The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10/22/2019 Item #11L (Proposed Changes - Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)10/22/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct staff to initiate the Growth Management Plan amendment process for proposed changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, develop a regional water partnership, and draft Land Development Code amendments. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to direct staff to: 1) Bring forward Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-Year Review Committee and repeated in the RLSA White Paper; 2) Develop a regional water partnership to address regional water matters; and 3) Draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics as outlined by the 5-Year Review Committee and the RLSA White Paper. CONSIDERATIONS: The RLSA area includes important environmental and agricultural assets, most of which are on privately held land. In 2002, the RLSA Overlay was adopted in response to a state- mandated “Final Order,” which directed the County to create a land-use program to protect: prime agricultural areas, wetlands, and upland habitat, water quality, and quantity, and listed species and their habitats. It also required the plan to address development by encouraging creative land use planning techniques. RLSA Overlay Policy 1.22 mandated a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the RLSA. The Board established the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee to accomplish this directive. In February 2008, the Rural Lands Stewardship Ar ea Review Committee transmitted the Phase I Technical Review Report (Attachment A) to the Board. The Phase I Report contains a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay in meeting its prescribed goal of protecting natural resources, retaining valuable agriculture, and promoting compact, mixed-use development through an incentive-based land-use system on approximately 186,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made in achieving the RLSA Overlay goal. The Phase I Report provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee’s Phase II Report (Attachment B). This report provides a qualitative evaluation of ways the RLSA Overlay policies could be improved to more effectively implement the RLSA’s overriding goal. As a result of exhaustive public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee unanimously approved the following proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay: “Collier County’s goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established incentives.” As the RLSA Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing GMP Policies, the Committee engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous assessment of each and every RLSA Overlay policy. The work product of the RLSA Committee for its Phase II Report, therefore, consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments (Attachment C). The public proceedings embodied twenty-three [23] public meetings and thousands of man hours of work expended by scores of interested 11.L Packet Pg. 921 10/22/2019 parties. The 5-Year Review report was presented and accepted in its entirety as a planning document by the Board on April 21, 2009, including recommendations of the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Board. Based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended Policies, voluntary participation in the RLSA could: 1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture, and sustainable community development. 2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable component of the economy of Collier County. 3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas. 4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using a new tiered system of incentives that do not require public dollars for acquisition or management. 5. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint and maximum number of Credits. 6. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development (1 unit per 5 acres). 7. Create new opportunities to site new businesses in proximity to places for employees to live. 8. Accommodate a long-range interconnected transportation network plan that serves eastern Collier County. The 5-Year Review Report is viewed as unfinished business, leaving important RLSA program improvements in perpetual limbo. A lack of agreement on who should pay for the amendment process, the County or the landowners, put these amendments on the shelf. Staff recognizes the invaluable work the Committee and the public labored on for over two years, and the consensus found with the stakeholders, EAC, CCPC, and Board. Staff finds these draft amendments valid to move forward and vet through the GMP amendment process. On February 10, 2015, the Board directed staff to initiate GMP restudies in four areas of eastern Collier County. Two of the restudies, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan, are substantially complete. The RLSA restudy was undertaken to begin in January 2018. As with all restudies, staff focused on complementary land uses, economic vitality, mobility, and enviro nmental sustainability through a public outreach effort. The public outreach effort included twelve (12) public workshops, and numerous meetings with stakeholders, many who provided valuable independent analysis and expert opinions. The evaluation of community input received through the recent workshops reinforces and validates the substantive amendments recommended by the 5-Year Review Committee. The community continues to see value in amending the RLSA Overlay to improve the program and achieve the overriding goal through established incentives. The public outreach and staff assessment resulted in the RLSA White Paper (Attachment D). The White Paper provides the framework for the restudy effort conducted by staff and serves as a vehicle to further inform the Board, staff, and the public. The RLSA White Paper results in recommendations for improving water resource planning, further protecting the environment, conserving agriculture lands, and addressing development characteristics. In June 2019, the RLSA White Paper was distributed to the stakeholders for review. Staff invited all interested parties to provide comments over several months. During this “comment period” staff gathered additional input and modified the RLSA White Paper recommendations based on the input provided. The revisions to the recommendations (Attachment E) were made to better clarify continued consensus items (those that were also included in the 5-Year Review recommendations) and how other recommendations can be achieved, either through a partnership, GMP amendment, or Land Development Code amendment. The majority of stakeholders found agreement in the recommendations. 11.L Packet Pg. 922 10/22/2019 Based upon the incentives of the adopted RLSA Overlay, the 5-Year Review, and RLSA White Paper recommendations, and voluntary participation in the program, the RLSA could: 1. Protect 134,000 acres of: a. Flowway areas (Camp Keais Strand and Okaloalcoochee Slough), b. Habitat areas, and c. Agriculture areas 2. Create additional preserves for panther corridors; 3. Establish a cap of 45,000 acres of towns and villages; 4. Diversify the eastern Collier County economy; 5. Develop a regional water partnership with Collier County, the Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board, and the 189 Stewardship Districts to address regional water matters; and 6. Improve the characteristics of future development. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the proposed GMPA process has been accounted for within the approved budget for the Zoning Division. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: The various recommendations are expected to result in amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the GMP, to be considered in a public hearing context at Transmittal before the Planning Commission and the Board, by the State Department of Economic Opportunity, and again at Adoption by the Planning Commission and Board. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as to form and legality and requires a majority vote for approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and repeated in the RLSA White Paper; develop a regional water partnership to address regional water matters, and draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics. Prepared by: Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (PDF) 2. [Linked] Attachment 'B' 5-yr Review Phase II (PDF) 3. Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (PDF) 4. [Linked] Attachment 'D' RLSA Restudy White Paper 10.2019 (PDF) 5. Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (PDF) 6. RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (PDF) 7. RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (PDF) 11.L Packet Pg. 923 10/22/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.L Doc ID: 10416 Item Summary: ***This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.*** Recommendation to direct staff to initiate the Growth Management Plan amendment process for proposed changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, develop a regional water partnership, and draft Land Development Code amendments. (Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head, GMD) Meeting Date: 10/22/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 10/04/2019 9:20 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 10/04/2019 9:20 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 10/14/2019 3:12 PM Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Department Head Review Completed 10/14/2019 3:13 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 10/14/2019 4:38 PM County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 10/15/2019 11:40 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 10/22/2019 9:00 AM 11.L Packet Pg. 924 1 | P a g e NOTE: THIS IS THE PHASE I-TECHNICAL REPORT COMPLETED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED FEBRUARY, 2008. In 2002 the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) was adopted into the County’s growth management initiatives. Nowhere in Florida or the nation had this type of landmark planning initiative taken place, and the implementation and outcome were uncertain. Over the past three months, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee has had the opportunity to assess the achievements of the program during its first five years in operation. The learning curve was steep, and a great deal of committee time and energy was spent on becoming reacquainted with the complex mechanics of the program. I am glad to say the committee was successful in absorbing the details of the program and evaluating the status to date. The report before you, provides a quantitative synopsis of how far along the program has come in protecting environmentally valuable lands and establishing communities in the far eastern lands of the county. This Phase I Technical Review is the first step in a comprehensive review of the program. It lays the foundation to evaluate how the objectives and policies have resulted in reaching the goals of the RLSA. The Committee has worked very well together, and on Feb 5th, voted unanimously to forward the Phase I Technical Review to the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Department of Community Affairs. Ron Hamel, Chairman Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 2 | P a g e RRRRURAL URAL URAL URAL LLLLANDS ANDS ANDS ANDS SSSSTEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP TEWARDSHIP AAAAREA REA REA REA FFFFIVEIVEIVEIVE----YYYYEAR EAR EAR EAR RRRREVIEWEVIEWEVIEWEVIEW PPPPHASE HASE HASE HASE IIII –––– TTTTECHNICAL ECHNICAL ECHNICAL ECHNICAL RRRREVIEWEVIEWEVIEWEVIEW This Phase I - Technical Review is a requirement of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22). The review is intended to provide an assessment of activity that has occurred within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) over the past five years, 2003- 2008. It is the role of the committee to assist in determining whether the activity presented in the review supports or does not support the goals of the Collier County RLSA, which is to: - protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses - direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat - enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations - discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques The Phase I review is intended to focus on the specific items detailed in Policy 1.22 (see below.) An evaluation of the RLSA Group 1-5 policies will occur during the Phase II of the review process. The information presented in this report represents the current status of the RLSA program. The intention of the program is to encourage the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) that private landowners voluntarily limit land-uses on through a Stewardship Easement in exchange for Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). GMP FLUE 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the RLSA program in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 3 | P a g e Definitions (LDC 4.08.01): ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including: row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses. Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including: pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses. Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the future. FSA - Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the RLSA District. Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007 GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE). HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses, Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture – Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2. Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 B.4., with each Land Use Layer displayed as a single column. Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, W RA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Open Lands. Areas outside the ACSC or HSA, FSA, or WRA with Natural Resource Index values less than 1.2. 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 4 | P a g e Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA. R1. (GMP RLSA Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive credits. R2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for the development of a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. SSA - Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or more Land Use Layers. Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B. Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through the designation of SRAs. WRA - Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value. 1. Identify the amount of land designated as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA), and other* Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). *Other SSA lands include Open designated lands Attached Map 1 shows an overview of the entire Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) with lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA and Open. Table 1-A provides a summary of the acreage of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending Areas since the RLSA program inception (5-yrs). The 5-yr percentage column shows that of all lands within the RLSA designations, a total of thirteen percent have been protected to date within a SSA. Thirty percent of all FSA and HSA designated land has been protected to date. The acreages in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 5 | P a g e Table 1-A Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved RLSA Designation Total RLSA Acres SSA Acres Approved 5-yr Percentage FSA 31,100 9,206 30% HSA 40,000 12,283 31% WRA 18,200 44 0.2% Open 93,100 2,593 3% Total 182,400 24,126 13% Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements Note- Acreages listed in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1D where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. Margin of error may be +/- 1%. Table 1-B Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending RLSA Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentage FSA 31,100 10,619 34% HSA 40,000 17,703 44% WRA 18,200 3,034 17% Open 93,100 474 < 1% Total 182,400 31,830 17% Source: SSAs under review and property owners Table 1-C Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending RLSA Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Approved & Pending 5-yr Percentage FSA 31,100 19,825 64% HSA 40,000 29,986 75% WRA 18,200 3,078 17% Open 93,100 3,067 3% Total 182,400 55,956 31% Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their designations. • Map 1A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1B illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending; • Map 1C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending; 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 6 | P a g e • Map 1D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones, within SSAs approved and pending; and • Map 1E illustrates all 55,956 acres of all lands within SSAs approved and pending. Note- all map acreages are rounded to the nearest acre, margin of error +/-1%. To provide further information on the approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas, Table1-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been approved by the county. Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Collier County and one of the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures. Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agricultural uses remain, including: row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar activities, including agricultural support uses. Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain, including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture use. All other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land. Table 1-D Each SSA Approved & Pending Acreage Type and Land Use Levels Remaining SSA # Acreage Type Acres Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres SSA 1 FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58 SSA 2 FSA 653.65 704.14 704.14 HSA 50.49 SSA 3 FSA 509 1,078.64 2,116.91 3,195.54 HSA 2,686 SSA 3a HSA 248.9 220.6 n/a* SSA 4 FSA 198.18 654.01 585.91 1,239.92 HSA 1,041.74 SSA 5 FSA 196.0 1,852.3 1,852.3 HSA 1,629.8 Open 26.5 SSA 5a FSA 1.7 651.3 Conservation n/a* HSA 649.6 SSA 6 FSA 4,926.2 2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1 HSA 4,984.9 SSA 7 FSA 399.6 985.4 985.4 HSA 486.5 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 7 | P a g e SSA # Acreage Type Acres Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres Open 99.3 SSA 8 FSA 1,619.9 815.0 4,484.5 5,299.5 HSA 1,247.9 Open 2,432.0 SSA 9 Open 34.2 739.3 50.1 Earth Mining 789.4 FSA 556.5 WRA 43.5 HSA 155.2 Total Approved 24,123.88 5,260.35 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88 SSA 10** Application Submitted FSA 0 5,861 HSA 5,854 WRA 1 Open 6 SSA 11** Application Submitted FSA 1,191 3,700 HSA 2,212 WRA 198 Open 99 SSA 12** Pre-app meeting held FSA 1,788 4,791 HSA 2,933 WRA 0 Open 70 SSA 13** Pre-app meeting held FSA 4,232 7,430 HSA 1,313 WRA 1,616 Open 269 SSA 14** Application Submitted FSA 1,048 1,713 HSA 663 WRA 1 Open 0 SSA 15** Pre-app meeting held FSA 2,196 5,259 HSA 1,827 WRA 1,209 Open 27 SSA 16** Pre-app meeting held FSA 164 3,077 HSA 2,901 WRA 9 Open 3 Total Pending 31,830 n/a** n/a** n/a** 31,830 Total Approved + Pending 55,953.88 55,953.88 Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary, SSAs under review, and property owners * SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to include restoration areas. Acreage is already included in 3 & 5. ** SSAs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 have yet to be approved by the county and data is included where available as informational only. The FSA and HSA overlays were designed to incentivize protection of the major regional flowways within the RLSA and the large landscape-scale mosaic of native habitats and 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 8 | P a g e agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs. These lands provide major hydrological and ecological linkages within the region. As depicted on Map 1E, of the 31,100 acres designated as FSA, 19,825 acres of FSA (64% of total FSA) are protected via approved and pending SSA designations. Approved and pending SSAs also account for 29,986 acres of HSA overlay areas (75% of total HSA). Map 1F illustrates the existing and pending SSA lands protect from intensive development a large extent of lands targeted for public acquisition by Florida Forever and its predecessor programs. SSAs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 protect the vast majority of Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands within the RLSA, which were first delineated in the 1970’s. SSAs 8 and 11 protect lands within the Collier County portion of the Devil’s Garden Florida Forever project. Additionally, SSAs 3, 4, and 5 were designated specifically to protect an important landscape linkage for the Florida panther across CR 846, which has a high incidence of panther-vehicle interactions. These designated SSAs will allow for the eventual establishment of fenced wildlife crossings. SSAs 6, 10, and 12 comprise 20,000 acres along the southern portion of the RLSA, protecting high-quality panther habitats that are directly adjacent to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). 2. The amount and location of land designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). As shown in Table 2-A, the Town of Ave Marie SRA approved by the county in 2002 contains 5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria University. The proposed Town of Big Cypress is anticipated to be the second SRA proposed in the Collier RLSA. The pre-application and DRI information list the town as 2,798 acres. The SRA application is expected to be filed in the summer of 2008. Table 2-A SRA Acreage SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit Uses (Acres) Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027 Town of Big Cypress SRA* 2,798 pending Total 6,798 1,027 *proposed The attached Map 2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria SRA and the proposed location of the Town of Big Cypress. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA, however, lands having high ecological vale, such as lands within an FSA or HSA, generate more credits per acre than the “Open” designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 9 | P a g e Stewardship Sending Areas using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The methodology includes: 1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and 2) The number of land use layers being eliminated. There are also additional incentive Credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs within the RLSA District; such as early entry bonus Credits, slough/strand index upgrade (buffer area Credits), and restoration (R1 and R-2) Credits. Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. A. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED As of December, 2007, there have been a total of 9 SSAs that have been approved; totaling 24,126 acres. As shown in Table 3-A these 9 SSAs have been assigned a total of 59,451.49 Stewardship Credits including Early Entry, R-1 and R-2 Credits. However, the R-2 Credits that have been assigned are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed. Table 3-A Stewardship Credit Summary SSA # Acres Total Credits Assigned R-2 Credits 1 146.58 263.6 0 2 704.14 1,268.1 0 3 3,195.54 4,675.3 0 3A* 0 606.6 0 4 1,239.92 1,676.7 0 5 1,852.3 2,938.3 0 5A* 0 1,504.9 0 6 9,911.1 25,525.1 4,286.4 7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 TOTAL 24,123.88 59,451.49 9,187.4 Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements * SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas. Acreage is already included in SSAs 3 & 5. B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized 28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B). 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 10 | P a g e Table 3-B Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria SSA # Acres Total Credits Assigned Credits Transferred and Utilized for Town of Ave Maria Credits Held for Future Use (includes R-2) 1 146.58 263.6 263.6 0 2 704.14 1,268.1 1,268.1 0 3* 3,195.54 4,675.2 4,675.3 0 4 1,239.92 1,676.7 1,676.7 0 5* 1,852.3 2,938.3 2,938.3 0 6 9,911.1 25,525.1 17,836.5 7,688.6 Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements. *SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were transferred and utilized for Ave Maria. SSAs 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C). The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517.9. Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed. There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and R-2 Credits. Table 3-C Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use SSA # Acres Total Credits Assigned and not Utilized R-2 Credits Assigned Credits Currently Available for Utilization 3A 0 606.6 0 606.6 5A 0 1,504.9 0 1,504.9 6 9,911.1 7,688.6 4,286.4 3,402.2 7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 4,034.2 8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 7,576.5 9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5 4,481.1 TOTAL 16,985.4 30,792.9 9,187.4 21,605.5 Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of study and time of review. Maps 4, 4A and 4B illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002, and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C). Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of agriculture uses in 2007. Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11 | P a g e the RLSA program are shown. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200- level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. Free-range cattle grazing within naturally vegetated communities accounts for approximately 65,000 acres, but are not included in the 2002 or 2007 data. It should be noted that of the 65,000 free-range cattle grazing acres, the approved SSAs have protected 15,690 acres of this agriculture use. Table 4-A below summarizes agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the uses 2007 and shows the relative percentage change of each. Table 4-A 2002/2007 Agricultural Type Comparison Agricultural Type 2002 ACRES With RLSA Without RLSA New Ag 2007 ACRES % CHANGE Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3.13% Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35% Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 16,129 -9.71% Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9.10% Specialty 1,651 1,201 -27.26% TOTAL 94,498 -0058 -480 +427 89,397±.01% -5.40% Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property Owners, and aerial photo interpretation. Table 4-B 2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses Agricultural Type 2002 ACRES Citrus 839 Fallow 177 Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572 Pasture/Rangeland 429 Row Crop 2,562 Specialty 449 TOTAL 5,027± 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program- Approximately 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture uses since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining. Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions. Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program- A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from agricultural usage without using the RLSA program. Two areas totaling 233 acres received 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 12 | P a g e Conditional Use approval from Collier County to convert from agricultural use to earth mining and recreational activities. Land was purchased by Collier County and converted to conservation containing 237 acres of agriculture. Two conditional use excavations are pending and total 1,126.65 acres. In addition, there is 427 acres of new agriculture. Table 5-A 2007 Land Converted to Non-agricultural Use Ag Land Conversion Without RLSA Program With RLSA Program Conditional Use for earth mining -210 Conditional Use for recreation -33 Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned ag) -237 Ave Maria -4,455 SSA Conservation -553 SSA mining -50 TOTAL ACRES -480 -- 5,058058 New Agriculture +427 Sources: Conditional Use Approvals CU-02-AR-3537. CU-01-AR1225, Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area Resolution, SSA 3A and 5A, SSA 9 and Collier County Property Appraiser Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. A total of 15 acres have been purchased in the RLSA by the South Florida Water Management District (unknown amount). Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres. The total purchase price of the property was $5.3 million, with a $300,000 contribution from the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. Table 7-A documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within approved SSAs. To date, restoration activities have been initiated on SSAs 6, 8, and 9. Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program. Restoration 1 (R1) lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive (R1) credits (GMP RLSA Policy 3.11). Restoration 2 (R2) lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land management measures required after restoration occurs. 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 13 | P a g e The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration design, data collection (e.g., water table data), obtaining of state and federal permits for restoration, and/or multiple years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria. The types of restoration listed in Table7-A are described below: Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities resulting in a functional increase in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee flowways. May also include areas where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and or exotic removal within drained areas or excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging distance of a rookery. Other Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA. Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or connecting with existing occupied habitat. See Map 3A for the location of all areas designated for restoration. Table 7-A Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs Source: SSA applications Location Restoration Type Acres SSA 3A Wading Bird (R1) 248.9 SSA 5A Wading Bird (R1) 651.3 SSA 6 Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 619.2 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 24.8 SSA 7 Large Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 331.9 Other Listed Species (R1, R2) 75.7 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 51.4 SSA 8 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 74.9 SSA 9 Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5 Large Mammal Corridor (R1, R2) 61.0 Wading Bird (R1, R2) 58.9 TOTAL 3344.5 Total R1 acres = 900±±±± Total R2 acres = 2444.5±±±± 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 14 | P a g e 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. The RLSA Program as adopted does not allow for the use of Credits outside of the RLSA Overlay Area, nor is there any existing method to use such Credits in the Urban designation of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Such a change would require thorough analysis and an amendment to the GMP and RLSA Overlay Area Goals, Objectives and Policies. 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 15 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 16 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 17 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 18 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 19 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 20 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 21 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 22 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 23 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 24 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 25 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 26 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 27 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 28 | P a g e 11.L.1 Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 29 | P a g e 11.L.1Packet Pg. 953Attachment: Attachment 'A' 5-yr Review Phase I (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.3 Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Attachment 'C' Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations 1 RLSA Restudy White Paper Water Resources 1. Establish a working partnership with Collier County, the Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board and the 189 Stewarship Districts to address: • Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. 1. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water managementEncourage potential for filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. 2.• Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. 3.• Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK Slough. • Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state, and local programs. 4.2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Agricultural Protection 1. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements allowing active or passive agriculture. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. (an overall credit cap will address this) 11.L.5 Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 2 RLSA Restudy White Paper 5.3. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 6.4. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) Environmental Protection 1. To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should maintain functional flow ways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 7.2. Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions; require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Require a provision within conditional or escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 8.3. Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, should they agree. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 2.4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. (draft LDC Amendment) 3.5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 4.6. Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of SSA designation. (draft LDC Amendment) 5.7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. (draft LDC Amendment) 6.8. Allow Restoration Aarea applications only once within any single SSA. 7.9. Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining 11.L.5 Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 3 RLSA Restudy White Paper “R-1” credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration. (draft LDC Amendment) 8.10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the The County, using existing data, will adjust needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits as necessary and will provide for a reconciliation of known restoration credits. can be reasonably estimated and structured; add specificity to restoration standards and objectivity to the acres claimed by different restoration types; review with permitting agencies and land managers. (This will be addressed as part of the tier restoration system) 9.11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. (draft LDC Amendment) 9.12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 10.13. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract. (draft LDC amendment) 11.14. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in Flowways. (address with regional water partnership) 12.15. In exchange for voluntary participation in the RLSA overlay system, land use layers 1-4 shall be eliminated in HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services. (Layer 4 is Ag. Ag areas are compatible and used by listed species. This is contrary to the objective of conserving ag.) 13.16. Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards for discretionary approval of private entity purchase and use of credits for high density projects in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of easements in coordination with identified state programs. (The opportunity currently exists – i.e. Pepper Ranch) 14.17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. (address in 5 Year Review Transporation Element Companion amendment.) 10.18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance security and safety. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 11.L.5 Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 4 RLSA Restudy White Paper Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. Draft LDC Amendments to address: a. Require Minimum densities within a ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus ¼ mile) should exceed 6 units per acre, excluding acreage for civic uses. b. Create An aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. c. Village sizes, should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless, unless there is releationship to the need for additional commercial, business, civic and governmental uses minimums are proposed; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should be allowed only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts are demonstrated. d. Propose greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and Villages, seeking further vetting on phasing requirements through an LDC process. e. Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park, available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development. f. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. g. Define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit yards, to reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for excess open space. h. Require a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA. i. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. j. Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments. k. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 11.L.5 Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 5 RLSA Restudy White Paper 2. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. (address in the regional water partnership) 4. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this category at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in certain locations. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 5. Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity, allow retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 6. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to 1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the Okaloacoochee Slough. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 7. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 8. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. (address in the Companion Transporation Element amendment) 9. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Credit System 1. Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review “tiered credit system” approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. (The Credit cap included in the 5-Year Review will forgo the need for this) 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits, and agricultural credits separately. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations, caps on different categories will further complicate the program) 11.L.5 Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Attachment 'E' Change Sheet List of Staff Recommendations (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations 1 RLSA Restudy White Paper Water Resources 1. Establish a working partnership with Collier County, the Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board and the 189 Stewarship Districts to address: • Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. Encourage potential for filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. • Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. • Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK Slough. • Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state, and local programs. 2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Agricultural Protection 1. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements allowing active or passive agriculture. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. (an overall credit cap will address this) 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 2 RLSA Restudy White Paper 3. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 4. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) Environmental Protection 1. To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should maintain functional flow ways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 2. Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions; require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Req uire a provision within conditional or escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 3. Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, should they agree. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. (draft LDC Amendment) 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 6. Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of SSA designation. (draft LDC Amendment) 7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. (draft LDC Amendment) 8. Allow Restoration Area applications only once within any single SSA. 9. Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 3 RLSA Restudy White Paper “R-1” credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration. (draft LDC Amendment) 10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the The County, using existing data, will adjust needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits as necessary and will provide for a reconciliation of known restoration credits. can be reasonably estimated and structured; add specificity to restoration standards and objectivity to the acres claimed by different restoration types; review with permitting agencies and land managers. (This will be addressed as part of the tier restoration system) 11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. (draft LDC Amendment) 12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 13. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract. (draft LDC amendment) 14. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in Flowways. (address with regional water partnership) 15. In exchange for voluntary participation in the RLSA overlay system, land use layers 1-4 shall be eliminated in HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services. (Layer 4 is Ag. Ag areas are compatible and used by listed species. This is contrary to the objective of conserving ag.) 16. Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards for discretionary approval of private entity purchase and use of credits for high density projects in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of easements in coordination with identified state programs. (The opportunity currently exists – i.e. Pepper Ranch) 17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. (address in 5 Year Review Transporation Element Companion amendment.) 18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance security and safety. (included in 5 Year Review recommendations) 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 4 RLSA Restudy White Paper Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. Draft LDC Amendments to address: a. Require Minimum densities within a ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus ¼ mile) should exceed 6 units per acre, excluding acreage for civic uses. b. Create An aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. c. Village sizes, should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless, unless there is releationship to the need for additional commercial, business, civic and governmental uses minimums are proposed; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should be allowed only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts are demonstrated. d. Propose greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and Villages, seeking further vetting on phasing requirements through an LDC process. e. Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park, available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development. f. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. g. Define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit yards, to reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for excess open space. h. Require a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA. i. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. j. Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments. k. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) 5 RLSA Restudy White Paper 2. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. (address in the regional water partnership) 4. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this category at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in certain locations. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 5. Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity, allow retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 6. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to 1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the Okaloacoochee Slough. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 7. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 8. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. (address in the Companion Transporation Element amendment) 9. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Credit System 1. Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review “tiered credit system” approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. (The Credit cap included in the 5-Year Review will forgo the need for this) 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits, and agricultural credits separately. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations, caps on different categories will further complicate the program) 11.L.6 Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: RLSA Stakeholders Response Letter (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) White Paper) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Board of County Commissioners October 22, 2019 Update and Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Board of County Commissioners October 22, 2019 Update and Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Dedicated Community Engagement 3RLSA Voluntary Program •1999-2002: RLSA created through the 14-member Rural Lands Assessment Oversight Committee •2007-2009: 5 Year Review recommendations proposed by 11-member Review Committee: Ron Hamel Bill McDaniel Jim Howard Gary Eidson Neno Spagna Tammie Nemecek Tom Jones Dave Wolfley Brad Cornell Fred Thomas David Farmer •2018-2019: White Paper preparation following 12 public workshops 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Staff Recommendation Direct staff to: 1.Bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and presented in the RLSA White Paper; 2.Develop a regional water partnership; and 3.Draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics as outlined by the 5-year Review Committee and the RLSA White Paper. Same as the recent Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan 1.Public Workshops 2.Analysis 3.White Paper Preparation and Presentation 4.Request Board Direction to Prepare Amendments Restudy Process 4 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) •Plan amendments have been in perpetual limbo for over a decade, only due to lack of agreement on who should pay for them. •5-year review recommendations are prepared in underline/strikethrough form and ready for vetting through the public hearing process. •The majority of stakeholders, the Planning Commission and the Board achieved consensus on the 5-year review recommendations. •The majority of RLSA White Paper recommendations are included in the 5-year review amendments. •Additional RLSA White Paper recommendations accomplished with a partnership to address regional water matters and Land Development Code amendments. •The recommended amendments improve the RLSA Overlay. Staff Recommendation -Basis 5 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Presentation Highlights 6 Overview 5 Year Review and RLSA White Paper Recommendations Process to Move Forward 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 7 Overview •1999-2002: Final Order and Adoption of RLSA Overlay •2007-2009: 5 Year Review Committee Recommendations •2018-2019: RLSA Public Workshops and RLSA White Paper RLSA Voluntary Program 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 8RLSA Voluntary Program RLSA Adoption Benefits Established a Long Range Plan to Incentivize the Objectives: •Preserve Natural Resources •Protect Agriculture •Improve the Pattern of Growth “The RLSA achieved something many thought impossible. It created an ongoing working relationship among environmentalists, landowners, community advocates and representatives.” Nancy Payton Florida Wildlife Federation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 9RLSA Voluntary Program RLSA Today Benefits RLSA Plan has realized: •55,000 acres preserved at no cost to the public •5,000 Acre Town of Ave Maria •Ave Maria University •Arthrex manufacturing expansion •Two villages pending (two under discussion) •3,113 acres preservation pending 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 10 RLSA Future Benefits Proposed actions are intended to incentivize: •Protection of 134,000 acres •Flowways areas •(Camp Keais Strand and Okaloalcoochee Slough) •Habitat areas •Agriculture areas •Additional panther corridors •45,000 acres of towns and villages •Diversification of eastern Collier County economy RLSA Voluntary Program 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 5 Year Review Substantive Recommendations SSA easement conditions Incentives for agriculture protection Restoration activities Panther corridors SRA characteristics and application requirements Economic development, diversification and job creation Listed species management plans 11 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 12 Group 1 Policies General Purpose and Structure of the RLSA •Provide a conditional period of 5 years to use SSA Credits •All management obligations in place through conditional period •When SSA Credits are not used the property can revert back to the original ag zoning •Add the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to SSA easement agreement RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 13 Group 2 Policies Retention of Agriculture •Incentivize retention of agriculture land with the use of a Credits •Landowners voluntarily eliminate non-agriculture uses in exchange for Credits •Collier County may establish an Agriculture Advisory Council RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 14 Group 3 Policies Protection of Natural Resources •Establishment Credits for a north and south panther corridor •Establish a tiered restoration system •Define specific number of Credits •Prioritize seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat •Clarify status of WRA •When used for water treatment for a SRA; the acreage of the shall be included in the SRA •Conditional Uses will require Environmental Impact Statement RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 15 Group 4 Policies Development Characteristics •Establish a maximum SRA footprint of 45,000 acres •Revise the town and village max acreage •Town from 4,000 to 5,000 •Village from 1,000 to 1,500 •Eliminate hamlets (40-100 acres) •Redefine Compact Rural Developments uses to support •Agriculture •Natural resources •Economic diversity •Research/education •Tourism or recreation •Cap Credits at 404,000 •Recalibrate Credit ratio per SRA acre (from 8 to 10) RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) SRA Application Requirements •Include a management plan to minimize human and wildlife interactions •Include a mobility plan that considers all modes of transportation •Address SRA road connectivity, maintenance and mitigation. •SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County Long Range Transportation Plan •Modify the size of Towns and Villages •Villages greater than 500 acres shall support transit •Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the SRA 16RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 17 Group 5 Policies Lands not utilizing the RLSA •Develop a map of potential wildlife crossings •Direct non-agricultural development away from habitats of listed species and species of special local concern •Require management plans to minimize human and wildlife interactions •Address compatibility and outdoor lighting •Assess historic and cultural resources RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 18 Companion Policy Transportation Element •Within 12 months of adoption the County shall initiate a county-wide plan for an eastern Collier County transportation network •The Long Range Transportation Plan prepares for the mobility of future population growth projected for eastern Collier County •Proposed development must comply with the county-wide transportation network plan RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Proposed Credit Adjustments EEB Credits Base Credits Restoration Credits EEB Credits Restoration Credits Base CreditsAg Credits Panther Credits Proposed 19RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation Current 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Proposed Credit and Development Adjustments 20RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation Current Program SSA Credits: 460,000 +/- SRA Development: 72,834 +/-acres Proposed Program SSA Credits: 404,000 +/- SRA Development: 45,000 acres 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Results NRI SSA acres 91,700 Ag SSA acres 40,000 Panther Corridor 2,300 Total SSA acres 134,000 Credits Cap 404,000 SRA acres 45,000 Open acres 0 Total development acres cap 45,000 Public lands/misc. acres 16,000 Total acreage 195,000 NRI SSA 91,700 Ag SSA 40,000 PantherCorridor2,300 SRA 45,000 Public Land & Misc. 16,000 21RLSA Voluntary Program -5 Year Review Recommendation 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) RLSA White Paper Recommendations 22 Water Resources Agriculture Protection Environmental Protection Towns, Villages and Other Development 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Water Resources 23 Collier County Water Management District Big Cypress Basin Board 189 Districts Establish a Regional Water Partnership To Address: •Discharge rates for basins •Filter marshes •Flowway management plans •Aquifer supply and quality RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Agriculture Protection •Establish Credits for Agriculture Protection •Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system •Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC 24RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Environmental Protection •Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions •Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSA •Restructure restoration credits to tiered program •Cap Stewardship Credits and SRA Acreage •Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night (address in Transportation Element Companion amendment) 25RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Towns, Villages and Other Development Address SRA Characteristics in Overlay and Land Development Code Amendments: •SRA/SSA interface •Housing needs and density •Business location opportunities (included in Opportunity Naples 2014) •Village aggregation •Annual monitoring reports •Wildlife interface plans •Eliminate hamlets •Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments •Restrict SRA development in the ACSC •Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan 26RLSA Voluntary Program –White Paper Recommendations 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Moving Forward Growth Management Plan Amendments Land Development Code Amendments 27 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Timeline RLSA Overlay Amendments 28 Jan. 2020 Finalize RLSA Overlay Amendments (5 Year Review and White Paper) for Hearings Mar. 2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Apr. 2020 BCC Transmittal Hearing May 2020 DEO Review Aug. 2020 CCPC Adoption Hearing Oct. 2020 BCC Adoption Hearing Jan. 2020 Stakeholder meetings and draft LDC Amendments (5 Year Review and White Paper) June 2020 Development Services Advisory Committee Sep. 2020 Finalize LDC Amendments Dec. 2020 CCPC Hearing Feb. 2021 BCC Hearing GMP Amendments LDC Amendments RLSA Voluntary Program –Moving Forward 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) 29 Staff Recommendation Direct staff to: •Bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and presented in the RLSA White Paper; •Develop a regional water partnership; and •Draft Land Development Code amendments to address SRA characteristics as outlined by the 5- year Review Committee and the RLSA White Paper. RLSA Voluntary Program 11.L.7 Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: RLSA to BCC 2019 - DH final (10416 : Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Co er �oHH.ty January 6, 2009 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Chairman Henning and Commissioners: In February 2008, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (the "RLSA Committee"), of which I am privileged to serve as Chairman, transmitted out the Phase I Technical Review (the "Phase I Report") to the Board of County Commissioners. The Phase I Report contained a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (the "RLSA Overlay") in meeting its prescribed goal of protecting natural resources, retaining valuable agriculture and promoting compact rural mixed use development through an incentive based land use system on approximately 195,000 acres in eastern Collier County. The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made in achieving the RLSA Overlay goal and validated the extraordinary recognition the program has received in garnering awards from the following organizations during the first years of its existence: • 1000 Friends of Florida, Better Community Award, 2005 • FICE, Engineering Excellence Awards, Honorable Mention, 2004 • Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Awards, 2003 • Sustainable Florida Council, Award -Winning Best Practices, 2003 • American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, Awards of Excellence, 2003 The Phase I Report also provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee's Phase II qualitative evaluation of ways in which the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Policies could be improved to more effectively implement the program's overriding Goals and Objectives and achieve the RLSA Committee's Project Management Plan mandate to consider "potential opportunities and amendments to the Growth Management Plan". As a result of exhaustive public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee unanimously approved the following proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay: "Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established incentives." The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 5, 2009 Page 2 As the RLSA Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing Growth Management Plan ("GMP") Policies, the Committee developed strategies to create incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to: • eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses in exchange for compensation; • retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl in the RLSA Overlay); • create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections; • restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted tiered system; • impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit system to ensure the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive based program which generates significant public benefits without incurring public expenditures; and • cooperate with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. The RLSA Committee also engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous assessment of each and every RLSA Overlay policy to ensure internal consistency, thoughtful precision and careful scrutiny of the data, analysis and justification for each of the proposed Policy amendments. The work product of the RLSA Committee for its Phase II Report therefore actually consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments. Further, after intensive discussion, we concluded that the public proceedings embodied twenty three [23] public meetings and thousands of man hours of work expended by scores of interested parties should be appropriately recognized. The RLSA Committee's Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program incorporates two volumes. Volume I incorporates both the earlier Phase I Report and the Phase II Report. Volume I of the Report is organized and respectfully submitted in the following sections: The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 6, 2009 Page 3 • Phase I Report previously delivered to you as the basis for our qualitative evaluation of ways to more effectively implement the RLSA Goal and Objectives. • Phase 2 Report, Section 1 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended substantive policy amendments. • Phase 2 Report, Section 2 contains all of the RLSA Committee's recommended policy amendments, whether substantive or insubstantial. • Phase 2 Report, Section 3 contains the supporting documentation for the amendments. • Phase 2 Re ort, Section 4 provides an account of public participation and comments, committee deliberations, and committee action. • Phase 2 Re ort, Section 5 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP based on a proposal for a county transportation network initiated by Collier County Transportation Planning Director Nick Casalanguida. In summary, based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA Committee's recommended policies as contained in Volume I of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program, the RLSA will: I. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community development at the planning horizon year and at build -out. 2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable component of the economy of Collier County. 3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas from 92,000 acres to 134,300 acres. 4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private Iand using incentives that do not require public dollars for acquisition or management. 5. Align the RLSA program with the Florida Panther Protection Program's objectives. 6. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres -less than 114 of the total RLSA; or 15% when open space within new communities is accounted for. 7. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development, thereby reducing urban sprawl. 8. Accommodate forecasted population growth in a substantial manner and ensure that supporting public facilities, services, and infrastructure are provided. 9. Create new opportunities to site economic development driven new businesses in proximity to places for employees to live. 10. Accommodate a long range interconnected transportation network plan that serves Eastern Collier County. The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman and Members January 6, 2009 Page 4 Volume II of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program includes all support information including major documents, presentations, minutes, etc. considered by the Committee during the course of its twenty three [23] public meetings. Finally, immediately following this transmittal letter is an overview of the RLSA Supporting Documentation [see Phase 2 Report, Section 3] which was presented to the Committee. Given that the RLSA Committee's work effort has resulted in specific recommended policy amendments to improve the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to expedite the review process, the RLSA Committee recommends and respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay amendments to consider the recommendations found within the Phase II Report. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County. Chairman, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee cc: County Manager James V. Mudd V V 0 f+ L 4 ,M Q N 2% E N CL g C _ a ._ 4) m LM 0 La (L V a J d h- sN 'C H a J OC �.. a ♦+ .3 O L 0 o 4) C 4) N N a ,N ,O i� � � V b 0 Co N y NCD = N *+ Em s o N 3 O 04. O O V � L ♦ �► V N �% �++ _ 0 i d G� N V y Ooa� , L L Cm (j C � }' °' s N P ME P- r V V 0 f+ N ,M Q N 2% E N CL g C _ a O m LM Co di La CL V a J d h- LM V O CD Q N R N N H a J OC v a a o n d N IM y O = Gi E _ L O 0 0 m s CL v�0m }' .Cl s O - �� Rs }, H O _�� O ��.a O 13 O N o E p o 3 s u D CD N L Q Ufs 0o L R R =_ L t Q o L a,vZ�Q L a o O O v CL s�c� so0s� H a+ V i U 0000 0000 0000 coor,.-uo N(flNr r Ir— m y N U O Q Q Q Q 0 0 O i v .. V CO N .� -° o m 1 p 06 W O U T O V '0 #� N co M U)i N cc W p wMwwF— N i Qaa times co0M 0co M M M* co 0 ca .ea�e�iyy L ♦y C H co NN N � U � �00Q cu ,D a� ,D(D Q U H � � JJU)a- H d L a r ,w H d O Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 oF-FL6 _O 06 M O N V '0 N 3 O U C co 0 Q C �C U) N U) p� O C L 9 U) C J N ,r 'D C J = �(Q ccCDr-0a Cl . CJ CO..._U) C NU) caO E 0 cL> i o•- LUQ 0<z V— CL � L E V E cL o •- L � 3 > co 00 a� co 0 J G? R � V 02 y � O a� 3 _ 4) s W V d E No O r.L V � d► CL N .E lose 4) N L U Ca a U � �oU N d i � � w V U o c0 (/) v CV U Q N {�j o N Q O O v 'n O oC p oo —,o.o� N C C aN+ T A N -a-a E LO 0 (D V c 16 W V C C •Ld Q a00 O O 0 N 000 CV i C *�' 0).0 Lp O Co N � 4 L 0 N 7 O N 4 U V C O O #' cQ QW L -(D O Ecu L C CL n ¢w _ N 0000 0000 0000 co O d' 0) NNNroO T- r O O O RV O 44 U co co d' 03 U ca L L O CO) CO N "O N U = cc Q-0 N CO r a o O 00 N cM u? U_ i U N N N:00 O N N = O o E =3 N Z 0 CT O c 41,N v U L)— L fA O .O L CO O L 0 O �3 0 co O U Mow N W M +� vicn •C c �.., W m W W Q a H U co co d' 03 U ca L L U "O N CO r N d O c 41,N v N O .O O ow I" U3 O L O C d {n N V 4 u 'c@ S m O m = c m S J .M C �CL O O e 0 0 o 'Tr N r Z O o N e Nr o c0 0 O O N CD d O O 00 O M l Q M O w DO L 14 E d -o chch J .0 N E O = .CL � O Lo fn � ig C I�l1 j U- C N O i N N O 'O _ Q Q .a 75 E A' -o to v� ro � m a R N J y C 'O o C-0 Q a W � J U)+ O a m cc J V J IX N � N � v � C •u c�a C N J z ¢ a J a a cv + C U U) a o : o CU z to O co a a G � O e 0 0 o 'Tr N r e to o N o O r CD CD d O ll�t 00 O M l Q C\ 6 N L E d -o J N � O � ig C N i N N O 'O Q Q .a Oi C -o to v� ro � m R N cN 0 o C-0 a +r c N y :3 J V J N � H � v � C •u c�a z ¢ a to a a F- (n OO) •� o •L CL N O -C U) 0 -O o O- co U E c L Q 4-0 N ui Lam, c�0a�oo 0 - -N E cu Q � � •cu :3 �,ocu cu � �� 0E:E ca a 0 o cj j O a) � � O Wc cnU•� cn vi o N ��p U ca C N o 0 O Lf r (U O �o� o�Q �,o� N0CU0� �#' {n � O) c~� QO)w '2 ID O i ca N �_ Q.— ca O c� � Q .0 O 2� 0 V cu O O0 E cu cu o�� U >1 CL CU CU •� U O N scu - ca o c6 O }, L L u) E O� 9 i s cn 'fn c6 O -0 C:j X cn U} cu Q .- o cn o �� Q�CA OI� CL N �•E U c) _� U) `~ O O OO CD O s N o 0 CU .N i 0 Q CL L- = 2 E > v•� 0 Nv � cn conte o•r ,J sei 0 O � o 0 c 0 c U H Q Q H 3 F-- O_ ca U cu cu Cl)0 '� (3) > 0 OU M O 'cu Q �� o J (D N .O O 70 o cu a) Un N m L ° � -0c cu o N O '� U) in N O (u N CD V .� o ':3 Ucu N CL 3:-0 4— EO E to < LO cq O V - •cn O N O N � c a) a) N �Qa)U .O CU Z O �:EQ C L O a O a `•~ J L � C CLE�V Cc :3 o 0 .N -0a ,V cu C: co 0 Q Q vim m U Cl. Ci0m 00- 22 o�o� <" Z, 2 2 co E o� O co .r— - O C: O cu 1] 5 � O � Q cu cu N aD 0 0 cno C U L 6-0 W-0 ui cuO N O C) C) N LO N LO N _C� N o-0 o a) C;) N .1.0 N a) U 3 (� O `'�— c6 40—L O O O (1) CL -11-1 > o0 a N E O U E N 'Q O M -� U C Q O cu O +o� Q � � C� O U CD N_ N •� O cn a1 E CU 0 a� L O O a� CUL LO N C N O O -�e (a= N�, (U O 0 0 L 0 A CU CU N U ~ > O +_ o am cu o CL O U .CL O c: N N Cl. C 4- N E N - Q F- H O E E o O O C N � � O N cn Q CU CU cU C aD -0 Co cu C cu 0 04- O O N N a)�•Q C M U c X � N cao�� C Q C� O . p F -N — 0-0 O U N a) H CU -0C C O 4-N N C:N C E O N N V} O � i U)-0 (u 0 �� CO a)O 75 co O U i (a co -a Q} O m dj •�O N N E in o Q p O U Q •� 4} L- > C6 + E � =O O U C ��cn � � a C CL _ O c Q o cn 0 ��o a) 0�•�� > .Q �, O = �ocLa �0o �oc�i QQV c t— � %- M c a� 0 o •� m U- M . a L 40- Co Co o O d} J� U CL CD �0 U NN C�4 •o v� N N O L O� Lo �N cu OQ�O CV a) M�Ucu NCO L- a a} -J C � M CU (DO- N — � O � I— � U� U _0 Q O a) V 4 L a--+ � N .N N a) E CU (D L- cE C Q c�l� N J cu J ) w O J .V) J N @Q _Cc J N c a) U oS c6 � _ u� o c�W � C o a L � -� cr W a) • aL `� Q. :5.� -q? W r F— J = LV F— � cn is O (n W � .�' C Q N U) .9 C � � o o QE 1�� Q L Q LO 0 4-4 O O .� of N M N m Q Q LL U �N Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .� o a) c CDo 4° _ C.) N L J0 3 p cu O C C N V (� p 0 - O �•� �0) 9O 0-0 U M O 4i •L 0 cc .0 -p .� cp U a, Co 40- U v o ca C .= N `02 CL N 0 o o E 0 0 �_ o ` v a m CL � .- o -v C> co o� o O •�-v o_ C.) C •` L C O QN p _O C N C� X� O'O !L J L p N +r n 2 N � 0 � C O p O C •� ca C �O N � C V O c) Co c o .� cu o O L U E N C S C i G7 C N p C O V _ M cu L0 `C O J O p ca •� to +-' co0 C o to O O� N� O"�+_ N m N Cis O U co .O E O N � ,> � � p m V Q 0 cu 0- 2 c(n W aM Qa L (D Q ca c o OC.. , j a) 0 C19tCL c ca a) Cl) C }' O .4-' cn cn a) O O O.- i +r CCL a) CM , u c u V O a) +r N c Za CL cc �y ° os N° _ �o -0 QL CL 9 oQ _ a)\ `� O � C C aT oC13 Oo U `o c� O ��Q♦/� O Q) L O O 'y +� m .V (D Co U N V V L ERLE v! ca L + L O o L o cn O — a) 4) t y X m 4-`° 0 .N G.- O O O m a Q s O O N O Emco a� CU�N °.- L ca -0(DO L }' N O O N E cny N cu wR Yi -0-E L) � C .� E L L N 4--i O N N v c� N N U W V W w0 CD 0 v LL -0 Q ca .S U-0 Q O �. TABLE OF CONTENTS [Volume 1] PAGE PHASE I REPORT [review of activities within the Rural Lands Stewardship 1-29 Area during its first years of existence... completed in February, 2008] PHASE II REPORT [review and recommendations to improve the 30 effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay] Section 1: Major Committee -recommended revisions to improve the 30 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay • Preface to Committee Recommendations 30 • Group 1 Policies 30-33 • Group 2 Policies 33-34 • Group 3 Policies 34-35 • Group 4 Policies 35-40 • Group 5 Policies 40-44 Section 2: All Committee -recommended revisions to the improve the 45-67 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay • Stewardship Area Overlay Map 68 • Attachment A -Existing Credit Worksheet 69 • Recommended amendment to Attachment A- Credit Worksheet 70 • Recommended amendment to Attachment B -Land Use Layers 71 • Attachment C -SRA Characteristics [final approved] 72 • Attachment C -SRA Characteristics [proposed amendment] 73 Section 3. Supporting Documentation 74 • Preface and Introduction to Section 3 74 • ColIier County Rural Stewardship Five Year Review 74-92 Supporting Documentation for Amendments Section 4: Public Participation and Comments, Committee Deliberations 93 and Committee actions • Preface to Section 4 93-94 • Group 1 Policies 94-112 • Group 2 Policies 112-119 • Group 3 Policies 119-133 • Group 4 Policies 133-156 • Group 5 Policies 156-165 Section 5: Committee -recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation 166 Element of the GMP [related to proposed amended Policy 4.5 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay] PHASE II REPORT "REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY" PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH RESOLUTION 2007-305A SECTION I COMMITTEE -RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS REVISIOM TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Preface This Section of the Report summarizes the Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments recognized as substantive in improving the RLSA program. These substantive amendments provide for greater incentives to protect agriculture land, refine the Stewardship Credits assigned to restoration activities with greater emphasis on new panther corridors, will set a cap on the amount of Stewardship Receiving Area development, and revises some of the Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. Following this Section, Section 2 provides the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated and recommended. The RLSA Overlay Recommended Substantive Amendments Group 1policies set forth the general purpose and structure of the RLSA Overlay. The Committee evaluated the incentive basedpurpose of the RLSA and the structure of SSAs, SRAs and the Stewardship Credit system. Evaluating all policies under Group and hearing from stakeholders the Committee recommends a new policy to further refine the structure and process of designating a SSA, and added emphasizes on the Stewardship Credit system as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands. The Committee recommends a refinement to the Goal to further clarify the intent of the RLSA in using incentives to retain land for agriculture actives and protect and restore habitat connectivity. Goal (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to preteet retain land for agricultural activities, uses, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that wlizes employs creative land use planning techniques and through the use of established incentives. 