After review of this information, at its meeting on February 4, 2002 the Committee agreed to evaluate Scenario Two using the premise that some combination of these external funding sources could provide sufficient funds to acquire either the fee interest or development rights from all lands within the scenario sub area designated as Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPA). There are approximately 1,829 acres currently designated as NRPA in the study sub area. These lands generated 3,001 stewardship credits in Scenario One, which represents approximately 1/3 of the total 9,076 Stewardship Credits generated from the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern sending area. In Scenario One, it was determined that the projected 2025 population could be accommc.dated within a receiving area of approximately 910 acres using the suitability factors and rural design guidelines, rather than the 8,070 acres required in the baseline reference scenario. The number of stewardship credits generated in the Scenario One analysis was sufficient to implement the receiving area uses, with a likely surplus of approximately 10%. Scenario Two was designed to generate an equal number of stewardship credits as Scenario One, so that the relative impact of public funding can be compared. JUN 1 2 2002 Scenario Two Results In Scenario Two, through the application of external funding, the NRPA becomes a preserve area with a conservation easement that precludes conversion to new uses. Potential NRPA based Stewardship Credits would be acquired and eliminated as a result of the purchase. To replace these credits, the remaining non-NRPA lands in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) become sending areas falling into two groups. The first group includes lands that currently have agricultural group 1 (Ag-l) uses such as row crops, citrus, and specialty farming (2,530 acres). The second includes lands that currently have agricultural group 2 (Ag-2) uses such as pastures and rangelands (6,238 acres). In each case, we projected stewardship credits based on the natural resource index multiplied by the factor for removal of all layers of use above the current use. For example, in return for credits, Ag- 1 landowners choose to eliminate the ability to convert to residential and conditional uses, while Ag- 2 landowners choose to eliminate the ability to convert from pastures to group I agriculture and residential/conditional uses. Scenario Two therefore generally mirrors the current use within the ACSC, and as a result generates a total of 7,143 Stewardship Credits. These same lands generated 6,075 credits in Scenario One. The increase in credits is the result of more acres being reduced to the Ag- 2 level. To then generate 1,933 Stewardship Credits to fill the remaining credit shortfall, we have designated 2,369 acres of the highest natural resource scored land outside of the ACSC as sending areas, also at the Ag- 2 level. These lands currently are predominantly wetlands within permitted agricultural water retention areas and both natural uplands and improved pastures used for cattle grazing, compatible uses that can be retained under the Stewardship program. The combination of these enhanced levels of environmental protection replace the NRPA based stewardship credits. The significant finding is that the externally funded acquisition of 1,829 acres of NRPA leverages the additional protection of 2,369 acres of private land outside of the ACSC through the stewardship program, and increases the amount of total land in the sub area protected at the Ag-2 conservation level by 6,471 acres. Scenario Two Benefits The analysis demonstrates that blending of public and privately funded acquisition together with the incentive based stewardship program can compliment each other to achieve a greater level of environmental protection and agricultural sustainment while allowing for a sufficient level of land conversion to accommodate the future population and enable economic diversification. A second potential benefit is the acceleration of NRPA protection. In Scenario One, sufficient receiving area demand for 3001 stewardship credits is needed before the NRPA is fully protected as a sending area. As the NRPA generates approximately 1/3 of the total Stewardship Credits, it is reasonable to assume that at least 1/3 of the time between now and the horizon year would also be required to absorb these credits, or approximately 8-9 years. With external funding and a willing seller program, acquisition could be implemented as soon as funds are allocated. The results would then be both an accelerated protection program and more than doubling of the protected area within the interim time frame. The following tables compare both acreage and stewardship credits for Scenarios One and Two. ~_ND ~' '~TF_~ 2002 32 Land Use Category Scenario One Acres Scenario Two Acres NRPA Public Funded Preservation 0 1829 NRPA Stewardship Conservation '1829 0 ACSC (Non-NRPA) Ag-1 6632 2530 ACSC (Non-NRPA) Ag-2 Conservation 2136 6238 Non-ACSC Ag-2 Conservation 0 2369 Receiving Areas 910 910 Lands Unaffected 8439 6070 Sub-Area Total Acres 19946 19946 Total NRPA and Ag-2 Conservation 3965 10436 Sending Area Category Scenario One Credits Scenario Two Credits NRPA Public Funded Preservation 0 0 NRPA Stewardship Conservation 3001 0 ACSC (Non-NRPA) Ag-1 3342 1208 ACSC (Non-NRPA) Ag-2 Conservation 2733 5935 Non-ACSC Ag-2 Conservation 0 1933 Sub-Area Total Credits 9076 9076 *The 1829 acres of NRPA Stewardship Conservation consists of 1798 acres at .9 index (Ag-2) and 31 acres @ .6 index (Ag-l). JUN 1 2 2002 Pl.,,, "70 33 SECTION VIII - SCENARIO THREE Scenario Three Overview The third scenario added several new and expanded tools to the prior scenarios that foster economic diversification through incentives for targeted industries, and direct available funding for infrastructure into preferred areas. Targeted areas are those areas that meet the greatest range of Receiving Area suitability factors. Focusing public investment into these areas and conversely directing public investment away from areas that are not suitable will make such areas more attractive for private investment from a market perspective. Scenario Three also incorporated a number of changes to the Natural Resource Index Factors and introduced the concept of separate stewardship areas for flow ways, habitat and water retention. Additional research and analysis was performed in order to establish boundaries for these stewardship areas, replacing the original Interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas. Using best available information and analysis, the mapping of natural resource areas were refined and illustrated as flow ways (FSAs) and listed species habitats (HSAs). These areas blend with Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and other land within the ACSC to meet the environmental objectives of the Final Order. At the March 6 and 18, 2002 meetings, the Oversight Committee recommended that Scenario Three retain the incentive-based Rural Stewardship principles from scenario one, the public and private funding from scenario two, and include additional tools and techniques summarized as follows based on public participation: · An incentive-based plan to promote the use of Best Managements Practices (BMPs) for agriculture (to be included in Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Programs that explore/foster alternative agricultural uses and practices, and explore local, state and federal funding support for such programs (to be included in Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Policies that incorporate habitat protection planning for agriculture (new Flow way Stewardship Area and Habitat Stewardship Area categories and included in Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Identify and map the highest value natural resource areas (New FSA, HSA and WRA categories). · Establish appropriate buffers adjacent to NRPAs (Flow ways) and identify allowable development in these buffer areas (new HSA and WRA categories coupled with Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Develop incentives for restoration and enhancement of impacted lands within NRPAs and adjacent buffer areas (new FSA and HSA categories; new Natural Resource Index scoring; Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Identify appropriate locations for wildlife and flowway corridors and develop preservation incentives (new FSA, HSA and WRA categories; new Natural Resource Index scoring; Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). · Promote economy diversification with incentives for ecotourism, policies to prioritize public infrastructure improvements in preferred or "targeted" areas, ~nd incentives for applicable Smart Growth and Community Character principles (to be included in Goals, Objectives and Policies in Growth Management Plan text). ~,F_.NOA rrF..~ JUN 1 2 2002 34 Economic Diversification Strate,qies: GMP goals, objectives and policies will be included that foster economic diversification through incentives for targeted industries, and by directing available funding for infrastructure into preferred areas. Targeted areas will be those areas that meet the greatest range of Receiving Area suitability factors previously identified. Targeting public investment into these areas and conversely directing public investment away from areas that are not suitable will make such areas more attractive for private investment from a market perspective. Policies will help to direct development away from more sensitive Flow way and Habitat Stewardship Areas and toward the targeted receiving areas, which will expedite the utilization of the Rural Stewardship Program. Natural Resource Protection Strate.qies: Mapping areas of highest ecological value using the best available data and analysis established in stage one of the Immokalee Area Study has led to the mapping of FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs (Appendix "G", Overlay Map). Refinements to the Natural Resource Stewardship Index were included to promote the utilization of the private stewardship incentive program by focusing on natural resource values. By identifying areas that have the most significant natural resource value as habitat for listed species and for maintaining or enhancing the natural hydrologic regime in flow ways, available funding for easement or fee simple acquisition can be targeted to those areas and the benefits derived from Rural Stewardship Credits can be leveraged. Conversely, directing public investment into those areas that are most suitable for development will promote the utilization of Rural Stewardship credits in such areas. The Flow Way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) were identified as those topographically interconnected areas where the depth and duration of the seasonal high water table is sufficient to maintain surface water flow for several months per year on average. These areas were delineated based upon two complementary data sets: the Natural Soil Landscape Position hydric soil groupings (SFWMD, 2000), and the landcover (FLUCCS) maps produced for the Stage 1 study. These two data sets correlated very closely in defining the major regional flow ways. The FSA map is consistent with SFWMD publications such a the Lower West Coast water Supply Plan, the Big Cypress Basin Management Plan, and the Big Cypress Basin Hydrologic Model (all available at www.sfwmd.qov). The Habitat Stewardship Areas were defined primarily by spatial patterns of landcover/land use as reflected by FLUUCS maps, Florida panther radiotelemetry data points, and other listed species occurrence points. The goal was to create extensive, inclusive, contiguous areas of the landscape that are dominated by natural cover, which would not only provide important habitat functions for listed species but would also allow wildlife movement across the landscape. In some areas, significant areas of active agricultural lands were included with the HSAs in order to maintain large areas of contiguous habitat and the existing matrix of land uses. In other areas, smaller HSAs were delineated to be contiguous with FSAs and WRAs, which had the effect of widening existing habitat corridors. Particular attention was paid to the Florida panther, because accommodating the habitat and movement needs of the panther addresses the needs of many other animal and plant species. The largest single delineations of HSAs are contiguous with established conservation lands such as the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and. Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest. In addition, HSAs were designed where possib..l,e to be contiguous with FSAs and existing water retention areas (WRAs). ~_-¢r_.NOA ~TF.~ JUN 1 2 2002 Interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas (SSAs) were delineated on maps and accepted by DCA in 1999. The FSA, HSA, and WRA designations, defined by the methodologies summarized above, replace the interim NRPA designation and accomplish the analysis needs for the SSAs. As defined in the "Growth Management Plan" section of this report, the new designations provide specific protections for hydrologic and biologic resources of the study area. The FSA, HSA, and WRA designations were separated to acknowledge that the primary natural resource value of these areas may differ (e.g., flow ways versus habitat outside of flow ways), and that growth amendments may be tailored to issues specific to the primary natural resource (e.g., water quantity and quality may be the highest priority for FSAs, but not in HSAs). The combined FSA, HSA, and WRA designations account for significantly more land area within the study area than the combined interim NRPA and SSA total land area. These designations, based upon the updated data sets compiled during Stage 1, also effectively target natural resource protection. As one example, the interim NRPA and SSA designations captured 80 percent (to the nearest one percent) of panther radiotelemetry points within the overall study area. In comparison, the new designations capture 91 percent of the radiotelemetry points. Less than half of this percentage difference is accounted for by an increase in designated land area, illustrating that the higher data quality and GIS capabilities facilitated the development of effective natural resource protection strategies. The following general policies describe how alternative natural resource protection strategies are integrated into the rural stewardship process for scenario three. The new overlay classifications of Flow way Stewardship Areas and Habitat Stewardship Areas replace the former designations of interim NRPAs and special study areas. · Wetland flow ways are mapped as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map. · Natural habitats are mapped as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map. · Water retention areas are mapped as Water Retention Areas (WRAs) on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map. Within the Stewardship Overlay System, FSAs and HSAs are incentivised as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), and are precluded from being Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). · WRAs may also be sending areas and will continue to be used for water retention in support of current and future uses. Residential uses would be eliminated in FSAs and HSAs when a property owner participates in the stewardship program in exchange for compensation to that owner. Other land use layers may also be eliminated in exchange for compensation. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through direct acquisition of the property through a willing seller program. 2002 Should the County elect to acquire Stewardship Credits through a publicly funded program, the County shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to implement the acquisition and holding of credits until such time as the credits are sold or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. 36 Scenario Three Results In Scenario Three, similar to Scenario Two, we assume that through the application of external funding, the Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) receive a conservation easement that precludes conversion to new uses. Potential FSA Stewardship Credits (1967 credits) would be eliminated as a result of external funding. As an alternative, if external funding is not available, these credits could be used to support receiving area uses. HSAs and WRAs are included as sending areas. In each case, projected stewardship credits are based on the natural resource index multiplied by the factor for removal of all layers of use above the current use. Lands in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) not otherwise classified generate additional credits to balance the demand for receiving areas. The tables below illustrate the results: LAND ACREAGE Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three NRPA Public Funded 0 1829 0 Preservation NRPA Stewardship Conservation 1829 0 0 Flow way Stewardship Areas 0 0 1295 (FSA) Habitat Stewardship Areas 0 0 5416 (HSA) Water Retention Areas (WRA) 0 0 1681 ACSC Ag-1 6632 2530 3235 ACSC Ag-2 2136 6238 507 Non-ACSC Ag-2 0 2369 0 Receiving Areas 910 910 910 Lands Unaffected 8439 6070 6902 Sub-Area Total Acres 19946 19946 19946 Total Stewardship Protection t 10597 12966 ! 12134 JUN ! 