The URL can be used to link to this page

EAC Agenda 01/07/2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA January 7, 2009 9:00 A.M. CHANGE OF LOCATION: Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Room 609/610 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of December 3, 2008 meeting minutes V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2007-AR-11100 "Taormina Reserve MPUD" Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East B. Site Development Plan Amendment No. SDP-2008—AR-13029 The Conservancy of Southwest Florida SDPA Section 27&34,Township 49 South, Range 25 East C. Excavation Permit No. EXP-2008-AR-12838 Hogan Island Quarry Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East VII. New Business A. Background of RLSA program—Tom Greenwood and others VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects IX Subcommittee Reports X. Council Member Comments Xl. Public Comments XII. Adjournment **ik *AAA*AAA******kfk*** Council Members: Please notify Summer Araque, Environmental Services Senior Environmental Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 30, 2008 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a petition (239-252-6290). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. December 3, 2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, December 3, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at Collier County Development Community Services, Conference Room #609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William Hughes Dr. Judith Hushon Noah Standridge David Bishof Nick Penniman • Michael V. Sorrell Dr. Llew Williams Paul Lehmann Ninon Rynerson ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning 1 December 3, 2008 r—. I. Call to Order Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 9:00AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Ninon Rynerson was introduced as a new member on the Council III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Penniman moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Lehmann. Carried unanimously 9-0. IV. Approval of November 5,2008 meeting minutes Dr. Hushon moved to approve the minutes of the November 5,2008 meeting subject to the following corrections: • Page 4, paragraph 3, line 3 - from "quality of the Preserve does degrade, and reported to the County so any necessary action may be taken"to "quality of the Preserve does degrade, it be reported to the County so any necessary action may be taken." • Page 4,paragraph 5, line 3 - from"expressed concern the Petition information..."to "expressed concern that the Petition information... • Page 1, - from "Building"F"of the Government Complex"to "CDES", Second by Mr. Penniman. Carried unanimously 9-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VIII. Old Business (Item VIII. A. to be heard prior to item VI.) A. Determination of date(s)for EAC workshop with the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee regarding its Phase II Report,which is a review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Tom Greenwood of Comprehensive Planning provided an update on the status of the Phase II Report. He submitted an email to him from Gary Eidson(RLSA Review Committee member), dated December 2, 2008 Re: "Board of County Commissioners' 12-2-2008 direction with respect to Phase II Report presentations to the EAC and CCPC'and the document"Phase 2 Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, Review of Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, Meeting Room Availability" for the Council's review. He requested the Council select dates for the Environmental Advisory Council's Phase II Review. The Report will be made available to the Council at least 2-3 weeks before the meeting. The current draft and Final Report will be available online at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=1515 2 December 3, 2008 r-. He noted that following the Review,the Council may make revisions to, or forward the Phase II Report with corrections to the Board of County Commissioners. The Council decided to schedule January 29 and 30, 2009 for the Review. The Council will also send a letter to the BCC recognizing their efforts ensuring that proper public hearings are conducted for the Phase II review. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2007-AR-11320 McMullen MPUD Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 26 East The presenters were sworn in. Dwight Nadeau,Planning Manager for RWA, Inc.provided an overview of the project noting the following: • The project is located on the East side of Collier Blvd., fronts on Rattlesnake Road Ext. and is19.32 acres • The required preserve is adjacent to off site lands suitable for preservation in the future. • The South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)permit has been issued, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)permit is pending. • The project will restore the historic off site sheet flow patterns prior to the Florida Power and Light easements and access roads and direct flow to the west ultimately draining to the 951 canal. • Rattlesnake Road Ext. will be improved to two lanes for this project, with the drainage from the roadway being treated on the subject site. Cheryl Rolph of Passarella and Associates highlighted the following: • The site contains forested uplands and wetlands with disturbed Pine Flatwoods and infested with Melaleuca. • There are 15 acres of wetlands on site, 93 percent of which contain more than 75%of Melaleuca. • .42 acres of Native Preserve is required, .84 acres will be provided. • An additional 2.39 acres preserve was required by the SWFMD and USACE for a total of 3.23 acres of preserve area held in a conservation easement. Discussion ensued regarding whether the Panther Telemetry maps submitted are the most recent data. Ken Passarella of Passarella and Associates noted the historic Panther Telemetry indicate Panthers are present in the area. The general public does not have access to 3 December 3, 2008 the most recent GPS telemetry data provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Panther Habitat Mitigation is being provided via purchase of PHU's (at an amount of approximately $1500 - $2500 per credit) through the Florida Conservation Bank with habitat located in Hendry County. In addition wetland impacts have been addressed via wetland mitigation credits through the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. Discussion ensued on how the wetland preserve on the north side of the site will be hydrated with the proposed improvements to the property directing drainage off site to the west. Emilio J. Robau, P.E. of RWA, Inc noted the site analysis indicates the existing wetland preserve area is, and will continue to be hydrated by off site sheet flow from the north. Discussion ensued on how this would be ensured if the property to the North becomes developed. Emilio J. Robau noted it would be responsibility of the regulating Agencies (South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) in reviews of future development applications submitted for the property to the north to ensure the historic discharges continue. It was noted a Phase I Environmental Assessment was conducted on the site with no further action required. — Discussion ensued regarding the June 19, 2007 US Fish and Wildlife Service letter, (Exhibit#19) where page 4 requested additional information, a copy of which was not provided to the County. Ken Passarella stated the additional information was submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and through this information the necessary Panther Habitat Mitigation was determined. He noted throughout the permit process, additional information submitted to outside agencies is not provided to the County for the updating of previously submitted applications. The US Fish and Wildlife Service "Biological Opinion" for the project is pending. Summer Araque noted if Council members require additional information when reviewing the data provided, please contact Staff and the Applicant will be notified to supply any necessary information. Discussion ensued regarding County Planning issues and the status of the Florida Panther Population. The Council noted in the future "significant correspondence" submitted to outside agencies affecting a County application(EIS, etc.), should be supplied to the County. Ken Passarella agreed. Mr. Bishof moved to approve the Petition (Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, McMullen MPUD. Section 14, Township 50 South,Range 26 East). Second by Mr. Penniman. 4 December 3, 2008 Summer Araque noted Staff recommends approval of the McMullen MPUD and requires all Agency permits when they submit-their next Development Order. Carried unanimously 9-0. Mr. Penniman noted his "yes vote" is not intended to set a precedent for him to vote yes in the future if an application is lacking any necessary data(biological opinions, most recent telemetry data, etc.). Break: 10:15AM Reconvene: 10:30AM VII. New Business A. Telemetry Points Question and Answer Mr. Sorrell stated he has obtained updated telemetry maps and the statement that consultants do not have access to updated information is not accurate. He noted he contacted the West Palm Beach Office District Fish and Wildlife Office and they provided him interne links to retrieve the data. He will supply the information to Council members. Summer Araque noted in the future Staff will ensure the most recent maps are provided for review by the Council. Laura Roys, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided an update on the use of Telemetry Points noting the following: • The points are collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and are transferable to Geographic Information System(GIS) mapping. • Both Florida Panther and Black Bear are collared for tracking. • The telemetry points for Panther have been collected since 1981. • The data is used to develop mapped habitat areas. • FWC reviews-for critical habitat are not limited to mapped areas. • Areas that undergo substantial land use changes (agriculture to residential, etc.) are no longer considered Panther habitat regardless of telemetry points. • FWC estimates 10 percent of Panthers are collared; no bears are currently collared within this area. It was noted the US Fish and Wildlife Service has not formally designated ("declared a critical habitat designation") any area as Florida Panther habitat. It was noted the "most recent telemetry data" is often not available to the public for 12 months or longer after its collection. Discussion ensued whether the outside Agencies (South Florida Water — Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) are utilizing the most recent data or accepting and/or utilizing older data? 5 December 3, 2008 B. Update members on projects Chairman Hughes noted a recent news report deemed Naples Bay Estuary copper levels the worst in the whole country. The Council requested Staff contact Ray Smith of the Pollution Control Department and Ray Bauer of the City of Naples to address those issues. Mr. Standridge recommended in anticipation of the Phase II Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review,members review any information available such as the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) final order, Recommendations of the Original Committee, the Legislative DCA Report on RLSA's dated December 3, 2007, and the Phase II draft currently available. Summer Araque noted Staff will provide links to those documents. IX. Sub-Committee Reports None. X. Staff Comments Summer Araque noted the Rookery Bay Workshop for 3:00 pm, December 3, 2008 has been properly noticed for any Environmental Council Members attending. XI. Council Member Comments Ninon Rynerson requested Staff supply information on the types of herbicides and chemicals deemed"acceptable"for stump removal, etc. Mr. Lehmann will review any proposed Mission Statements and prepare a draft statement for review by Council members. XII. Public Comments None. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:16 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman William Hughes 6 December 3, 2008 These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 7 f► "' ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Agenda Item VI B STAFF REPORT MEETING OF January 7th,20011 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No: Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2007-AR-11100 Petition Name: Taormina Reserve MPUD Applicant/Developer: Highland properties of Lee and Collier County, Ltd. Engineering Consultant: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Passarella and Associates, Inc. II. LOCATION: The approximately 87-acre subject property is located at the southeastern corner of the Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (SR 84) intersection, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, of Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING DESCRIPTION N- CPUD, RPUD, C-3 Shoppes at Santa Barbara, Cook Property PUD and the Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County S -A single-family residential E - PUD and C-3 Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD and the Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County W—PUD, A, C-2, C-4 Falling Waters RPUD, single-family residential, vacant IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District to allow a maximum of 788 residential dwelling units and up to 264,000 square-feet of commercial uses. n EAC Meeting Page 2 of 12 V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: A portion of the property is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #6; and a portion is in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center#6). Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed use in character. The actual mix of land uses—which may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, or hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC)—shall be determined during the rezoning process based upon a consideration of the factors listed below: Mixed-use developments—whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building—are allowed. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human scale, be pedestrian-oriented, and interconnect with adjacent projects—whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. Density permitted for this project is calculated as follows: Base Density= 67± acres 4 du/acre plus 3 du/acre density band x 67± acres =469 units Activity Center=20± acres 16 du/acre x 20± acres= 320 units Total allowable units on 86.95±acres= 789 units � 4 EAC Meeting Page 3of12 In order to qualify for the calculation of Activity Center acreage for residential density, there has to be mixed use development within the Activity Center. The PUD allows residential uses in the Activity Center (see Mixed Use District, Section IV) but does not require it; therefore, it is possible the Mixed Use District will develop with 100 percent commercial uses. If that occurs, then the Activity Center acreage could not be used for density calculation. Therefore the PUD needs to delete all references to residential uses in the Activity Center portion of the project OR commit to a minimum number of dwelling units to be built in the Mixed Use District, and provide a trigger mechanism as to when they must be built to insure mixed use development actually occurs. The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows: • Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. (This petition was submitted as a PUD.) • The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land and developed commercial uses within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the mixed Use Activity Center. (This criterion was not addressed by the applicant.) • Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. (No market study was submitted; this criterion was not addressed by the applicant.) • Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. (This criterion was not addressed by the applicant.) • Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. (Project proposes access to Davis Boulevard and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard. Transportation Planning Department will review this petition for adequate road capacity.) • Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. (The Comprehensive Planning staff defers the compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. However, staff notes the Residential area allows 45' building height and the Mixed Use District allows 60' zoned height [70' actual height].) EAC Meeting Page 4 of 12 • Natural or man made constraints. (The site contains some jurisdictional wetlands.) • Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. (To be addressed by the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.) • Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code. (To be addressed by the Transportation Planning Department, also see Section VI, 6.7.) • Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. (Detailed traffic review is performed by the Transportation - - - Planning Department.) • Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects. (The project proposes vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the residential and commercial component of the project as noted in the Statement of Compliance, but does not propose any interconnections to the adjacent Naples Heritage Golf& Country Club, which is a gated community, or Cook Property PUD, or A-zoned lands to the south.) • Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code (see PUD Section II, 2.11 Design Guidelines and Standards; to be addressed by the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.) FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 12 Policy 7.1 I The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect-their- properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The PUD Master Plan shows access to Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Blvd. Extension, both arterial roads; and this is provided for in Section VI, 6.7.A.) Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (An internal connection between the Mixed Use and Residential components is depicted on the PUD Master Plan and noted in the Statement of Compliance, #9. Also, the PUD Master Plan shows a loop road in the Residential component and shows roadways connecting Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard extension.) Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The PUD does not provide for interconnection with adjoining developments. The adjacent developments are the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, which is fully developed, gated community to which a physical interconnect is not possible given its development status; and the Cook Property RPUD, currently under development. Neither the Cook Property PUD nor other A-zoned lands are addressed in the Statement of Compliance. Also,there are A-zoned lands to the south which could potentially be rezoned in the future for urban density or intensity use.) Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Per Section 3.4 of the PUD, different unit types are allowed. Also Section IV allows residential uses over commercial uses. The PUD Master Plan and document provides for preserves and other open spaces. Sidewalks are required by the LDC and there is no request for deviation to this requirement.) CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis staff concludes the proposed uses and density may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Additional EAC Meeting Page 6 of 12 information and corrections to the PUD document are needed. Staff's review of the applicant's new application and PUD document, resubmitted on December 8, 2008, is due January 8, 2009. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge)to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected retention and detention areas to provide water quality retention and r \ peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve. This project is consistent with policy 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 83.93 acres of which 83.93 acres is considered native vegetation. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 28.88 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 20.98 acres or 25% of the existing native vegetation on site. A conservation easement dedicated to Collier County shall be placed over the preserve. Selection of native vegetation to be retained on site as a preserve area is shown to be consistent with the GMP based upon the following: Three listed plant species (Tillandsia fasciculata, Tillandsia utriculata, and Encyclia tampensis) were found on site and are found in the proposed preserve area. During the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)(Picoides borealis) survey, two woodstorks (Mycteria Americana) were observed perched in trees on the project site. The wetlands found on site with the highest functionality, which includes the pop ash (Fraxinus caroliana) wetland surrounded by the cypress (taxodium distichum) habitat, will be incorporated into the designated preserve. A preserve area and listed species management plan has been prepared and is included in the EIS (Exhibit 10). As required by policy 6.1.1 (5), receipt of treated stormwater discharge will not result in the loss of the minimum required vegetation or harm to any listed species. There are similiar elevations between the wetland and upland portions of the preserve. Based on those similar elevations, staff has determined that it is EAC Meeting Page 7 of 12 probable that the uplands in the preserve area experience periods of flooding. Further analysis shall be required at the next development order. As required by policy 6.2.1, a wetland jurisdictional determination has been conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Approved wetland lines are depicted on the aerial on the wetland map in the EIS (Exhibit 2). As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the site and maintained in perpetuity. The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of the review packet for this submittal. As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS (Exhibit 15). As required by Policy 11.1.2, an archeological survey was conducted and is included in the EIS (Exhibit 11). The project will not impact any known historic or archeological sites. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: Taormina Reserve is located in the Lely Canal Drainage Basin and within the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP). According to County Ordinance 2001-027, the allowable discharge rate for this basin is 0.06 cfs per acre. Taormina Reserve submitted an application to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for an ERP on 5 April 2007. The application has received three Requests for Additional Information and an Extension and the project is presently in"no response" status. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." In the EIS, the petitioner states his intention that the "Stormwater runoff will be collected within development areas or transmitted to either the dry-detention areas EAC Meeting Page 8 of 12 for the commercial portion or the onsite lake for the residential portion of the Project for water quality treatment prior to discharging into the large on-site preserve for attenuation and rehydration of the wetland.", so the EAC is allowed "to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged--into- Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." According to the SFWMD and the EIS, the intention of the project is to discharge toward the north into the Davis Blvd Canal (on the north side of Davis Blvd). Much of the internal drainage system discharges directly into Lake 1 located in the residential area. Nothing of any consequence discharges directly into lake 2. As lake 1 rises, the water flows through the littoral zone separating lake 1 from lake 2 and into lake 2. The excess water from lake 2 flows over the control weir and into the preserve. The main offsite discharge is over the other control weir which is located at the southwest corner of Lake 1, which empties into a detention area. The detention area discharges through control structure CS-1 and into the proposed Santa Barbara Blvd Extension. The northern segment of the Santa Barbara Blvd extension discharges north into the Davis Blvd canal. Topography shows that historic flow in this area is south to south-southwest., but the areas to the south including Whitaker Road, Royal Wood, the Polly Avenue area and Quail Hollow have on occasion had drainage problems, so Engineering Review Staff has no objection to routing water away from these areas, fully realizing that the decision for the routing of the discharge lies with SFWMD.. Environmental: Site Description: The project site consists of 83.93 acres of native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC and has been verified by staff on site. On site native vegetation communities include pine flatwoods (10.80± acres), palmetto prairie (1.49 ±acres), hydric pine flatwoods (2.7± acres), pine (0.71 ± acres), wax myrtle/willow (0.81± acres), pop ash (0.41 ± acres), cypress (5.46 ± acres), cypress/pine/cabbage palm (37.08 ± acres), and disturbed land (27.47± acres). Wetlands: There are approximately 48.28± acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland lines have been approved by the SFWMD. The results of the jurisdictional determination are included on II EAC Meeting Page 9 of 12 the wetlands map in the EIS (Exhibit 2). The wetlands on site have been impacted by exotic vegetation including Melaleuca and Brazillian pepper. Impacts to wetlands will occur to some of the low quality habitats with greater than 50% exotic vegetation coverage. The project proposes to preserve 23.70± acres or 51% of the remaining wetland habitats on site. The project will impact 49% or 19.07± acres of the SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands shall be mitigated for through the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)permitting process at the first development order. Preservation Requirements: The proposed native vegetation preserve of 28.88 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 20.98 acres or 25% of the existing native vegetation on site. The project proposes to preserve 23.70± acres of SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and 5.18± acres of upland habitat. A special treatment (ST) overlay is located in the southwest portion of the project area as shown on exhibit 2 in the EIS. The ST overlay incorporates a wetland area of pop ash and cypress swamp. These wetland habitats and the majority of the ST area is proposed to be included in the preserve area. The proposed preserve shall be placed under a Collier County conservation easement. Listed Species: The most recent listed species survey was conducted by Passarella and Associates, Inc. on January 11th , 2006 and is contained in the EIS. (Exhibit 15). Three listed plant species (Tillandsia fasciculata, Tillandsia utriculata, and Encyclia tampensis) were found on site as well as in the proposed preserve area. The EIS states that the relocation of listed plant species is not part of the proposed preserve area and listed species management. Due to the healthy population of listed plant species currently found in the preserve, relocation of additional plants into the preserve may artificially increase their natural density and create a habitat that favors the proliferation of pests such as the Mexican bromeliad weevil (metamasius callizona). Other listed species observed include two woodstorks (Mycteria Americana) perched in trees on the project site. A Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) nesting foraging survey was conducted for 14 consecutive days in June, 2006. A non-nesting foraging survey was also conducted for 14 days between the months of November and December, 2006 (EIS Exhibit 16). No RCW's were heard or observed and no RCW cavity trees were found. The project is coordinating with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the RCW nesting and non-nesting season surveys. A RCW survey will be updated if requested by the technical agencies. Any correspondence received from FWC or USFWS regarding the RCW surveys shall be forwarded to the environmental services department. Although no Florida ' EAC Meeting Page 10 of 12 Black Bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) were observed on the property, the project site is located within the primary black bear zone. A black bear management plan has been provided on the preserve management plan in the EIS (Exhibit10). There were no Big Cypress fox squirrels (Sciurus niger avicennia) observed, but the project site contains potential BCFS habitat. A BCFS management plan has been provided on the preserve management plan in the EIS (Exhibit 10). VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Residential Planned Unit Development Rezone No: PUDZ-2007-AR-11100 "Taormina Reserve"with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: 1) The petitioner must obtain an environmental resources permit(ERP) from the SFWMD prior to approval of the Site Development Plan application. Environmental: 2) An updated Red-Cockaded Woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the first development order if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Provide Florida Black Bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans as part of the next development order. 3) At the time of the next development order, provide a hydroperiod analysis for the project site or apply whatever current LDC amendment is in effect regarding evaluating stormwater discharge into upland preserves. 4) The preserve management plan required as part of the next development order shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve's vegetation. The property owner will be required to replace vegetation adversely impacted by the stormwater with vegetation that will be suitable for future conditions. EAC Meeting Page 11 of 12 PREPARED BY: 411114 / MMCCe STAN CHRZANOWSKII .E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CHRIS D'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JOHN AVID MOSS DATE / PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW t } EAC Meeting Page 12 of 12 REVIEWED BY: 1 /Z ii-oP SUSAN MA : • DATE PRINCIP A 1 1 IRONMENTAL SPECIALIST I /1 / , ,, iz-z4-og "1LIAM D. LO' - Z, Jr., P.E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 6 ilk LL3/aS JEF' GHT DATE ASS .NT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: it ! ,Z ( iJ i4 .EPH K. SCHMITT DAT (IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 11 MINISTRATOR • Agenda Item VI. C ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF January 7th, 2008 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No: Site Development Plan Amendment No. SDPA-2008-AR-13029 Petition Name: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida Applicant/Developer: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida Engineering Consultant: Hole Montes, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Southern Biomes, Inc. II. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples, Florida, 34102, aka, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, folio numbers 61940160007, r' 61940120005, 61940080006, 465711120004 and 46571160006. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: This development contains five zoning districts. Specifically, Commercial Professional and General Office District, C-l; Commercial Intermediate District, C-3; Conservation District, CON; Rural Agricultural District, A; and Residential Single Family District, RSF-4. The Use is Community Facility. ZONING DESCRIPTION N - C-3 and A Community Facility, Naples Zoo S - RSF-4 Residential Single Family E - A Gordon River W - R.O.W. then PU (public use) Elementary School and City Park • EAC Meeting Page 2 of 9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This development is a non-profit community facility. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida conducts environmental education, research, wildlife rehabilitation, eco-tours, as well as providing guidance and recommendations to governmental agencies. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict in the Growth Management Plan (GPM). The Urban Residential Subdistict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard area, both as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management plan(GMP). Besides residential uses, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows a variety of non-residential uses, including community facilities. Some zoning districts on the subject site are not consistent with the Future Land Use designation. However, via one or more policies under Objective 5, those zoning districts are "consistent by policy" and the site may be developed in accordance with the zoning on the property. The proposed development may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water(discharge)to the estuarine system. ti EAC Meeting Page 3 of 9 This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events This project is consistent with policy 6.1.1 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 19.96 acres of which 8.25 acres shall be considered native vegetation. The minimum native vegetation preservation requirement is 1.24 acres. The proposed native upland preserve of 5.16 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. An updated gopher tortoise (Gopher polyphemus) burrow survey shows a combined 77 active and inactive burrows identified on the project site as confirmed by staff on a site visit. An estimated 46.2 gopher tortoises currently reside on the project's upland xeric scrub habitat and shall remain on-site. As required by Policy 6.1.1, the preserve area will be placed under a permanent conservation easement dedicated to Collier County. As required by Policy 6.1.4,prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from the site and maintained in perpetuity. The EIS required by Policy 6.1.8 has been prepared and is supplied as part of the review packet for this submittal. As required by Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the wetlands have been verified by the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) as part of the SFWMD permitting process. As required by Policy 6.2.6,the required preserve area is identified on the preserve management plan(EIS pages 20 and 25) as part of the site development plan. As required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines on the property and is contained in the EIS (pages 33-45). As required by Policy 11.1.2, correspondence was sent to the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources (DHR) regarding possible archaeological or historical sites within the project area. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 9 VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Management: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida site plan is presently under review by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) under application 080303-14 that was submitted to SFWMD on 3 Mar 2008 and is being reviewed as Permit # 11-02960-P. The status of the application shows on the District website as "under review" as of 10 Dec 08. The project has received three Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) to date. A notification of complete application(COM) letter was sent to the applicant on 5 Dec 08 which states the SFWMD will take action on this application by January 18th, 2009. Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." The Collier County Engineering Review Department specifically requested that this project be permitted by SFWMD because many of the proposed stormwater treatment approaches like hydro-cartridge catch basin filters, some types of pervious pavement, and heavily vegetated retention areas, in our estimation, could be classified as "experimental" and SFWMD review would be less restrictive toward these ideas. Much of the stormwater management system is a standard treatment train of swales and detention areas that discharges through a standard control structure into a swale that empties directly into the Gordon River. Environmental: Site Description: The property site contains 19.96 acres of which 8.25 acres is native vegetation according to the definition in the GMP and LDC. On site vegetative communities include open land (1.94± acres), sandy scrub/xeric oak (3.26 ±acres), disturbed sandy scrub (0.47± acres), Melaleuca forest (0.43± acres), pine/xeric oak/saw palmetto (1.04± acres), mature pine/oak hammock (0.56± acres), Brazillian pepper/tropical exotics (0.41± acres), disturbed scrubby/pine oak (1.13± acres), tidal embayment with mangroves (1.00± acres), mangrove forest (0.57± acres), and swamp fern/mixed forested wetlands (0.22± acres) as shown on the FLUCCS map. (Plan Exhibit 1 & 2). EAC Meeting Page 5 of 9 Wetlands: There are approximately 1.79 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands and 0.94 acres of other surface waters (OSW) on site. On site wetland communities consist of tidal embayment with mangroves (1.00± acres), mangrove forest (0.57± acres), and swamp fern/mixed forested wetlands (0.22± acres). The OSW on site include drainage ditches (0.40± acres), borrow area dominated by spadderdock(0.27± acres) and a borrow area dominated by cattails (0.27± acres). There will be no impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands on site except for the OSW wetlands which will only be enhanced to create a filter marsh designed to help improve the water quality of the stormwater run-off prior to discharging into the Gordon River. A SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for the creation of the filter marsh. The filter marsh is being permitted by Collier County under Insubstantial Change to the Site Development Plan SDPI-2008- AR-13536. Preservation Requirements: �-. The minimum native vegetation preservation requirement for the proposed project is 1.24 acres. The proposed native upland vegetation preserve of 5.16 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 15% of the existing native vegetation on site. Listed Species: A recent listed species survey for this project site was conducted in May, 2008 (EIS Exhibit 4.g-1). There were two listed species found on the project site. The leather fern(Acrostichum danaeifolium)and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). The Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) may be observed in association with the gopher tortoise burrows and a management plan has been provided in the EIS (Exhibit 4.g.iii-1) and on the SDP. During the listed species survey, no wading birds were observed on the project site. Wading birds are expected to be observed within the borrow ponds, ditch, mangrove wetlands and along the fringes of the tidal embayment. The leather fern was observed within the mangrove wetland habitat and the borrow ponds. This proposed project will not be impacting any of the 1.79 acres of the on-site wetlands which may be utilized as habitat by the wading birds and leather ferns. There are currently a combined 77 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows identified on the project site. Based on a 0.6 tortoise per burrow ratio, an estimated 46.2 gopher tortoises currently reside on the project site's upland xeric scrub habitat. All gopher tortoises are proposed to remain within the 5.16 J EAC Meeting Page 6 of 9 acre western portion of the property where the tortoise burrows are located. A gopher tortoise management plan has been provided in the EIS (Exhibit 4.g.iii- 2). A proposed gopher tortoise crossing bridge, intended to connect the tortoise population on the project site to an existing tortoise population across the ditch to the north, is part of a future development concept called the Gordon River Greenway Project. Connecting the two gopher tortoise populations may increase the foraging area and provide for one large contiguous gopher tortoise preserve. Staff has suggested a culvert pipe across the ditch at grade level as another means of providing an interconnection between the two tortoise populations. Technical assistance shall be provided from FFWCC and forwarded to Collier County staff for review. There is a proposed access driveway to be located through the gopher tortoise scrub habitat preserve coming from the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road connecting to the existing parking area to the east that will directly impact seven burrows and 0.79 acres of foraging area. Connecting the two gopher tortoise habitats may alleviate some of the lost foraging area in addition to the thinning out of exotic vegetation on the Conservancy preserve. The burrows that will be impacted by the access driveway will be required to be excavated. Any gopher tortoises and their commensals found shall be relocated to the on site preserve. A gopher tortoise relocation permit shall be required to be obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). If the preserve area is deemed inadequate in size or cover to provide sufficient foraging and nesting habitat by the FFWCC, an off-site relocation permit may be required to relocate to an authorized recipient site. A portion of the access driveway is an elevated driving bridge which will provide a means for the gopher tortoises to utilize and forage on both sides of the preserve. A wildlife crossing culvert to be installed towards the east side of the driveway also provides an additional connection to both sides of the preserve. The access driveway proposed is not required by the Collier County Land Development Code nor the Transportation division. Since it has been documented that scrub habitat is very limited in the State of Florida (approximately 10-15% remaining), staff has made recommendations to the applicant to either remove the access driveway or relocate the access driveway along the drainage ditch to the north where the thinning out of denser canopy tree coverage including exotics may be required to promote the growth of favorable ground cover forage species. This alignment, however, would impact more burrows than the proposed alignment. This project does meet the minimum native preservation requirement and preserves the listed species found on site and the associated habitat consistent with the LDC. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 9 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Site Development Plan No. SDP-2008-AR 13029 with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: 1) This project must receive a SFWMD ERP prior to Site Development Plan approval. Environmental: 1. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission relocation permit shall be obtained for the gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) found on site prior to the commencement of construction activities and a copy shall be forwarded to staff. 2. Provide a report to the Environmental Services staff on the results of the relocation of the gopher tortoises within thirty days of relocation. The report must contain the following information: the number of burrows excavated, the number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site. 3. The removal of any vegetation within the proposed preserve shall be by hand only. No mechanical clearing is permitted. 4. A supplemental planting plan shall be submitted for environmental staff review in the event that it is determined that the natural recruitment of foraging herbaceous species cover is not adequate. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: . / /� 4,„ / 2/44-C 0(5 1 STAN CHRZ i i SKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING I' VIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ////,7 - / t_ , f. CHRIS D'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4 , Ad1fi/(/ &. _ - 1 Z.-w. " H A EL 7A r: ' / DATE ENIOR P A NNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW n EAC Meeting Page 9 of 9 REVIEWED BY: /2-23T- SUSAN 2rSUSAN ► A SO DATE PRINC AL.' VIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 1 r a. -24 -0E3 LIAM D. LORE Z, Jr., .E. DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1111 (Z 23 /® Q JEFF ' HT DAT ASSIS =, T COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: J•:EPH K. SCHMITT DATE /�/a / D •MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR Item VI C ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF January 7, 2009 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: Excavation Permit Number 60.030,AR-12838 Petition Name: Hogan Island Quarry CU Applicant/Developer: Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., Barron Collier Companies Engineering Consultant: RWA, Inc. Environmental Consultant: Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. II. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located 3/ of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) / Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (See attached location map) III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Zoning Description North: A-RLSA/HSA row crops East: A-RLSA/ Portions designated WRA & HSA Water retention areas/row crops South: A-RLSA/ Portions designated WRA Water retention areas/row crops West: A-RLSA row crops IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The petitioners are requesting an excavation permit for an "earth-mining" operation and related processing of materials in a Rural Agricultural (A) — Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District as specified pursuant to Section 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) on approximately 967.65± acres for a project to be known as the Hogan Island Quarry. The Conditional Use, CU-2006-AR-10805, for this project was heard by the EAC on 7 May 2008 and the petition was recommended for approval with stipulations by a vote of seven in favor and one opposed. The Collier County Planning Commission heard Petition CU-2006-AR-10805 on 5 June 2008 and by a vote of 9 in favor and 0 opposed forwarded the petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the stipulations. Conditional Use CU-2006-AR-10805 was approved with stipulations by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) acting as the BZA, as item 17D on the BCC agenda of 22 July 2008. Page 1 of 4 This hearing is to determine whether this application for the excavation that was allowed under Conditional Use CU-2006-AR-10805 meets the standards of the Excavation Ordinance and the stipulations in the BZA approval. The Excavation Permit Application seeks approval of a limestone and sand quarry (mine) on 967 acres to allow the following: • Maximum of 740 acres of excavation area; • On-site related processing, but no asphalt or concrete batch —making plant; • System of internal roadways • 12.77-acre on-site preserve Mining activities will involve excavating overburden and underlying limestone deposits through the creation of various cell pits. Two or three cell pits may be built at a time. As new cells are built, old cells are excavated to remove remaining underlying limestone. Blasting will be necessary as part of the mining operation, which would occur 6 to 8 feet below ground, but would only be conducted during day light hours. Actual mining activities, however, would be implemented twenty-four hours a day. The aggregate processing plant, consisting of crushers and conveyors, would involve the processing of excavated materials. Stock piles of raw and processed product (limestone aggregate, sand) would be stored here. The plant would operate 12 to 16 hours per day. The will also be a small office building, maintenance shop/storage facility(s), parking areas, and above ground fuel and oil storage tanks. A system of haul roads would be built within the mining area around and throughout the various cell pits. These roads would lead to the processing plant near stock piles of excavated materials on-site. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) ANALYSIS: This Section was debated by the EAC during the Conditional Use approval hearing on 7 May 2008. The requested CU was approved and (as part of that approval) was determined to be consistent with the GMP. This application is to determine that the excavation that was allowed under the Conditional Use meets the Excavation Ordinance. VI. MAJOR ISSUES A. Stormwater Management As with all ongoing excavations, stormwater management in the traditional sense is not an issue with this project. The excavation sits within six contiguous Sections of Agriculturally zoned land and will encompass approximately 967.65 acres. Much of the site is already under Surface Water Management Permit1l-00113-S as Hogan Island Farms. The permit will have to be modified for the excavation. Unless there is dewatering offsite, mining operations are not a source of water quantity concern. The approved CU for this project includes a prohibition on dewatering. They generally dewater Page 2 of 4 into other existing excavations within their own site, if at all. Mines of this size that sort aggregates must be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The only water quality concerns will be from construction vehicle fluid leaks, dust, and sediment transport; which are standard concerns for all construction projects and all of which will be controlled at the site. The petitioner states that the depths of the excavations will be in the range of 35 to 45 ft. The site sits in an area identified in the Collier County Drainage Atlas as the Fakahatchee Strand Basin or the Corkscrew Slough Basin, although the topography indicates that the western portion of the site probably drained historically to the west toward the Cocohatchee River basin, so the site seems to straddle the basin boundaries. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the EAC recommend approval of Excavation Permit # 60.030 (AR-12838) subject to the conditions set forth in the approved resolution for the Conditional Use (08-218) and any additional stipulations related to this Excavation Permit request determined to be appropriate by the EAC. PREPARED BY: STAN CHRZANOWSKI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page 3 of 4 c' - U ___, OF e 1-75 C.R. 951 i l'': 1616rill34(404 .c r O y od op F, ad m ‘ ,$)'44 J f i 0 „,-oi .. Z P 4 po 7. OPEI K 00 o 72 Eo T ),-,,�+ \ \ S.R. 29 K 5 m C1 i z -1 ps 11 mA m P O z n PrNOT TO SCALE o , 0 0 ♦ 8 B 7 8 m m a • 0 to _ y a e CO O Z CM m m r cn 1 I > i K O O > D z m N 1�0 m 11�M o Z ♦ Z w G) I T> c rn , \ V V N r u o e O 7 x c e O W : : �. )> L_, 1. c O m 1 z O EAC Members, Please review the Mission Statement written by Paul Lehmann below. Mission Statement for the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) serves as an advisory body to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) and also provides the public with an appellate forum upon which to hear disputes between Collier County staff and applicants regarding land development projects. The EAC has a broad environmental mandate and provides environmentally related input to the Board on a variety of matters such as rezoning petitions, development projects, ordinance development, growth management planning and program implementation. Throughout these processes,the EAC continually focuses on the balance between property rights and the protection of the overall environmental health of Collier County and its citizens for years to come. 257298.1 12/11/2008 COLLIER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY MANAGER 3301 East Tamiami Trail •Naples. Florida 34112 • (239) 252-8*83 •FAX: (239) 252-4010 November 19, 2008 To BCC Advisory Board Liaisons: On November 18, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08-xxxx authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. Please distribute the enclosed Reimbursement Request Forms and Instruction Sheets to all Advisory Board members as soon as possible. Requests for reimbursement will be collected and processed once per year. Please collect all requests at the last meeting in July each year and validate, by signing the form on the appropriate line for each meeting that the board member was in attendance and for which reimbursement is requested. Once complete, forward all forms to Sue Filson for processing. Checks will be mailed to the board member at the address provided on the form no later than October 31st Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, James V. Mudd County Manager ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #2008-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request-reimbursement, please follow the instructions below. 