301Page Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated_ as provided elsewhere herein. Policy 1.6.1 (recommended new policy) Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area "SSA" the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five Years "Conditional Period" and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one additional yea at the option of the owner by providingwritten notice to the County 12rior to the expiration of the initial five year period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining, the existing_ property conditions, including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at any time during the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non -revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein: 1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving Area ("SRA"). and the SRA has received all necessary final and non -appealable development orders,._ permits or other discretionary approvals necessary to continence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan aaRproval but not building_uermits. If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assi ngned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of all necessary governmental final and non -appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement,• 2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred aLiy Stewardship Credits to another person or entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly excluding: (a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship_ Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the land, or (b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Managerne Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval, or 3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement AVement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the "Events") 311 Page The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b 1) 80 days after the last dgy of the Conditional Period as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional StewardshiI2 Easement by recording a Notice of Termination. In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary a121roval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or gppeal is finally resolved. If the challengeor appeal is not resolved such that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge ora eal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding StewardshiR Sending Area Credit AgIeement shall expire and terminate the Stewardship Credits generated b the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the 12LQRerty, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the County. In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or. more SRA approvals but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of, Termination does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination. In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges, restrictions and. obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underlying zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit A eement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands Collier County and the other gmntees under the Stewardship Easement AUeement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit a eements for recording in the Dublic records within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but tie not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, , statewide lead wast; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. Policy 1.2 1 (recommended amendment) The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis for permanent protection of ag-icultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry 321Page bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC. Group 2 policies are intended to provide for the continued viability of agriculture. The Committee evaluated the policies in meeting the goal to protect agriculture land and heard from industry experts and agriculture interests. The Committee determined that a few of the policies were no longer necessary, such as the establishment of an Agriculture Advisory Committee. However, the Committee felt strongly that greater attention should be placed on incentives for agriculture through the Credit system. To improve the ability to protect agriculture lands within the RLSA, the Committee recommends the following amendments to Group 2 policies. Group 2 - Policies to retain land for a ricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (recommended amendment) Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) AgricultureaI landowners will be provided with by ereata�incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policyies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the fiffm of eempoet Fwal develepfneM in the RLSA 0 -ver -lay. Analysis has shown that SRAs ejeeted--pepulatien of the RLSA in the „rrzea year of 2025 to lie Policy 2.2 (recommended amendment) Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA, and WRA, as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are Resource Index on land desioated Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2_0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non -a_ riculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, Collier County shall update the RLSA Zonin Overlay verlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA 331 Page lEcelie�.4(recommended deletion)r-eeenunendations identified by the ACC thm are detennined to be appropriate. The BGC- may adept amewlment Group 3 policies address the protection of the natural water regime as well as listed species and their habitat. Following the evaluation of all the policies and input received from county environmental staff and wildlife interests and others, the Committee's major revision under this Group of policies focused on the further definition and credit assignment to restoration activates, and the clarification of the use of the Water Retention Areas for the support of water management Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment) 1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given to restenAiea within the Camp Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. shall be assigned for- eaeh aen ef land dedieated fer- resteFatien aefivitier, within other- FSAr, and HSAs7 The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with few additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area 12mgosed for restoration Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. 2. In certain locations, as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may opportunities to create restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for the ppMose of establishing and maintaining the northern or southern panther corridor. 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of Iand so dedicated Should an owner also effectively com lete the corridor restoration this shall be rewarded with 8 additional Credits per acre. 3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal, shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of aLiy area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre 341 Page Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded Only one tyl2e of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre desigLiated for restoration. This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various j2rivate and publicly funded restoration proUams such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Group 4 policies set forth the planning techniques and development characteristics to be utilized for Stewardship Receiving Areas. The Committee reviewed each technique and notably recommends a maximum total SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres Other recommended amendments include the elimination of Hamlets, and revisions to emphasize transportation mobility plans and economic development. Group 4 recommended policy amendments are: Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, VRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and aaRgroximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. . Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the pr-ineiples of the R-wel ba ct...... ars ip Aet as Awt er aeseribea procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within ene year- fi;atn the e&efive date ef d -tis amendmen4, Collier- GeaMy shall adopt LDC anwadments to 351 Page Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable, the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the County's then -adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element, and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation reservation requirements, including agjjculture. shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and re lations on techni ues to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management 121ans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and ractices such as al2prol2riate waste disposal methods that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility lan that includes consideration of vehicular bic cle/ edestrianublic transit internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies route sponsorshiv or other incentives which encourage_ the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and reduce trip len h and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasin internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are feim three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, lets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Han31ets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and 4-.7A. Gell..- bounty .,hal Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and OJ -5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. 361 Page Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than I -,OW 1,500 acres or more than 4,-N@ 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is al2l2ropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as pr-evided described in Policy 44-5 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office research, development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be ern -clued in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Foliey ".7.2 (recommended deletion) 7 fe the appr-eval of a Village er- Town, and thereafter- net mem than 5 additional HewAets, in eembiflatien wit GRPs of 100 aefes or less, may be appreved fer eoeh subsequent Village or . Policy 4-.7-.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will pFevide flexibility with Fespeet to the FpAx of uses and des* standards, btA shall ether -wise eemply with the standards of a Hamlet er- Vi shall support and further Collier County's valued_ attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research, education,_ tourism or recreation. Appropriately scaled com atible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be -permitted in CRDs. A CRD may 371 Page include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing_ &ad the sefviees and r eili :e„ that ,,up -- pe, anent residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent. with the demand generated by the Rrimary CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres.6- of a CRD is an eeetethrism village that weiald hay i of user, aed stippei.4 on MtaehmerA G based en the size of the GRP. As residential uttits are not a required ese, these geeds and rv"ir-ed, , Hhewevei� for- wty GRD that does iftlede pennanent residemiel housing, the prepertieflate SuppeA 100 aer-es er- less to Villages and Towns, net more than 5 C—RDr, of 100 aer-es eF less, in eembinatien with , may be approved as SRAs prier- fe the appFeval of a Village of: Town, and theFeOfier- not niefe then 5 additieftal. C—RDr, of 100 aer-es or- less, in eeakimfien with Hawilets, ffiay be approved fer- eeeh subsequent Village or- . There shall be ne mere them 5 GRD9 of meFe than 100 aer-es in size. The appropriateness ef this limitation shall Policy 4.7.4 (recommended new policy) Existing urban areas Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and indust within the RLSA, to further promote_ economic development, diversification and job creation. Permitted uses shall include but not be limited to environmental research a icultural research aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences,. corporate_ headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, information technology, manufacturing, research & development, wholesale trade & distribution-, technology commercialization and development initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses. Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) A SRA must contain sufficient suitable Iand to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs; and HSAs, and VA;LAr,. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a 0ounty collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land desigiated as an SRA or lands desigLiated as Open shall provide for the o1212ortunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County's arterialfcollector roadway_ network as shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity increase internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained by the primary town or community it serves Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the prijrna 381 Page town or community it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required_ to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of way dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or pLoposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution a eement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted Ievels of service standards. It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA may enerate sull2lus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to respond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to compete effectively for high- value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business projects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area fie- Open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4,19 4.20 do not require use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.43 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage of a public benefit use shall net count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consum tion of StewardsW Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns; and Villages, an�'�ts subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. 391 Page Policy 4.21(recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form, of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be 14awAets and CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages a'"`1m�td rims of not more than 300 acres and Provided, however, that CRDs, or two Villages erG Bs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effeetive date ef thir, ameadme June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, or, „r the eff etiv date of there ameaments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. Group 5 policies are intended to protect the natural water regime and protect listed species on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Hearing from wildlife experts and county environmental staff, the Committee evaluated all Group S policies and recommends the following amendments. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and desi ated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated_ in FgAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall e4y not be allowed in FSAs. with a *Mu fa. Desear-ee Stewardship I d._value o f � � ,e Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be develol2cd within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards: 401Page 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or protected species that may be discovered. Z. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected species and their habitats. a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local state and federa gpidelines and regulations shall be utilized to p=are the re wired management plans.: pelt space vegetalien pr-eservatien r -e uir-effiefos shall be used fe establish bu MP -R -As --RV deminated by human aefivities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management plans as appropriate i. The fellewing refffenees shall be used, as appropriate, to pFepaFe the required ffienagement plans-!. South Rer-ida Multi Speeies Reeeyer-y Plan, USFWS, . 2• Habitat Ma+iabe++ie+a: vwiwviiiiv0 ivi Li3v uuiv Lusav in aaa,.• yV M4liVf4Ji Regie", USFWS, Slated fer- bar-ge Seale De�Velepment in Rer-ida, Teehnieal Repei4 No. 4, Rer-ida Game and Fresh WateFFis G,,,..,,...,:... ien 1987. , -°."m.eal Repei4 No. o, Rer-ida "mle and Fresh water- Fish r.wul -,i nog , Rer-ida Game and Fresh Water- Fig sNefigame Treehnieal RepeFf No. 13, C-OwAnission, 1993. i. it The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. ii. iii-. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.Mana ement plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g_parks, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres. 3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eei-Aainiag utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may Ie strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: 421Page r r ... ILMMAWMAIII - -- - - - - - - - - - - 00-001-01-0, OW - - - - - .. - - - - - - - r . rIN r0.0 - _rr rMr - -- - - - -a, IN - - .- r M__...... ' ... r 3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eei-Aainiag utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may Ie strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: 421Page i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg -001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency -accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50 -foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25 -foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, iv.The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. v.A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: 431 Page i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's. ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance re uirements. i -v v_. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the FUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shall be encoura ed to consider particiRating in pny programs that provide incentives funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including, but not limited to federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy) Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses Outdoor ligJiting shall be reasonably managed to l2rotect the nighttime environment conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA thea licant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources. ""Page _SECTION J k ,AIL COMMITTEE -RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO IMPROVE THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY Preface Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review Committee determined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an amendment so often took action to "leave policy unchanged." Those policies that were amended, including those set forth in Section 1, and those with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike threugh and underlines. In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attached with recommend amendments. ➢ Stewardship Overlay Map ➢ Attachment A — Stewardship Credit Worksheet ➢ Attachment B — Land Use Layers Matrix ➢ Attachment C - Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Table The RLSA Overlay Recommended Amendments Goal (recommended amendment) Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to preteet retain land for agricultural activities, to prevent the premati eonver-sion of agrieultural land to non agrieultuFal uses-, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utiles employs creative land use planning techniques and through the use of established incentives. Objective (recommended amendment) To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(l 1), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture. Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection; ate, and. Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that collectively contributes to a viable agricultural industry, protects natural resources, and enhances economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a collaborative community_based planning process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee. 451 Page Policy 1.2 The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 163.3177(l l) F.S. The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs. Policy 1.3 This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map) and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC -99-002. The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Policy 1.4 Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the Iand, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment) As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan (GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC -99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that ewnem owner's consent. Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a 461 Page SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is terminated as provided elsewhere herein. Policy 1.6.1 (recommended new policy) Notwithstanding any pLovision herein to the contra u on initial apRroval of a Stewardship Sending Area "SSA" the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five yors "Conditional Period" and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one additional year at the option of the owner by_providing written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five year period All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existing_ property conditions, including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands shall be in full force throup,hoot the Conditional Period. If at any time during the Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non -revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein: 4. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving Area, ("SRA"), and the SRA has received all necessary final and non -appealable development orders permits or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan approval, but not building ermits. If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of all necessary governmental final and non -appealable development orders permits or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement: 5. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another person or entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expressly excluding: (c) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the land, or (d) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA a roval• or 6. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the "Events" The LDC shall specify how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) any of the fore oing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement by recording_a Notice of Termination In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval is filed the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is $pall resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire and terminate the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist the rights and obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a, copy of the Notice of Termination to the County. 471 In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA approvals, but none of the foregoing -events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the Notice of Termination shall also provide for termination of an_y SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall ioin in the Notice of Termination. In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges restrictions and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void and the land shall revert to its underlying zoning classification,_ free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other Uantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit a eements for recording in the public records within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall update the overlay map to, reflect the termination of an, SSA or SRA This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated -herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but tie not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ,- ep 4.....e„* of Envir-ewnemaj Pref .etien sta4..wide land `-ass; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures. Policy 1.8 The natural resource value of Iand within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Policy 1.4 A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay. Policy 1.10 In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land. 481 Page Policy 1.11 The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA. Policy 1.12 Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability -criteria and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs. Policy 1.13 The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment. Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4" 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment. Policy 1.15 Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of Iand use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable -workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Policy 1.16 Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits maybe transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted. Policy 1.18 A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). 491 Page Policy 1.19 All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system. Policy 1.20 The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 1.21(recommended amendment) The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA Iocated inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC. Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment) The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs e..,._.aFdship ,-.istfiet ;n the 16DG. as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows: 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs. 2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use. 4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. 7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption. 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Group 2 - Policies to amd retain land for agricultural activities through the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (Recommended amendment) Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) 501 Page Agricultural landowners will be provided with -lands will be pr-eteeted frern e ,•.eenver-sionether by er-eating--incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. ache -feet Fwal deN,elepment in the RLSA Over -lay. Analyeis has show that SRA9 will allew the pFej eeted population ef !he RLSA in the Hefizen year- eg 202=5 to be aeeewiffledated 0 tely 109; of the aereage ether -wise required if sueh eempat4, fur -a! development weiv not allowed due te agrieuRtwe. Policy 2.2 (recommended amendment) Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1. 10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting_agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA, HSA, and WRA, as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA, SRA, VRA, HSA. FSA, or public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map. Open Lands are those lands described in Policy 4.2. Therefore, in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the _ACSC. All non -agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, Collier County shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Foliey 2.4 (recommended deletion) The BGG will eensidef the reeemmefidatiene, of the AAG and f4eilitate the implemepAatien of stmtegies and FeeenunepAatiens identified by the AGG thM are detemiined te be appropriate. The BGG may adept ameadmeR4s_ Policy 2.5 3 (recommended amendment) Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being.—Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right -to -Farm Act. Policy 2.6- 4 (recommended amendment) Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3. 10, nothing herein or in the implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the Stewardship program. 511 Page Group 3 — Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of FIow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 3.1 Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 3 1, 100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1.2 while 4% score I.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 40,000 45,782 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 13,800- 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of MAE, HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5. Policy 3.3 Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of WRA land is 1.5. Policy 3.4 Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing public areas, and 521 Page any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA. Policy 3.6 Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment) General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an E49 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact: • Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parcel. • Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas. • Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment) 1. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture flimited to Open Land designation only] and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will 531Page be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below. 2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one Ag 1 use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag 1 areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to 1% of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided. Policy 3.10 Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment) 1. In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. Priority shall be given te resteiefien witWn the Camp Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keairfi d FSA e -- eentipeus HS 4s erg two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. shall be assigned for- eaeh aer-e ef land dediamed fer- r-ester-afien aefivifies witifin ether- FgAs and 149AS. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with €euF additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. 2. in certain locations as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay MaI2, there may be opportunities to create restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection Should a property owner be willing_ to dedicate land for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the northern or southern panther corridor, 2 additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated Should an owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, this shall be rewarded with 8 additional Credits per acre. 3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal,,. shallow wetland wading bird foragin habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and publicly funded restoration programs 541 Page such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Policy 3.12 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public. -private conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix. Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusively for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Policy 4.1 Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of 551 Page agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,900 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. ° Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. , GellieF County shall adopt LPG amendments to Policy 4.4 Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable, the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the County's then-adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element, and Access Management procedures. Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areas golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including_ agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices(such as appropriate waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizingopportunities pportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. Policy 4.6 SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicvcle/pedestrian public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and 561 Page land uses. The mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl: ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are fetw three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Jets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and 4�4. w"e"=e- Geer y shat establish mere s Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and OJ -5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not Iess than 1-,000 1,500 acres or more than 4,4" 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratie as pr-eAded described in Policy 445 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies, and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those included in Policy 4.7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range 571 Page of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Pekey ".7.3'recommended deletion) Town.Hamlets aFe small Fmal residei#ial areas with pr-iwar-ily single fa"Iy heusing aad KwAfed range ef eenvenienee e6ented seMees. 14awJ ets shall be not less than 40 er- mere than 100 aer-es. Harrilor, will serve ar, a Rier-e eempaet altemative to traditional five aer-e let mml subdivisions euffea4ly allowed in the baseline staffdar-ds. Har?Aets shall have a publie green spaee fer- neighbeFheeds, Ha�--Iets ine-Judd-e eanvenienee retail uses, in a ratio as provided Tewits, not mer -e ihan 5 HawAets, in eembination with GRD9 ef 100 aer-es or- less, may be approved as SRAs pr -ie Policy 4r7A 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that .9n design standards, but .hall other -wise vepiy with _._-�_s of a Hamlet Vi shall supRort and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessM to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research, education tourism or recreation. Apprgpriately scaled compatible uses described in Policy 4.7.4 may also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housingand the seFvieer, and f eilitie., that suppe# The number_ of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand generated by the primary CRD use, but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. An ememp! e ef a GRP ir, an eeetetuism village that wetild have a unique set of user, aPA suppe# en Attaebmew G based on the size of the GRP. As Fesidenfial units are not a required use, these geeds aFA serviees tha4 suppeA residents sueh as retail, effiee, eivie, gevemmewal and institWienal uses shall also not be required, . Hhowever-I for any GRD that does ineltide permanent residential Musing, the pr-epei4ienate suppe seFviees listed above shall be pr-evided in aeeer-daeee with Maelimew Q To fflaWain a pr-epeAiem of GRPs of 100 aeres or- less to Villages and Tew , 'haft 5 GR4)s of 100 aeres er- less, in eembina4ien with , may be appreved as SRAs prior- to the appr-eval ef a Village er-Town, and thereafter- not mer -e than 5 addifieml. GRDs of 100 aer-es or- less, in eembinatien with Hawilets, maybe appr-eved for- eaeh subsequent Village . There shall be no mer -e than 5 GRDs of mere than 100 aer-es in b: - years eRey 1.22. size. Policy 4.7.4 (recommended new policy) Existing urban areas Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic development, diversification and job creation. Permitted uses shall include but not be limited to environmental research, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace health and life development initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses. Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. 581 Page Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs; and HSAs,ana—ks. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/]ight industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of i Racts to any such areas. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than. 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village. , or these GRDs exeeeding 100 aeres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. exc t for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, leeated etitside of the AGSQ, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Policy 4.12 Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Policy 4.13 Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set -back areas, and other natural or man- made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. 591 Page Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA aRproval, an SRA proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County's arteriallcollector roadway network as shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, increase internal capture, and keM the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA. Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained bye primary town or community it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the primary town or community it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to miti ate an SBA's traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to, provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings. environmental mitigation credits right of way dedications water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution a eement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed. Policy 4.15.1 (recommended amendment) SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3;-7.4 and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. Policy 4.15.2 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. Policy 4.15.3 Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school -aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and 601Page 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build -out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and,—Villages, and the se GRD9 exeeeding one hundred (100) aer,es in and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are --enrii•ted in i arnl"`" may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1. 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable -workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA may generate surplus revenues to Collier County and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Count,, t�pond expeditiously to economic opportunities and to co =ete effectively for high- value research, development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business rp oiects. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. exeept fer e- Open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is fit 1 Page designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 444 4.20 do not require use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4-14 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage of a public benefit use shall net count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns; and Villages, and Hanil subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Policy 4.21 (recommended amendment) Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hawlets-axd CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages and GRDs of not more than 300 acres filets. Provided, however, that CRDs, or two Villages or- GRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to June 30. 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as e f the a ffee4iy ` a4e of `hese amendment +, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply. Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA desiggation process, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities re ag rdin significant resources. Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment) To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated. in Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall ems} not be allowed in FSAs. ;it a Nato -al neseth-ee Stewar-.ship Index ,,,.,e e f 1.2er- less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these rights. 621 Page Policy 5.2 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing. Policy 5.3 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards: 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or protected s ecies are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species or protected species that may be discovered. 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected species and their habitats. b.Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or listed s ecies and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state, and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. habitat arms and wreas de;A-i-n—ated by huffiall used te establish buffer- veals ^ern. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The following r-efer-enees shall be used, as appropriate, fe pr-epex-e the r-equired inaftagenwat 1 5. South Fier-ida Multi Speeies Reeevefy Plan, USFWS, 1999. USFWS,6. Habitat ManagemeW Guidelines for- the Bald Eagle in the Seu4heast Region, 07. 63 Pepulatiens found en Lands Slated fer- Ler7ge Seale Development ift Fier-ida, T-eehnieal n e. eft N a Fier -id G..�..e and F fes Water- Fish r� i 98; a_..1.. Vay a,v. �, 1 avaaYaa vN111V uaa,.. a aVJll .. u<Vf 1 1 �, . (Apeleeema eeefuleseens), Te"eal Repeo Ne. 8, Fierida Game and Fresh Water- Fish. 199 a vr. vas No. ate, a ava iuu V41111V 411f\111esh , 1993. i. ii-. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy. ii. iii, When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy. b.Mana eg ment plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks, passive recreation areasgolf courses and vegetation preservation requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Consideration shall beivg en to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also re uire the dissemination of information to local residents businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring proaam for developments U ter than ten acres. 641 Page i MME 641 Page - _ - ANI _10 XA ' -5 rym9r.I NA IN MMM rp9--rF.9m. - :iz� • _ imp ��hn � INE f k f � ■� � - ------ 3.The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eentaining utilized by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may elange strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policy 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows: 1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems. 2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area. 3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. Other wetlands within the RLSA are isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland functionality assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an appropriate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria: i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or 651Page greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy 5.3. ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65. b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg -001, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency -accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above. c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f) of this policy. d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50 -foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25 -foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (3) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Mitigation Requirements: 661Page i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's. ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland. iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities. iv. Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance requirements. -i-v v_. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation. 4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participatin in programs that provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy) Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy) When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA, the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources 671 Page Stewardship Overlay Map 681 Page EXISTING ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Woricsheet Appendix H U.u.L"s S1s+.ardshlpCrsdRMs1AX � �vre.rgLl- Avm�..dav+ t 4..r..r - 5' Vr `� __ - bbin•9waluu LA fo me fA �r.rrrP�. - u� M _._ __ OYYYMd41�.fOM1NINNFMWCM 11.111111111 �flr P.A. Y m C.ft X -- Si.WMdiPcF*rt. .ONf�T..InIC901. t�w�na�w.I.r,..pgwawMrcw+mmwa.�.ri�fw m...aelc a.m bww+brr�a+rr�� n�,.e eao F.wu0...>mw.��roW++.�.Rw�nYyrssw.rcA S. [nrw 1w1cw r.a.s e.fv M'� MwMrwllMrfplyw wW Crap o. rn byw 1.n.11rf.f1 h wpleaim+ilm w lair 81...61 Cvtla 691 Page on.re..r1.111uw .a..rcw11r 11.w .n...rrur RAP. F4A:1mEcd Lw .11.m►n•s�pf � �11�1tlr1y mw.a "-;Md. erwxwr Mw�`+.�sr M ..r1F.rY Iprrr.+ly ..—rr 11a 1.1i.>,rw aw.rrru.11fa >mrr w -- Im wr.rrs r .1. .wrawlf..r.relrw m.1f.r1.r .11.a1.1..0 M 1.11v11m..� pill 11.e11rw..b —rrrow R.SG Cab Y �r�: . rva Ca01 11.111111111 �flr P.A. Y m C.ft X -- Si.WMdiPcF*rt. .ONf�T..InIC901. t�w�na�w.I.r,..pgwawMrcw+mmwa.�.ri�fw m...aelc a.m bww+brr�a+rr�� n�,.e eao F.wu0...>mw.��roW++.�.Rw�nYyrssw.rcA S. [nrw 1w1cw r.a.s e.fv M'� MwMrwllMrfplyw wW Crap o. rn byw 1.n.11rf.f1 h wpleaim+ilm w lair 81...61 Cvtla 691 Page on.re..r1.111uw .a..rcw11r 11.w .n...rrur RAP. F4A:1mEcd Lw .11.m►n•s�pf � RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT A ... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET r rresF AIM Aw Re,rhebn ARF SUM l:wgrrl bdees AM. Entle-d FSI,y NSA,pwRA A,Ifi ]0a int d FSA p IISA 90a IIFI d '4+ d M Peeves �+0000+d hFgUl oMrW- b.err WYSYLam byres: _ drAFerded eFrd Fr�lb hFbyFt, ebw d M MMVF Yhlr ab PAs* U'rFFYn For 81YFF� For lteh:fra�ti adM ares nlYnnlFl wrmrmloak x -s �.oe „earm Fred kit r-lorFfen rw _ �ohiM-ibrYa+ren bbtl+ydel r-lanUon an Ie dMabave FLIrCC3 Cade IS-ap , . n.Lres ucu uao h , `=0005 Cade ties# a OFhn Wllye lard d NRI VFew. Recon manded Revision to Attachment A Collier County RLSA Stewardship Credit Workshsal LFrld ll-YWrte bYFMF L-A UFV*w step 7� b b• FambFlFd RuldrdlFl luq p,F Deans a Ccedeoner use 021 Erni Frtl lye a1 IVf 1U -e 0.1 o.t R.~W rd Nik" new- lues a.a eMFlrua.verdL.au..vdwadbnlyl.re ,� a,w 1 L!ndrwhrieh IM.y FreYedF,r IrrFN �� F—,-- Crusu.�FwwwMACSC Ilesw ACWfdFe le'.h.r� Fars 1N _ Mrentlen Vres Cove YLh 1 ,ycwrtw7++,o _�. SMFaA nabw, 701Page aelwarMhlp Chrupt CFhudFdan Inamlee-n NaWlr*—-bd-VFk— SMp1.MNRIV trs 1h PO" dWWhCOWWW by ftSt,—Wlp med.l baw pre NRI F*d_ Step I.i DO— ~Sedrg A- LOM U. Uy—.11 be Mk.VO dW—M LFrd WeV w e1FFU1. Ue M rrbFar Raba- S1Fwrdfblp Cndu Fa b dRrein woos d CrFdp. As,kea, rLFFdtyerea- al.p 2 DF-mer„rkh glglpaF vFlhyF q Ies baed -b-uoF step 2F.1/- yy ApkurFp SMwrd$" CtM Fmnr b dvrmYy h br of Crbdu A*-& bre ACNW*s 3" 1 Se RoO Mn D*41 6 abp 3.F. Dv—nli a Wft mvb.%..cw* ea be Fpm.~ ll"Ib. ReppFppn pq-FM [p dNMnMF nurbr d Cmd;tL Stsrrardshlp Credit Formulas Natural Resources SWwardship Credits = Acres x cumulalh a NRI score z Cumulailve Land Use Value Agrimtkire Stewardship Credits (dappikable) =Acres x Agricullure Value —®s, Resbratim C eft (d applicahle) = Acres x [ 2 r Reak alion Values sup sx Note: Tho V100 sh"t is hdellded W Alustmte Dye Factors, Values, Fmftks and Irabuctlons used to calculate Stewardship Credits. To properly calculate Stewardship CWhis,1M Nehlral Resources Index Map and SWAwdshlp model must be used Sloop wilh the applicable RLSA policies step a.b ATTACHMENT B -LAND USE LAYERS [s#Fike-ti FOUgh is proposed deletion] 4.08.06 B.4.b Land Use Matrix (P=Permitted; A=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use) (Laver 1) (Laver 2) (Laver 31 (Laver 4) (Laver 5) (Laver 6) (Laver 71 (1 aver 81 Residential General Earth Mining Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Conservation, Land Uses Conditional and Recreational Group 1 - Support Uses Group 2 Restoration and Integral Uses Processing Uses Uses processing of farm or recreational Natural Resources Single-family Family care Excavation, Golf courses Crop raising; Farm labor housing Unimproved Wildlife management, dwelling, incl. facilities (P) extraction or andlor golf horticulture; (A) posture plant and wildlife mobile home earthmining and driving fruit the property (A) and grazing, conservancies, refuges P) related ranges and nut forestry and sanctuaries (P) clubhouse, processing (CU) production; (P) community and production groves; or patrons; tour center building (CU)nurseries; operations, such and tennis Improved facilNles, asture P but not limited to Mobile homes Collection and Asphaltic and Sports Animal breeding Retail sale of fresh, Ranching; livestock Water management, J(P) in MH transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional (other than Unprocessed raising (P) groundwater recharge Overlay; (A) as resource making plants schools and livestock), agricultural and (P) temporary use] recovery CU) camps (CU) raisingproducts; similar modes of (CU) training, grown primarily on trans rtation CU Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, tabling or the Excavation and Boardwalks, nature A) aviary, botanical kenneling (P) property (A) related processing trails Private Veterinary clinic Sporting and Dairying, Retail plant Hunting cabins Restoration, mitigation boathouses (CU) Recreational beekeeping; nurseries (CU) (P) and camps (CU) poultry and egg (CU) docks on lake, Churches and production; milk Natural resources not canal or other places of production (P) otherwise listed (P) waterway lots worship (CU) ising A non•venomoua (P) Recreational Child care centers Aqueoultum Is Packinghouse or Cultural, Water supply, well facilities and adult day care ofive similar agricultural aducational, Raids Integral centers processing of farm or recreational (P); oil and gas to residential products produced faciliges and their exploration (P) development, ) on related modes of e.g., golf the property (A) transporting course, participants, clubhouse, viewers community or patrons; tour center building operations, such and tennis facilNles, but not limited to parks, alrboats, swamp playgrounds buggies, horses and and playfields (A) similar modes of trans rtation CU Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature A) aviary, botanical production, raising related processing trails garden, or other Dr incidental to Ag(A) (P) similar uses (CU) breeding or exotic animals CU Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not other places of breeding and otherwise listed (P) worship (CU) ising non•venomoua (P) and venomous(CU) Communications Essential services (P towers (P)(CU) and CU) Social and Oil and gas field Fraternal development and organizations (C) production (CU) Private landing strips for general aviation (CU) Cemeteries (CU) Schools (CU) roup care Facilities, ALF CU 71 [Page Note to Attachment B: The removal of land use layers yields Stewardship Credits measured on a per acre basis. Attachment C -Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [final and approved] Attachment C Collier County RLSA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Chareclarknes TyPka Cbaraefarlaamo Town• VNlaga SLz (GMNAcrosl 1.ODD4,000 aces 100-7.0osorag- ResidaMW Uaft (DUs) per gross Bore Guo dsnrNy 14 DUs pa puss acre"- 25 SF gross duNdrg arm porDU indiwdrW wea aW Septic System; lr *M,a WM ad Septic Sy -t -W 1.4 Dt1s Per grow sae- RalderrUisl NwrWq Sryla Furargs of eagM fanny sntl muNFlsnay Divemky arsirglo{amlFy and mWt44m PuW Gro- Spun kr Ndghbwheoda (miniimrm/%ofpror veal 1 9 types. eyles, lel elzoa Imusap 1YP. ryma• kt ekes parks & Pubk Groan Spools wyn NMWrborhwds(mkWnum1%ofgroes arrael Gaanmo Rand 80f5eo-.5 Ratak S ONla..5 Lak. OWn SWoe Nk*num 3S%c(WkA cWkffi&.nrrrsdMnMMwen-,e CivWrl VWWWAaYhWitutbn-.e M.drmm Floor Arm Redo a Woneity RJAMMOULMOW&AS raa—Lgtalpp-.a5 -aMw-JKww-.bS _iDwaMM-L0l1Mp-20 upo not rte- 29 bps not Tawe Crier-kh Gonaamity and Goods and Sawom Nagibommd Good- and Senlols In T .rW Vaoga Colace: W"nXnn sS SF groaa VNaea Calor w0h Nsyhbodpod Gma and Saviols 4 Vags Craaa; agrana Hrradorp was Pw DL(:.