2 2002 37 CREDIT GENERATION Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three NRPA Public Funded 0 0 0 Preservation NRPA Stewardship Conservation 3001 0 0 FSA (1967 credits retired via 0 0 0 purchase) HSA @ .9 0 0 4449 HSA @ .6 0 0 943 WRA @ .9 0 0 1913 ACSC Acj-1 @ .6 3342 1208 1397 ACSC A9-2 @ .9 2733 5935 339 Non-ACSC A9-2 0 1933 0 Sub-Area Total Credits 9076 9076 9041 Scenario Three Benefits: Scenario three adds several new strategies to the Stewardship System. Using best available information and analysis, the mapping of natural resource areas are refined and illustrated as flow ways (FSAs) and listed species habitats (HSAs). These areas blend with Water Retention Areas (VVRAs) and other land within the ACSC to meet the environmental objectives of the Final Order. The analysis demonstrates that blending of public and privately funded acquisition together with the incentive based stewardship program compliment each other to achieve a greater level of environmental protection and agricultural sustainment while allowing for a sufficient level of land conversion to accommodate the future population and enable economic diversification. The same benefits result from external funding; with such funding and a willing seller program, acquisition of Flow ways could be implemented as soon as funds are allocated. Stewardship Receiving Areas are unchanged from prior scenarios. This scenario strikes the best balance of strategies to meet the overall objectives of the Study. JUN 1 2 2002 SECTION IX - RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP Stewardship Credit Worksheet In order to merge the land use layer credit value concept with the natural resource index value concept, a worksheet was developed to build and test the application. As shown on Appendix "H", the Stewardship Credit Worksheet combined the Natural Resource Index factors with the Land Use Layers to generate stewardship credit value for each layer. In exchange for retiring one or more land use layers from the land, a certain number of stewardship credits accrue to the landowner. With adequate incentives, a voluntary application would allow the landowner to place all or a portion of his land in a state of natural resource conservation or agricultural preservation and in exchange, receive credits that would allow compact and sustainable rural development to occur on other portions of his land. In a properly structured program, the credits could be sold or transferred to other lands within the study area. Stewardship Credits vs. Transfer of Development Ri¢lhts (TDRs) Superficially, the Stewardship Credit program may seem like a traditional TDR approach, however there are substantial differences between the two concepts. A TDR system generally establishes a uniform transfer value, usually of a number of dwelling units per acre, and sets up the mechanism for the movement of those units from one parcel to another. The Stewardship Credit system does not establish a uniform value for each parcel (or acre) because it recognizes that lands have different qualities and values. The Stewardship Credit system establishes numerical indexes that can be customized to a specific area or region and calibrated and fine-tuned as circumstances change over time. More importantly, unlike TDRs that are simply residential dwelling units moving from one parcel to another, the application of Stewardship Credits to rural receiving lands is flexible and can be tailored to ensure an appropriate and sustainable land use mix. As an example, credits yield not only dwelling units, but also the supporting infrastructure, commercial uses, civic and cultural uses and open space land uses that make compact rural development sustainable within Stewardship Receiving Areas. Within Stewardship Receiving Areas, variation may be based on location, incentives for economic diversification, and other suitability factors. Stewardship Receiving Areas also accommodate and facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible planning strategies designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from sending area listed species habitat. Stewardship Sendin.q Areas and Stewardship Receivin,q Areas The Collier County Rural Stewardship Program has two primary designations, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), and Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). The SSAs are created from lands that are to be kept in permanent rural, agricultural or conservation uses. When a property owner elects to designate their property as a SSA, certain uses are eliminated from the property in exchange for Stewardship Credits. The greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value or public benefit of the land, the greater the number of Stewardship Credits generated. The elimination of all property use rights and corresponding transfer of Stewardship Credits results in the preservation of the land for natural resource conservation. ~c.¢jT~A ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 As stated earlier, some lands enjoy a higher degree of natural resource quality than others. Some lands are more suitable for conversion to rural development than others. In scenario one, all lands could be either SSAs or SRAs. In scenario three, a mandatory sending area approach was included for flow ways and habitat areas. Stewardship Receiving Areas are established based on a set of criteria or suitability factors. Although SRAs are not delineated, the compact rural development characteristics of receiving areas will consume less than 10% of the potential area, and a finite limit is inherently established by the system, leaving the remaining lands in either natural resource conservation or rural/agricultural preservation. SRAs would be the target for future rural development strategies as indicated by the Collier County land use projections. Instead of the traditional single-family 5-acre tract development that is characteristic of the conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses in the Rural Fringe, a more sustainable, compact mixed-use development pattern was envisioned for the future of the Rural Lands. Following extensive research, a variety of rural land use development patterns were examined. A set of development characteristics were created for three rural land use patterns, Towns, Villages, and Hamlets. A fourth land use pattern, Commerce Village, combined the rural Village concept with an expanded commercial/industrial component. The Residential Receiving Area Characteristics, shown in Appendix "1", are examples of the levels of individual land use components that, when put together in a compact and planned pattern, yield a sustainable development that does not promote sprawl or contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural lands. These parameters have been used consistently throughout the study in all three scenarios, and are the basis for the comparison of the various scenarios against the Baseline Reference (5-acre lot development within the current land use regulatory structure). Credit Exchan.qe Rate Methodolocl¥ In order to convert stewardship credits into rural development entitlements, exchange rates are needed. Typically, separate exchange rates would be developed for residential, commercial, recreational, etc., land uses. Another approach developed by the study team that worked well in conjunction with and supported the compact and sustainable rural development strategies involved developing a single exchange rate that converted credits to gross "acres" of sustainable development rather than to dwelling units or commercial square footage. By quantifying the rural development characteristics into gross acreage that would include net land use acres (residential, commercial, etc.) and open spaces, infrastructure, public facilities, etc., a single exchange rate accommodates all of the necessary planning components to ensure a compact and sustainable rural development opportunity. The calculation of the appropriate exchange rate involved the use of a reasonable maximum (referred to hereafter as the "peak") number of total credits that could be generated by the stewardship programming, assuming that some levels of agriculture would remain on lands that were suitable. It unrealistic to expect that all land use entitlements would be retired from every Sending Area acre, so the maximum number of credits possible must be calibrated to a more reasonable expectation. To that end, all credit generation calculations (those credits actualJy being transferred to receiving lands) were based upon either retention of agriculture rights (AG- 1 & AG-2). Using the credit worksheet methodology, credits from lands with AG-1 were factored by .6 (60% of the maximum allowed credits are actually generated for transfer). Credits form lands that retained only AG-2 uses were factored by .9, so that 90% of the maximum credits are generated for transfer to Receiving Areas. This process results in an estimated pC.~'.;~C.,ENOA rrF_~ "generated" credit tabulation (see Appendix "J"). A summary of the generated c 'ealtSN~TO~OWS: ~ JUN t 2 2002 Pi. 3q 4O @ Credits Acres Credits Rate(s) Der Acre FSAs 31,361 48,257 .6 & .9 1.54 HSAs 35,166 37,706 .6 & .9 1.07 WRAs 18,236 25,394 .9 1.39 ACSC Ag-1 & 2 (NOC) 15,183 6,605 .6 & .9 0.44 ACSC Non-Ag (NOC) 5,809 3,488 .6 0.60 Sub-Totals 105,755 121,449 1.15 Ag-1 & 2 (NOC) [Ag-Preserves] 63,042 9,644 .6 & .9 0.15 Non-Ag (NOC) 13,534 5,816 .6 0.43 Study Area (Privately Held) 182,331 136,909 Total credits available Using the current zoning entitlement of I dwelling per 5-acres on A-Agriculture zoned land as a control total, the maximum number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the 182,331 acres of privately held land would be 36,466 dwelling units. Using an average gross density for compact rural development of 2.17 dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the Rural Development Characteristics guidelines discussed previously, only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the buildout density in compact rural development as opposed to accommodating that same number of units on 182,331 acres of 5-acre home sites. The remaining step in the calculation process involves eliminating the credits for the number of acres to be used as Receiving Lands (16,805 X .15 credits per acre = 2,521 credits). The net result is 134,388 credits generated for the rural compact development of 16,805 acres, resulting in an exchange rate of 8.0 Sending Area credits per acre of Receiving Area land. As demonstrated above, the process yields the assumed number of rural development acres that are eligible to become designated Receiving Areas based upon the estimated peak number of credits generated by Sending Areas. It is possible that fewer number of credits will actually be generated, as some landowners may choose to retain more rights on their land, yielding a lower number of acres available for rural development (example: 120,000 credits generated + 8 credits per acre = 15,000 acres of rural development). In the 2025 Horizon Framework analysis, the 14,720 dwelling units predicted by Collier County would occupy 6,783 acres. At 8 credits per acre, 54,405 stewardship credits would be needed to accommodate the expected growth. Land Conservation It is important to understand the important land conservation features of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overly system. Inherent in the process is conservation/preservation of both high- quality natural resource lands as well as productive agricultural resource lands. This is done through two means; 1) the primary conservation achieved by establishing SSAs, and 2) secondarily by reductions in land use consumed for rural development (SRAs). Following are several key comparisons that demonstrate the value of the Rural Stewardship Overlay program. Land~.-~d~, ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 -7¢ 41 5.29 7.60 8.1 5.29 7.60 2.17 5 10.85 5.29 9.85 15.14 7.60 9.85 17.45 Summary Comparisons Acres of FSA @ avg. 1.54 credits per acre will generate Acres of HSA @ avg. 1.07 credits per acre will generate Credits wilt allow 1 Acre of Compact Rural Development or Acres of FSA Conservation = 1 Acre of Compact Rural Development Acres of HSA Conservation = 1 Acre of Compact Rural Development 8,1 Credits 8.1 Credits 2.17 DUs per gross acre DUs per gross acre average for 1 acre of Compact Rural Development Acres per DU for conventional 1 DU per 5 acre rural development Acre in conventional 1 DU per 5 acre rural development to accommodate the same number of units Acres of FSA Conservation for 1 Acre of Compact Rural Development Acres conserved; saved from premature conversion when 1 acre compact rurat development replaces conventional rural development paMems Total acres conserved (primary and secondary) for each acre of Compact Rural Development using FSA credits Acres of HSA Conservation for I Acre of Compact Rural Development Acres conserved; saved from premature conversion when 1 acre compact rural development replaces Total acres conserved (pdmary and secondary) for each acre of Compact Rural Development using HSA credits In the Habitat Stewardship Area example, a total of over 17 acres of high-quality native habitat and agricultural resources are conserved in exchange for 1 acre of compact rural development. The total conservation effect is significant when both primary and secondary benefits are considered. Final Analysis In the final analysis, the Stewardship Overlay concept of scenario three incorporated all of the functional features of the previous two scenarios. The testing methodology was then applied to the entire 195,000-acre study area. After removing the publicly held lands and Lake Trafford from the analysis, a final Natural Resource Index Analysis of each privately held acre was performed (See Appendix "K"). Tabulation of the data quantified the results allowing conclusions to be reached concerning the application, performance and success of the proposed system. The results revealed that the incentive-based stewardship program fulfills all Final Order objectives. Approximately 85,000 acres of the 182,300 acres of privately held lands are delineated as Flow Way, Habitat and Water Retention Stewardship Areas. Approximately 21,000 acres of ACSC land are able to generate credits as SSAs and retain current agriculture activities, and approximately 60,000 acres of non-ACSC land can also retain its agriculture designation. Approximately 16,800 acres are required for compact rural development. In contrast, the Baseline Reference with interim NRPAs conserved approximately 40,900 acres and, except for lands in the ACSC, offered little or no protection for the 141,400 acres of agriculture lands that could otherwise be subject to conversion to non-agriculture uses. The analysis demonstrated that blending public and privately funded acquisition with the incentive based stewardship program compliment each other and achieve a greater level of environmental protection and agricultural sustainability while allowing for a su land to accommodate the future population and enable economic diversificati~ ,n JUN Pg. 1 2 2002 42 SECTION X - GROV~I'H MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT The Study provided the foundation for the implementation strategy. The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will be implemented through a new GMP element with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies that are consistent with the directive of the Final Order, and achieve the planning objectives as set forth by the Oversight Committee. Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Goals, Objectives and Policies Approved by the Rural Area Assessment Oversight Committee April 29, 2002 Goal Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Objective To meet the general goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay system based on the principals of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. Group I Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Policies Policy 1.1 To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area that collectively contribute to a viable agricultural industry, protect natural resources, and enhance economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). Policy 1.2 The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. Policy 1.3 This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map) and applies to all privately owned rural designated lands located within :h,~ Immo. ka. Lee JUN 1 2002 43 Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. This area generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes approximately 195,846 acres (Overlay Area). Policy 1.4 The Overlay does not change the underlying density, permitted uses and property rights of land within the Overlay Area, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Overlay. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 1.5 Permitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the Overlay Area by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations that were in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions which imposed interim restrictions on the area referenced in Final Order AC-99-002, herein referred to as baseline standards, will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Policies 5.1 and 5.3. No part of the Overlay program shall be imposed upon a property owner without that owners consent. Policy 1.6 Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the Overlay Area that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the Overlay Area are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owners request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Such updates shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no further increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the SSA agreement shall be allowed on such property. AGENDA ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 44 Policy 1.7 The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Policy 1.8 SSAs are differentiated based on the natural resource value of the land as measured by the Natural Resource Stewardship Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet and by the uses remaining on the land following the transfer of Credits as described in the Land Use Stewardship Matrix (Matrix), incorporated herein as Attachment B. Policy 1.9 Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the natural resource characteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. Policy 1.10 In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Overlay and protect the natural resources of the land. Policy 1.11 Uses and activities allowed under agricultural zoning in the rural district are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and can be selected for retention or removal by the owner, however layers shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available to the property owner. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the Overlay Area that meet defined suitability criteria, which are set forth in Policies 4.7 through 4.15. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. JUN12 2002 45 Policy 1.13 The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District of the LDC. The District will be adopted not later than six months after the date that the Overlay becomes effective. Policy 1.14 Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA, as described in Policy 4.18.. Stewardship density and intensity will therefore differ from the baseline standard density of one unit per five acres and intensity that is assigned to the land by the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).The assignment or use ot Stewardship Credits shall not require a Growth Management Plan Amendment. Policy 1.15 Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in a resolution which reflects the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the Overlay Area shall not be increased beyond the density or intensity allowed under the baseline standards except through the use of the Overlay and Stewardship Credit System. Policy 1.1 6 Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11 ), F.S. Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different owners or utilized by a single owner (clustering), subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts. A covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, where the credits have been transferred, running with the land in favor of Collier County and either the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust. Policy 1.18 A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Policy 1.19 All land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the Stewardship Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. Policy 1.20 The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall est~ JUN 1 2 2002 46 Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 1.21 The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the Overlay Area. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a FSA, HSA or WRA. The early entry bonus shall be available for three years from the effective date of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC, unless extended by the BCC. Policy 1.22 A comprehensive review of the Stewardship Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Overlay District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of the Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship program since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. Group 2 - Policies to protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses and continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay. Policy 2.1 Agriculture lands will be protected by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policy 1.4. The formula for determining the Stewardship Credit value is set forth in the Stewardship Credit Worksheet. Policy 2.2 Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). Policy 2.3 By June 1,2003, Collier County will establish an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The AAC will also assess whether special exception standards for business uses related to agr ~ultur~~ JUN 1 2 2002 allowed under an administrative permit process subject to specific standards, and recommendations to the BCC. 47 make Policy 2.4 The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. By June 1, 2004, the BCC will adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that may be required to implement policies that support agriculture activities. Policy 2.5 The Rural Lands Assessment has demonstrated that the issues and needs of rural Collier County are substantially different than those applicable to the coastal urban areas of the County. Collier County formerly had two planning advisory commissions, one for the coastal area (Coastal Area Planning Commission) and another for the rural area (Immokalee Area Planning Commission). In order to facilitate greater public participation of rural residents in the implementation of policies and standards applicable to both the Overlay Area and Immokalee, Collier County shall re-establish a rural area planning commission to serve as the local planning agency to the BCC for land use matters in the Overlay Area and the Immokalee Urban Area. Policy 2.6 Since agriculture is such an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being, agriculture is a preferred activity in the Rural/Agricultural District and shall be protected from duplicative regulation. Collier County acknowledges and supports the Florida Right-to-Farm Act found at §823.14, F.S., and specifically § 823.14(6), F.S. which prohibits local regulation of bona fide agricultural activities where there are implemented best management practices in place. Policy 2.7 Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11, nothing herein, nor in the implementing LDC District shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the Overlay Area that have not been placed into the Stewardship program by request of the property owner. Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas. Policy 3.1 Protection of water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime shall occur through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as a tool within the Stewardship Overlay System. FSAs are delineated on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,000 acres. Policy 3.2 Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as a tool within the Stewardship Overlay System. HSAs are delineated on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map and contain approximately 36,0.00 acres. Policy 3.3 No. ~' JUN 1 ? 2002 48 Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as a tool within the Stewardship Overlay System. WRAs are delineated on the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,000 acres. Policy 3.4 FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map based upon the best information available at the time of the Immokalee Area Study. FSA, HSA, and WRA boundaries are subject to review and refinement if more definitive scientific data is provided. Such refinements to the Overlay Map may be made at the request of a property owner and approved by the County Commission by resolution without amending the Growth Management Plan. Policy 3.5 Within the Stewardship Overlay System, FSAs and HSAs shall be Stewardship Sending Areas, and shall be precluded from being Stewardship Receiving Areas. WRAs may be either SSAs or incorporated within SRAs subject to the limitations of Policy 3.16. Land becomes designated as a FSA, HSA or WRA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owners request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Policy 3.6 Residential uses and general conditional uses as listed in the Matrix will be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Policy 3.7 Residential uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 3.9 Agriculture will continue to be an allowed activity within FSAs and HSAs, subject to the guidelines described in Policies 3.10 and 3.11 and based on group classification of Agricultural activities (Ag I and Ag 2) described in the Matrix. Policy 3.10 The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Overlay is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag I will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a ~, ~,.,,, '~,.,,1~1~ ITE~ JUN 1 2 2002 4P Policy 3.11 Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Overlay is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Policy 3.12 In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to locations where flow ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Should a property owner of such land be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities, additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for restoration value on a case-by-case basis. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also volunteer to undertake restoration improvements, this may be rewarded with additional Credits, other forms of compensation, or be addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Policy 3.13 Natural resources will be protected in the public and private conservation areas as identified on the Overlay Map in accordance with the conservation easements applicable to such properties. Policy 3.14 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Objective. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (.5) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.15 Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be designated as SSAs, and may be incorporated into a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5 to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. AGE.~ A ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 50 Policy 3.16 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or adjacent to that Strand or Slough. Group 4- Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1 Collier County will encourage and facilitate the establishment of uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the rural area, development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques, and will encourage and facilitate a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and enhancement of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. Policy 4.2 All privately owned lands within the Overlay Area are a candidate for designation as a SRA, except land designated as a Flow way Stewardship Area, a Habitat Stewardship Area, or land already utilizing the Overlay that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria described in Policies 4.7 through 4.14 Policy 4.3 Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The BCC shall approve the petition if it finds that the property owner's request for such designation is consistent with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, complies with the LDC Stewardship District, and that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Policy 4.4 Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. ~,¢r_~A ~TE~ Policy 4.5 ~' ~ JUN 1 2 2002 A master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The master plan of the SRA will also be designed to discourage urban sprawl as it is defined in Florida planning law. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics are based upon innovative and flexible planning and development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. The residential community form includes, but is not limited to Towns, Villages and Hamlets. The commercial form includes, but is not limited to, town and village centers, commerce villages and smart parks. The characteristics of SRA Towns, Villages and Hamlets are set forth in Attachment C. Collier County may establish additional rural design forms, guidelines and standards within its LDC, and these policies shall not preclude the use of other forms not specified herein. Policy 4.7 An individual SRA shall include not less than twenty acres and achieve a gross residential density of not less than one unit per two acres and not more than four units per acre. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4,8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas. may contain a WRA in accordance with Policy 1.11. A SRA Policy 4.9 A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. To direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat; residential, commercial, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall be sited only on lands that receive a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less, and shall not be sited on land designated as a FSA, HSA or WRA. Policy 4.10 A SRA will provide open space, water management and recreational lands adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA. Open space, water management and recreational lands shall comprise not less than thirty five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA, and may include lands with Natural Resource Stewardship Index values of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. AGEhI~)A ITEJ~ Policy 4.12 JUN 1 2 2002 Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Policy 4.13 Open space and recreational uses shall be used to provide a buffer within a SRA adjoining a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space and recreational use contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of the such areas may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 100 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set- back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Policy 4.14 The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. Policy 4.15 An appropriate mix of commercial, recreational, and civic uses will be available to serve the daily needs of residents of a SRA. Depending on the size and scale of the specific SRA, as outlined in the Receiving Area Characteristic Table, such uses may be provided either within the SRA, elsewhere within the Overlay Area or within the Immokalee Urban Area. Policy 4.16 A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the type of development, in accordance with the Receiving Area Characteristic Table and accepted civil engineering practices. Policy 4.17 The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base at the horizon year based on a modified per capita cost/benefit fiscal analysis (Modified per capita cost/benefit fiscal analysis per Burchell et.al., 1994, Development Impact Assessment Handbook, ULI.). The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that support fiscal self-sufficiency such as Community Development Districts shall be encouraged. Policy 4.18 Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land designated as a SRA. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of residential uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, provided that such uses are contained within the SRA. Such uses shall be identified in the SRA master plan, and include but are not limited to schools (K-20), neighborhood and community parks, churches and other places of worship, civic and governmental buildings, libraries, neighborhood and community retail and office commercial uses, all types of recreational facilities and essential services. ~ ~,-~-~ ~TE~ JUN 1 2 2002 Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay and designated as a SSA by its owners. Policy 5.1 To protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FS^s on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Overlay, all residential uses and conditional uses allowed by the baseline standards referenced in Policy 1.5 shall be prohibited by Collier County through an amendment to the LDC. A property owner shall be entitled to receive compensation for the loss of these rights by voluntary participation in the Overlay or by the receipt of other compensation described in Policy 3.8. Policy 5.2 To protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing. Policy 5.3 To protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the baseline standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system: 1. Site clearing and alteration shall be limited to 30% of the property and nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 50% of any such area. 2. Except for roads and lakes, any nonpermeable surface greater than one acre shall provide for release of surface water run off, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the natural surface water flow regime of the surrounding area. 3. Revegetation and landscaping of cleared areas shall be accomplished with predominantly native species and planting of undesirable exotic species shall be prohibited. 4. An Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by Collier County in accordance with County regulations. 5. Roads shall be designed to allow the passage of surface water flows through the use of equalizer pipes, interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures. 6. Listed species shall be protected in accordance with the Federal Endangered Species Act and applicable Florida laws. JUN 1 2 2002 REFERENCES CITED Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida's wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1999. Florida land use, cover and forms classification system. Third edition. Tallahassee, Florida. Maehr, D.S. and J.A. Cox. 1995. Landscape features and panther in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:1008-1019. 54 Shindle, D., D. Land, K. Charlton, and R. McBride. 2000. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, Florida. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). 1997. 1995 Land Use Map. West Palm Beach, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. 2000. Natural soil landscape positions [Online]. Available at http://www.sfwmd..qov/or.q/pld/proi/wetcons/nslp/nslp home.html. United States Department of Interior, National Biological Survey and National Park Service. 1994. Accuracy assessment procedures, NBS/NPS vegetation mapping program. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program, Reston, Virginia. Available on the Internet at: http://www, nbs.gov/npsveg/aa/aa.html JUN 1 2 2002 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K LIST OF APPENDICES Immokalee Area Study Map List of Professional Team Members, County Staff, and Technical Advisory Committee Members Power Point Presentation from 9/26/01 BCC Meeting Chapter 163.3177(11 ), Florida Statutes Exhibits I through 13; from the Stage One Report Economic Assessment prepared by Fishkind and Associates Stewardship Overlay Map Stewardship Credit Worksheet Rural Land Use Characteristics Credit Tabulation Data Natural Resource Index Analysis Map 55 JUN 1 2 2002 I I JUN 1 2 2002 Appendix B List of Professional Team Members, County Staff, and Technical Advisory Committee Members Eastern Collier Property Owners Bernie Lester, Alico Ed English, Pacific Tomato Growers Mark Morton, Barron Collier Company Mike Taylor, Consolidated Citrus Russell Priddy, JP Ranch Terry Flora, Collier Enterprises Tom Conrecode, Collier Enterprises Tom Jones, Barron Collier Company WilsonMiller, Inc. Staff Alan Reynolds, Jeff Perry, Tim Durham, Bruce Johnson, Anita Jenkins, Margaret Perry, Steve Means, Will Walter, Ken Ivey, Chris McGarry Technical Advisory Committee David Burr, SWFRPC John Limbaugh, FDOT Clarence Tears, Big Cypress Basin Kelly Unger, USACOE Andy Barienbrock, FDEP Jim Beever, FFWCC Klm Dryden, USFWS John Folks, Florida Department of Agriculture Mike McDaniel, DCA County staff: Bill Lorenz, Mac Hatcher, Linda Bedtelyon, Stan Litsinger, Barbara Bergeson, Marjorie Student Other Contributors Bob Mulhere, RWA Nancy Linnan, Carlton, Fields Hank Fishkind, Fishkind and Associates Kirk Martin, Missimer International Jerry Schoenfeld, FGCU Craig Evans Ken Sneeden Thomas H. Spreen, University of Florida Dallas Townsend Fritz Roka, University of Florida JUN ~ ? 200? APPENDIX C A Presentation to: Collier County Board of Count)' Commissioners September 26, 2001 November 14 1997 : Colker a0o~ts Eva~uagOn Ap~isa~ Report (~R) ~nts ~r 24 1997 Fo~ ~t m ~e by ~A May ~ J 19~ ~y~ H~g (~le} 1998 ~t~nl ne~t~t~ Ma~19 ~ 1999 ECPO~u~ntspr~ent~ten~Hor ] 'Rum~ ~' ~ ~C & offer 3- BCC vo~ to ~rove '~ ot Rum[ ~e~m~l pr~l ~ l~ by ~d June ~ , 19~9 ~ Meel~g-~am Mac'K~e ECPO. S~ev~ ~ NRPA~, momtonum and ~ Wk~e Federatkm and Co~er January 11 2000 June 12.14 2000 Deoembe 4 20O0 Ma,'ch 6 !2000 S~oiml~er2~ i 2001 DOAH Heamg heU o~ ~tenm mer, chlmts DCA ssum Fe~I On,er ~g ~nle~1~ An'e~x~rnents e co~lk~qc e Stage I Repo~ Io BCC JUN 1 2 2002 · Production very nomadic due to weeds and disease · 35,000 acres in the Ocopee area had been farmed · Soil has naturally low pH · Elevation above swamps, sloughs and ponds · Many soils allowed seepage irrigation nc, rv~A iwr.~ JUN 1 2 2002 · Old farm fields abandoned · 19~0 - Collier County creates County Agricultural Extension Department · County soll map is developed - first in Southwest Florida · Collier Extension Director initiates program of soil fumigation and plastic mulch culture to control weeds · 1940-1979 Land Clearing by Vegetable Industr? - Collier Count) - 175,000+ acres (most before 1970) - Hendr), Count)' - 250,000+ acres AGENDA ITY_~ JUN 1 2002 · Over 98% of intensification has occurred on lands already developed · Citrus and vegetable production move into previous pasture lands · Cattle industry takes the brunt of the conversion · lnvenWry and accurately map existing environmental resources. · Protect listed animal andplant species such as the Florida Panther and their occupied habitats. · Establish long term strategies to protect critical resources in the study area. .~,,END A JUN 1 2 2002 4 JUN 1 2 2002 JUN 1 2 2002 · Citizens appointed by Board of County Commissioners - Collect and r, view data - CnrtherpUblic i~put - Recortunendamendmentr to the Growth Matu~trn~nt Plan · Established in October, 1999 · First meeting - November, 1999 · Address major issues identified by the Final Order - Agricultural viabiliO, - Protection of natural resources - Economic prosperity and diversification in the rural 2002 ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 JUN 1 2 2002 ~ 22 ~ ~t ~m~t~g7 for Slage I[ ~ ~1~1~ e~d~ - R¢ra~ ¢nnge Commun~ ~t~ P~, R~l ~ Stew~sn~; Leg/s~t~n, G~n June 6 & 18 2001 V~sionmg Workshops to ~Oent~/potental "tool~" for a~,~eV~ng Boar<= d~rectrve., Mar~ 26 20~1 Fn12 Roka & Tom Spr~n presen a ~ons May 21 ', 200' Cra~ Eva, ns preser~tat~.s' JUN P~. 