1. Complete the attached form clearly and legibly using one line for each regularly scheduled meeting attended on or after the effective date above. There is no need to complete the column for Reimbursement Rate or Amount requested. 2. Attach a copy of a map indicating the driving distance to and from each meeting. Only one copy of the map to or from each location is required. Maps can be obtained and printed using any computer generated map program such as Mapquest, Yahoo, or Google Maps. 3. At the last meeting prior to July 31 of each year, submit the completed form to the Advisory Board Liaison for processing. Checks will be mailed to the address shown on the form no later than October 31st 4. Incomplete or illegible forms will be returned unprocessed. 1 0 l O N 0 0' d a> v Oa) I- O Q .0 Q - - a) a)O C4 0 O aub bU = �; z 9 2 e ' , 0 HL , N P. N y Z p //-'�� rl r 1 ) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NWQQ '-wN N FSI v 1 Z3 � E-y cu 0. 44. a> fd70 F= W 0 cn W E4 cu A Q) a >, •„; � a) o U 'O o 0 a, ¢ V) F. c OO O A O (' E O Z wa) ow a a) 8 N C4 W ,0 > C N LU > y `, r _, ct cd Gi 0 L a r-+ 5, 7.. H 4E4+ .7- • 2 H r;, G ;? o "" O O < ; z 0 VDv, 1,,,,,, • ¢' > 4 Z to co 2 w o .,>< y ( -7 Q on. CL Z a w Z CI -Pu .5 cu w a. Q 0 ,,..� a A a� ami • W H aW c O W a< Q 0. :� �� -%,§' t� yrs',, � Kms,. xca , . e�y f^a ,y �` ,3 ,s e4 3. - : Community f#t ,,t . . _ '�,rte: ,`, .� r�. ..f: �.. �..-;. _-__,- 74--,-.„.„,-; ',..�x,+ =;s`�a.'a� .�"�:`°'�� x'� �2".'�� „`� '�ezg��.'`� z''}s..'s�+�4:'�a `�..�r`' "'F�` a. Land „,,-,,,..„ Rural ,,s .,„ Stewardship '''.,..: Area Program ..,..,. „ 3 1 2007 Annual Report .., f to the Legislature , , December 31 2007 Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard �' Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 0 .c. , Community Affairs �� Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Department RLSA Implementation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Collier County Rural Lands Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability in Collier County. . . . . 12 St. Lucie County RLSA(Adams Ranch/Cloud Grove) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability in St. Lucie County. . . 16 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Detailed Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Attachment 2: Department of Community Affairs Authorization Process. . . . . . . . . . 22 Attachment 3: Collier County RLSA factors for the calculation of stewardship credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Attachment 4: St. Lucie RLSA Credit Worksheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Introduction his report is the Department's first annual report maintain the economic value of rural land must also further to the Legislature regarding the implementation the other principles of rural sustainability: 4 of the Rural Land Stewardship Area(RLSA) L. program as required by s.163.3177(11)(d)8, These principles are also reflected in the concurrently Florida Statutes. enacted"Rural and Family Lands Protection Act"in Chapter 570.70,Florida Statutes,which provides the The RLSA program was established in 2001 under s. following legislative findings that are consistent with the 1633177(11)(d),Florida Statutes.Since then,the Stature intent of the Rural Land Stewardship Area program: has been amended four times,in 2002,2004,2005,and 2006. St.Lucie County adopted the first and so far the "(1) A thriving rural economy with a strong agricultural only RLSA comprehensive plan amendment under the base,healthy natural environment,and viable rural statute in 2006. Prior to enactment of the statute,Collier communities is an essential part of Florida.Rural areas also County initiated a rural lands program for its eastern rural include the largest remaining intact ecosystems and best lands to meet the requirements of a Final Order of the examples of remaining wildlife habitats as well as a majority Administration Commission. The Collier program is not of privately owned land targeted by local,state,and federal subject to the requirements of the RLSA statute. Two other agencies for natural-resource protection. ,••-\ counties,Osceola and Highlands,have initiated the process for designating RLSAs. Several other counties and large (2) The growth of Florida's population can result in landowners have expressed an interest in the program. agricultural and rural lands being converted into residential or commercial development. The RLSA program provides an alternative,incentive- based planning process for conserving agricultural and (3) The agricultural,rural,natural-resource,and commodity environmentally sensitive lands. As the name of the RLSA values of rural lands are vital to the state's economy, statute indicates,the emphasis is on stewardship. The goal productivity,rural heritage,and quality of life. of the program is to further each of the following principles of rural sustainability: (4) The Legislature further recognizes the need for enhancing the ability of rural landowners to obtain 1. restoration and maintenance of the economic value of economic value from their property;protecting rural rural land; character,controlling urban sprawl,and providing necessary open space for agriculture and the natural environment,and 2. control of urban sprawl; the importance of maintaining and protecting Florida's rural economy through innovative planning and development 3. identification and protection of ecosystems,habitats, strategies in rural areas and the use of incentives that -and natl. resources; reward landowners for good stewardship of land and natural 4. promotion of rural economic activity; resources." 5. maintenance of the viability of Florida's agriculture; The RLSA program is required to utilize innovative and planning strategies that allow appropriate,well planned development while conserving rural/agricultural and 6. protection of the character of rural areas of Florida. environmentally sensitive lands and protecting them (s.163.3177(11)(d)ES.): from urban sprawl_ The primary method is to allow rural landowners to voluntarily transfer stewardship credits from sending areas,i.e.,lands identified as having Thus,any development permitted in a RLSA to restore and resources worthy of protection,to receiving areas,i.e.,lands w _x,> '"u T ror -fr: }a ray '* "rz`.�r-x f�. *�, _s. a,4�.-..: �� Department of Community Affairs • 4 identified as more suitable for development. Once lands par-tictlar,it is essential that priority be given to all of the have been designated as sending areas the agricultural and statutory principles of rur sustainability and nor just to �~ � F F � natural resources on these lands are protected from future the maximization of development potential at the expense development by way of permanent stewardship easements of the other principles. Development is an integral part that run with the Land in perpetuity. of the RLSA concept,but the type,amount,and location of development must be compatible with the statutory The RLSA program has great potential for protecting principles of rural sustainability farmland,conserving natural resources,and ensuring our rural landscapes are available for future generations to use To date,experience with the RLSA concept has been and enjoy It also presents many challenges,including the limited to the pre-RLSA statute Collier program and challenge of fundamentally redirecting how development the St.Lucie RLSA. The critical review of the Collier occurs in rural areas. and St.Lucie experiences in this report is not intended to disparage these two programs. On the contrary;it is The successful implementation of the RLSA.program is recognized that these are pioneering programs which have especially important for the state's agricultural economy. broken new ground in rural planning. We can learn from Agriculture is one of Florida's leading industries,producing these experiences. On the other hand,while each of these a total economic impact of 597.8 billion. Agricultural programs have some commendable features,neither of lands cover ten million acres in Florida. Yet agriculture them,taken as a whole,is an acceptable model for achieving is under threat from urbanization,exotic pests,and all of the statutory goals. global competition. In the last decade,about 500,000 acres have been converted from agriculture to other uses, Both programs raise concerns which must be satisfactorily including urban sprawl. According to the Commissioner addressed if the RLSA program is to achieve its goals, of Agriculture Charles Bronson,"Perhaps the most especially those relating to the conservation of agricultural significant long-term challenge for many sectors of Florida lands and the maintenance of rural economies. Some agriculture is the loss of agricultural lands from conversion of those concerns are listed in the discussions of the two to development or into public ownership for conservation." programs in this report. The Department intends to (July 24,2006 Letter to Speaker Marco Rubio) address these concerns in the RLSA rule currently under development. Achieving the laudable goals of the RLSA program requires effective implementation of the statutory requirements. In § .+ { z^'-c, ..m re, .i4ffr ¢ Department of Community Affairs • Legislative History he original RLSA statute was enacted in 2001. It acres to 10,000 acres and the maximum size threshold was ° authorized up to five pilot projects with a mini- removed. mum RLSA size of 50,000 acres and a maximum size of 250,000 acres. The program was to be In 2005,development in a RLSA was exempted monitored by the Department by providing annual reports from the development of regional impact process if to the legislature and the program was not to be extended certain other planning steps were followed. Language until its success had been demonstrated. regarding stewardship credits was modified to require the establishment of a methodology and assurance that the In 2002,the requirement for consistency with s.1633187 credits would enable the long term vision and goals for the F S.,which includes the requirement for internal consistency 25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA. The and financial feasibility;was added. assignment of higher credits to open space and agricultural lands was specifically addressed. n In 2004,the pilot status was removed even though no RLSAs had been adopted and the success of the program in In 2006,language regarding the creation of stewardship meeting the legislative intent of rural sustainability had not credits was further modified to take into account the been evaluated. The application process was streamlined anticipated effect of the proposed receiving areas. including an exemption of the RLSA plan amendments from the twice per year limitation on plan amendments. A more detailed review of the legislative history is provided The minimum size threshold was reduced from 50,000 in Attachment 1. Department of Community Affairs Department RLSA Implementation Activities • ''he Department has taken the following steps in regard to the RLSA program and other rural planning 2007 to implement the Rural Land Stewardship techniques. Area program_ .-= S. The Department has conducted an active public out- 1. As required by the RLSA statute,the Department reach program to inform local governments,landown- has established a process to authorize designation of ers,and other stakeholders about the RLSA program. a rural land stewardship area that includes site visits, The Department's Secretary has made presentations technical assistance,requirements for public participa- about RLSA at several regional forums and at a forum tion,and clarification of the requirements to initiate for state agency officials in Tallahassee. Department a RLSA plan amendment The process is included in staff has participated in local RLSA workshops in Attachment 2. Highlands County and Manatee County and have held numerous meetings with representatives of local 2. The original 2001 RLSA statute contemplated rule- governments and landowners to discuss potential making to implement RLSAs. In 2007,the Depart- RLSA proposals. ment initiated rulemaking. Two rule development workshops were held on July 19,2007 and September b.The Department has targeted its technical assistance �\ 24,2007. The Department will issue its draft pro- funds for rural counties and areas of the state where posed rule for public comment in the very near future. RLSA proposals are most likely to originate. As part of this effort,the Department has provided funding 3. The Department has established a Rural Lands State to support a regional visioning process initiated by Interagency Technical Advisory Group which consists the Central Florida Regional Planning Council in the of representatives from the Department of Agriculture Florida Heartland where there are numerous potential and Consumer Services,Department of Environmen- RLSAs. tal Protection,Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,South Florida Water Management Dis- 7. The Department has received notices of intent to trict,Southwest Florida Water Management District, designate RLSAs in Osceola County and Highlands Central Florida Regional Planning Council,and the County. After evaluating the proposals,the Depart- Department of Transportation. The members will meat authorized designation of a RLSA in Osceola provide the Department with technical expertise and County and in Highlands County. The two coun- advice in evaluating proposed RLSA designations and ties and the affected landowners are now considering RLSA comprehensive plan amendments. whether and how to proceed. 