�e9l , 2s sF emu WNkg em pa Du COMrBR*d ordsuntroYud ww wally Cwralmd ordww*WLW WnanuNt) wMar and waswasla trearnard eywm larerrm ant c.nrr.. Veariarl syaeru aaalm w cfi+� CPmaamNy Pwka(20)SFAiU)PwIs&Pubk and Green w Spasvdn Nslghbod sjrnbkrsan1%o(gmR 1 Parks A Pub to Groan Spocas Wn Raasskorl and OPan Spaces laaiplrbmrllsods LOW OW SPaol Knaruan 35%d SRA Lakes Open Spaea Mkbnan 35% or SRA Colic. Govamn*rtW and InOWLIlbnal Sa *Dft wkle Rwq* of Savkas . mkamrrm 1S $I Arm • imaroorurdad eyataq or PPAeda bca nmds; reprad oonneclianm rolled Nada TransWMon Iraarmmledad aldswalk and Psen+wy syr Casty Traak Amass Narn4t Compact Rural Daalopmnd X100 soma^ 1a0 Acura or Naw- Gnaw Tion 100Acwa'- 112.2 GU aQ groes aaa-" 112 -2 Dtl par erase acng- 1-4 We Per gmee we-^ Skgb F� - -r - - -lam n ,6 �aaLw.tmse-.m s Gram Horaan..t5 STmla-H,,—,-.as _SiMWIJILEW- A5 Le4WPg-28 ups net TM WSMLmdmsrg.26 ups net Srrulmt 1.edeYw. an .. CanPerdaww Goods and SwWew: Cdnrardsnca Goods and Swvkes: MNIn �e+pe Carves wNh NNphhorfmpd Gmr 10 SF groes buadarg orsa per OU 10 SF groes tmading ams Par DO and SarWou In lelaps Centers: ashlkrs o[J Auld-inlarolramdad ayo_and 25 SF gross duNdrg arm porDU indiwdrW wea aW Septic System; lr *M,a WM ad Septic Sy -t -W Auto iti roonadeuksdmarsdknk and WcyadwW Ibi lraafmara awaam CenbaMnd or deolnbabW am-nnm* uwwrlerrt syelerno PuW Gro- Spun kr Ndghbwheoda (miniimrm/%ofpror veal Prak Green Space fpr NWghbatnmds tn**num 1%a pros scree) -wad, Ifflod and stow parks & Pubk Groan Spools wyn NMWrborhwds(mkWnum1%ofgroes arrael Gaanmo Lak. OWn SWoe Nk*num 3S%c(WkA ga of $wW1 Moaarat�—+ SFZU;lftvl Rama a - o[J Auld-inlarolramdad ayo_and bcalmads;rsgrbab Aufo-iraarmnnecW sydama(but road Aube- iraarmrlrledad sYs1m+P14ol1 Auto iti roonadeuksdmarsdknk and WcyadwW INammaetad eidawaysystanP1410016M Palmrye Pod -Ulm Pot—" L114 fnwmwxtad SWOwalk and pkhogy Fn .w.s...Tna E -= C—tyLIranglG62ws Tama are Pmhbited wvlvn the ACSC. pa PWWA 7.1 of the Goaa, Objeca m. end Poacfss. Vingss. Haresd. and Ce�� DeyaoPmsnlsxl the ACSC w sr� 1P I*MM rtd etre knkdbM Pa POW 4-4Was wAjod 10 ChWa, 2&25. FAC. -" • Demay Con b ww-mod dwl 9*wDugh Vm Aeerd" HMMM 0 -sty Bonus or lhrorrgh "N darky bladhg M WaW W policy d.7. Thom CROs Umf vxiode a"" rrNApw Ay raWw" trees shat kwWo pmpedabnae W*Md WAess. Uro-uwd uses ara rot required uses. :==—L.._1 721 Page Attachment C -Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics [Recommended Amendment] [Proposed] Typical Characteristics Size (Gross Acres) Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base dans Residential Housing Styles Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Goods and Services Water and Wastewater Recreation and Open Spaces Civic. Governmental and Insfitutional Services Transportation Town' 1,500-5,000 acres 14 DUs per gross acre— Village 100-1,500 acres" 1.4 DUs per gross acre— Full range of single family and multi -family Diversity of single family and multi-fai housing types, styles, lot sizes housing types, styles, lot sizes Retail a Office -.5 Retail & Office -.5 Civic/Govemmentalfinsfitution-.6 CivictGovemmenfalllnsfitution-.6 Manufacturinall-lahtal-AS Qrouo Housing -.45 -Group Housing- A5 Ttansienl Lodging- 26 ups net Transient Lodging- 26 ups net Town Center with Community and Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town a I Village Center with Neighborhood Ga Village Centers: Minimum 65 SF gross buildi g and Services in Village Centers: Minin area per DU—Ca-rRgmJe-Qffi-q1,bbn1dAU= 25 SF gross building area per DU Centralized or decentralized community treatment system _Interim Well and Septic Community Parks (200 SFIDU) Parks & Public Green Spates w/n Neighborhoods -Active RacreatiorVGolf Courses Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SFIf FuII Range of Schools Auto - interconnected system of collector ar local roads; required connection to collector arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway syste County Transit Access Centralized or decentralized communih treatment systems Interim Well and Seofic Parks & Public Green Spaces win Neighborhoods (minimum 11% of gross arrael �ldive RecreatianfGolf Courses Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Compact Rural Development 100 Acres or less- 112 ess"1f2 -2 DU per gross acre— _Single Fanubf and limited multi-familg— Retail & Of5.4e- .5 CiAdGovemmentaulaslitutipn- .6 Groug Housing- .45 Transient Lodging- 26 upa net Research, Education,Tourism & Reereatia Convenience Goods and Services- Minimu 10 SF gross building area per DU Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized r decentralized community 1rEatmenl system Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Moderate Range of Services - minimum 1 SF/DU; Limited Servir Full Range of Schools Prej< thaWahm h Is Auto - interconnected system of collecto and local roads: required connection to Auto - interconnected system of local n collector or arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Pedestrian Pathways Eauesbian Trails Equestrian Trails County i s Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7,1 of the Goals. Objectives, and Policies. Villages and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations, per policy 4,22, and are subject to Chapter 26-25, FAC. Density can be increased beyond the base density through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus or through the density blending provision, per policy 4.7. Those CRDs that include single or multi -family residential uses shall include proportaionate support services. Undedineduses are not required uses. 731 Page SECTION . SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Preface The Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments are supported by a substantive analysis of several subject areas that have been discussed by the RLSA Review Committee. The full analysis is provided for in Section 3. These subject areas include: • The RLSA Credit System analysis which compares current and proposed Credit projections derived from natural resource areas, agriculture, panther corridors, and restoration. • The analysis shows how the recommended policy changes relate to the proposed 45,000 acre SRA cap, which aligns the RLSA Program with the goals of the Florida Panther Protection Program and provides a basis to evaluate long term transportation infrastructure plans. • The population analysis compares different County study results and shows how the RLSA is consistent with adopted projections. • The Concept Maps help to visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and graphically illustrate one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies. • The RLSA Transportation Analysis describes the development and evaluation of a set of long-range transportation plan improvements that support the land development potential at 2025 and at Build -Out as depicted in the 2025 and 2050 Concept Maps. Introduction The Committee on September 23, September 30, and December 18, 2008 reviewed and voted to accept the following analysis to support its recommendations regarding revisions to several of the RLSA Overlay and its related Credit System. Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Five Year Review Supporting Documentation [a working draft] I. Introduction The RLSA Overlay is a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon year of 2025, the established HorizonYear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This analysis was performed for both the 2025 Horizon Year and for a theoretical "build -out" scenario in 2050 in order to evaluate the potential long-range implications of implementing the recommendations to amend certain RLSA policies set forth within this Phase lI Report. The RLSA Review Committee's (Committee) Phase I] work focused in part on policy changes to strengthen the incentive to protect agriculture land and new panther corridors, to focus restoration activities, and to cap the total potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint within the RLSA program at 45,000 acres. Consistent 741 Page with the framework of the RLSA and the Stewardship Credit system, the Committee incentivized the preservation of agriculture lands by awarding new Stewardship Credits for agriculture land preservation and panther corridors, and changed the Credits associated with restoration to more specifically defined activities. The recommended changes required a reanalysis of the Stewardship Credit system and rebalancing of the Credits to align with the Committees recommended maximum SRA footprint and projected demands. Further analysis was completed to determine if the recommended 45,000 SRA footprint could accommodate the acreage necessary for the projected population, and the goods and services required in towns and villages within the RLSA Overlay. Along with population, a transportation analysis was completed in order to evaluate a potential transportation network to support a maximum 45,000 acre SRA scenario. II. Stewardship Credit System Analysis The Stewardship Credit System analysis begins with consideration of the generation of Credits under the currently adopted RLSA Overlay. The Committee's recommended Credit system changes are then evaluated and compared to the existing program. 1. CREDIT GENERATION UNDER CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA OVERLAY Base Credits Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of the Natural Resource Index and the Land Use Layer System. They are created from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and Open lands that are designated as SSAs by the property owners. To estimate the total potential Base Credits, a model run of the NRI values was performed using current mapping of AGI and AG 2 land uses as recently adjusted during the Stage 1 process. It is assumed that all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs become SSAs with land use layers removed down to current AGI or AG2 use. This model was applied to all of the FSAs, HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of whether they are in approved SSAs or not. Modeled credits were compared to actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, and this analysis shows that actual Base Credits in these approved and pending SSAs are approximately 15% greater than the model due to the inclusion of more site specific data, such as listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of accuracy in calculating NRI values. However, this variance will be less going forward based on the composition of future SSAs being more heavily weighted toward WRAs. Therefore an adjustment factor of +10% is applied to the model derived Base Credits (116,329). The rounded total estimate is 128,000 Base Credits. Restoration Credits Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Because these Credits are dependent on site specific conditions that require detailed evaluations and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner, as well as successful implementation, it was not possible to estimate these Credits at the inception of the RLSA Overlay. With 5 years of actual data from 13 approved and pending SSAs one can estimate the use of the restoration program. Notwithstanding, the same variables of site specific conditions, owner decisions, and permitting requirements will still apply to future restoration. For this estimate, the following approach has been used: Total acres of FSA, HSA, and Restoration Zone within RLSA: 73,000 Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13: 12,000 Acres deemed not suitable for restoration, SSAs 1-13 21,000 Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration: 40,000 For SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for restoration. Assuming that the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that are eligible for future restoration, 11,600 additional acres would be restored (40,000 x 0.29 = 11,600). The projected additional restoration credits generated under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the table below: 751Page System Potential Restoration: Acres Estimated Restoration Potential. acresik 29% Restoration Credits credi#sfAcre Estimated Credits Camp Keais 15,000 4,350 8 34 800 OK Slough 25,000 7,250 61 43,500 TOTAL 1 40,0001 11,6001 WAI 78,300 The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is: Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000 Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000 Estimated future restoration credits (rounded): 78,000 Total restoration credit estimate for current system: 160,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits are available until January 31, 2009, at which time they are no longer available. Potential Credits and SRA acres under currently adopted RLSA Prozram Base Credits: 128,000 Restoration Credits: 160,000 Early Bonus Credits: 27,000 _ Total Credits: 315,000 Credits SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre: 39,375 Acres Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%: 3,937 Acres Total SRA Acres: 43,312 Acres _...__ Remaining Baseline development votential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs ACSC Open Land 15,000 Acres Non ACSC Open Land 28,700 Acres Total remaining Open Land 43,700 Acres 2. CREDIT GENERATION UNDER THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED RSLA OVERLAY MODIFICATIONS Three proposed changes to the RLSA Overlay recommended by the Committee would change the Stewardship Credit estimates described previously. Two are new credit categories that resulted from the Florida Panther Protection Program, and the third is a proposed modification to the Restoration Credit system. Agriculture Credits (Policy 2.2) These Credits result from a property owner agreeing to eliminate non- agricultural uses from Open designated land and an alternative to development under baseline zoning rights. Estimates are calculated based on the acreage of privately owned Open designated land in the ACSC not already included in approved SSAs (approximately 15,000 acres) at 2.6 Credits per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and privately owned Open designated land outside of the ACSC (approximately 72,000 acres), less the amount of potential SRA acres proposed under the Florida Panther Protection Program (45,000) and less the acreage of a potential Panther Corridors on such Open Lands (approximately 1,300 acres) and miscellaneous land (700 acres). This results in an estimated 25,000 acres of Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0 credits per acre, or 50,000 Credits. Therefore, the rounded total estimate is 89,000 total Agriculture Credits. 76 _Panther Corridor Credits (Polices Panther Corridor Credits result from a property owners agreeing to designate land and construct improvements to implement the north and south Panther Corridors referenced in the Florida Panther Protection Program. These corridors will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estimate approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1000 acres of WRA land in the north and south corridors would be required for a total of 2,300 acres at 10 Credits per acre, or 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. It is possible for these acreages to be more or less, and the viability of these corridors is currently under review by the Florida Panther Protection Program Scientific Technical Review Committee. Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates (Policy -3.1 1) The proposed tiered restoration system is a modification to the current program to better define the type and relative value of different restoration types. For this estimate, we assume that 11,600 acres within future SSAs are suitable for restoration activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for panther habitat restoration, and the remaining 11,000 acres split equally between the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal / burning, flow way, and native habitat restoration). For this analysis, we also assume that approved and pending SSAs will be considered as vested under the current program, and that future SSAs will use the tiered system. The calculations are as follows: The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system for future SSAs are shown below: Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000 Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000 Estimated future restoration credits: 72,000 Tiered Restoration Credits: 154,000 These restoration estimates are subject to substantial variation based on site specific analysis for restoration suitability, decisions made by the property owner as to appropriate restoration, approval by the County and permitting agencies and successful restoration implementation. Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Overlay Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further changes, there would be the following resulting Credits and SRA acres: Base Credits: AcresRestoratiopCredits WIN . Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000 Caracara 2,750 4 11,000 Exotic Control/Burning 2,750 6 16,500 Flow Way 2,750 6 16,500 Native Habitat Rest. 2,750 8 22,000 Total 11,600 NIA 72,000 The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system for future SSAs are shown below: Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000 Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000 Estimated future restoration credits: 72,000 Tiered Restoration Credits: 154,000 These restoration estimates are subject to substantial variation based on site specific analysis for restoration suitability, decisions made by the property owner as to appropriate restoration, approval by the County and permitting agencies and successful restoration implementation. Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Overlay Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further changes, there would be the following resulting Credits and SRA acres: Base Credits: 128,000 Restoration Credits: 154,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000 Agriculture Credits 89,000 Panther Corridor Credits 23,000 Total Credits: 421,000 Credits SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre: 52,625 Acres Public Benefit Acres at 10%: 5,263 Acres Total SRA Acres: 57,888 Acres Remaining_ Baseline development potential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 Acres 771Page 3. ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET 45,000 ACRE SRA CAP In Policy 4.2, the Committee recommends a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA and, as a result, certain adjustment will be necessary so that the RLSA Overlay Credit System will produce sufficient Credits to entitle 45,000 acres, without Ieaving a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are recommended by the Committee: 1. The cap of 45,000 SRA acres should include public benefit acres. (Policy 4.2 and 4.20) 2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System should be used for all future SSAs (Policy 3.11). 3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 31, 2009. Approximately 7,000 EEBs not included in approved or pending SSAs will be eliminated (Policy I.21) . 4. A change in the SRA Credit Ratio from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre for Credits generated from any future, non -vested SSAs (Policy 4.19). 5. SSA vesting will be applied as follows: a. All approved SSAs would be vested at the 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio and in accordance with the restoration programs set forth therein. This represents a total of 73,488 credits. Any SRA acres entitled with these Credits will be computed at the current 8 Credit per acre ratio. This includes Credits and SRA acres already approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Maria. b. Proposed SSAs 14, 15, and 16 would be vested at the current 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio to the extent required to entitle the proposed Town of Big Cypress DRIISRA. These SSAs will include restoration designation credits at the current rate of 4 per acre in the Camp Keais Strand. Total restoration credits per acre will not exceed the level provided under the new tiered system as approved. This represents an estimated total of 24,000 Credits and 3,000 SRA acres. c. Proposed SSAs 10, 12, and 13 will continue to be processed and approved under current adopted standards (8 Credits per SRA acre and non -tiered restoration). Should all of the proposed modifications be approved, the owners of these SSAs will agree to subsequently amend these SSAs to adjust to the 10 Credit per SRA acre ratio and tiered restoration system following approval and adoption of these new standards. This would reduce the estimated restoration credits by 10,000. Should the proposed modifications not be adopted, these SSAs will not be amended. 6. All new SSAs will conform to the new adopted standards. With these adjustments, the following table shows the resulting number of Credits and potential SRA acres: Estimated Credits (assumine full vrooertv owner Aarticination): Base Credits from all NRI based SSAs 128,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits (upon phase out) 20,000 Restoration Credits I44,000 Agriculture Credits (40,000 acres) 89,000 Panther Corridors (assumes 2,300 acres) 23,000 Total Estimated Credits 404,000 Credits Proiected SSA supAly of Credits SSAs 1-9, 11 Vested Credits (approved) 73,488 credits SSAs 14-16 Vested Credits (estimated) 24,000 credits SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre 97,488 credits Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre 306,512 credits 781 Page Proiected SRA acres assuming all Credits are used: SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre 12,186 acres SRA acres entitled_ at 10 Credits per acre 30.651 acres Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs 42,837 acres Public benefit acres estimated at 10% 4,283 acres Total potential SRA acres _ 47,120 acres Remaining Baseline development potential Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 acres Credit estimates and excess Credits The total supply of Credits entitles less than 45,000 acres of SRAs, but estimated public benefit acres must also be considered. Because the RLSA is a voluntary, market based system and these estimates assume 100% property owner participation in the RLSA Program, and each category of estimate has a range of assumptions built in to the estimated number, it is advisable to allow for some variance. The above estimates result in sufficient Credits that, together with public benefit acres, provides for an approximate 5% variance in total potential SRA acres. There are a number of factors that could offset this potential "excess" including but not limited to: less than 100% participation by all property owners in the RLSA, less than 10% public benefit acres, purchase of land and/or Credits by a publicly funded conservation program, less than 100% success rate in restoration implementation, and lack of market demand for all of the potential Credits. 