1 2 2002 ]0 The Inunokalee Area Study will addres3 the distinct issues of Collier County's eastern rural lands: · Coatinued agricultural viability · Environmental resource prolecfion · Long-term economic prosperity and diver3ificafion A Four Stage Process: · Data collection & analysis of existing conditions · Land use research & optional scenarios · Impact analysis of land use options · Amendments to Collier Count' Growth Management Plan · Ov~ilht Caatmfaee nad BCC approved or wort & methodok~, prha' to iU c~mmencemtnt in January 2000. · The imm acquired accurate infol'mation on ~ for public review and commit. · Ftdd v~on or land me mapi~nt IMr~)rnud to calibrate and ve~lfy eccurac). · Technical review by Technical Adv.,or)' · Stage I is compleazl and mct~epted by the Comn,d tree. · Acknowledged to be the best available da~ ever asaembled for C~d~er Co~flty'$ rural lands. · (Comer'ration Land acreage does not inchtde comservMion arm or fntmtm NRPA's within imniee Study Aru and Rnrfd Fringe which total appr~zfmmtely 102,800 midftJonnl re:res, when raided to Comervatioe L~mi woekJ totul 73.6~ o/County) AGENDA ITEM JUN I 2 2002 11 · Agriculture is the largest land cover class of the Study Area. ·Wetiands cover 38% of the study area, inc. luding th~se permitted for agricultural water retention. · Natural vegetated uplands cover 10% of the study area, and are used as grazing land. · 6 federally listed species and 10 state listed species have been documented in the study area. JUN 1 2 2002 ]2 · Current a~ricoitural uses indudin~ citrus, row crops, pastures and cattle grazing land and water retention areas encompass 91% of the total study ~reL · Prior studies had incorrectly indicated large scale conversion of natural areas to agriculture over past 15 years - in fact conversion has been nominal (less than :3% of the area or approximately 5,000 l'ae Bl~ C3~vem Area e~ Critical State Cam:era enceaqmaa~ appm~imatdy 1/~ of the ready ar~. The purpose of the BCACSC under Florida Law is to - "Itutkt~Gp~ofM~tr~on~ · A detailed report with large scale maps was created and distributed to the Committee, staff, and all interested parties. · A CD ROM was created which included all pertinent data and maps for broad electronic distribution via the County Website and CD's were made available to the public. · Research and document current conditions of study area. · Create and evaluate three scenarios for the Study Area based on a 25 year horizon. · Scenarios are a demonstration of the potential application of innovative tools gechninues and strateties to achieve the goals of the study. · Continue to receive broad nublic inout through Committee meetings and workshops. · Per Final Order, the Count)' must explore potential conversion of rural lands to other uses while: - Discouraging urban sprawl - Directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat - Encouraging development that utilizes innovative planning techniques AC, EHDA iTEM JUN 1 2 2002 13 , A~ricu~tural activities · Single Family Residential (1 unit/5 a~res) · Sporting and recreational camps · Oil and gas exploration · Col~servation ~ · Earth m~ning · Schools · Golf ~ourses · An estimated S,000 nntural acres converted to agricultural acres from 198-~' · Citrus acreage increased from 10.063 acres in 198~to 35,302 acres in 2000 Lend in lease s~qtus for roy. crops varies each year · Total acreage in agriculture has increas~l approximately 5,000 acres from 1985 to 2000 · No new subdivisions approved, no significant conversion of base zonin~ since 198-~ E~ Swamp Sanc't~ Lnlte Trn~ord Ford Te~t Track gene 1990 4,489 DUs 13,~4 Peraons 2000 5,95~ [:)Ut 17,~53 plrlo4'ls. 1,478 DUs 4,~4~ ~a JUN 1 2 2002 14 · 2025 Population & Dwelling Units in Rural Lands Study Area Based Upon County Projections · County Projections Assumed 1 DU per 5 Acres for Ag-Zoned Lands · 2025 Dwelling Units - 14,720 · 2025 Population - 39,850 · Collier County Projections Used in 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan Update · Rapid growth i~ occurring in Orange Tree and Golden Gate F_.states areas. · Immokalee Urban Area has experienced modest growth in the last decade. · Of the ~ immokalee Study Area of 195,000 acres, there are 138 parcels that are 40 acres or smaller in size. · To date, there has been no sinnificant a~,ricultural land converted to non- at, ricultural ~ in the lmmokalee Study Area AC, ENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 15 ~ to address the GoaLs: . Agrhmtturat V'u~bilay - Em,O'onmental Protection · Scenarios are v e v riet ~f Io~LS to determine which ones have a beneficial impact on reaching the goals of the Final Order. · The result of the Study will be a set of Planning Goals, Objectives and Policies in our Growth Management Plan · The GOP's will be built from and incorporate r of' vative t_,~l_~: te~hnioues and slrateties, which we describe a~ a toolbox, that will provide the means to implement the Final Order objectives. · The horizon framework is the collective et f meters within w ich sc narios are evaluated. · A horizon framework ensures that variables can be benchmarked to_ __ a mmon reference. · It is based on state policy (ACSCI. county policy (lanmokalee Urban boundary), approved methodolo~ (MPO model), or consensus (horizon year}. · A Horizon year of 2025. · The MPO 2025 projected road network & population · Interim NRPA boundaries as adopted. · The current boundary of the lmmokalee Urban Area. · The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern · Existing public lands. · The natural resource and land use inventor3 · Employment estimates and demographic indexes · Adopted level of service standards in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. · The County's Growth Management Plan otmpled with zoning and land development re~lations in effect at the time the Final Order was adopted, applied to the StMd>r area and projected forward establish a ~ture ~ th t I no ,, This baseline reference scenario ia u~l for enmnarison to assess to what extent the application of various tools will achieve the results desired under the Final Order. 16 · The Oversight Committee held two Imb..h.'c visioning workshops facilitated by FGCU faculty to establish specific and prioritized r~commendafiom on tools and ~dy.~ to be considered in the · Sixteen separate questions were considered, resulting in a detailed ILst of recommendations that are the basis for creation of scennrios Privately owned rural lands in the Immokalee Area Study boundary will be included in an overlay, tentatively named ~ tewar ' v la ". The overlay will create uublic/urivate tools and incentiv~ designed to give flexibility in the application of resource orotection measm'~ and the Wander of stewardship credits to accomplish the vision. · Scenario one was created by selecting the highest priority tools, techniques and strategies from the public workshops. · Scenario one employs many of the strategies described in the new state legislation on rural · At the horizon year, there will be a Oynpmic balance of land uses in the Study area that each contribute to the primary, objectives · We will reach our objectives with an innovative and incentive based system that will o intor~ · There may be new sources of public revenue~ to support programs such as purchase of e~vironmentaliy sensitive [and and agricultural subsidies, lint mthlic funds will be limited and insufficient to accomplish aH natural resource protection or agricultural viabilit.~ goals. · Big Cyprem Area dCti6cal · Environmental design ~ C.~ct m (BC~CSC) · T~r ~u ~h a ~m ~MP) · ~1 ~u~ ~l~l~n · ~lif~ ~do~ ~ flow · ~ ~tive ~mm~ty p~ · Stewardship sending ar,ms will be desiknmted based on the dmracteristic~ of the [and, and there may be different eategorle~ of sendin~ area.~ · The Bi~ Cypress Area of Critical State Concern ('BCACSC) within the Study Area will be a sending area. · Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) will be sending areas. · BCACSC [andsand NR. PA [andsare likel.~ to remain substan~ally in private ownership. JUN 1 2 2002 17 · Receiving areas will be designed so that incompatible land uses will be directed away from critical habitat, · Reeeiving areas will be designed to dis~ontage urban sprawl as it is defined in Florida planning law. · The receiving area designation will be implemented by criteria, as a function of zoning. · Sustainable protection of environmental resources · Viabilit? of agricultural production · Uses that enable economic diversification · Cost-efficient delivery, of public facilities and services to resident~ o Techniques such as conservation easements and stewardship agreements used in conjunction with the stewardship credit system will be used to protect environmental resources. Plan~ing Consultan~ RWA Public Comment and Questions & Answers JUN 1 2 2002 18 APPENDIX Section 163.3177(1i), F.S. (11) (a) The Legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization of Florida's coastal and other environmentally sensitive areas, and which will accommodate the development of less populated regions of the state which seek economic development and which have suitable land and water resources to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Legislature further recognizes the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the local government comprehensive plans and plan amendments adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part provide for a planning process which allows for land use efficiencies within existing urban areas and which also allows for the conversion of rural lands to other uses, where appropriate and consistent with the other provisions of this part and the affected local comprehensive plans, through the application of innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques, which may include, but not be limited to, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development, and sector planning. (c) It is the further intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans and implementing land development regulations shall provide strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other strategies for urban revitalization. (d) 1. The department, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shall provide assistance to local governments in the implementation of this paragraph and rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code. Implementation of those provisions shall include a process by which the department may authorize up to five local governments to designate all or portions of lands classified in the future land use element as predominantly agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a rural land stewardship area within which planning and economic incentives are applied to encourage the implementation of innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques, including those contained in rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code. 2. The department shall encourage participation by local governments of different sizes and rural characteristics. It is the intent of the Legislature that rural land stewardship areas be used to further the following broad principles of rural sustainability: restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl; identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural economic activity; maintenance JUN 1 2 200= Copyright 2001 Statutes lnfobase Printed 12/05/0I at 10:59:24 AM Darby Printi.g Company Query: 165,3] 77 Page of the viability of Florida's agricultural economy; and protection of the character of rural areas of Florida. 3. A local government may apply to the department in writing requesting consideration for authorization to designate a rural land stewardship area and shall describe its reasons for applying for the authorization with supporting documentation regarding its compliance with criteria set forth in this section. 4. In selecting a local government, the department shall, by written agreement: a. Ensure that the local government has expressed its intent to designate a rural land stewardship area pursuant to the provisions of this subsection and clarify that the rural land stewardship area is intended. b. Ensure that the local government has the financial and administrative capabilities to implement a rural land stewardship area. 5. The written agreement shall include the basis for the authorization and provide criteria for evaluating the success of the authorization including the extent the rural land stewardship area enhances rural land values; control urban sprawl; provides necessary open space for agriculture and protection of the natural environment; promotes rural economic activity; and maintains rural character and the economic viability of agriculture. The department may terminate the agreement at any time if it determines that the local government is not meeting the terms of the agreement. 6. A rural land stewardship area shall be not less than 50,000 acres and shall not exceed 250,000 acres in size, shall be located outside of municipalities and established urban growth boundaries, and shall be designated by plan amendment. The plan amendment designating a rural land stewardship area shall be subject to review by the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to s. 163.3184 and shall provide for the following: a. Criteria for the designation of receiving areas within rural land stewardship areas in which innovative planning and development strategies may be applied. Criteria shall at a minimum provide for the following: adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats; compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses; the establishment of receiving area service boundaries which provide for a separation between receiving areas and other land uses within the rural land stewardship area through limitations on the extension of services; and connection of receiving areas with the rest of the rural land stewardship area using rural design and rural road corridors. b. Goals, objectives, and policies setting forth the innovative planning and development strategies to be applied within rural land stewardship areas pursuant to the provisions of JUN ~ 2 2O0? Copyright 2001 Statutes Infobase Printed 12/03/01 at 10:59.'25.4M Darby Printing Company Query: 163.3177 Page 2 this section. c. A process for the implementation of innovative planning and development strategies within the rural land stewardship area, including those described in this subsection and rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, which provide for a functional mix of land uses and which are applied through the adoption by the local government of zoning and land development regulations applicable to the rural land stewardship area. d. A process which encourages visioning pursuant to s. 163.3167(11) to ensure that innovative planning and development strategies comply with the provisions of this section. e. The control of sprawl through the use of innovative strategies and creative land use techniques consistent with the provisions of this subsection and lrule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code. 7. A receiving area shall be designated by the adoption of a land development regulation. Prior to the designation of a receiving area, the local government shall provide the Department of Community Affairs a period of 30 days in which to review a proposed receiving area for consistency with the rural land stewardship area plan amendment and to provide comments to the local government. 8. Upon the adoption of a plan amendment creating a rural land stewardship area, the local government shall, by ordinance, assign to the area a certain number of credits, to be known as "transferable rural land use credits," which shall not constitute a right to develop land, nor increase density of land, except as provided by this section. The total amount of transferable rural land use credits assigned to the rural land stewardship area must correspond to the 25-year or greater projected population of the rural land stewardship area. Transferable rural land use credits are subject to the following limitations: a. Transferable rural land use credits may only exist within a rural land stewardship area. b. Transferable rural land use credits may only be used on lands designated as receiving areas and then solely for the purpose of implementing innovative planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques adopted by the local government pursuant to this section. c. Transferable rural land use credits assigned to a parcel of land within a rural land stewardship area shall cease to exist if the parcel of land is removed from the rural land stewardship area by plan amendment. d. Neither the creation of the rural land stewardship area by plan amendment nor the assignment of transferable rural land use credits by the local government shall operate to displace the underlying density of land uses assigned to a parcel of land within the rural land stewardship area; however, if transferable rural land use credits are transferred from a parcel JUN 1 2 2002 Copyright 2001 Statutes lnfobase Printed 12/03/01 at 10:59:25 AM Darby Printing Company Query: 163.3177 Page 3 for use within a designated receiving area, the underlying density assigned to the parcel of land shall cease to exist. e. The underlying density on each parcel of land located within a rural land stewardship area shall not be increased or decreased by the local government, except as a result of the conveyance or use of transferable rural land use credits, as long as the parcel remains within the rural land stewardship area. f. Transferable rural land use credits shall cease to exist on a parcel of land where the underlying density assigned to the parcel of land is utilized. g. An increase in the density of use on a parcel of land located within a designated receiving area may occur only through the assignment or use of transferable rural land use credits and shall not require a plan amendment. h. A change in the density of land use on parcels located within receiving areas shall be specified in a development order which reflects the total number of transferable rural land use credits assigned to the parcel of land and the infrastructure and support services necessary to provide for a functional mix of land uses corresponding to the plan of development. i. Land within a rural land stewardship area may be removed from the rural land stewardship area through a plan amendment. j. Transferable rural land use credits may be assigned at different ratios of credits per acre according to the land use remaining following the transfer of credits, with the highest number of credits per acre assigned to preserve environmentally valuable land and a lesser number of credits to be assigned to open space and agricultural land. k. The use or conveyance of transferable rural land use credits must be recorded in the public records of the county in which the property is located as a covenant or restrictive easement running with the land in favor of the county and either the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, a water management district, or a recognized statewide land trust. 9. Owners of land within rural land stewardship areas should be provided incentives to enter into rural land stewardship agreements, pursuant to existing law and rules adopted thereto, with state agencies, water management districts, and local governments to achieve mutually agreed upon conservation objectives. Such incentives may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Opportunity to accumulate transferable mitigation credits. b. Extended permit agreements. c. Opportunities for recreational leases and ecotourism. d. Payment for specified land management services on publicly owned land, or property under covenant or restricted easement in favor of a public entity. Statutes lnfobase Printed 12/03/01 at 10:59:25 ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 Copyright 2001 Page 4 Darby Printing Company Query: 163.3177 e. Option agreements for sale to government, in either fee or easement, upon achievement of conservation objectives. 10. The department shall report to the Legislature on an annual basis on the results of implementation of rural land stewardship areas authorized by the department, including successes and failures in achieving the intent of the Legislature as expressed in this paragraph. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the success of authorized rural land stewardship areas be substantiated before implemention occurs on a statewide basis. (e) The implementation of this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, chapters 186 and 187, and applicable agency rules. (f) The department may adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of this subsection. Copyright 2001 Statutes lnfobase printed 12/03/01 at 10:59:25 Darby Printing Cornpany Query: 163.3177 Page 5 JUN 1 2 2002 APPENDIX E ITl ' !iEiisting'' , Landcover INTERSTATE 75 Agricultural Wetlands* Uplands Other Water (93,841 acres) (74,907 acres) (20,289 acres) (4,028 acres) (2,015 acres) Total (195,080 acres) ~ *Includes Permitted Water Retention Areas (19,155 acres) NOTES: Original Land Use from SFWMD, 1995. Revised and updated by WilsonMiller, 2000. Pen'nitted Water RentenlJon Areas from SFWMD, 1999. WilspnMiller Now Directions In Ptaflniag, ~esign & Engine~rint7 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 Phone: 941-649-4040 Fax: 941-643-6716 APPENDIX E '. OIL'W[ L ! i= d Other Landcover Natural Vegetation Permitted Water Retention Areas Existing Vegetation INTERSTATE 75 NOTES: Original Landuse Eom SFWMD, 1995. Revised and updated by WilsonMiler, 2000. Permitted Water RetenUon Areas from SFWMD, 1999. WiispnMiiler JVew Oireotions In Planning, ~sign & Engn~ 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 APPENDIX E I Non-Hydric Hydric INTERSTATE 75 Soil Map NOTES: NRCS soils data Eom SFWMD, 1995. WilspnMiller /f~w ~t/~ns in P'~a~wi~, ~s~ & EnO~ner, r/w~ 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 Phnnn' 0~1 ,.I~O../IN~N I~nv- 0_~1 _i~sl'.L~71~ AP,-NDIX E Agricultural* Grazing Leases Public Lands Other Water (110,708 acres) (64,904 acres) (12,933 acres) (3,582 acres) (1,953 acres) Total (195,080 acres) ~ *Includes Permitted Water Retention Areas (19,155 acres) · ' Land Uses INTERSTATE 75 I NOTES: Original Land Use from SFVVMD, 1995. Revised and updated by WilsonMgler, 2000. Public Lands from FNAI, 2000. Permitted Water Retention Areas from SFWMD, 1999. Wils Miller tVeL~ Oirecfl'onS In Planrd~, D~n & Ert[li~eari~ 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 ~,PPENDIX E Breakdown of Agricultural Areas INTERSTATE 75 ~ Public Lands ~ Permitted Water Retention Areas ~ Specialty Farms ~ Pastures and Fallow Fields Citrus r---'l Row Crops ~ Agricultural Grazing Leases I NOTES: Original Land Use from SFWMD, 1995. Revised and updated by WilsenMiler, 2000. Public Lands from FNAI, 2000. Permitted Water Retention Areas from SFWMD, 1999. WilsOnMiiler /f~w D~ctio~$ In Plaflniflg, ~sigfl & Er~in~ring 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 '~'~PENDIX E ~Canals/Ditches IIIl~Outfall Direction Public Lands I, i':?~JPermitted Water Retention Areas --Interim NRPA (40,895 acres) INTERSTATE 75 Agricultural Surface Water ement Systems NOTES: Permitted Water Retenlion Areas from SFWMD, 1999. Public Lands from FNAI, 2000; Updated by WilsonMiler, 2000. WiispnMiiler 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 AP~PENDIX E WELL RD · INTERSTATE 75 · Wellpads /~,,/; Pipeline Oil and Gas Well Pad Locations Exhibit 7 N NOTES: Well Pad Locatbns and Pipeline by WisonMiler, 2000. Based on hfon'natbn from Collier Resource Co. WilspnMiller N~// D~?e¢~ itt P]anei~. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 Phone: 941-649-4040 Fax: 941-643-6716 Prepm~l by DBF, Wlsefltdll~GIS, Jan. 10, 2001 ~del I~lin~3eejects'~:~3o~aslrl2~apr --- A~U~ENDIX E ~- O1[ RD ~~1 Existing Public Lands Proposed Public L; Public Lands/ NOTES: Public Lands from FNAI. 2000, SOR, 1998 and FPNWR, 2000. Updated by WilsonMiller, 2000. Acq u isitio n P r~g rarn s Wild, Miller lfew L~'re~o~s tn P~a~in;, ~si~ & E~fin~ Al 3200 Bailey Lane Sure 2~, Na~es Flodd~lO~ APP.~NDIX E Public Lands Permitted Water Retention Areas Interim NRPAs Study Area INTERSTATE 75 Interim NRPAs and Special Study Areas NOTES: Public Lands by FNAI, 2000; Updated byWilsonMiler, 2000. Interim NRPAs and Study Areas from Collier Co[mty, 1999. Pem~itted Water Retention Areas from SFWMD, 1999. WilspnMiller 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 AP.p.~NDIX E INTERSTATE 75 Resources F_~l IIUIL I t N SCALE 1:13D0~ · Production Wells /V Well Recharge Areas -~ Flow Lines Public Lands ~ Permitted Water Retention Areas Interim NRPAs NOTES: Permitted Water Retention from SFWMD, 1999. Public Lands from FNAI,2000; Updated by Wilson IV~ller, 2000. Wiis nMiller New ~t~tJe~ In Planning, D=sign & E~ineering 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200, Naples Florida34105 Phone: 941-649-4040 Fax: 941-643-6716 Prepared by KCI, WibonMiller GIS, Jan. 4, 2001 ~lolphin~orojects~ecrx~phaslrpt.apr .... A~,PENDIX E IT1 m Listed Species (WithoutSpecies MapLegend NOTES:Pub,icLands~rom FNAI, 2000 and FPNWR, 2000; ~ Snail Kite Roost · Bear Road Kill Loc. Updated by WilsonMiller, 2000. PantherTelemetry) With ~ ~^.~o~,o~ou~,. ~,~.~,~ ~oc,~o~ ~ FI. Scrub Jay Colony Wood Stork Rookery and FNAI, 2000. Natural Vegetation~ F:xhihit 1 1 Nm ~ Eagle Nest Loca[ions .Rookery Jl~lspnMiller 3200 Bailey Lane SuiLe 200, Naples Florida34105 Phone: 941-649-4040 Fa~: §41-643-671§ : HEI CO. Existing Public Lands Proposed Public Lands Priority1 Panther Habitat Priority2 Panther Habitat Panther Observation (One Panther on One Day) Florida Panther Telemetry Data For 90 Panthers From 1/81 to 6/00 Regional View Exhibit 12 S(~LE 1:700000 NOTES: Public Lands from SOR, 1998, FPNWR, 2000, and updated by Wilson Miller, 2000. Panther Teierntry Data from FWC, Oct. 2000. Priority Habitat from FWC, Jun. 2000. WilsdnMiller 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 290, Naples Florida34105 Phone: 941 -(~49-,4040 Fax: 941-643-6716 Prepared byKCI, WibonMilbr GI$, Jan.4,2001 ~Jolphin~omjects~ecpo~phaslrpt~pr APPENDIX E oo 'C.R.E.W ! · .: · :: -' RD .~.. '.: ;.::".:!. ,. ..... . . :....: ..,'...., :. 'L" '~ .~'b' ""'" '": .... · · '" :~'il'~j ' .. ..': j '..::: · 't · ~'.m =i ': · .' :'=... · ' . ..:. l'. . is" ..I,= · : .': .: .~--~ · . ii.* '. '=...:'. :. · '. ~ ,r~:'.=: '" =..q~" "" ':..,.... ,'" '~..""-"14 · · · · ' ' · :.,"'.I.'; ' ',:.s: Y..'. · .. ...' '.· ..'.'.-. .?.'i.' !~ ... .:~:'~:-r..~ ;.;2.-.. ...... :..: ..... ... . ... · .: · . ..2.-...: :::: ._:.' . ".'·' . ~.: . . .. · . . .. .:-.~ ..:. :'... .....:..-..:..:. ::..- 7-' · ' ..... Florida Panther Telemetry Data For 46 Panthers From 1/81 to 6/00 J Existing Public Lands J---J Proposed Public Lands ~ Priority1 Panther Habitat Priority2 Panther Habitat Study Area Exhibit 12A NOTES: Public Lands from FNAI, 2000, and SOLA, 1998 and FPNWR, 2000;, Updated byWilson~ller, 2000. Panther Tetemb'y Data from FVVC, Oct. 2000. Priority Habitat frorn FWC, Jun. 2000 WiisdnMiller Panther Observation ~w~, ~11~ t~JJr~l ~JJJ ~ ~'~'~ (OnePanther on O~Day) =00pho~:BaileY~l.~9~ Suite ~0, Nap*SFa~ ~1~*~16Fbr~1* ~md ~ ~1, Wib~ilbt GIS, J~. 4, 2~1 A~p~po~slr~ 0 0 :1 XICIN:Idd¥ i APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE STEWARDSHIP SCENARIOS FOR THE IMMOKALEE STUDY AREA Prepared for: Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee Prepared by: Hank Fishkind, Ph.D. Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 407-382-3256 or Fishkind.COM May 15, 2002 ^GE~D^ ~TE~ JUN 12 2002 2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE STEWARDSHIP SCENARIOS FOR THE IMMOKALEE STUDY AREA 1.0 Introduction The Immokalee Area Study ("Study") includes a portion of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Assessment mandated by the Final Order. The Study area encompasses 195,000 acres of rural land in northeastern Collier County that surrounds the Immokalee urban area. The BCC established the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee ("Committee") to oversee the Study. The Committee includes a broad cross section of citizens and interested parties, and it provides oversight and direction to the study. The Committee met on a regular schedule to oversee the Study and to provide a public forum for input. 2.0 Process The Committee established a four-stage process for the Study. Stage 1 focused on the collection and analysis of data on the natural and manmade features of the Study area. Stage 2 involved developing the future land use scenarios. The land use scenarios were evaluated in Stage 3. Finally, in Stage 4 amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan are developed. Fishkind & Associates, Inc. was retained to conduct an economic analysis of the land use scenarios generated to guide the future development of the Immokalee study area. The scenarios consist of alternative future development patterns that are expected to emerge under each of the three land use programs compared to a fourth outcome, the Baseline. Re economic analysis includes both a fiscal impact assessment and a financial impact study. The fiscal impact assessment measures the cost and revenue impact of each scenario on the County's budget. The financial study measures the impacts of the scenarios on landowners. 3.0 Testing Scenarios The Study area is vast, consisting of approximately 195,000 acres. It is a complex region. First, it contains the majority of the productive agricultural areas of the County. Second, some land has high natural resource values while other land does not. To deal with these complexities, while at the same time keeping the sco~e of work JUN 1 2 2002 manageable, the Committee determined that testing of the scenarios should proceed based on analysis of a representative sub area. The sub area selected by the Committee consists of 19,946 acres, approximately 10% of the entire Study area. It contains a representative sample of the types of land cover and land uses found in the overall Study area The three Stewardship scenarios share a common foundation. Stewardship scenario #1 relies on a private-market, incentive-based system of Credits to change the course of the private land market away from the existing land use provisions, i.e. the Baseline scenario. Scenario #2 adds additional external funding resources to promote the goals of the Final Order, and Scenario #3 adds additional incentives and goals. Therefore, if the system works under Scenario #1, it will work in Scenario #2 and Scenario #3. Achieving the goals of the Final Order is easier under Scenarios #2 and #3, since each of these has more resources and additional tools to reach the goals. The receiving area uses, which form the basis of the economic and fiscal analysis, do not change between the scenarios, so the use of scenario #1 for this analysis is appropriate. 4.0 Economic Analysis 4.1 Introduction This section examines the economic impacts on Collier County under two different futures: (1) Baseline and (2) Stewardship. The examination is conducted on the sub area as described above and articulated more fully below. Economic impacts are quantified in terms of output (a gross domestic product type metric), earnings and employment. In addition, it is important to determine if the incentive-based program outlined in Scenario fll is likely to in fact produce results different from the Baseline. Said differently, is it likely that landowners will make use of the tools in the Overlay to transfer Credits from sending areas into receiving areas. Landowners will do so to the extent that it is in their economic interest to do so. 4.2 Horizon Framework for the Sub Area The sub area consists of 19,946 acres. Based on Collier County's Long Range Transportation Plan (the MPO plan for 2025), the area is projected to have a population of 4,035 people, a household size of 2.5 persons per household, resulting in a projected 1,614 dwelling units. The Baseline and Stewardship Scenario both share these projectio,~o. ~--,~b^~TF.~ JUN 1 2 2002 4 4.3 differences in impacts derive from the alternative land use patterns that result. Under current permitting, land use, and zoning regulations (as of the Final Order), the sub area would likely be deVeloped at an average density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres. As a result, 8,531 acres of land would be used to accommodate the future population. By contrast, assuming for the moment that the incentive-based Credit system of the Overlay is economically viable (a notion that is tested below), the Stewardship Scenario results in a very different settlement pattern. Development is clustered in a town, a village, and a hamlet. As a result, only 1,229 acres are utilized to accommodate the same population as in the Baseline. Stewardship Credit Calculation and Projected Land Use Patterns WilsonMiller developed an estimate for the Credits generated from the sub area. The analysis was based on one possible scenario for credit generation. It assumes that all areas in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (10,597 acres) are classified as sending areas generating Credits. In addition, land scoring 1.2 and less on the natural resource scale retains full agricultural use rights (AG1), but it does not have residential or conditional use rights. Land with a score above 1.2 retains only passive agricultural zoning (AG2) and conservation uses. To qualify for development rights under the Overlay, the land must be in a receiving area, have a natural resource scale of 1.2 or less, and satisfy the criteria for clustered growth. In particular, the Committee approved development concepts including rural villages, commercial villages, and hamlets. The rural villages consist of settlements of 500 net useable acres designed to accommodate 1,150 dwelling units for a gross density of 2.3 units per acre. The rural village is oriented around a 11.5 acre village center containing 115,000 square feet of supporting retail space. Appropriate space for parks, civic uses, utilities, roadways, and open space are included within the 500 net acres. The commercial village comprises 350 net useable acres designed to accommodate a 160-acre commerce center. The commerce center is planned for 1,608,400 square feet of commercial, distribution, and light industrial space to serve the entire Study area. The commercial village also provides 416 dwelling units for some of its workers. Finally, the hamlet is 60 acres and accommodates 48 dwelling units. ,,c..~-, rr~.~ JUN 1 2 2002 5 4.4 Comparison of the Impacts on Land Use WilsonMiller generated land uses for the Baseline and the Stewardship scenario. These land use projections are discussed below. Table 1 compares the land uses in the Study sub area that are expected under the Baseline and under Stewardship Scenario by 2025. The total acreage is of course the same in each, as is population and total dwelling units. In fact, the only differences in development are the 161 acres of commercial center land and an additional 11 acres of neighborhood commercial land in the Stewardship scenario. Table 1. Overview of the Comparative Land Uses in Acres Baseline v. Stewardship Scenario Category Stewardship Baseline Difference Total acres 19,946 19,946 0 Total population 4,035 4,035 0 Total units 1,614 1,614 0 Commerce center 161 0 161 Neighborhood commercial 12 1 11 However, the differences in the two options become clear in their impacts on agricultural land uses as shown in Table 2. Because of clustering the residential and commercial land uses, the Stewardship scenario has much less impact on agricultural land than does the Baseline. The existing land use coverage includes 11,707 acres devoted to agricultural production. This changes very little under the Stewardship scenario with a reduction to 10,975 acres. However, under the Baseline with development occurring at an average density of one unit per five acres, agricultural acreage drops by more than half to 5,540 acres. As a result, the Stewardship scenario is much more productive in terms of its use of land. It will allow as much residential development and more commercial development as the Baseline. At the same time, the Stewardship option )reserves 5,435 more acres for agricultural production compa'~-d to tb_e Baseline. ~,c.,~, ~TE~ JUN 1 2 2002 Table 2. Impact on Agricultural Land Uses Baseline v. Stewardship Scenario Category Existing Stewardship Baseline Difference Pasture 5,969 5,457 3,202 2,255 Citrus 2,317 2,151 281 1,870 Row Crop 1,290 1,290 454 836 Specialty 197 175 1 174 Rangeland 454 454 273 181 Fallow 1,480 1,448 1,329 119 Subtotal Agriculture 11,707 10,975 5,540 5,435 Native Upla nd 2,667 2,632 1,172 1,460 Wetlands 3,760 3,662 3,018 644 Subtotal Natural Areas 6,427 6,294 4,190 2,104 The differences in the development patterns are starkly contrasted in the data displayed in Table 3. The Baseline requires 8,141 acres to accommodate residential uses compared to just 551 for the Stewardship option. The Stewardship option accommodates all residential, commercial and supporting land uses on just 1,229 acres compared to a total of 8,531 acres in the Baseline. The resulting economic implications are important. By preserving more land for agricultural production the Stewardship option results in greater economic output while accommodating the same volume of residential development. Furthermore, as discussed below, it is also likely that the clustered development pattern in the Stewardship option will result in higher development values as well. JUN 1 2 2002 7 Table 3. Comparison of Development Uses Baseline v. Stewardship Scenario Category Existing Stewardship Baseline Difference Residential 71 551 8,141 -7,590 Commercial 177 0 177 Civic, Cultural, Gvt 14 0 14 Parks, preserves 178 0 178 Roads, utilities 248 310 390 -81 Subtotal Developed 319 1,229 8,531 -7,302 Other 1,493 1,448 1,685 -237 Grand Total 19,946 19,946 19,946 0 4.5 Analysis of the Economic Impacts The economic impacts flowing from the Baseline and the Stewardship option are usefully divided into three categories. First, each option encompasses agricultural production. The acreages for various types of agricultural production were outlined above in Table 2. Second, as property is developed under each option, jobs and incomes are created during the construction period through 2025. Finally, the new residents who are projected to live in the sub area will shop in the area for some of their daily needs including groceries and personal services. Industry data was obtained on the gross revenue per acre for various types of agricultural land in eastern Collier County. These values represent the economic production of land used in different types of agricultural production. The gross revenue estimates are before costs for harvesting, hauling and marketing are deducted. JUN 1 2 2002 Table 5. Impact on Agricultural Production in 2025 Baseline v. Stewardship Category Baseline Stewardship Difference Gross Revenue Grazing $37,965 $26,180 -$11,784 Citrus $705,696 $330,893 -$374,802 Row Crops $482,144 $0 -$482,144 Sub Total $1,225,804 $357,074 -$868,731 Output $2,031,280 $591,707 -$1,439,574 Employment 25 7 -17 The second component of the economic impact occurs during the 25-year construction period through 2025 for each of the options. Over this horizon, under each option 1,614 dwelling unit will be constructed along with commercial development and associated infrastructure improvements. The economic impact of these activities is a function of the amount of total construction spending, the higher the level of spending the greater the impact. In addition, it is important to note that most of the dollars spent on construction will be used to purchase construction inputs that are not produced locally. Most construction materials are produced outside the local economy and some of the labor, and the larger contracts, may go to firms outside the area. As a result, only an estimated 40% of the total value of construction spending remains in the local economy (50% of the materials and 90% of the labor budget are local expenditures). To translate construction spending into output and employment the RIMS II multipliers are used. As noted above, these multipliers are specific to Southwest Florida. The output multiplier measures the direct effect of construction spending on total economic output in the area. The output multiplier is 1.6433. To translate spending into employment impacts the RIMS II conversion factor is 25.2 jobs per $1 million of new local spending. Table 6 summarizes the construction period impact of each alternative development program. JUN t 2 2002 10 Table 6. Construction Period Impacts Baseline v. Stewardship Category Baseline Stewardship Difference Gross Spending $409,687,000 $659,844,904 $250,157,904 Local Spending $122,906,100 $197,953,471 $75,047,371 Output $201,971,594 $325,296,939 $123,325,345 Employment 204 328 124 The Stewardship option generates larger construction period impacts, because it generates a larger amount of construction spending. The average value of the 1,614 homes to be constructed under each scenario is