4. The Department has established a Rural and Natu- 8. The Department has analyzed and evaluated the ral Resources Planning Section within the agency's Collier County rural lands program and the St.Lucie Division of Community Planning to provide technical RLSA,each of which is discussed in this report. assistance and guidance to rural communities with r r - � � w 7-WAE sVi j .�, .gyp- _ Department of Community Affairs Collier County Rural Lands Program Background some people advocate the Collier program as a model for RLSA implementation,the Department has evaluated this Collier County's RLSA was adopted in 2002 in response to program. a Final Order of the Administration Commission in 1999. The program was commenced prior to the enactment of Geography and Land Use the RLSA statute,was not subject to the requirements of the statute,and was not reviewed by the Department for A commendable feature of the Collier RLSA program is consistency with the RLSA statute. Nevertheless,because that it is large-scale. The RLSA contains 195,846 acres of which approximately 182,000 acres were in private ownership. The — RLSA is located in eastern Florida Collier County along the �� northern county bound- rt -. .` Orlando ary shared with Hendry Myers Tampa and Lee counties_ Within Collier Count};it is lo- cated east of the Corkscrew Bonita Swamp Sanctuary and Springs Golden Gate Estates. It is located on the northwest corner of the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical 75 State Concern(ACSC), and 63,700 acres(33%)of Naples -�� the RLSA are within the boundaries of the ACSC. The RLSA is separated 300 square mile from the Naples urban Rural Land area by extensive rural and Stewardship Area natural resource areas and US 41 (RLSA) by Golden Gate Estates. However,the Immokalee urban area is an enclave in the center of the RLSA. The exclusion of Immoka- lee precludes the transfer of stewardship credits to Figure 1:Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Department of Community Affairs this existing development area. Figure 1 shows the RLSA eligible for development through the receipt of transferred within Collier County: stewardship credits whereas lands with higher environmen- tal values are not eligible to become receiving areas. See Most of the lands were in agricultural use when the RLSA Figure 2. was established as shown in the following Table 1. Sending areas may be established throughout the RLSA. Table 1:Agricultural Lands in Collier RLSA in 2000 There are no requirements to cluster sending areas to ensure Type of Agriculture Acres the protection of larger areas or ensure geographic connec- tions. This can result in a patchwork quilt pattern of pro- Citrus 39,034 tected and unprotected areas. Further,sending areas are not Row Crops 36,037 required to be adjacent to receiving areas which will eventu- Water Retention 19,155 ally receive the stewardship credits or have any geographic Areas relationship to the receiving area. This allows for lands Pasture 16,273 surrounding receiving areas to develop out at the underlying Grazing Leases 63,616 land use in a low-density sprawl pattern. Specialty Farms/other 2,497 The assignment of stewardship credits to create incentives Total Agriculture Acres 176,612 for the establishment of sending areas is a very detailed and complex multi-step process utilizing a geographic informa- A large portion of the agricultural lands included significant tion system. The process is established by multiple policies wildlife habitat for listed species. Wetlands covered 74,586 and a worksheet in the adopted plan. The factors that are acres of the RLSA,including both private and publicly used to calculate the amount of stewardship credits for owned lands and overlapping with some of the agricultural proposed sending areas include the natural resource attri- lands. butes;the land use rights that will remain on the sending area;restoration opportunities and ongoing restoration and The majority of the more intensely farmed lands surround land use management commitments;and early bonus credits Immokalee. This area is known as the Immokalee Rise. Ar- available during the first five years of the program. eas to the east,west,and south of Immokalee are lower in el- evation and contain the majority of the wetlands. The lands The Collier system is extremely complex. There are over now in agriculture surrounding Immokalee are the most twenty general attributes that are evaluated for every acre environmentally suitable for agriculture as well as urban of land in the RLSA. Similar in complexity are the land development because of the relative lack of wetlands and use rights or"layers"that must be removed from a sending wildlife habitat compared to other lands within the RLSA. area in order to receive credits. There are seven separate and distinct land use layers. The landowner chooses how many Collier County RLSA Elements land use layers will be removed. The more layers removed, the more stewardship credits earned and the removal of An important element of the RLSA is determining what layers and creation of credits can happen multiple times. lands should be protected through the designation of send- For example,a sending area may remove residential uses but ing areas and what lands might be developed through the keep institutional uses,or remove residential and institution- designation of receiving areas. In order to accomplish this, al but keep recreational,including golf courses and then at a land areas within the RLSA were broadly grouped into five later time remove recreational uses. In most cases however, categories:Flowway Stewardship Areas,Habitat Steward- sending areas have removed all land use layers down to one ship Areas,Water Retention Areas,Public Conservation of the agricultural layers. Attachment 3 provides additional Areas,and Open Areas. Open Areas consisting of mostly details on this process. agricultural lands having lower environmental value covered 92,800 acres or 51%of the private lands in the RLSA. De- The stewardship credit assignment process creates substan- velopment receiving areas may be located anywhere within tial incentives for land parcels with high natural resource this very large Open Area and are not allowed in the other values to become sending areas. Thus far,the credit values categories. In other words,the Open Areas which include assigned are over five times the density value of the underly- the more intensely farmed lands constitute the land areas ing land use. 'This results in a greater amount of develop- 4*. I "_'" �w-` .;_sa Department of Community Affairs Figure 2: Collier Rural Land Stewardship Areas Rural Lands Stewardship Areas o s r I v lmmokatee CR • iA 4 At erg Q., C _states - ¢ m i . ¢ U o OIL WELL Ro j to -tat ccj m t, 1 UI i Co w -,t,„.`„-'23 - . �~ 0 , //�� 3 Y Open A[na Ad- j {° Co�aeYal�d�Lardt x""a" AASC 1 �__ , TYPE ei Ccr(ererCvunth/ :"-1.'''''''-' „' . , 2: ,+ 4 h _.�,.�. � � ... ,li' m - .„ » :=-*-- '.�s,,,`..=,,.wFit ��,,,- /-N. > Fm *r ,. R '` 3' _ tix'a s 'fes " "`� R a -1 Department of Community Affairs merit in the receiving areas,which over time Will impact the on rural resources,including agriculture. surrounding rural landscape. The development footprint of receiving areas does not It has not been demonstrated that such a high incentive is include the potential for development of the underlying use. necessary to ensure voluntary participation,nor has it been The underlying use in Collier County is one dwelling unit demonstrated that the larger amount of development al- per five acres and as noted,this density exceeds the incen- lowed would be compatible with the long term conservation tive provided for many agricultural lands under the RLSA. of rural resources,including rural character. Thus,it is allowable and possible that farmlands in the RLSA that do not participate in the program may develop For agricultural lands with less natural resource value, out at the underlying use of one dwelling unit per five acres, there is a disincentive to become a sending area since the promulgating a low-density sprawl pattern surrounding the resulting credit value would create less density for transfer developed receiving areas. than the underlying land use. Most of the 92,800 acres of Open Areas designated as eligible for receiving areas have a The number of potential stewardship credits also has imply-~ disincentive to become sending areas. Instead,these Open cations for the potential number of dwelling units,popula- Areas that are mostly in agricultural use have the converse tion,and non-residential development that could occur in incentive to become either a receiving area or to develop at the RLSA. The original estimate by the county was for the underlying land use of one dwelling unit per five acres. 36,466 dwelling units which would house a population of In this respect,the Collier program is not protecting and about 87,000 persons. However,this estimate was not based conserving agricultural lands. on the maximum allowable densities and did not consider the subsequent increase in stewardship credit creation. Sev- During the initial planning process and in Collier RLSA eral projections of ultimate RLSA population are possible Policy 2.1,it was anticipated that stewardship receiving including one estimate by Collier County planning staff of areas would only consume 9 to 10%of the private land- 389,193 people. A more conservative estimate would be holdings in the RLSA. In other words,the spatial extent 200,000 persons. It is questionable whether this very large of new development or the development footprint would amount of develo2ment is consistent with rural sustainabil- be about 16,800 acres. This would be controlled in part by ity including maintaining the viability of agriculture_ the total amount of stewardship credits possible throughout the RLSA. However,prior to adoption of the plan amend- Forms of development within the Collier County receiving meat,several revisions allowed for an increase in the total areas include: number of stewardship credits which in turn increased the amount of acres that could be designated as receiving areas. Towns ranging in size from 1,000 to 4,000 acres(1,000 to The maximum number of stewardship credits in the RLSA 16,000 dwelling units:2,000 to 40,000 residents);villages is..