4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE CREDIT SYSTEMS The following three tables illustrate the land use summaries at full utilization using the current and revised and recalibrated programs. With the proposed revisions, the acreage of potential SRAs increases nominally from 43,300 acres (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) to 45,000 acres (Table 4.3). However the potential development footprint of Open Land converted to baseline development could be reduced dramatically, depending on the use of the new Agriculture Credit. Table 4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands converted to baseline uses under the current program and Table 4.3 shows 100% of Open Lands placed in Agriculture SSAs under the revised program. It is unrealistic to expect that all of the Open land outside of SRAs would be converted to baseline development under the current program. Market incentives that favor well planned, compact, mixed use communities with a wide range of housing options served by high quality infrastructure and services would satisfy most of the demand for new homes in the RLSA. In addition, Golden Gate Estates already offers a significant supply of 2.25 to 5 acre lots without such services for those that prefer this alternative. Table 4.2 shows a more realistic scenario for comparison, where 10% of ACSC Open lands are converted (based on ACSC regulations limiting site alterations to 10% of any site) and 25% of non ACSC Open Lands are converted. Comparing Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 still demonstrates that the potential development footprint is reduced by approximately 7,000 acres using the revised RLSA system. Table 4.1: Current RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization with 100 % baseline conversion 791 Page Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs 92,000 SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0% Open Land conversion to baseline rights SRAs 43,700 43,300 Potential Development Footprint 87,000 44.4% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0% 791 Page Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use Summary with artial baseline conversion Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs 92,000 47.0% 20.4% 1.1% SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0% ACSC Open Land conversion at 10% Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% SRAs 1,500 7,175 43,300 23.0% Potential Development Footprint 51,975 26.5% Open Land remaining in Agriculture 35,025 17.9% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0% Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA system, in addition to agricultural uses retained on the majority of 92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs. Two important Panther corridors are also incentivised. It should also be noted that current RLSA Overlay Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35% of each SRA to be open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a maximum of 29,250 acres will be developed land. This results in a net developed footprint equal to 15% of the total RLSA acreage. III. Population Analysis This analysis is based on the projected population within the RLSA and does not include or accommodate projected urban populations in areas beyond the RLSA. Population projections for the horizon year of 2025 were reviewed from multiple sources as shown in Table II -1. First, the Collier County Build -Out Study is an analysis done by County Comprehensive Planning staff in 2005 to evaluate a potential population of the RLSA at that time. That study estimated a RLSA population projection of 71,600 by 2025. The more recent Collier County East of CR 951 Interactive Growth Model (2008) analyzed a projected population for the county east of CR 951 area, and included a discrete projection for the RLSA. This study projected an RLSA population of 45,000. The Collier County MPO 2025 land use forecast uses the county's accepted projections of a population of 56,300. Using the data derived from the transportation analysis and SRA requirements contained in the RLSA Overlay, a projected population of 51,303 is obtained, slightly below the County's accepted MPO projections. 801, uye Acres % of Total NRI based SSAs Agriculture SSAs Panther Corridors 92,000 40,000 2,300 47.0% 20.4% 1.1% SSA Subtotal 134,300 68.5% Potential Development (SRAs) 45,000 23.0% Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 8.5% Total RLSA 195,846 100.0% Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA system, in addition to agricultural uses retained on the majority of 92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs. Two important Panther corridors are also incentivised. It should also be noted that current RLSA Overlay Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35% of each SRA to be open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a maximum of 29,250 acres will be developed land. This results in a net developed footprint equal to 15% of the total RLSA acreage. III. Population Analysis This analysis is based on the projected population within the RLSA and does not include or accommodate projected urban populations in areas beyond the RLSA. Population projections for the horizon year of 2025 were reviewed from multiple sources as shown in Table II -1. First, the Collier County Build -Out Study is an analysis done by County Comprehensive Planning staff in 2005 to evaluate a potential population of the RLSA at that time. That study estimated a RLSA population projection of 71,600 by 2025. The more recent Collier County East of CR 951 Interactive Growth Model (2008) analyzed a projected population for the county east of CR 951 area, and included a discrete projection for the RLSA. This study projected an RLSA population of 45,000. The Collier County MPO 2025 land use forecast uses the county's accepted projections of a population of 56,300. Using the data derived from the transportation analysis and SRA requirements contained in the RLSA Overlay, a projected population of 51,303 is obtained, slightly below the County's accepted MPO projections. 801, uye Table 11-12025 Horizon Year Projections within the RLSA MF Dwelling SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total Total Units Population Units Population Dwelling Population Units Collier County 17,100 43,400 14,800 28,200 31,900 71,600 Build -out Stud 65, 879 168,421 132,238 389,193 Collier County Collier County Interactive n/a Interactive n/a n/a n/a n/a 24,663 45,400 Growth Model RLSA Overlay Forecast 72,700 Collier MPO 2025 Forecast 13,900 34,200 11,800 22,100 25,700 56,300 RLSA Overlay Forecast 12,656 28,476 13,044 22,827 25,700 51,303 There is no requirement for Collier County to "accept" population projections beyond the established horizon year of 2025 and therefore an MPO population figure is not included in Table II -2. However several other sources have included "build -out" projections including the 2005 Collier County Build -out Study, and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model, both illustrated in Table II -2. For the purposes of this analytical comparison we used the maximum SRA 45,000 acres and extrapolated a population based on the SRA requirements for towns and villages and the adopted Collier County persons per households. Table II -2 Build -Out Protections within the RLSA Note: Table 11- RLSA Overlay Forecast totals include SRA development and Baseline development existing in 2000. How the projected population might be accommodated within SRAs is addressed in the following RLSA Concept Maps. RLSA Concept Maps To help visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and to graphically illustrate the Comparison of alternatives previously described three Maps have been prepared the currently adopted RLSA Overlay Map (Figure A); the 2025 RLSA Concept Map (Figure B); and the 2050 RLSA Concept Map (Figure Q. Map A is a rendering of the Overlay Map and Maps B and C each present one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies. The Maps also depict the primary transportation network and the possible location of Panther Corridors. The Concept Maps use symbols to depict possible locations of Towns, Villages and Compact Rural Developments. The range of potential size for any Town, Village or CRD varies widely, and one should not assume that each Town or Village symbol represents the maximum allowable size, as this would result in a total 811 SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total Units Population Units Population Dwelling Units Population Collier County Build -out Study 66,403 220,722 65, 879 168,421 132,238 389,193 Collier County Interactive n/a n/a n/a n/a 106,493 210,632 Growth Model RLSA Overlay Forecast 72,700 163,602 40,514 70,970 113,214 234,572 Note: Table 11- RLSA Overlay Forecast totals include SRA development and Baseline development existing in 2000. How the projected population might be accommodated within SRAs is addressed in the following RLSA Concept Maps. RLSA Concept Maps To help visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and to graphically illustrate the Comparison of alternatives previously described three Maps have been prepared the currently adopted RLSA Overlay Map (Figure A); the 2025 RLSA Concept Map (Figure B); and the 2050 RLSA Concept Map (Figure Q. Map A is a rendering of the Overlay Map and Maps B and C each present one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies. The Maps also depict the primary transportation network and the possible location of Panther Corridors. The Concept Maps use symbols to depict possible locations of Towns, Villages and Compact Rural Developments. The range of potential size for any Town, Village or CRD varies widely, and one should not assume that each Town or Village symbol represents the maximum allowable size, as this would result in a total 811 SRA development footprint well in excess of what is possible under the proposed cap. For example, a Town will fall within a range of 1,500 acres — 5,000 acres under the proposed policies. In 2025, the forecasted number of dwelling units is 25,700 and the MPO forecasted population is 56,300. The 2025 Concept Map depicts 10 potential SRAs of varying size that collectively would accommodate the forecasted 2025 population and also provide for future growth. Please note that these maps depict "approved" SRAs and not fully developed Towns and Villages, as it commonly takes 10-25 years before an approved Town or Village would be completed. To accommodate this fact, the total acreage of approved SRA Towns and Villages shown is approximately 24,000 acres and it is estimated that collectively approximately 112 of the SRA acreage would be fully developed at this time with occupied homes and associated non- residential uses. In 2050, the forecasted number of dwelling units within the RLSA ranges between 106,493 and 132,238 depending on the forecast source. The 2050 Concept Map depicts 16 possible SRAs of varying size that collectively would accommodate the forecasted 2050 population and, if fully developed at this time, represent the 45,000 acres of SRA that is proposed as the cap for the RLSA at buildout, with an average gross density between 2.5 and 3.0 units per acre. It should also be noted that, with the RLSA Review Committee's recommended changes to the RLSA Overlay Credit System, essentially all of the areas depicted as FSA, HSA, WRA, Agriculture and Open Space would be within approved SSAs in order to generate the necessary Credits to entitle the SRAs. As noted on each Map, these Maps represent but one possible scenario, and should not be misconstrued as a binding or definitive depiction of the location or size of SRAs or SSAs, as these must be voluntarily and individually approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted GMP and LDC procedures. [this intentionally left blank] 821 Page RLSA OVERLAY = POTEN LAL DE UOPMENT This RLSA Overlay plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, potential development areas, and other features based on the adopted RLSA Overlay. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development code. Areas shown as potential development may become SRAs, SSAs, or be developed in accordance with the underlying Rural/Agricultural zoning classification. 831Page Figure B — 2025 RLSA Concept Plan. 841, —::f . 2025 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN �� rw rrur' A1¢raRD� j M 0 KRI! EE 4 F E r _ 1 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES �x� '•I 1 BIG CYPRESS - NAnONAL PRESERVE RLSA BOUNDARY y�ry�, tom— ACSCBOUNOARY y ,C- © POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ' FLORIDA PANTHER TOWN NATIONALwILDuPE RERIGE AGRICULTURE ANDOPEN SPACE VIE WATER RETENTION AREA HABRATSIEWARDShRP AREA k. FLOW WAY STEWARM)P AREA —c-' 'w.L - 'INTERSTATE.75`AVAATOR ALEEV."`.1 't . - . . . FLORIDA PANTHER CORRIDOR This RLSA 2025 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2025 horizon year. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or other features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. ws.iw.wame. Figure C — 2050 Build -Out RLSA Concept Plan. 2050 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN I I: T !M OK,aLEE ,.. e L( A � --� MNTll y GOLDEN GATE ESTATES F eIGCYPREss wn II "ATKI ENESEEtvE RLSA MI r AOMUNDARY POTENnAL DEVELOPMENT I iLORIDA PANTHER TgMr NATIONAL VALDLKi REFUGE AGRRLLTURE AND OPEN SPACE WATER RETEMIDN AREA MAWAT STEWARDSHIP AREA CAA .' FLOW WAY STEWARDSHIP AREA DrrEF6rA7E�5-AUJ(ATOR_AUEr FLORIDA AANTHER CORRIDOR This RLSA 2050 Horizon Year Concept Pian was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2050 horizon year. The RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or other features shown an this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSASr which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Flan and Land Development Code. 851 IV. Transportation A long-range transportation analysis was performed for two separate timeframes; 2025, the established Horizon Year in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and a theoretical RLSA "Build -Out" in 2050, in order to evaluate the long-range transportation implications of development within the RLSA Overlay. The first analysis performed was for 100% build -out of Collier County with specific emphasis placed on the roadway network needs with the RLSA Overlay "study area". It should be emphasized that these are conceptual in nature and depict one theoretical scenario for potential development in the RLSA at the horizon year and at build -out. Both analyses were conducted using the FDOT District One District -wide 2030 Model as a base. Since the Study Area has a significant amount of potential to interact with both Lee and Hendry County in addition to western Collier County, the District -wide model was seen as a better tool for this exercise than the MPO's Lee/Collier Bi -County model that does not interact with Hendry County. Build -Out Analvsis Starting with the District -wide 2030 Financially Feasible Model, the Collier County traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were "populated" with land use socioeconomic (SE) data developed by Collier County as part of the Collier County Build -Out Study. For the TAZs outside of Collier County, a growth rate derived from an estimate of the build -out year for Collier County was developed, and land use data in surrounding counties was extrapolated at that resulting growth rate in order to "grow" adjacent counties for the same period as Collier County. With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data used was provided by Collier County. For TAZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, an estimate for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly. For the RLSA Overlay TAZs the SE data was developed to illustrate one possible scenario of SRAs. Land use variable were developed to establish the amounts of dwelling units and non-residential floor area, as well as hotel units and school enrollment, all variables used by the travel models. Lastly, the RLSA Overlay totals were divided into TAZs that generally represent one possible scenario of how development may occur. It should be understood, that the RLSA program allows for certain level of flexibility to develop with Open lands, and until such time as agricultural and environmental lands are placed into SSAs and like wise Open Iands are designated as SRAs, there will be a lack of specificity as to where development will actually occur. The land areas (TAZs) identified in the analyses, are one of a number of potential scenarios. Further, it should be noted that the number of TAZs does not necessarily equate to the number of potential future SRAs, since in the travel model structure a single SRA may be comprised of more than one TAZ and thus have multiple centroids in the model. The potential development for the Build -Out Scenario examined for purposes of this amendment is shown in Table III. The potential development areas were generally located as illustrated in Figure D. [left blank intentionally) 861 Page Table III - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at Build -Out General Assumptions: Residential Density: Single Farnily Detached Mulfi-Family Condo TowW)ouse Retail Shopping. (K Sq. Ft.) (K Sq. Ft.) Population .13 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre - (Room) 44Q. MIAMI 5,886 6,650 5,114 2,850 1,885 1,604 628 535 3,311 3,126 500 430 JE4f42VJ 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380 41443 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200 194.1 4�401 5,190 3,460 1,021 340 2,699 270 x:41.45 1,225 525 263 88 576 - 4faQ6 6,650 2,850 1,425 475 3,126 380 41 �7 2,538 1,088 544 181 1,193 150 4,988 2,138 1,069 356 2,344 290 4'1`'-49 1,663 713 356 119 781 - r4148 41;5Q 3,500 1,500 750 250 1,645 200 41;$ 2,407 6,561 987 664 2,292 280 x41,5219 W-It.1'53'E 4j=54, 2,450 2,450 3,213 1,050 1,050 1,377 525 525 _ 689 175 175 230 1,152 1,152 1,510 140 140 180 41550, 5,775 2,475 1,238 413 2,714 330 0141561M 788 338 169 56 370 - 4T57� 422 - - - - - M,4f: AN 5,250 2,250 1,125 375 2,468 300 4159. - - 38 13 - 200 VA IOU 1,929 827 413 138 906 110 XWOM 73,E 141 - 4Q;5141 7799 5;935$ 3G134� 448L) General Assumptions: Residential Density: 2.525 DUs per Gross Acre Retail Shopping: .38 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre Office/Service: .13 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre Student Population: .38 per SF DU and .21 per MF DU Hotel: .10 rooms per Gross Acre (left blank intentionally] 871 Page Figure D — New District -Wide Model TAZs within the RLSA During the course of the Build -Out Analysis, various roadway network options were examined, including options to expand along existing alignments as well as new roads that would help to form a grid network. The iterative process of developing a build -out network involved running the computer models, examining the results, updating the network with improvements (adding/deleting), re -running the model, etc. This exercise was repeated several times in order to achieve a long-range transportation network that can sustain the travel demand of the RLSA Overlay at build -out. The resulting network from the Build -Out Analysis is attached as Exhibit A. Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section 51, and the Committee endorses the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. 881Page 2025 Analvsis Following completion of the Build -Out Analysis, attention was turned to the interim horizon year of 2025 which corresponds to the adopted Transportation Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. A Naples MPO 2025 Lee/Collier land use TAZ dataset was used to populate the Lee and Collier County TAZs within the 2030 Districtwide model. 2025 SE data for all other TAZs in the District -wide Model counties were developed by interpolating between the District -wide validation year (2000) dataset and the 2030 dataset, and when combined with the Lee/Collier 2025 TAZ contents, effectively created a 2025 District -wide model. With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data was used as provided by Collier County. For TAZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, a proportional estimate for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly. Within the RLSA Overlay TAZs, an assessment of what amount of the build -out total for each TAZ would be actually constructed by 2025 was made. Additionally, for purposes of context, the amount of SRA acreage that would need to be entitled in order to accommodate a lesser degree of actual developed acreage was estimated (see previous discussion regarding the Concept Maps). This calculation, although not relevant to the analysis, places the developed acreage into proper perspective, as a part of the estimated entitled SRA acreage in the year 2025. This assessment recognizes the reality that there will always be some level of un -built inventory of SRA acreage available at any given time. The estimates shown below in Table N for the 2025 horizon year have been translated into land use variables that essentially match the totals that were attributed to the RLSA TAZs in the 2025 MPO model. While the dwelling unit totals match to the original estimates, no attempt was made to match the single family/multi-family mix shown in the original estimates. Additionally, because the nature of the proposed development patterns and the associated mix of unit types is expected to be different than that proposed in the original County dataset, the net result is a slightly lower overall persons per household rate within the RLSA Overlay, resulting in a slightly lower total population. [left blank intentionally blank] 891 Page Table IV — Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at 2025 TAZ _.4140. 4141 4142 _4143 Single Family Detached 5,297 1,629 - - 753 - 1,466 - Gonda Retail Townhouse (K 4,603 698 - - 502 - 628 - Shopping Sq. Ft.) (K 1,697 393 - - - 148 - 314 - Oilice Sq- FQ 566 131 - - 49 - 105 - Sludent Populalion 2,980 766 - - 391--'- - 689 - Hotel (Room) 450 110 _ - - _ - - 4144 414-5 41.46... 4147 4148 4149 _- 263 113 56 19 123 - 158 68 34 11 74 - 41,51 2,164 5,898 887 597 2,061 250 4162' - - - - - - 4;153- 4i'S4 - - - - - - 4155 41.56 _ - - - - - - 236 101 51 17 111 - 4157 4168 - - - - - _ _ 788 338 169 56 3701 - Various - - - - - - 12;752 12;9.48 31748 71551 7,565 1_ $i0 24,600 Estimated SRA Acreage Entitled 10,200 Estimated Acreage Developed 41% Percentage of Entitled Actual Developed 22% Percentage of Build -out Acreage Actual Developed 25,700 Revised RISA DU Distribution 25,700 Original DU Control Total in Collier County Model 0 Difference During the modeling analysis of 2025, the build -out network developed previously was used as a starting point, realizing that a substantially lower development program in 2025 would require less roadway capacity than the build -out scenario. As in the Build -Out Analysis, multiple iterations were needed to "prune" the build -out network of excess capacity that would not be necessary by 2025, resulting in the roadway network depicted in attached Exhibit B. As in the case of the build -out scenario, the 2025 represents one of many scenarios of where development may exist by the year 2025. With respect to both the build out and 2025 scenarios, because they represent one of many possible outcomes, it will be important for the County to monitor in -coming SRA applications, and their associated transportation impact assessments for consistency with the analyzed scenarios, and where necessary, update the build -out and 2025 networks as needed to reflect changed conditions. This is consistent with the current practice of periodically re -analyzing the growth patterns for changes in trends and conditions, and making any necessary modifications to adopted roadway plans. (Continued Next Page) 901 Page Exhibit A — Conceptual Build -Out Roadway Network. 