different. The average value for the Baseline home is $233,750 compared to $289,900 for the Stewardship. The higher average value for homes in the Stewardship program reflects the effects of clustering, which is valued in the marketplace, as well as the impact of amenities, such as a golf course. It is well known that in Southwest Florida communities with expensive amenities, like golf courses, command higher prices for their real estate products. Furthermore, the amenities and infrastructure in the Stewardship option are much more expensive to construct then the infrastructure for the Baseline. Finally, under the Baseline development scenario no amenities will be constructed, because its scattered development pattern does not support, and does not require, such amenities. The final component of economic impact is the permanent impact generated by the new population living in the area. These impacts derive from the spending generated by the new residents that occur in the local economy. This new spending stream was estimated as follows. First, the value of the new housing was used as a base. Generally, people purchase housing with a total value that is approximately four times their annual salary. Thus, to afford a home priced at $300,000 the owners would need a combined annual income of approximately $75,000. Second, standard mortgage requirements set annual payments for mortgage, taxes, and insurance at no more than 30% of annual income. This leaves 70% of pre tax income available for all other spending, and payment of federal income taxes. Third of this roughly 25% is spent in the local economy according JUN I 2 2002 11 of Florida's gross and taxable sales.2 Finally, the ultimate relationship between the value of a home and the amount of local area spending generated by the household living in the house is 4%. In other words a household living in a home valued at $300,000 will spend approximately $12,000 per year in the local economy. The two options, Baseline and Stewardship, result in different economic results. This is largely because the home values are different and the spending streams created are also different. To assure an apples-to-apples comparison the effects of the commercial village, an included land use in the Stewardship option, were not included in measuring the economic impact of the. Stewardship option. Including the impact of the commercial village would increase the economic effects of the Stewardship option above the levels measured below. Table 7 summarizes the permanent economic impacts of the Baseline and the Stewardship option. The horizon year 2025 is used for the comparison. However, the differences will build up to these levels over the 25-year horizon period. Table 7. Permanent Economic Impacts as of 2025 Baseline v. Stewardship Category Baseline Stewardship Difference Gross Spending $16,505,675 $20,470,625 $3,964,950 Output $23,107,945 $28,658,875 $5,550,930 Employment 495 614 119 4.6 Economic Effects of the Overlay on Landowners Decision Making The remaining economic issue is whether the Overlay program is economically feasible. Since it is an incentive-based system, the question is whether landowners will find it in their best economic interest to participate in the program. Landowners will decide to develop their property, either using the overlay or proceeding under current regulatory conditions, or continue in agriculture based on maximizing their profits. Developing under the Stewardship requirements is more expensive than under current regulations, but using the Stewardship option the landowner is 2 Fishkind & Associates, Inc. estimate for the Florida Senate during the debate over Tax Reform. AC_.Cr_NO~ ITEk4 JUN 1 2 2002 12 likely to have higher revenues for two reasons. First, since Stewardship uses less land for development, more remains in agricultural production generating revenue. Second, values are likely to be higher for developing under the Stewardship option than a scattered development pattern at one unit per five acres. To assess the profitability of developing under the Stewardship option a full cash flow pro forma model for the development of the sub area was created. The model uses development costs provided by WilsonMiller. The hypothetical rural village contains full amenities including a golf course and tennis center. Single Family pricing is competitive with homes in Golden Gate Estates. A community development district was assumed to fund major infrastructure. Table 8 summarizes the economic results to the landowner for developing property under the Stewardship option. Table 8. Summary of Economic Impact on Landowners from Developing Under the Stewardship Option Category Total Basis NPV Basis Total Cost/ERU $39 Profit/ERU 15% $5 Total Cost to produce ERU $45 Value of Home/Lot or Commercial/ERU $232 LandValue/ERU 22% $51 Max value of Stewardship Credit/ERU $5 Value of Credit @ 4 credits/ERU $1 757 $13,963 964 $2,094 720 $16,057 184 $82,458 080 $18,141 360 $2,084 34O $521 Since the land use plan for the sub area under the Stewardship option includes both residential and nonresidential uses (commercial and retail), a common unit of account is used in the analysis, an equivalent residential unit ("ERU"). Based on the modeling results, the cost to produce a finished building lot or pad to accommodate one ERU is $39,757 excluding land costs. Developer profit in the marketplace is 15%, so an allowance for this must be made. This brings the total cost of production, including profit, to $45,720. The average value per ERU is $232,184. Of this total 22% is · typically the value of the retail firished building lot or pad. Thus, the value of the finished lot or pad averages $51,080. Subtracting the estimated lot production cost of $45,720 from the retail value of the lot of $51,080 produces a residual talue~hd,~D^ JUN 1 2 2002 13 5.0 5.1 $5,360. This residual is the combined value of the land and the Stewardship Credit. If the conversion ratio is four Credits to one ERU, then the maximum value of the Credit is $1,340. A conversion ratio of eight Credits per acre at two units per acre is comparable. Also shown in Table 8 is a column labeled NPV Basis. This is the valuation on a present value basis. The cash flows evaluated in Table 8 occur over time, a 25-year horizon. Discounting to present using a 15% discount rate produces the present value estimates. On a present value basis the value of a Stewardship Credit based on the assumptions used here is $521 Fiscal Impact Analysis Overview Fiscal impact analysis is the measurement of the costs and revenues that accrue to Collier County from land development activities. In this case the sub area is assumed to develop under either the Baseline or Stewardship options. These alternatives are expected to result in different fiscal impacts on the County because of the sharply contrasting land development patterns and because of different real estate values. The sprawling development pattern allowed by existing regulations under the Baseline will be more expensive, all other things being equal, simply because under this option there will be more miles of roadway for the County to maintain. Furthermore, under the Stewardship option the landowner will be required to provide much more infrastructure, including public water and wastewater systems. This will reduce County costs. 5.2 Methodology of Modified Per Capita Analysis of Fiscal Impact Assessment To measure the fiscal impacts a modified per capita methodology was used3. This methodology is widely used in Southwest Florida in the permitting of large scale communities and DRIs. The methodology has an excellent track record in Southwest Florida as evidenced by the accuracy of it projections for projects such as The Brooks, which is subject to annual monitoring. The methodology was selected by the State of Florida as the basis for its full cost accounting models being developed by Fishkind & Associates. 3 Burchell, Robert et al. (1987) The New Practioner's Guide to Fisc'. As,~essment, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press I Irnnnr't JUN 1 2 2002 14 5.3 The methodology begins with the County's latest adopted budget, FY 2001-02. On the revenue side ad valorem revenues and sales tax revenues are calculated directly based on the cash flow pro forma for the development under each option, Baseline and Stewardship. All other revenue is measured on a per capita basis. Multiplying the County's per capita revenues for each budget line item by the number of people projected to live in the sub area generates revenue estimates for these sources. On the cost side all costs are evaluated on a per capita basis, except for road maintenance. WilsonMiller estimated the extra miles of roadways under the Baseline development pattern and calculated the maintenance costs using data from the County's Public Works Department. Results Detailed estimates for all costs and revenues were generated. The documentation is too voluminous to include here, but will be published as a separate appendix. Table 9 summarizes the fiscal impacts on the County as of 2025. Both options accommodate the same population. However, the Stewardship option provides more annual revenue because its property values are higher and it includes valuable amenities lacking in the Baseline. The Baseline has higher annual costs resulting from its sprawling development pattern. As a result, the Baseline will cost the County more than $1 million in 2025. By contrast the Stewardship option more than pays its own way and will provide a surplus to the County. Table 9. Fiscal Impacts on Collier County as of 2025 Baseline v. Stewardship Scenario Population Revenue Costs Net Fiscal Impact Baseline 3,857 $3,051,747 $4,242,151 -$1,190,404 Stewardship 3,857 $3,812,112 $3,379,791 $432,321 JUN 1 2 2002 APPENDIX G COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP Hendry Co. HSA Lake IMMOKALEE Trafford ACSC CR 846 )KALEI Golden Gate Estates WRA OIL WELL R ACSC ACSC Habita{'~ Stewardshi GOLD [N GATE Big Cypress National Preserve Golden Gate Estates I 75 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Legend ~ Flowway Stewardship Area Existing Public Lands ACSC i0 z ~D 0 m~ 0 000000000~000~00000000000000~ 000000000~000~00000000000000~ ~000000000~000000000000000000~ ~ 0 000000000~000000000000000000~ O0 °°ooooo~-o~o~~Eo~o~~ooooooo~ ~0000000~ ~UN,2 ~002 ~°°°ooooo~~ooooooooooooooooooo °°°ooooo~~oooooooooooooooooo~ °°°ooooo~~oooooooooooooooooo~~ ~:~§~oooooooo~ ~oooooo~n~~~~°°°°°°°~ .oooooo~~~~~°°°°°°° JUN I 2 20L APPENDIX K Natural Resource Index Analysis r .n 0J31~) 0.3 0.6 0,9 1.2 ~ Miles Legend Nalurel Reaou~ Inclex GRID Entire Study Area THOMAS W. REESE ATTORNEY AT /AW 2951 6 ! .T AVENUE SOUTH ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA :33712 (727) 867-8228 FAX (727) 867-2259 E-MAIL TWRE ESE I='SQ@AOL.COM RECEIVED NATURAL RESOURCES [~PARTNENT FILE COPY May 30, 2002 The Honorable Jim Coletta, Chairman Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 RE: Proposed Collier County Rural Lands Amendments Dear Chairman Coletta: The Florida Wildlife Federation (Federation) and the Collier County Audubon Society, Inc. (Collier Audubon) respectfully submit their objections, recommendations and comments concerning the currently proposed Collier County Rural Lands Amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Rural Lands Amendments to the Collier Plan). These objections, recommendations and comments are submitted for the purpose of modifying the currently proposed Rural Lands Amendments to the Collier Plan to direct incompatible land uses away from wildlife habitat for listed species, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and to provide for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities to proposed new Towns, Villages, and Hamlets. Summary_ of Issues Mapped Stewardship Areas A. South of Oil Well ROad and West of SR 29. B. West of Camp Keais Strand and South of Oil Well Road C. West of Camp Keais Strand and North of Oil Well Road. D. Camp Keais Strand Habitat Island. E. BC ACSC Stovepipe North of CR 846. F. BC ACSC South of Oil Well Road. II. Mandatory Minimum Criteria In Mapped Stewardship Areas, (Regardless of Land Owners Participation In Stewardship Program) A. Land clearing criteria. JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta. May 30, 2002 Page 2 B. Land Use Within Mapped Stewardship Lands. 1. Density and Intensity Within Mapped Stewardship Lands 2. Stewardship Credits to Receiving Lands. III. Changes to Adopted Mapped Stewardship Areas.A. By Plan Amendment. B. By Ordinance With Public Hearing and Public Comment. IV. Large Mammal Wildlife UndercrossingsA. CR 846 East oflmmokalee B. CR 846 West of Immokalee C. Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Strand V. Receiving Lands VI. Criteria for New Towns, Villages, and Hamlets A. In General B. Criteria For A New Town VII. Management of Stewardship Lands A. Land Management Plan B. Property Owner Responsible for Implementing Management Plan VIII. Agricultural/Rural Category IX. Conservation CategoD' i. Mapped Stewardship Areas In order to direct incompatible land uses away from wildlife habitat for listed species, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and for providing cost-efficient delivery of public facilities to proposed New Towns, Villages, and Hamlets in the Rural Lands Area, the following land must be added and mapped to the Habitat Stewardship Area (lISA). 1. South of Oil Well Road and West of SR 29 All of Sections 19, 22, 23, 24, 29 and 30. Map as HSA the land located south of Oil Well Road and just north of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State ACSC). Specifically, this is all of Sections 22, 23, and 24 orr 29 E, T 48 S, ar mmediately Se~.ons 19, :29 · JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jhn C,){etta May 30, 2002 Page 3 (west of SR 29). and 30 orr 30 E, T 48 S. This land should be mapped as HSA for five primary reasons. First. fi,is land is part ofthe Collier Plan's adopted NRPA Study Area. Second, numerous panth,~'r telemetry points have occurred on this land, and this land is within the home range used by panthers. Third, WilsonMiller's colorized habitat (Scenario #3 (Version 2.0)) has mapped this land as brown HSA, with the exception of portions of Section 22 which are row crops. Fourth, I,~nd uses other than agriculture are incompatible with the listed wildlife species which use this Il, nd F~h, the proposed Receiving Lands are excessive in size and unsupported by data and analyst:; of the need for this much Receiving Land. Conclusiu?Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions of Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. B. West of Camp Keats Strand and South of Oil Well Road Remaining Portions of Sections 22-27, 34-36, 1-3, 10, and 1 I. Map as HSA the land south of Oil Well Road, west of Camp Keats Strand, and east of Northern Golden Gate Estates (NGGE). Specilicaily, this land is all of the remaining portions of Sections 22-27 and 34-36 of R 28 E, T 48 S, and Sections 1-3, lO and ! 1 orR 28 E, T 49 S. This land should be mapped as HSA for five primary reasons. F}r~/t, this land should be mapped as HSA because numerous panther telemet, y points have occurred on this land. Second, this land is used by listed species for movement from liSA east of Camp Keats Strand through the NGGE ROMA to North Belle Meade. Third, land uses which would be authorized by designation of this land as Receiving Land would permit u,~es other than agriculture. Land uses other than agriculture are incompatible with the wildlife habitat value of this property and must be directed away from this land by its designation as liSA. Fore,h, WilsonMiller's coiorized habitat (Scenario #3 (Version 2.0)) has mapped the Water Retenlion Areas throughout this area as important wildlife habitat. This data and analysis supports designation of the subject agricultural fields as HSA, not Receiving Lands. Fifth. the propvsed Receiving Lands are excessive in size and unsupported by data and analysis of the need for this much Receiving Land. Conclusion-Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions of Fia. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. C. West of C~mp Keats Strand and North of Oil Well Road. One Mile West of Camp Keats Strand FSA. In order for the Camp Keats Strand area between Oil Will Road and the CREW lands to meet the requirements for a wild il~ ,~uA~^ i~ JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 4 addition to designating the Camp Keais Strand Habitat Island as HSA, there needs to be a continuous HSA designated on the land one mile west ofthe currently proposed ECPO's Camp Keais Strand FSA between Oil Well Road and the CREW land. This land should be mapped as HSA for four primary reasons. F,.iL~, numerous panther telemetry points have occurred on this land. ~,,oIl~, in order for Camp Keais Strand to properly function as a wildlife corridor for panthers, land use in this area must be limited to agricultural uses (urban development must be excluded from this area). Land uses other than agriculture are incompatible with the listed wildlife species with the animals which use this land. Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order. Third, restoration of upland mosaics in this area will reduce the choke point problem caused by the narrowness of the current vegetation cover. I:ourth, the proposed Receiving Lands are excessive in size and unsupported by data and analysis o£ the need for this much Receiving Land. Thus, this land one mile west of Camp Keais Strand and north of Oii Well Road should be designated as HSA. f,.~Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions o£Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. D. Camp Keais Strand Habitat Island. Sections 19, 29, 30, 31 and 24 and 25. The area where Immokalee Road crosses thc Camp Keais Strand consists ora wildlife habitat island surrounded by Water Retention Areas (WP~s) to the northeast, east and southeast, and Camp Keais Strand Fiowway Stewardship Areas (FSA) and HSA to northwest, west and southwest. Specifically, this land is part of Sections 24 and 25 orr 28 E, T 47 S, and parts of Sections 19, 29, 30, and 31 orr 29 E, T 47 S. This land should be mapped as HSA for four primary reasons. First, this land is a wildlife habitat island consisting of a mix of forest and row crops adjacent to Camp Keais Strand wetlands and WRAs. Bird rookeries are located either in or adjacent to this habitat island. 5.g_c.O.~, Panther telemetry points have occurred in this habitat island. Third, WilsonMiller's colorized habitat (Scenario #3 (Version 2.0)) has mapped Ibis land as a combination of brown and gray with points of 1.2 or greater due to the proximity of this habitat island to the mapped FSA, HSA and WRAs. Fourth, land uses which would be authorized I:~y designation of this land as Receiving Land would permit uses other than agriculture. Land uses other than agriculture must be directed away from this land by designation of this land as HSA. Fifth, the proposed Receiving l_ands are excessive in size and unsupported by data and analysis of the need for this much Receiving Land. ~Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions ofFla. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is i~ J LtN 1 2 2(102 Chairman Jim Coletta. May 30, 2002 Page 5 Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. E. BC ACSC Stovepipe North of CR 846. All of the Stovepipe North of CR 846. Map as HSA all of the land in BC ACSC north of CR 846. Specifically, this is Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 35 and 36 of R 30 E, T46 S. This land should be mapped as HSA for five primary reasons. First, this land is part of the Collier Plan's adopted NRPA Study Area. Second, numerous panther telemetry points have occurred on this land, and this land is withh~ the home range used by panthers. Third, this land is a critical wildlife corridor between the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Hendry County. Fourth, WilsonMiiler's colorized habitat (Scenario #3 (Version 2.0)) has mapped this land as grey suitable for ItSA designation. Fifth, land uses which are incompatible with listed wildlife species should be excluded from this land. Conclusion-Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions ofFla. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Sial. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. F. 1lC ACSC South of Oil Well Road. Portions of Sections 29, 28 and 33. Map as HSA the land located immediately south o£ Oil Well l~,oad, just east of SR 29, and just north oflhe Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (BC ACSC). Specifically, this is portions of Sections 29, 28, and 33 of R 30 E, T 48 S. This land should be mapped as HSA for four primary reasons. First, this land is part of the Collier Plan's adopted NRPA Study Area. Second, numerous panther telemetry points have occurred o~ this land, and this land is within the home range used by panthers. Third, its proximity to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Big Cypress National Preserve. Fourth, land uses which are incompatible with the listed wildlife species should be excluded from this land. ~-Designation of this land as Receiving Land is inconsistent with the June 22, 1999 Final Order (Final Order) and the criteria and provisions ofFia. Admin. Code Chapter 9J-5, Section 163.3177(6), Fla. Stat. and the Collier Plan which the Final Order is implementing. This land should be designated as HSA. Il. Mandatory_ Minimum Criteria In Mapped Stewardship Areas (Regardless of Land Owners Participation In Stewardship Program) as Stewardship Land shall be subject to the following land use criteria. Such mi~ Regardless of whether land owners participate in the Stewardship Program, land mapped imurntOl~i~ia'rf~ JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta. May 30, 2002 Page 6 mapped Stexvardship Lands is absolutely necessary for use of this proposed Stewardship Plan as a substitute for adopting Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs) in the Rural Land Area. Adopted Collier Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 1.3. I states that the Collier Plan amendments which result from the Rural and Agricultural Assessment for the Rural Lands (Eastern Lands) "will provide resource protection measures best suited to meet the goals, objectives and policies of the Collier Plan." Adopted Collier Plan CCME Objective 1. i clearly mandates that Collier County "will ensure that the natural resources, including species of special status, of Collier County are properly, appropriately, and effectively identified, managed and protected." Adopted Collier Plan CCME Objective 1.3 states that the purpose of the NRPA program and its designated lands is "to protect endangered and potentially endangered species {plants and animals]...and their habitats." Clearly, special species such as endangered and potentially endangered plants and animals in Stewardship Lands must be protected regardless of whether the property owner opts into this proposed Stewardship Plan. Otherwise, the proposed Stewardship Plan would not be in compliance with the Collier Plan Objectives CCME I. 1 and 1.3, nor would it be supported by the data and analysis concerning the protection needs of special species in the Rural Land Area. A. Minimum Land Cleating Crileria. Land clearing in ~napped Stewardship Areas must be limited to 10%. Pursuant to proposed Policy 3. I I, Ag 2 forestry (silviculture) activities within tnapped Stewardship Lands shall be limited to a maximum harvest of 50% of the trees, with the tree removal activity creating a mosaic of plant communities which is compatible with habitat needs of listed species. Restoration activities on existing Ag I lands with mapped Stewardship lands shall be exempt from this land clearing limitation if the restoration activities will result in a net improvement of wildlife habitat value on the Ag I land. B. Land Use Within Mapped Stewardship Lands. I. Density and Intensity Within Mapped Stewardship Lands Residential, commercial and industrial uses, except for existing development and hunting lodge development, should be prohibited within lands mapped as Stewardship lands. Golf courses, mining, and essential facilities must be prohibited from mapped Stewardship Areas {including the · GENDA ITEM 500 foot and 300 foot zones), no. ~ JUN 1 2 2002 ' Chairman Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 7 2. Stewardship Credits to Receiving Lands. Mapped Stewardship Lands shall have Stewardship Credits which can be transferred to Receiving Lands. 111. Chanpes to Mapped Stewardship Lands. Tile Stewardship l,ands (including restoration lands and buffer lands) shall be mapped as a part of the adopted Collier Plan FLUM Once adopted as part of the Collier Plan, ali changes in the Collier Plan FLUM Stewardship Area boundaries, may only b6 changed by the following procedure. A. By Plan Amendment. Any change in mapped Stewardship Lands which would result in a net loss of 10 acres or more in Stewardship acreage, or which have a cumulative 50 acres net loss of Stewardship Lands acreage when combined with prior changes of less than 10 acres since the initial adoption of the Stewardship Area map, must be by comprehensive plan amendment consistent with Chapter 163, Part Il, Fla. Stat.. B. By Ordinance With Public llearing and Comment. All changes in the Stewardship Areas which are exempt from lhe above Plan Amendment requirement shall be by means of a Collier County ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing where the opportunity for public comment is provided. IV. La~e Mammal Wildlife Undercrossings Tile Rural Lands Collier Plan amendments need to include the following large mammal wildlife undercrossing criteria. A. CR 846 East of immokalee l.Designate CR 846 as a "Collector" eligible for the federal Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA-2 I) for funding for a large mammal wildlife undercrossing. 2. Designate a large mammal wildlife undercrossing to be constructed on CR 846 in Sections 2 and 3, R 30 E, T 47 S, located east oflmmokalee. The wildlife undercrossing should have a panther fence which covers at least the locations where panthers have b, AGEI'4D A ITEM this stretch of road. JUN 2 2002 Chairman, Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 8 B. CR 846 West of lmmokalee Designate a large mammal wildlife undercrossing to be constructed on CR 846 in Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, R 28 E, T 47 S, located west of Immokalee where CR 846 (lmmokalee Road) crosses Camp Keais Strand. This wildlife undercrossing should have a panther fence at least one mile on each side ofCamI, Keais Strand. C. Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Strand Designate a large mammal wildlife undercrossing to be constructed on Oil Well Road in Sections 1.~, 14, 23, 24, and ~., R 28 E, T 48 S, located west oflmmokalee where Oil Well Road crosses Camp Keais Strand. This wildlife undercrossing should have a panther fence at least one mile each side of Camp Keais Strand. V. Receivinn_ Lands The size of the Receiving Lands must be reduced to prevent urban sprawl. The location of Receiving Lands must be correlated to the availability ofinfiastructure such as roads, sewer and water, schools, etc. VI. Criteria for Towns. Villages. and Hamlets The minimum residential densities for Towns, Villages and Hamlets must be based upon net developable acreage (not gross), and the minimum must be increased above 3 dwelling units per net developable acre. "Net Developable Acreage" includes all lands within a New Town, Village or Hamlet, exclusive of Open Space, Conservation, and Greenway lands. (See, St. Johns County FLUE Policy A. 1.19.3). As the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) stated in its May 23, 2002 Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) No. 6 to Collier County concerning the Rural Villages in the Rural Fringe Area, this amendment must indicate on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) the location, size, and amount of development permitted for each New Town, Village, and Hamlet, taking into account environmental suitability and demonstrating the efficient provision of adequate public facilities. An alternative to indicating each New Town, Village, and Hanflet on the FLUM in this amendment, is requiring the following before authorization of a proposed New Town, Village or Hamlet. 1. At the time of PUD or DRI approval for each Rural Village, require that the comprehensive plan be amended showing the location, size and amount ofd ,v~lnnment 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 9 and demonstrating environmental suitability and the efficient provision of adequate public facilities. 2. Include more explicit guidelines and standards in the comprehensive plan, and additional data and analysis in the supporting documentation, to ensure that the location, size and amount &development for each Rural Village will be environmentally suitable and that adequate public facilities will be available and efficiently provided. This iocational criteria must include the availability of existing and adequate infrastructure, and access to arterial or collector roads. New Towns and Villages would be required to be located at the intersection of collector and arterial roads, and where other public infrastructure such as potable water and sewer facilities already exist or are planned so as to ensure the maximization of existing public facilities. In the case ofroads determine if new roads will be needed and how they will be financed. Additionally, the amendment needs to specify the intensity of nonresidential uses that will be allowed, and the proportion of the mix of uses. The proportion of mix and intensity &nonresidential uses must be compatible with the need to maintain the rural character of the area. B. Criteria For A New Town Language must be added which mandates that at a minimum a New Town in the Rural Lands area must comply with New Town criteria of Section 163.3177(11)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat., and the definition of New Town in Fla. Admin. Code Rule 9J-5.003(80). VII. ~Vlanagement of Stewardship Lands The amendments need to clarify how Stewardship Lands will be managed. Specifically, the amendments need to address how land management plans are developed and that the property owner are the entity responsible for implementing the land management plan. A. Land Management Plan Proposed Policy 1.17 should state that the initial and ali subsequent Stewardship Agreements must contain a land management plan which properly, appropriately, and effectively manages and protects the natural resources and special status plants and animals on the subject Stewardship Land, with annual reports submitted to the Collier County Natural Resources Director. The subject Stewardship Land will be open to the Collier County and its agents to inspect and use in managing special status plants and animals. B. Property Owner Responsible for Implementing Management Plan entity responsible for implementing the Stewardship Management Plan. Proposed Policy 1.17 should clearly state that the simple property owner shall be the A~)A ITEJ~ JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 10 Proposed Policy I. 17 should clearly state that the simple property owner shall be the entity responsible for implementing the Stewardship Management Plan. VIII. Agricultural/Rural Category_ ' Consistent with DCA's May 23, 2002 ORC on tile Rural Fringe Amendments, the Collier Plan's Agricultural/Rural category does not establish specific standards for the intensity and type of industrial uses which are allowed. We need to discuss and agree upon specific standards to be adopted for the intensity and type of industrial uses in the Agricultural/Rural category. IX. Conservation Categow_'y Consistent with DCA's May 23, 2002 ORC on the Rural Fringe Amendments, the Collier Plan's Conservation category, allows I unit to 5 acres, and i unit per 3 acres in the Big Cypress. This level of development is not compatible with the need to ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands. Oil and mineral extraction is also allowed in the Conservation category, as both an authorized use and a conditional use. Tile Collier Plan should be amended to restrict uses in tile conservation designation to those consistent and compatible with the protect natural resources of the land. Publicly owned conservation lands should have zero density. In addition, oil and mineral extraction should be allowed in the Agricultural/Rural category outside mapped Stewardship Areas only as a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions to ensure environmental protection. Your consideration is these comments and recommendations is most appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me. ~,Very t~, yours, Thomas. W. Reese CC~ Honorable Tom Henning, County Com~nissioner Honorable Fred Coyle, County Commissioner Honorable James Carter, County Commissioner Honorable Donna Fiala, County Commissioner Mr. Tom Olliff, County Administrator JUN 1 2 2002 Chairman Jim Coletta May 30, 2002 Page 11 cc: Continued from page 10 Ms. Nancy Linnan, Esq., Carlton Fields Mr. Bob Mulhere, AICP Mr. Bill Lorenz, Director, Natural Resources Mr. Charles Gauthier, AICP, DCA Mr. Mike McDaniel, AICP, DCA Mr. Shaw Stiller, Esq.. DCA Mr. Brad Comell, Collier Audubon Ms. Nancy Payton, Federation 2002 05/~3/2002 08:29 9~173~9126 PAGE FILE C01 ¥ TO: FROM: RE; DATE: Eu'vhumn~ulal Advisory Council and Collier Pls~nin~ Comnlission Brad Corn¢ll,. Collier Audubon Policy Analys~ Comments on GOPs/'or Rural Lands May 22, 2002. Collier County Audubo,~ Society has ~ most of the Ow~rsight Co,-~it~e's meetings and offered numerous su~estions and comments.on policies and issues. Thc Ooaks, Objectives and Policies which you are reviewin~ for Uansmiml by Collier County to the Dcpartmem of Community ,a~airs are not nearly as detailed as those for the Rm~ Fringe transmitted earlier. WI~e fl~ proposed program to pro~ct natural resources and aglicuiture on these 195,000 acres are very imaginative, creative and hold considerable promise, we feel they lack some critical features and elements to effeotiveIy m~ompli~h the I~inal Order Eoals laid oat for the County. With some key adjustments recommended below, the Stewardship Credit Overlay program should have considerably more power to achieve ?he resource protection desired by tl~ citizens of Collier County. 1. In evaluating the stewarship Credit proposal, first it must be compared to the currently implemented interim NRPA's and Specie Study Areas. The staff report providing an acreage ~,mui~on implies thai there are 24,000 more acres protected via the Stewardship Overlay, and should be mended to show the following: · .Interim NRPA ...................................................... 41,000 acres · Special Study Areas + 900 ac water retention ................. 30,845 acres · ~'ater Retention A.ro~.s ........................................... 17,336 acres EXISTINO PROTECTIONS: 89,181 acres · FSA + HSAs .................................................... , .... 66,527 acres · Water Relent/on Areas ............................................ 1 R,236 acres STEWARDSHIP 'AREAS: 84,763 acres 2, While the above figures don't necessarily mean HR.PAs will do a better job than the Stewardship Overlay, it does point to a deficiency in the Stewardship plan whic~ ...~~a~Ipland habitat_acreage for th~ Camp Keats Strand and Okaloaeooch_~e.. Slough_in p.rtim,l~_~ 3. To address needed upland habitat, delef~e Policy 3.14 (zoo vague to be ¢ff~tive) and replime with a p011od which desilpaates this same 500 foot strip as part of the HAS which has strong mswration incentives. 4. Add Policy 3.17 which designates 2_~90 f..t ,~,- from Camp Keai_q FSA e_d~e as Wildlife ~"~ Comdor Buffer lands. He_re ag~ay continue as is, but no conversion to urban uses _r~-rmitted.' _ S. Dat~ supl~rl for the wildlife corridor needs comes fi-om several professional opinions in the literature and personal communications with various agency biologists. The recommended widths for Camp Keais corridor rmage from onc mile to 10 m/les, with an average of the five I obtained being 4 miles. Because of the constraints of eurrem land use and pri~ate property A~A iTEM JUN 1 2 2002 ~C pg. t ~ rights, a *'easonable compromise seems around 2 mi!es, which corresponds closely with 2.5 miles recomm~ndexi by James Beeve. r of FFWCC. 6. Policy 3.12 on restoration should give prioritY to FSA and HSAs, followed by the proposed Camp Keais Wildlife Corridor Buf~r. ' 7. Restoration is an integral part of all ~five resource protection plans for Collier County and these GOPs should have a more £orm__,,1 inclusion of restoration in the strategy. 8. Them need to be policies which ..require or specify how the Stewardship lands which have been protected, by removal of credits will be managed for conservation purposes. Also, there needs to be a oonscrvation cz~cn~ut on any such parcel. 9. Collier Audubon concurs with smffreoomme~dations for clm~gs tn the C-sOps found in the 5/22 staff report. Th~se include application ofminimnm prote, ogon sUmdards to all Is, tis, whether participating in thc Overlay syst~a or not (Policy _~.3). 10. Specific m~ntion of thc need to consider reception of Overlay credits in IJrhan ,~kreas at the fiv¢-y~ir review of The impl~meni~l Overlay program. AC.~_J~ A~ ITE.~ JUN t 2 2O02 FILE COPY TH] CONSERVANCY: Of Southwest Florida May 21, 2002 Bill Lorenz, Director Collier County Natural Resources Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34104 RECEIVED "' "p~9 !.