—not known ancTiht iI he maxzrnumpotential development ranging in size from 100 to 1,000 acres;hamlets ranging footprint cannot be determined. However,the nine send- in size from-10 to 100 acres;and"compact rural develop- ing areas created thus far compose 24,372 acres and could merit." The maximum density for a town is 4 dwelling units enable up to 7,507 acres in receiving areas or 24%of the per gross acre. The non-residential requirements are not amount of acreage designated as sending and receiving areas. supported by data and analysis showing an appropriate bal- It is also worth noting that the two Stewardship Districts ance of uses. Other than the towns,it is unlikely that these enacted by the Legislature in 2004 include a total of 32,506 developments would be sustainable communities in terms of acres or about twice the acreage initially contemplated for providing an adequate balance of living,working,shopping, Lthe total development footprint. civic,recreation,and other uses. There is no requirement The spatial extent as well as the distribution or pattern of development within a RLSA is important with regard to the 1 2005 Build-Out Study Attachment A in the East of CCrmty Road 951 impacts on surrounding rural lands and the fragmentation of Infrastructure and Seri'tces Horizon Study Preliminary Report downloaded rural resources including wildlife habitat and farmlands. The from Collier County Website on December 77,2007. larger the footprint and the more developments encroach into and carve up the rural landscape,the greater the impact http://www.colliergov net/moduieiShowDocument.aspx:documented=830 Department of Community Affairs that these areas be functionally related to the surround- Table 2: Sending Area Attributes ing rural economy and are more likely to be linked to the Land Type ` Acres Naples urban area. Other areas,especially the compact rural developments which provide for low-density suburban style Flowway Stewardship Area 8,876.7 residential,may promote sprawl and the fragmentation of Habitat Stewardship Area 12,860.8 the rural landscape. Water Retention Area 43.5 Open Area 2,591.8 Under the Collier RLSA program,large developments Total SSA Lands 24,372.8 are required to undergo Development of Regional Impact review Policies in the comprehensive plan require provision for adequate public facilities and services. Table 3: Sending Area Land Uses Land Type Layer Remaining Acres The Collier Plan has not established how many new towns and villages can be created in the RLSA.,lhe only hm�it is Agriculture 1 5,288.6 a maximum of 5 hamlets or compact development areas per Agriculture 2 18,382.5 each town or village. In one study;the County planning Conservation 651.3 staff forecast the possibility of 5 towns,18 villages,and over Mining 50.1 10 hamlets and compact rural developments associated with these towns and villages. If it is conservatively estimated that 22,500 acres of receiving areas can be created,then it additional sending areas that are currently pending. Figure is very possible that 4 to 5 towns and several villages may 4 shows these areas. be created along with some hamlets and compact rural developments. The number of separate development types One receiving area,the new town of Ave Maria,has been depends on the six of the town or village which can vary approved and is under development at this time. Ave substantially as indicated earlier. Maria has the distinction of having a new university which will provide an economic base. Ave Maria contains 5,027 Current Status acres and is approved for 11,000 residential dwelling units, 690,000 square feet of retail,510,000 square feet of office, Nine sending areas have been approved. The following 400 hotel rooms,6,000 student dormitories,450 assisted Table 2 shows the RLSA land attributes for these send- living units,148,500 square feet of civic and community ing areas. Figure 3 shows the location of the sending areas uses,and 35,000 square feet of medical and educational as well as the one approved receiving area,Ave Maria,and uses. two pending sending areas. It is worthwhile noting that the sending areas are for the most part geographically separate Most of the existing uses on the Ave Maria site that are from the Ave Maria receiving area. Sending areas numbered being converted to urban uses were agriculture,including 1 through 6 enabled the Ave Maria receiving area. Sending 3,357 acres of row crops,583 acres of improved pasture,327 areas 7 through 9 have not yet been used. Table 3 shows the acres of sod farms,and 133 acres of fallow crop land. Thus, land uses that remain on the nine sending areas. over 87%of the receiving area was agricultural land. The nine designated sending areas have relatively higher A second receiving area named Big Cypress,located east of environmental values although a significant portion of the Ave Maria,is pending. The pre-application for the Devel- land is used or available for lower intensity agriculture,such opment of Regional Impact indicates that it would cover as ranching. For the most part,low intensity agriculture will 3,612 acres including 8,997 dwelling units,831,000 square be allowed to continue on these lands under the stewardship feet of retail,496,530 square feet of light industrial,858,330 easements. Wetland and habitat restoration has occurred square feet of office,and 500 hotel rooms. Current land on 3,344.5 acres. Also of note is that 18,116.7 acres(74%) cover includes 1,908 acres of row crops,317 acres of other of the designated sending areas are within the Big Cypress cropland and pasture,293 acres of improved pasture,79 Swamp Area of Critical State Concern,which already acres of fallow cropland,and other various agricultural uses. provided additional protections to these lands. There are 7 Thus,about 72%of the receiving area is agriculture land. Pa-a Department of Community Affairs Status Ma Figure 3:Coiner County RLSA p � N 1 _}-`x. <--,11!,:-‘7,-.,;-_--,74,-4:-„u:,t� RLSA Status Map Y .u�,0 arM SSa.„Ha:e -teams,,,,,,,,,.%,....„44 ihn,_s�' !„-----...\,.4..-_ 1N r -.- - / �1`i?41 11r ' -€'- . •'j 1 „•} - _ ''.'L R a tr ri.';.: 10;” / 'j:-'''.f•t,'5'''' ''. . -';'' V./.,41 /...." '410 ''. ' . -'..,.',.7;:,..'' '-- -. - "7 / , ///,,ir''c'xit?,Ati'.2::::',-.''''''''''.::‘:::::..--. - . • -• ;.: ' ,• ; - figii : ...,:;,;(%/4-...... -..5.4;3„:V,IN'---,,,.-- -.',-;--.',-. -'\`,..- - , M ‘- *- tiliM r''' • '.c' '''1.--- -.1,-,r,i•Ci-:.N k4.4,,,iNf.--.---,--„,-'--„:" .fr:-.7-:::::i-f„,:i_1' ::.:-..,.,. 't:'''''' ' •--,...11.:.-:\. .--.,i.' ,--'-'1.\ �i, t --:-.:-.7;.i.! ki:-...,,,,...:;'-.11---_,-'71-_-_-„,,,-,1';J.-'-'•-'-`1,-Xi'vkV.-' r _ ° ,.{� 4 E Ntits d ::-74'..--1':- � w: SSP.19 and 5Sa�it Have nvibeen6ayuedazd Jut 1701-',.J'OF �� x �t s ttF : '. "a. ." si g+ , t �¢f ., 7,- !- --' 3''.i'': R x '_ .4'5,.'c'--t? YW.n � ^ uJ^ . `a., a...p .x+s«,5 . -•s�o--e .. ... ,. Department of Community Affairs Figure 4 Collier County RLSA Pending Sending Area fa>rf,.t, :Nn . '"___ ,a�tdrt �r,_sta f� ate . € p.= 14. 1 0, f a 1 Z l-°`%k '' _. 1 .. of yc 3y* — i us ;p, _T___.. SiS Viz'.. NsP • fr. .a�, 7 ., f _ay' .tom . f # „� t. ,. a., 1 -a u3 f iW ! u p ! ,„ts' � �'� .J:•�"K ° � sem *' {' �, a I' $i 4 j$t' r is `'. i $'' I s, . 1 -':,",-;‘• -: -7 % F ._.- . ,,,1'3 k ra#z , Y # .F '', ,, ,i,,,..„......,,:' ''' t s x a .x s ,. '.,.7„,..-i:ii.t-i . 407,,,,,,t -: 1 :4',.'. . '4' : ,j1116;:: ,...L- - ''''-:, ,' 1;-,4:11141-,„.,42 �.: ' r ' '� ,f� a er #ixw 7.1'..1- ''''',,,,,,,_,'-'7 -./.:::ii, 441/ , > 9 / epi Tf:',..,.S2_7_4444414.ki'V,41,- ,-'*.-, --°' 1,. ,ro ,.,,,,itr....?" 1a. ww ° i fi'. [ a P 1,;"� ai ,' a•-5€ e 4 ` Igo.0. ;. - ..a' ham " b' -�' ° r -., „ urs' : - r ,-?..,1/4.:47i, '' - 4'> r- • 9 /� ' s t '1 'fit+ iii'''''---1'47r-4*, 4 x� :r .. rts �, t 3 - �: ✓. Department of Community Affairs Finally,the Collier RLSA is currently undergoing a five year 5.The ultimate total amount and geographic extent or evaluation by the County as required by plan policy. footprint of development in the RLSA cannot be determined and there are practically no standards Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability guiding the distribution of development areas. The in Collier County large 93,000 acre area eligible for designation of re- ceiving areas,which also allows the conversion of land 1.Approximately 24,000 acres have been designated as uses to the underlying low-density uses,is the exact sending areas and the majority of these lands have opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suit- highly valued environmental features. Most of these able areas. This may lead to fragmentation of natural sending areas will allow lower intensity agricultural areas,wildlife habitat,and agricultural areas. The activities which should be compatible with the exist- overall rural character of the area is under threat from ing environmental resources. Sending areas pending the potentially large amount of urban development. approval total about 30,000 acres. 6.The compatibility of new urban development with 2.About 18,000 acres of the approved sending areas are the surrounding rural landscape has not been well located in the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical addressed in terms of buffer requirements,greenbelts, Concern and most are far removed from development or other provisions for the spatial arrangement and pressures. Therefore,the benefits of protecting these separation of urban areas across the rural landscape. lands are not as great as it might be if the lands were 7. Although the plan requires the provision of public under the threat of development. facilities and services,the availability of adequate Wa- 3. Despite the inclusion of statements in the plan ter supply was not evaluated in the plan amendment amendment that agricultural should be protected,the for the amount of development that may occur in the Collier RLSA was not designed to protect agricultur- RLSA al lands from conversion to urban development. Over 6,000 acres of the more intensely farmed agricultural 8.Transportation corridors connecting to the receiving areas may promote further urban sprawl as well as lands are being planned for conversion to urban uses t1 in the approved Ave Maria and proposed Big Cypress possibly fragment the rural landscape. new towns alone. 9.The complexity and flexibility inherent in the Collier 4.The more productive agricultural lands have a disin- how the program works let alone forecast or plan for County approach makes it difficult to comprehend centive to become sending areas or continue in agri- future culture. The continued availability of the underlying development scenarios. It would be difficult and expensive for smaller rural counties with limited land use allows for the development of low-density resources to implement and monitor such a complex ranchette development and sprawl program. Department of Community Affairs Attachment 3: Collier County RLSA factors for the calculation of stewardship credits Natural Resource Attributes and Values for Credit Calculation Natural Resource Index Factors Value Overlay Designations Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA): Primarily privately owned wetlands (To receive these credits, 0.7 residential. general conditional, earth mining. and recreational uses must be removed.)4 Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA):Agricultural areas mostly suitable as habitat for listed species 0.6 (To receive these credits, residential uses must be removed, however other development uses 4-- including institutional and golf courses may remain—see layer discussion below)5 Water Retention Area(WRA):Agricultural water detention areas permitted by the Water 0.6 Management District Area of Critical State Concern 0.4 Proximity Indices Enclosed by FSA, HAS, or WRA 0.4 Within 300 feet of FSA or HSA 0.3 Within 300 feet of public or private preserve land 0.2 Listed Species Habitat Indices Panther occupied plus other listed species 0.8 <.._, Panther occupied 0.5 Other documented listed species habitat 0.4 Soils/Surface Water Indices Open Water and Muck Depression Soils 0.4 Sand Depression Soils 0.3 Flats(Transitional) Soils 0.2 Restoration Potential Indices(based on potential and historic use or character) Large Mammal Corridor Restoration Areas 0.5 Connector wetlands and flowway restoration areas 0.5 Wading bird restoration areas 0.4 Other listed species restoration areas 0.3 Land Use—Land Cover Indices Wetlands: Hardwoods, Cypress, Forested-Mixed, Marshes,Wet Prairies, and Cypress-Pine- 0.4 Cabbage Palm(Transitional) Uplands: Palmetto prairies, pine flatwoods, temperate hardwood, hardwood-conifer mixed, other 0.3 hardwoods, cabbage palm Agriculture: Improved and unimproved pastures, woodland pastures, row crops, citrus,fruit 0.2 orchards, tree nurseries, sod farms, ornamentals, specialty farms, other agricultural lands,fallow lands. Open lands: Herbaceous dry prairie, other shrubs and brush, mixed rangelands, Brazilian pepper. Water: streams and waterways, lakes and reservoirs of various sizes RLS Policy(WI)3.5 RLSA Policies(VII)3.6 and 3.7 Department of Community Affairs Land Use Layers: Land in the RLSA has many possible uses which have been divided up into discrete land uses that are generally referred to as layers_ Each layer has a value that is multiplied times the natural resource value to determine the number of credits allowed. For example,if the natural resource value totals to 1.5 and only the residential layer is removed,then 1.5 would be multiplied by 0.2 to get a credit value of 0.3. The layers and their values are: 1. Residential:Value=0.2 • Includes associated recreational such as golf,parks,playgrounds,tennis 2. General Conditional Uses:Value=0.2 • Includes a variety of institutional type uses including landing strips and schools 3. Mining:Value=0.1 4. Recreational:Value=0.1 • Including golf courses 5. Agricultural Group 1:Value=0.2 • Includes row crops,citrus,horticulture,improved pasture,dairies,aquaculture,etc. 6. Agricultural Support Uses:Value=0.1 • Including farmworker housing,agricultural retail,packing houses 7. Agricultural Group 2:Value=0.1 • Including unimproved pasture,ranching,agricultural-educational operations 8. Conservation uses:Value=0.0 • Includes oil and gas exploration and field development and production with some restrictions. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order indicated above(adopted as the Land Use Matrix in the Comprehensive Plan). Therefore,in order for an SSA to be created,residential land uses must be removed first. Note that even if residential uses are removed,other significant uses remain possible if not also removed Within Flowway Stewardship Areas(FSAs)the first four layers must be removed to become a SSA. These layers include residential,general conditional(institutional uses),earth mining,and recreational uses. There are some exceptions. Within Habitat Stewardship Areas(HSAs),residential uses must be removed to become a SSA. Other uses including general condi- tional,earth mining,and recreational uses are limited within HSAs. Within FSAs and HSAs that are designated as SSAs,existing and permitted agriculture use may continue,but expansion is restricted. The purpose of this policy is to limit the further expansion of agriculture into natural areas within the SSA. "�-t.:„ -v�.