¥i" .... uu,. NATURAL RESOURCES i~'EPARTHEHT RE: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Goals, Objective and Policies Dear Bill: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida submits the following comments on the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Goals, Objective and Policies (GOPs). We request that Collier County Staff, the Environmental Advisory Council, Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider these comments and recommendations and revise the GOPs before they come before the BCC for final approval and submission to the Department of Community Affairs. First, I would like to clarif}' the status of the draft GOPs upon which we are commenting. During the last meeting of the Eastern Lands Advisory Committee on April 29, 2002. we agreed to forward these draft GOPs for consideration by the EAC, the Planning Commission and the Board of CounD' Commissioners. We did not recommend them as the final version of the GOPs. because we had just received them at the meeting and had not had sufficient time to thoroughly review them. We anticipated that there would be another meeting before EAC review. However, the May 13th meeting of Eastern Lands Advisory Committee was cancelled and rescheduled for June 3rd, after the draft has been submitted to both the EAC and Planning Committee. Therefore, we would like your staff and you to consider our comments in your recommendations as the draft moves forward for review. We have also provided these comments to the EAC, the Planning Commission, and the BCC. With this introduction, our comments are as follows: Second, I want to make it clear that The Conservancy supports, in general, the stewardship credit approach taken by the Eastern Lands Advisory Committee in developing the draft GOPs. We believe that the program can work as desired and meet the demands of the Final Order as long as recommended revisions are made to the GOPs and as long as there is careful attention to the Land Development Code amendments that will be necessary to implement them. AGENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 1. Group 5 Policies The Conservancy welcomes the inclusion of policies that will apply to properties that are not participating in the stewardship program and supports the County StaW s recommended changes to the Group 5 policies. We believe that the first two changes recommended by the County Staff are necessary to strengthen protections in the Overlay area for those properties that are not participating in the stewardship program. Most of the conditional uses in the Agricultural Zone are totally inconsistent with the values that must be protected in the Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). In addition to golf courses, these include extraction and earthmining, collection and transfer sites for resource recovery, oil and gas field development, and asphalt and concrete plants. We also believe that at least one of the permitted uses in an agricultural zone is incompatible with the values of FSAs and HSAs: oil and gas exploration. Furthermore, staff should consider whether the scale of excavation permitted as incidental to agricultural development of the property is suitable for FSAs and HSAs. The Conservancy agrees with you that the preservation standards specified in Policy 5.3 should also apply to nonagricultural uses for properties that elect to be in the Overlay. We are unclear whether these standards would be consistent with standards suggested for Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), and we would request that the County Staff clarify this recommendation. Policy 1.4 seems to contradict the Goal of Group 5 when it states that, "The Overlay does not change the underlying density, permitted uses and property rights of land within the Overlay Area, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Overlay." Reference to the protection measures of Group 5 should be included in Policy 1.4 in order to avoid confusion. Finally, it is unclear whether Policy 1.5 would permit property that is not part of the Overlay program to be rezoned to other, more intensive uses. This policy' or a Group 5 policy should clearly state that the Agricultural Zoning may not be changed. 2. Delineation of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas One of our greatest concerns with the GOPs as currently drafted is the lack of further delineation of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, particularly the SRAs. Unlike the Rural Fringe's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, the community, including the property owners, are being asked to accept a set of policies for the vast Eastern lands without knowing which parts of the land will fall under which policies. While we understand that the map delineating the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs will become part of the County Comprehensive Plan, and that FSAs and HSAs are prohibited from being used as Receiving Areas, there is still a large area of land (115,300 acres) that could potentially be used as Receiving Areas. The Staff Report discusses further refinements to these areas based on the criteria for SRAs and the number of stewardship credits expected from SSAs. It is not unreasonable to further delineate the mtential_StL~ks AC~NI:) A ITEM on the map. JUN 1 2 2002 o Procedures for Designation of Sending and Receiving Areas and Public Participation While the GOPs state that the "designation" of either SSAs or SRAs will not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, they do not specify what the procedures will be for "designation" of land as SSAs or SRAs. Policy 4.3, for instance, mentions the process of landowners petitioning the BCC in order to obtain a SRA designation. As written, this policy implies that if the SRA master plan is complete and consistent with the policies of the Overlay, then it must be approved. There should be some procedure recommended in the GOPs for how the process works, including not only the designation of the property, but also the other issues, such as the location, size and density of SRAs, the number of stewardship credits received by SSAs and needed by SRAs. Does staff review the petitions? Do the EAC and Planning Commission review and make recommendations? Can the public present comments? If an existing procedure in the LDC will be utilized, it should be referenced. If a new procedure must be developed as an LDC amendment, then the GOPs should state this and should, at a minimum, describe the type of procedure that will be utilized, together with the types of information that must be submitted and available to the public. The County will also need to have sufficient staff and resources to review these petitions. While the BCC cannot arbitrarily approve or reject petitions to have land designated as an SRA, we believe that Policy 4.3 unduly circumscribes the BCC's discretion by mandating that the BCC "shall approve the petition if it finds that the property owner's request for such designation ..." [emphasis added]. There may be other factors within the BCC's land use authority for a decision to reject a petition for an SRA. 4. Group 3 Policies: Criteria and Standards for SSAs As mentioned in 1, above, The Conservancy supports the County Staff recommendation that the GOPs should remove certain conditional uses of agricultural lands in FSAs and HSAs, whether or not the owner petitions to have the land be part of the stewardship program. If this recommendation were adopted by the BCC, it would effectively eliminate these uses from SSAs designated in the program as well. Also as mentioned in 1, above, The Conservancy agrees with the County Staff recommendation that the standards of Policy 5.3 should apply to nonagricultural uses in SSAs designated in the program. More detailed standards may need to be developed in the LDC for protection of the FS, As and HSAs. Policy 3.3 would establish Water Retention Areas (WRA) as areas that deserve protection for surface water quality and quantity. However, Policy 3.5 and 3.16 allow for WRAs to be incorporated in SRAs for such purposes as storm water retention. While in some WRAs such a use may be feasible, it should be delineated on a map exactly which WRAs - are part of sensitive environmental systems and should not be used for water retention purposes in conjunction with development. The Conservancy suggests that W ~s JUN 2 2002 3 ACSC, or WRAs adjacent to FSAs and HSAs not be allowed as part of a SRA. As with the establishment of SSAs and SRAs, the delineation of WRAs can be modified by request of the property owner, as proposed in Policy 3.4. What are the procedures for this modification and how does the public participate? Policy 3.7 is stated in different fashion than 3.6. We assume that for both FSAs and HSAs the policy is intended to state that "residential uses and general conditional uses" will be eliminated in exchange for compensation. The Conservancy believes that Policies 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 are confusing as written. Do these Policies apply to agriculture in FSAs and HSAs whether or not the property has been designated as a SSA? (Policy 2.7 would seem to imply this). This should be more clearly stated. Is there any reason for dividing agricultural uses into two categories for these policies if existing uses in both categories are permitted to continue in FSAs and HSAs after transfer of stewardship credits? It is also unclear whether the different language in 3.10 and 3.11 was intended. Is it the intention to permit conversion of existing Agl to Ag2 after transfer of stewardship credits, but not to permit conversion of Ag2 to Ag 1 ? What credits are being referred to? Ag 1 credits? Ag2 credits? Or any credits? What is the effect of Policies 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11 on other permitted uses (e.g., oil and gas exploration, family care facilities, farm labor housing, packinghouses) within the Agricultural District that do not fit into the Ag 1 and Ag2 definition? What permits are being referred to? Are these only the agricultural land clearing permits required in some cases by the LDC? If these permits specify a length of time for the clearing to take place, would Policies 3.10 and 3.11 supercede the permits and allow clearing to occur indefinitely? The Conservancy suggests that detailed standards for agricultural practices within FSAs and HSAs be developed in the LDC. 5. Group 4 Policies: Criteria and Standards for SRAs Policy 4.6 mentions the types of land uses that have been discussed for SRAs; in the Eastern Lands Advisory Committee which have emphasized rural towns, villages, and hamlets. The Conservancy is concerned that the character of these land uses has not been defined sufficiently. We believe that instead of stating that "Collier County ma.v establish additional rural design forms, guidelines and standards within its LDC" [emphasis added], the policy should state, "Collier County shall establish standards and guidelines within its LDC." Because there has been an emphasis on the rural town, village and hamlet concepts and an acknowledgement that avoidance of urban sprawl is an important criterion for the development that takes place in the SRAs, we do not understand why Policy 4.6 should state, "these policies shall not preclude the use of other forms not specified herein." The development forms in the SRAs should be specified, either in the policies or in the LDC, and should not be open ended. Policy 4.8 permits an SRA to be contiguous to FSAs and HSAs, but does not reference the buffer policy of Policy 4.13. The buffer requirement should be referenced in 4.8 and further defined, either in 4.13 or in the LDC. 2002 Policy 4.12 states, "Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands." The Conservancy would like to see the term "adverse impacts" clearly defined within this policy or in the LDC. Policy 4.15 mentions that commercial, recreational and civic uses will be available to serve the daily needs of residents of a SRA, but then states that such uses may be provided elsewhere in the Overlay or within the Immokalee Urban Area. Permitting those uses to be located outside the SRA in the Overlay would be inappropriate if the land were not eligible to be an SRA and would seem to defeat the purpose of the rural town, village, hamlet concepts. It might be appropriate for the Immokalee Urban Area to serve this function, however, if the SPA were in close proximity to Immokalee and if the SPA area was actually reduced in size by transferring some of the stewardship credits into the Immokalee Urban Area. 6. Other Issues Policy 2.5 recommends the reestablishment of a rural area planning commission. The Conservancy sees no compelling reason for reestablishing a disbanded commission and recommends that it should not be reestablished. The Collier County Planning Commission is capable of taking the issues and needs of rural Collier County into account in its recommendations to the BCC. There is no need to create yet another layer of planning oversight that would increase demands on scarce staff time and spread thinner the resources of members of the interested public attempting to monitor the planning process. Policy 2.6: The Conservancy disagrees that local regulation of agriculture is prohibited by the Florida Right-to-Far~ Act and believes that the second sentence serves no purpose in these GOPs and should be deleted. Policy 2.7: This policy implies that Policies 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 restrict agricultural activities in some way for property that has not been placed in the stewardship program. As noted above, Policies 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 should be clarified. The Conservancy would support restrictions on expansion of agriculture within FSAs and HSAs irrespective of whether the property has been placed in the stewardship program. Policy 1.21: While the concept of getting this program off the ground through an early entry bonus program seems reasonable, the county needs to use caution. The addition of 1/2 of a Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as FSA, HSA or WRA may significantly increase the overall density in an area that should still be considered "rural." Have the numbers been run on such a system, and how will these additional credits impact the density and intensity of uses in our rural lands? The Conservancy recommends that before the BCC approves the GOPs, County Staff research the impacts of potential increases in density due to this early entry bonus program. ^c, eT~^ ~'r~ 5 JUN Pi. t 2 2002 The Conservancy truly believes that the resolution of the above concerns will help to make the Rural Lands Stewardship Program an initiative that will protect our critical natural resources while ensuring the fights of landowners and satisfying the mandates set forth in the Final Order. If you have any questions concerning The Conservancy's position on the Rural Lands GOPs, please contact Nicole Ryan, Environmental Policy Manager, at (239) 403-4220. Sincerely, Presiden~ CEO CC: Commissioner James Carter Commissioner Jim Coletta Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Tom Henning Environmental Advisory Council Collier County Planning Commission Barbara Burgeson Bob Mulhere Alan Reynolds Nancy Linnan Bernard Piawah Mike McDaniel Charles Gauthier 6 AGE~A ITE. N< JUN 2 2002 PS-, I"~ ' May 6, 2002 FILE COPY BOARD OF DIRECTORS C. Allen Watts President Timothy Jackson Vice President Jerry Sokolow Trea$lt ret Lester Abberger F. Gregory Barnhart Thaddeus Cohen Robert S. Davis Joel E. Embrv Robert W. Hopkins Ralph B. Johnson Curtis Kiser Mar), Kumpe Lenore McCullagh Carol Rist Earl M Starnes Nancy Stroud Victoria J. Tschinkel jack Wilson Nathaniel P. Reed Chair?nan Eme,'it2~s John M DeGroxe Preszdent E,nerit~s Harry C. Adler Emer;tt~s Charles G Pattison, AICP Exec~etlve Director ~'~q FRIENDS OF FLORIDA ..... Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5948 Telephone: (850) 222-6277 Fax: (850) 222-1117 wx~'w.1000 friendsofflorida.or g Mr. Ron B_ammel, Chair Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee c/o Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Revision #1 and 2 for April 29, 2002, Meeting Dear Mr. Hammel: I write to thank you and the Committee for considering my earlier comments on the first dralS, and was pleased to find that several of the suggestions we made have been addressed~ I was especially pleased with the limitation on future density and/or intensity uses added to Policy 1..6 (page 3). However, this revised version of the Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) has not addressed several important issues that were raised in my earlier correspondence. These issues must be appropriately addressed before the RLSA can ensure that the level of development allowed within this area is consistent with area needs and is compatible with environmentally sensitive features there. The improvements to Policy 1.9 (page 3) are helpful, but they do not address the larger issue of how many Stewardship Credits have been created. At the current density allowance of one dwelling unit/five acres, there is already a potential in this area for more than 39,000 dwelling units. Is some sort of ratio for different land uses under development based on this figure? Are more dwelling units than this contemplated? How much commercial space will be allowed? Where is the discussion and calculation that set this figure? How will these "credits" be used to assign commercial, institutional, and other related development values? Who determines what the appropriate mix of these different uses should be? Until these questions can be answered, no one can be sure how much development is being authorized. And unless this is known, no one can understand and mitigate for the environmental impacts of such development. I am not necessarily suggesting that this should be a straight needs based approach, but some basis for establishing the level of development contemplated must be part of this process if it is to meet state growth management requirements. JUN 1 2 20O2 Mr. Ron Hammel May 6, 2002 Page Two This leads me to question the new Policy 1.21 (page 5). While the intent is good to create incentives to jump start the program, awarding bonus "credits" without knowing how much development is already authorize is unwise. What happens if more development is already "authorized" than the natural systems can handle? What happens if all eligible areas are used? Are these credits, as well as others assigned, permanently vested.* Some maximum limit on the numbers should be set, and it would seem prudent for this limit to be something less than the maximum bonus this policy allows, i.e., "credit" for lands containing FSAs, HSAs, and/or WRAs, or as much as an additional 42,500 credits. This issue of determining the maximum number of credits being authorized simply must be addressed - it impacts policies throughout the RLSA program. It cannot be ignored, and must not be exacerbated. For example, an addition to Policy 3.12 (page 9) now allows even more development credits for landowners laudably undertaking restoration activities. As I stated in my earlier correspondence, no credits should be awarded until it is formally determined that the restoration is a success, and that the restored areas is fully functioning for its intended purpose. In addition, this policy contains an undefined reference to "other forms of compensation" in the form of developer contributions or stewardship agreements. Such arrangements need to be fully disclosed in the policy so that the public is in a position to make a judgment regarding the appropriateness of such provisions w/th respect to habitat restoration allowances. An addition to Policy 2.3 (page 6) provides for a possible administrative permit process that would allow businesses related to agriculture. While it remains to be seen if the County Commission would actually consider or even adopt such a process, it should be pointed out that there are no provisions in state growth management law that allows for a change in density or intensity of use without an amendment to the local comprehensive plan. Although the new Policy 4.18 (page 13) seems to head in this direction, it lacks specifics. In particular, I would like to understand not only how it was determined that eight "credits" would be required for each acre within designated SRAs in order to develop, but how much development the SRA is supposed to accommodate. In addition, it would be useful for all parties to understand how a "credit" is used with regard to residential development's relationship to schools, neighborhood and community parks, churches, civi and government buildings, libraries, neighborhood and commercial retail, AGENDA ITEM JUN 1 2 2002 Ps.., Mr. Ron Hammel May 6, 2002 Page Three office commercial uses, other recreational facilities, and other unspecified essential services. Is this the policy that will be used to ensure that a mix of uses occurs? I was also curious about the various setback and buffer measurements designed to protect FSAs, HSAs, and designated public or private conservation lands found in Policy 3.14 (page 10) and 4.13 (page 13). Were these numbers the result of some sort of biological peer review process? And although not stated, it would be helpful to clarify that all lands within such setback and buffer areas would be protected by conservation easements created for this purpose. I thank you again for considering these additional comments, and I look forward to working with you and the Committee in your continuing work on the Rural Land Stewardship Area program. Sincerely, Charles G Pattison, AICP Executive Director cc: Board Members JUN I 2 2002