� .�,.. +�.e � � fir} # -_.� _ �� :ro, - "�' � `F' 4t«* Department of Community Affairs w I I 13 N N N m V N U N - ° t N 0 Ca N d O d ,n 2 02 co a m C C7 (A .CD 13 m U C+) c U .0 co o ° CC CA r.+ ¢ C7 W ¢ Q Q0 al Et 0 111 au Q s' rt 'i coOg m S: m o -O K 0 C O j O CC _L �Y .. J Q O,R C . i. o O lUJ c d m 0 171 0 ��,' o d z G_ O . In 0.. = a3 , 'L a, i U ri N C U U U U C 73y 0 CC C7 W CC < < < U •-• r tiy,.., m U) y H s'' _ :C r13 a ..1,:',!.1::‘... 0 en W { 4tl c '`' h C �.0 O O ,..1, O O CO x" O lD O �, C O a. Z'.....1-'4. �j N N 1t - .- d 0 tit - -)0( , o „„. . a E o y _ a o V o' m m 'A E U $ N .a o 0 1.9 a 4. C N.,9,N O§_ CSI m a m c N h C n CL N 111 c J� VI v 1 , F Q !� . 8 "co. T) , m 0 D c v a T 01, -o 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 s o C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �• t! m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R 'E (o m ..-Ti .7N > la 6 c,- ° O d 0 y N �C O (n men ° X , 3 ( X)Peleuiwil3,a6el 44 m ai 4.) x 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'a 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I 4. 6 o 0 0 0 0 0 o c �. �4D � I' i °).( � � i wi I 'vm ��= � Eo teco ooOo000o aZ ) C i6 C O O O O O O C U 0 U) -W W T. U ° °rn 'v I '' m • y o U E a m a o Z O CU 4CCa _ U U o g.3 m CO .0 �J g = masCC I ¢ a) 2 x gam; Ca fi �d C 42;2, = I 3� .7 CO 4 m Eymo yr x5 co 0 m rn Y : .., C� Eno mDm3m Z ' i N o y m us Qa �tg2 �.arxisni o ) *NA IS N AO-,� I-N a¢5` d C® N L -Er,VVH LL T"* N i,,,.....,„ @ 7 U- •o U)m x" 7 O • o m t T. ? U C Cv c c c a m � .N E o - 4- p p a, n1 E A O O O P. d,, ▪ Y °'p m c R'o E y a•� O CD 5 a. m N V N N c O. n_c -7.,,, ° Q 0aO r ...2 aW > 3�6N mv CU 0 . co O_ O h tD (O O K M N O OOOOO O O p O Om ,On O 1111 O N .,:t M O O O O O O •V () N O O O O O ° p` xd Q OU .N_... No N N , N 7 - O m 8000000 c NNv NA W 111 p °' u• o T 'k J T a7 a1 fa c a£ w Ta m a a n E E N. ll•-• 0 No E E N O - N X a . I 2 O N y a) m 05 d.., N F am. W >C Y o N P & O '— m `� c°1i u Na en c H 13 ~-5 G O. co p CU LL 7 O R to iN a) a c N To 0 aCO a) 0 c cn L• a) - ~ vN vN :� Vl 0.0 A a c m d N j .0m "O. U C-O N L0) ¢ m ' in sl 11 Q ° N -§ N y Q -.5 ,p (t_ Yq ° OO N ° Opn0dimO .- N «L G NCn CO tO = LLa ,Crr _ moN f N.a E> gd N a0 ••• mr Q 9 a, aN ` c. vovmE E 0 w m > at ¢ o s > m -0 -0 -g >) cm pm, `o o C 7 7 7 Z 'm mC7 Ci' Ow -op c2m o v, d 'm o 2 o cm ,Ai m CO CO m CmJ 'n7 (A7 L asro oLLma araam m m ° N 3 m p mJommmoomWr a_im ° N ty mro oOmO ° aoom v UUUU u vvi ' U E Od V N T (7) m U $ V oo () r m - fa ti m o o dy = N N C o E o o v v o pt - E ° m•- o 3,, (0 y aac'Oo 43 .O m 3 ° c9o - 0 m m U U U U cc mc C ° .0a Gl $ xl N No O ° g 1 c° �« c c6c m m ° N1m t c c J J Juvi aa, a, m a, o, o, • • lij J ¢ Cw ¢ 000 .o � x3QZ & E § z . m az owu_ ztt' .`) o oz � (_ u_ u_ _ ?1-,........:...,„::: i::.:', ..:!,'''''' � tu;W §• M • i a a ■ E > E 0 p 0. - 4.. s. .. Cr) 0 � Q N 0 —,,,,,,,-„,„,..)„,,,,..„,..,,,,,, , ... ,....;._. iii.,..,, ..4%, , , .,,,,,,,,,,,,„,„,...,,,,,4,,,,,,,- .-, -cts . - . . 11,-,, ,- --, :, :..„.„.,,,,,,,,tr!„,,t. . .,,, - , . ..„, ,.,,, -.,,,:,,sil.,-,zi-t-gci,.-r;::-- '.,., ,.--w .. '-e- . 1 COa afto▪ miry - • Q rte ri+ & if„, O iliewm U _1%1,4,1▪illias L coO O L a N ›NJ " L p d) �--+ CZ 12L0 4) LCI) - 0 - - � .F.,- C� > CL� as (13 U�ja) O v� z E car) cry (...9 1 F ''---i„.....,.,-': #: m m h 0_ , • 141=0 CU ' l''.;1:‘,„.'tf,. .-V-."II: ,:' '''''.4,?:,t .4it:,........ .'a .1.1 ,,,, ,,.,„i.,,,,, ,,,,-,:,,..1,,,„ ,12, .-. ,, -- ,,. 2, , CD CA CD '.. , Simil e M4 am Li y * a e (113 w y ),:::1'''''P. , :,,.,!.ii : 161),111.1111.1to s '"* x ' �_ 4 §S S¢ . . Iiiiii S411*14 . . '''''''''''''f'''':' I e gam; 4 ' ,'? .�. .. di .t' i .M� Jig; : • " r, ". } , , ‘� � p , a' .. . a S V 0.1) i• •� i C13 C1:1 . —p ':p ...... cy) 0 oy. .I11 .... /nit "Zip ll(01).1.111 i'Kw'. E - ko „t ct; -_ El Q) v �, i y p p •� i •� i ttt �. Z3 cQ 5 03 N = cz O C6 = N a) U N CD U O O - '''' Q > a) — a) CD chi) cz ON p c cn • C c 3 a) O_ C - Q) i C6 5 cn _o cn cn _ > U OU En a) a) •- �--+ C6 c6 .V L O _p a) -0 Uj C6 N "� a) N = O al a) O $ oes § c6 N = N c6 > C) Lo O . U .z N -o -2 N u C) = N •- N .N 0 U co o0 cp 0 oco o Q .� � O) o g a) a) o0 L— o "' o c6 a) ca c6 . cy) w o . as > a) L) 0 co O .�, >, co •x v c6 c6 N 0 J .J Cr) L- Cr) O (13 a O c/) Q W . O Q ..0 D o • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ 1 „",.,.,„i;Y +",; . I ''h,' r.-1,-,h -1 VPJIIIIIIIIIIMM, 11 1�t Egg s s r I, f iNC J gd ff:AMf k A.19.RLQ C' +J'm✓ Y � a N Ede ,@ e,, •` y}I. �� t ., ll.l ' -.? . 411 E _. --6QES BLNQ +__-.. Mk 8: 0.6 _ i:it Fili V �` ' �'b C i i;a qii ew , 4.4,,,,,, * ! .10.1,.'t .,;.*. i 1 li In •'''''' '''' j P1111 ' 14 4:,°''''4''', # V****#4 L4, '1 - 4- : h -.,..", . ,- , , . ...i,,,,, ,;.- ,,,,.. . - . 4, . , , yr.. 4,,i, fi..„:. s i , IA' b ” ' ir 134* i . ;"'"i' - I.,. alr— — s''''‘Nsg' . "1 '1 '4." ` . ,, T j ' x ..fin.. A ro i'1 f �, 0+11 i 1 e�, k , } c' t is 0 0 Cf) ore—'— CO �--+ 0 CD0 CA 0 p _0 c t� CCS 0 U co Ccs a� U .Ei..0 Z Ncy, u) 4� Cn CI) II= -CD CI) CJ-) 2 .1/4d ■ (3.,) /St. I CZ ›N las I I I .X 0CnIllikaft Q 0 a� 1 /\ `44.4 00 N � •� CU Z bq 0) a O r L con • �v Z LL AP 1 CD L. CICS I Cl itf C. CtS L ~. i. 0LI a 4 & 4 O (( 4 `)) < W CO . 4p CO 0 O > O z U 6 O OC/) CO c O }' O -( U N (1) a) C6 cl-O i CO co a) > ca cn � c � � � a.,) oc > - Q co Cn i i �._a cp O U 4) z t� _= 4u -CO O M '" O z5- CC, I— U = > - I— Ca > (1) > 0 C 0 a) O = 0 c - O _o w � � � � 1 I C � -j Co � = O _ -' � > O FF- CO a S.- O -� ^ O Cap �CD � U > Q o 0 a) >, IT, u) c O -> 0 00 Ci U 01P C13 CCS N MZ CD "1:5 s.. CD CC �..' O coC� o_ cz CCS >t L .... - E 2 0 , co 0 ap il WO • czs - 00 U -0 •a ci) ci) "" Q Cl) C = -1--+ Cl) Cl) C 0 — -- Cl) -� V U N 0) t!1 -co � -ci � Vj CD ., u)co O O U L. >, -- co E - -0 - -0 0 Co - 0 0_ a) a) � � = � 2 -0E 2 � � fri w p � (� CO OL- y - = tom/) —' • CCS d) CD _ Cl) N Co :a-=� O O -0 Ct Q gE > 2 7g S - EL '*-'' co Co }' 0 >1 E = CZ � � � � O � � � .p -� � Q Cllr z a. Z > ZQ9 Z ) cpn Zv I— E i. r n . . ' tl1 • • YY a Is s e rc II € m a. m &¢ma .,TI) 1 \ d „ Ui12 t. 111 NM Ob Ca. Pr hi r lu a CD p I Cm) I - H } S 4) cocoa mo , a)L V f 'lf'I'f- .0 ViAllIIIIIIII 2I p t ri a IIIIIIII a EE6 � '� 2 � h' y ��! 7 q:a-x„w xµ � ■MEM CD Z fly m . - gliskin �$ 110111 E s q A Sim �II"I'I �'= -2 e 0 ��13n ca !YIIIII . - liiiii II��I aooa $sA II o2 Alma ';'11€ $ Sift ui n s7I 1 d 1 . = . ._,4,,. 1 t 17 c _ _ Ii!h $ 1 1 ':S j i cg8 gogg a 2 1,1 k D U w lL K 2.2 W D V. c a L a 4 d, ad 4C X X X X X X m m f. c 0 X -C- -, n _ oca ca o n _ -. - _. c +.., O Z c W u v a x t, a, C 4. SEMI e..' O ° ea n LL a (41 1 Gl X m Ne 1.-,, C 'C mv tu m 3 U m i i ro UNE M _ 0m v o o ,.., :a su �/ a 0 i `a ani g. y /7 �. ¢ m �' u5 ¢n 3 °� ' i b 8 o P. a a a a W COIA t a m [1 m n C� te s r v W w UJ 3 8 8 ma ii ; i : -c <5 g $ - t $ c 3a : = u a 4p41; $ my ✓ . t0 J pp cYIC ` u $ ` c ` x c oLv m. U U U U >3 a as �' U I c c _ i CO c ceuj ny ° p 2 N ' c uS ¢ adw Z a © Z aU 7 O 0 LLZ O2 3 uL72 r2 eJi. CD L i • 4.11 ...aco ci) _ i (n co > 0 OC i Lnas W0 0 0 4-• ccs�-+ co O to CU — i co 0 — _ Z O CC W CU 01 .� 4-0 C) •0) G) — Z - - >+ O to as ctsO t/) _c !< cm Cl) cn � ._ E i) cLli ,,o i to xcirs .c V O W .. v co Q co — cn CO o r. r---„,.,::: , ......„.„,..,.., .,.,„..,,:,,,. _,:::,-:,„„,,,,,,:„:„,:,,,,,,,,,,L , . ..„,..,_____„--:„..,..---,,,,3,---- . __ __ ...,..4,,,,,,,„:„":„-1 . I - -,, Illichlitilf"' ' n . .mow- 1 - _ L.' o o 3 SINE - • *5:1 „J .-.• ._ ' -votd."4.4 ''. ...4.-•_, • :,,.,....: - e,.....,(,,,,-, „....f..z..„,,,,.0„;ii. „.:.-- .r. 'a ,v.4.0�. • w '' .51?: L. • O �T J �' t hl1f� r- r . i Oft f .4Rk.Lu or 111111111111611 ii ! ! ! ; ! — ! ! ; : ..., 1.71000606n0Oli ,• .. . . ' •' ' ,, k ... ••. .' . A :;r:.:*'''':' ''' ',— , 'S' ' 100 'fr* .. . . , ‘ , r • r 41 iet 0/6. ' # -ore' .... 4.1Prittik, ... . ,..i.- , - _ ,- - . r I . * ,.. , ......... tr.Aril- 1110 U) U.) I 110m0 cro "ED cu Co cp . ___ ....... 3,._ 1 o >1. = ;....,.., Cl) %._,A) _....-, as . #i _11..... o_ _1_, co ._ ci) co .....„. = et% -o la) u) > -o f 1 > %...0 (j) -4----J 113 W e rve ,„„...., 0 E cz :,..17°,„ 0..-"Ci 0 C9 mom. L - 0 >lk (_= 0.- 0 c 0 aii.allimi >lb — -IF—+ .'''''' _C SCD Co .....mft G) -0 c a) - _,_.,, to > ____ 0a) : 0 ...._ ... .... -ci = -o 73 --- = -0 o w 0 U) 0 L- 22 ..,_ — 3..... .— 11.)..). " ED Co -_.,, -0 CD- C -Ci (I) 0 .... 0 Co u) 0 4_,.. _11_, -0 C.) Ce C LuE (2 -cic) c) (i) a5u) z lb • - - -,-.. i - 0 - 4 ' ,-.'.,.."0.' 1' ok 4 1111111Enill .2 . . 3 I Auboollitio t! , . . - . t„, •it w . _ • . . •... ..,w ,.7. - ... .... •iv , , . ... . .•• ,.. . -- , 4 . AL. gm 1 ... . .. : I lits, I A ' . • - .., limipApip. 4 , „vite- -.--"_. - - . - Li NM 1 C -0 = 0 .-......... , -0 CL 03) S....... • (r) .4.,, ,, ..10 a) CO a) _c (1) co Cr5 CD 5._ co -0 cn >II _rD c cf) = L- 0- o 13 co 1 ......7 as cp ,— „ ..0 .0 Q.= uL. 411... Cti cp > -6-... ...in...L:3 --....... Waft CD 0 in A.+ -.....- &. rIS = CD = E cn c ft a) _ > " WO Wt OE ...... IA, 03.) 0 CO Zen t, ,= 0 as .." 1— = P4" 40 4 u) C ) as Co Q CL Q Cp cl)fl o 0 o o v) i- CD co a) Co o C c- )ca . Na) vQ aar) CL) o 0 C C ) C� >-/, CU }, -0 j la) a$ -U .4_,o Cll +o to _ c j O- >> .z2 cn Q a) O ca O o O (1) = a_ ago O 0Uo I I I I I cO 0.,0 O W v _ ) ,, 4 - ' .4,Hendry Co. CR 858 UF u 1W LL mC :; oLL5m a 111.(- LN a.Li ¢ m iQ j) N G ii T . yG _ U c aoa z a az to CO co Q 4'a fan r ; - - Qci) �� Q m• ylr =f `rc' - ` P M" ' ~,AMP KEAIS RD am 2 [ li BZ W m lift Q= Y r v- r76 J A CD o O yCft O E111 W • r5 U gfr t ii i r �Ga ss .. CD M Lu tt N M r "1l 1` Yl'1.. J m r .81. .•I t d 41111114r- .f E$BLVD �'�1� ZZ ee .. 4 o 8 L TTT , ';;; ., ' • .f4' **wt ' ' IV �G ' • . i t...ix, .q. , I ...- - ." • ",- .._. -.....0 4,1 + ' Y ) ilr- � FF. iii �+� � ,,,,k t. i�a�'. .111 CO ( .0 > ca -_ U Cll as O p CCS ,-'', C3 p Z3 c:2_, (1) 0 i Ca E U O U Q) U _ c pCO O Cn > O CO -O a) CCSB as - = co O -oUj -o 72 O C, O (3 >. � 5Qll O -�C � C OCDas 04 0 U . jêLp R a . P". s 4_ CO Co,0 cr) O 4.4— L • CCS > v) -+-° N CO N O to - co Cn 4 O O O (� O O N E 1, O = � i �(D o � > .�, O O O -I-0 � O � � �Q j "O 73 - tn ' U ca O O "0 - - -o 0) Cr) _ O Co = Cn - O U O Co 0 C) ..g.. '(I) 0 � �' 2E -- � > O .O a) O 03 O U O U V O a) • • • I* -I--' co - - . ,, , ,, , , 1 v ,04--.4. 44,;: ' /- ,....)11,,l ,CO k 7" J i. :,+ J� erfj y 1, Sad yy, .- 41 ;. .. 4w• 3 a,y av , ...„0,. ..iN ,.,‘„, Ny1 ., It , -i ' i .a.". ,,: ,y4,,, »{'• ., Kw AO p -s ell i : Y sir —, ' t , 3 roc , . 0. ,,,..„ .0.A,L011,:. Too Ail_ a/ -,� � ` • 6 I 4'-isAZ, Ai A • 9NIT - rq r w Aral f ri 1 .411113 '14, v. 4.1111111, . 1.-4 rer 111114&61 ' _ n� n 1 C/) i a.) _ _. C OO .0 C r Cv +� U) � .0 C� C O Vilicctic(Di-c">°a-_, cU � 0 � }; IOCt � � �2 to � � � C� � � �OCTSQCD _ > �+- a) OO - Q) Cv QO Co ) cC? -�--• 0 ..c V) co ca r ♦M1 1 , . r ,-1,40 : ,,,, . , Ai., t W C a w Bill, ' ," 1 ' ' i iN 01101W .. T ii y }+ cg=glg m r� _ c 3 Q .E, w n m G.,) a c�waam'aa $ i.) g X co) u F IMM \v L — a iii a :t 111.111. V yi f ! I I ! _ 173 0 11.11II HII y I E CD 0000000N i _ 1111111 5a) Ilk ; ' ,: : cm) ._ ::91111111 1 o �. F .0 d EE 6Om (19 ! 1 041 2Iiht 13i ■ Yah itl ill (n W p, 4 ani $c Mii �m s..:::: ? gip . 121 - - fg 5' . nam a�4o $ ° i: %a s II IIII�1 ,S v III gEEM 10 1 611 41.11 ' m2.2 k ygya yE a �u r fi$ f t0 '€5 _ Emma L' ox a v 8ry a - x E � IMMEM a m _ pyo rid qm y m � g a '.= o x = G t 4J > a 5aal3 € a s g .5 s 3 ` ,7 m 2 �+ .. -R` t ,5&'! ll! Es',, I fig; , 312 gg lit � P. g ,Igqi i!1 ' t2E-8; dJr,f1 Vfl82 5,,,te 3 - iiii k i d _ _ 3 N TV N r r O y C> t:3 c3 0; +7 4 to co ` . V/ ^, —0 -frt— a_ U ca na t5 0 o o = L = a) o = -� Cl) a) .L 3a.m ^, L 1' �- },0) n711 �-' -1'`R-V[+ LES - a) N t -oCa L' O - — cif) U v 0 CZ o. -0 > : 0 1 a) 0) -4-, _ U L � 'U Ecu La) Cf)L n ) o �rJ J a) a i r. r 7 `' 0 a L_ to N Ca nil U) J — slt. 'Sl `^ r^ a) > 3 3 3 a) -s__ W O J _ Cr) �, �, o :a w :c < < L q c Ocn N Ca E t/) o (U N -0 ° -, >.,, L >+ 0 '5 N 0— Uo Ca 0 03 La E O _ o 0 c _ _ UJ � cr -' ( . 9 . 0 _ c4NLcu < U W1 f CU I- 37 QJ c=3 c.) co 27 U '� C 0 "Y 'I 4 cr o w cr < < <L C3 1 0 L am inaiivi , to iii iiiiii *...RS iiiii 1 . . ..... a) C) 0 .o P„� L CZ . LCD CD L C Is U- C.) CD CZ V a) L O W L 0 0 U) CO N O O CO �+ 'a CO = x II s = O• Ocr) x CO Cr) � �-' � O 0 x a) (13p o c 0 U O a) U) �' X U y II CO CO — N -0 Cll LO a) O n � U) 0 O N c - LL- 3 CO U a N 1-- C.)U - # II V •114 A 4. ' co cu r.-. %,r / �F, to co I is IC Ma _ h CO z' iCn ■_ i L v. + U co Q co Q V co• a I..y 4� ••r.�/u:.. cp 'Aim `�"r ° i. cu 0 ' ....44, Ilkiii,"‘..--,,,f waft, Cm mC,2 LL ..._„, re.- 1 ' .,..•4' ,.:.10 „......„-410., t '4>+.!..44::-' tit71 ,' Z.... E L- 1 02) t:I) 41 Q) L L J'if 41-,....4',.. o'_ 11041,h- IL U �* fir �� 0,1 � ' �� ..�......_ *eon .d.. .._. Q soca purl Aeu(aJ� ©NV F tSS I39-d38 c • G Cl) Cl) J ■IMMIl h• N e. UJ,411 LO 0 oe MQW07V0 , , ._.. .. . ...,1 / ,.. ,. . : .,. . .. . . ,., ,,. , • . m . . . . .".. _ ....„.„,..,„. Q A C 2 M ■ Cl) Q J � � W u. W d ix 4a 0 fL, LLJ R I* OC t0 C)° A __ . ii.� �•' fi'''r