911 Page age Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP (see Section 51, and the Committee endorses the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. Exhibit B - Conceptual 2025 Roadway Network Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with 921 P a g e the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section S], and the Committee endorses the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit. SECTION 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATON AND VOMW ENTS COAROT- E DELIBERATIONS COMMITTEE ACTIONSREGA'RDINGRE COMMENDED _A11ENDMETNT TO HE RURAL -'LANDS STEWARDA" AREAO 'l? LAY Preface to Section 4 Committee recommendations the Phase II Report include revisions and updates to the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). These recommendations are being advanced to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in accordance with BCC Resolution 2007-305A for further direction and a request for a special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle to consider the proposed amendments to the RLSAO as provided within the Phase II Report. During the preparation of the Phase I Report and Phase II Report the Committee focused on whether the RLSA Overlay, during its 2003-2008 history, supported the goals of the Collier County RLSA Overlay, which are: 1. to protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses; 2. to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat; 3. to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations; 4. to discourage urban sprawl; and 5. to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. The Committee has determined that the RLSAO supports all of the above goals, but feels strongly that these goals can be further attained by implementation of the Committee -recommended amendments contained within this Phase II Report. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the BCC authorize a special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle exclusively for the purpose of considering the recommended amendments to the RLSAO as contained within this Phase II Report. The BCC is authorized two cycles per calendar year. However, the BCC policy provides for one statutory GMP cycle per calendar year. The Phase It Report is based upon public presentations, discussions and documents received and reviewed during the Committee's 20 public meetings held beginning on March 4, 2008 and continuing through December 18, 2008. Meetings were held in accordance with the Public Open Meeting Laws of the State of Florida and complied with Resolution 2007-305A of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners which approved the creation of the Committee and provided for its functions, powers and duties. Committee meetings were well attended; open dialogue was encouraged; and minutes were taken and maintained as part of the public record by staff of the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. These meetings were held in the Ave Maria University Academic Building, in the Community Development and Environmental Services Building and at the North Collier Regional Park'. Committee -recommended amendments to the RLSAO were based, in part, upon the following: 1. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings; 2. Independent research reports, statements, and issues expressed relative to the Rural Lands Stewardship program; 3. Public participation; 4. Data and analysis/justification; and 5. Staff input The Committee extends special thanks to all individuals and organizations involved in the deliberate participation during Committee meetings were of great assistance to the Committee in the preparation of the Phase II Report. Organizations which have actively participated and disseminated information affecting the Committee's recommendations include, but are not limited to: x 1. Audubon Society 2. Collier Citizen 3. Collier County Planning Commission 931 4. Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division 5. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council 6. Collier County Transportation Division 7. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 8. Defenders of Wildlife 9. "East Collier Property Owners" 10. Florida Gulf Coast University 11. Florida Department of Community Affairs 12. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 13. Florida Wildlife Federation 14. Fort Myers News -Press 15. Naples Daily 16. One Thousand Friends of Florida IT Sierra Club 18. South Florida Water Management District 19. University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences 20. Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson 21. Wilson Miller Preface to Group 1 Policies Group 1 Policies set the framework for the RLSA Overlay. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 1 Policies include: Policy 1.6.1 (new Policy) The recommended new Policy 1.6.1 permits a five year "Conditional Period" for a Conditional Stewardship Easement with a possible extension for one additional year. Policy 1.7 (amendment) The recommended amendment to Policy 1.7 provides that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would be a grantee (along with Collier County) to future "perpetual restrictive easements" (Stewardship Easements) rather than the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which has been the grantee in past BCC - approved RLSA Stewardship Easements. Policy 1.22 (amendment) Currently, Policy 1.22 language provides for RLSAO review, "upon the five year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the Land Development Code (LDC)". The amendment proposes to have the review completed as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process as required by Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes. GW (recommended amendment) aC odi a County seep to -address the long'derm needs of residents and property owners within the Emmokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collieu County's goal is to feteet retain land for a icult Activities; , to direct incompatible uses away from we, and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity,, to enable the conversion of rural laud to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that iatil OMPLOYS creative land use planniapig tegbMigues and through the use of established incentives. Public Comments: The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture, development and environmentally sensitive land. What ended with up is a plan that can create an imbalance as the program is geared to produce more environmentally set aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture. This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and destroying more pristine systems under the auspices of the Right to Farm Act. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-20051. 941 Page Staff Comments: This is considered a major amendment. The elimination of the word "premature" from the goal may seem like an innocuous change. However, the proposed deletion of "premature" raises a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC -99-002 of the Administrative Commission and is the basis for the current RLSA Overlay which was initiated prior to the enactment of the State RLSA Program. Any step perceived as undoing the Final Order -based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at Department of Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The above proposed draft amendments are based upon an email received from Review Committee member Tom Jones on March 28, 2008, distributed to Committee members on March 28, and preliminarily approved during the April 1, 2008 Committee meeting. The Committee position is that the word "premature" cannot be defined for use in the RLSA Overlay and should be stricken. Additionally, there was one grammatical correction to the Policy. The Committee, on June 17, 2008, revisited the staff's comments and stated that the proposed amendments would strengthen rather than weaken the RLSAO. June 17 2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted to recommend the amendments to the Goal as shown. Objective (recommended amendment) To meet the Canal described above, Collier 'County's objective is to create an incentive based land usje Overlay, system., herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area. -Overlay, based on the principles of t ural land steward.,thipas defined: In Chapter 153.31777(11), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each -aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship AreO Overlay. group 2 policies relate to agriculture. -Group 3 policies relate to natural resoutiu aad , Group 4 policies relate to -conversion of ce protec land to other uses and economic diversificat7ton: group 5 are,regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by Its owners shall nonetheless. meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural r urce protection. Public Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown. [Judith Hushon] Staff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the Objective as annotated. Group 1- General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment) To pr9mote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lap& SteVardship Area (RLSA) that colleEhvely contributes to a viable agricultural industry, prmcts natural resources; and enhances economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardsh pArrea Overlay (Overlay.). The O erlay was created through.a collaborative comrnunity_based planning process involving county residents:, area propeity�wners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under.�ite t}imetiontof a citizen=oversight committee~ - Public Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown {Judith Hushon]. Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes (other than grammatical changes as shown) as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made. Staff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend this Policy as annotated above. 951 Policy'l.2 The Overlay pmtects,natural resounes. and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use development as an .alternative to low-density single use development, and. provides a system .of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of1certain land uses in order to protect'natural resources and. viiablc ag ieulturekin exchange for transferable credits. that can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are Based in part on the principles ofoFFllorida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 16M3177(11) F.S. The Overlay includes-innovadve and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local,. regional, state and federal regulatoryprograms. Public Comments: The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs." The compatibility of the RLSA to regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must be assessed during the five-year review and changes made where necessary to ensure compatibility. In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time, not waiting for another five-year review process. [Conservancy]. 1. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies [FWF]. ECPO comments [also refer to Appendix Jl. The RLSA will always need to comply with State and Federal regulatory programs such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. Those requirements need not be written directly into the RLSA. The regional approach used in the RLSA to secure permits ensures that all interests are party to the process. [ECPO comments of July 1]. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: Laura Roys stated that the most recent available data is required and usually is less than one (1) year old and Environmental Services checks for this as well as all required federal and state permits. The Committee was informed that all permits must be obtained regardless of whether or not a project is in the RLSAO. Committee Deliberations: The Committee, after discussion, agreed that there is no warrant for an amendment of this Policy at this time. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to retain the existing language. Policy 1.3 This Overlay to the Future Land -Use Mapis depicted. on the Stewardship OverlayMap (Ovetlay1A4ap). and applies to rural designated lands. located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No. AC -99=002. The RLSA; generally includes rural lands in northeastrCollier County lying north and east of Golden Gate .states„north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Muge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lire County Line. andisouth avid west of the Henky County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FL-CfM). Public Comments: ECPO agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: No comments. Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that there is no need to amend this Policy. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended no change to this policy. Policy 1:4 Except as pfavided in Group 5 Policies, there -shall. lie no change to the underlying density and intensity of permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless and until a property owner elects to. utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the i�itent of the Overlay than. a property owner will be compensated0or the voluntary stewardship and protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation- -to the property offer shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and. transfer of Stewardsig Credits, acquisition of conservation easements:, acquisition of fess than fee interest ire the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest.in land through a -wiling seller.prugram. 96 1 Public Comments: 1. What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program [FWF] Note: Also related to policy 1.5. ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA program is incentive -based; should a property owner elect not to participate in the program, the Group 5 policies provide for use of the property under the baseline provisions. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008. Staff Comments: No comments. Committee Deliberations: The Committee position is that property owners must have the ability to use their properties and that the baseline density should not disappear but that the Committee would study providing incentives for retaining agricultural uses and it voted not to change Policy 1.4. Committee June 17, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend a change to this Policy. Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment) As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RI_.SA by the Gly Groff -Management Man (GMR , Collier County; Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect. prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC -99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject -to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as pcovitied for 7n gaup 5' Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without than&mwF_4 consent Public Comments: ECPO [Appendix J] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes to this policy as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008 (other than minor correction and clarification). Staff Comments: Minor correction and amendments for clarification purposes only. Committee Deliberations: The Committee approved the staff's correction and agreed to study agricultural incentives when the Committee reviews Group 2 policies regarding agriculture. Committee June 17 2008 Action: The Committee voted to amend this Policy as outlined above. Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment) StewardshipCredits Credits. are created from an lands within the RU%S tha� t' a -to be ke iii (Credits.) ) Y p permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will 'be identified as St6wardship Sending Areas or SSAs.. All privately Owned lands withih the RLSA are a -candidate for designation as a SSA. Lam becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the propertykowner seeldng such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (RCC), whi h acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update: the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved 'SA. resignation -as -an SSA -shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth;,Management. flan, but shall be retroactively incorporated. into the adopted Overlay Map during the BAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A StewardshipvSendi.ng Area Credit Agreement shalllbe developed that identifies those allov4able residential densities and other land uses which re-ain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified; in the Stewardship Sendi Lag Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such pr erty unless the SSA is terminated as provided elsewhere herein; 971"'c=(1vi gay o€ thu.fallowing events occur. then the C`onditionaI Stn ardshin_.Fa c tt rEt 4E�aU begpme a Permanertt�. Stgwed.% t t J .asement which s be final etual and lion •E'evoL E 14} irk accordance with the terms set forth rher6n: Stewardship Credits frnttk the 5SA have. been assured entitle anpproveti tevE ardshi_ Rrceivin_ Area (` .SRA".), and fhe SRA has rectived all geousga final and ;nan-4 !}xe a€ lc dey to rxuera! orders, permits.. or other discretionary approvals necessM to co menet i cgusinwhon, including subdivisRan Mat and Site deve-l01Jrnent plan, Vprnya.l,.,but n(rt building rmits- If St Waq!hip{`r—CAi _5. fvwu t_Fu- SSA hart been assigaed-tct mcg e Fh rz ,zne RA, then rhe recei_ of.al-1 recemAa gpt ,err=nLd.f-Inal anri,«onLa �QLj� ppher &xvetionary VVIuvals necOL LM to egminorict: colutrucdon of any SRA shall auto ti aI1 X pause the Conditional Stewardship Faftgmem to become aFertmanent Stewardship Easement; The o,*mer of the SSA Iands 6" )d jrry tev►ard�ftip Bits to axtotPYc�pe�son tis entft}�mcTt akg Ste waTdshiij Credit Trust as described in Pol3c y 1, M the closing, has occuned, an tate otter has received the copsfc �tgticm dac: froui such salt or transfer- but na axxpressIy excluclin . (e) _sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits artcU as to the sai4�, 41- transfer of the underlying fee title to the I=d. or () loaf Qm,, wlt"rc. a landowner establishes. an_SSA for a spetifio SRA, whether the, SRA is .emmed or dey foiled by a separate Ear relaWd entity, and the Steuaztishi i Crede#s are a nsferrad as [Nuired .by the chowfh Ivlana gemestt Plan or Land Deal ment Code for SRA a royal nr 9- The owner of the SSA Iands has received in excharr r; for tate creatiu of the Stew&rdsb.jp.F_ asemerr( A {:emend other comae nsation_from. Igo al, state, federal of pnvate.revenues iurxllectivel y.. Ehe "Evenrs"). The LDC shad] spe ifv hove w%umtn a Notioc of `der nation (as hereafter described) bas not been recorded, tho Conditional-$tmar&-hip Easement shall aufoniatically convert to a Pernmem Stewardship Rogseniorrt upon the earliest to occur.of any of [he foregrnag Events during the .CondWonal.Period, or (b) 1801 days after.thlast dad of the Conditional PerikV, aR and to r.fic oxtent �,,xtmdeded hereunder- lq:the eyertt that pone of the �Ioie Imp events has occurred duziug the Conditional Rylnd, digi (hc owner of the SSA lands W .. within 180 dad's after zhe last dEr� of fixe Conditional Period gate the Conditional StmardshiI2 EgIseutent by rtcc�rdinn,-� Ngtice of1cmination. In addition .if a ghallcngg, and/or xpgeaf Aa necessafy develop=nt orxiur, Nrmit yr utter discretionga awruval is filed, the ownef of the SSA --lands may�.elect to extend. tbz Conditional. period unfil rhe k ballengu or appeal 9s f Loly lCsolyed. if the challenge .Or apppai is not rmolyed aucb that the construction ma r corumence under ternvs cce tal)fe.to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of EtEc S S A lands may withig 180 days of the 1 -mai fipusidon of the c:hallenaepr 41?peal.tc�-ord a Notice.,uf.Termination- i, P, ii the t -cording of Such Notice- of Terminatim ti,e trwarciship Easement Agrcemgul and corresportding Stewardship en np Area Credit .A!zreement shall exnirc and mminatg, the ,Stewardship Credits gcngrgtA by the SSA shall cease to exist,ft fights and obli ag tions sed forth in - the gtcw&jdshiR ] astment s17a11. rE0.;ieUer CorLsd(Ute ah encumbrance an_thO_n opexty, and the SSA femorandtun_shall be revised accotdinOJy_ The owner of Uip,.S,SA lands shall provide a gnny__of the hyoi of Termination.to the Cgiunntt y., In the rwant f t the Stewardship Credits from an ,SSA have bom ased tG obtain .pne_or rr ms S -RA approvals, but none of the foreggoizrg events has occurred during the CorEditional Period. theta rhe Notice.o Tarmin;Oon sh&U also provide far termination of any 5RA,s that have been assi-gged crodits frguj .tht SSA, unless .the. SRA owner hae obtained sufficient S#tv4ardshi ] C rCditS ficin another source andsneit StCv4Ar�iShiD t"Yedits lE.{ve been a relied to the SRA- In. tai �yent that a Notice of T&rfdna&n does teriaina[e an SRS., the owner of rho SRA lands shall ioin in the Notice of.TerminatYon, Jit the even[ that a Conditionaf Ste*ardshio ,Fasmjlma is terminated . al] bencfitsrights, jLpyileM restrictions and �O RigatjQgs associated with the SSA shallj. c null and.,void, and the land shall ravert to its undl-rlvinn aoninE? cfassificatinn;..free wad clear of arra- errcumbraice. from thE, Conditional St ardship l asefnent au SSA C'redit Agreement- If requested k� the owner of the SSA_ lands, o1h r �'csug[v. and tfie other granteyes. kla,der [he SWwardsbap Edsemmt Agee Man[ .Rhail Proyidr, a written release and tenpina[ion of easement and cred agreeinenE fi r recortiin za the prtblrc_rec4�rds_within. 17 days of request from the owner of the S8A. Lands. Collier aunty shall marc uke over a} map to reflect thtei7rtinstiort of any 55A or SRA- 981 Pa g L- Xhis .otic . shall be im lementf4 in the L DG Mthin 12ggnths after ado tiowhereof.' Public Comments: 1. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no functionality of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the case, we should consider language that encourages contiguous SSA's. [Mark Strain written comments of 4-2-05] 2. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the maintenance of corridors. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous, the ultimate implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is understood that this will take many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to realize. Map "IE" of the RLSA Five -Year Review, Phase I Technical Report clearly demonstrates that the approved and pending SSAs are forming large contiguous blocks of protected lands that have been targeted for public acquisition since the 1970s. The RLSA program design has resulted in a predictable pattern of environmental protection, and eventually, all or nearly all of the FSA and HSA areas are likely to be designated SSA lands. A review of the RLSA Overlay Map (Phase I — Technical Review, Map 1) clearly illustrates that the FSA, HSA, WRA, and Restoration Zone overlays collectively comprise a vast, interconnected system of flow ways and associated native habitats. These overlays were created for the expressed purpose of preventing wetland and habitat fragmentation, and maintaining existing wildlife corridors. Map IE of the Phase 1 Technical Review reveals that the approved and pending SSAs form a contiguous block of protected lands that already incorporate a majority of FSA and HSA lands. 3. Maintain habitat connectivity/prevent habitat fragmentation with large linkages on a landscape scale and in association with land uses in the open area to maintain functioning systems and preserve the wetland to upland interface. Of particular note, are further protection of Camp Keais Strand and maintaining the habitat linkage in the vicinity of SR 29 and Oil Well Road. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. 4. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approval occurs via EAC, CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA approval [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing. The SRA approval process is more involved, as it deals with the establishment of design guidelines, assessment of infrastructure impacts, and other matters, that warrant the review and recommendations of the CCPC. 991 Page ECPO's experience in implementing the RLSA within the process that now exists has resulted in a successful program, and does not believe changes are needed to the process. ECPO does not have recommended revisions at this time. However, this policy may need further review with additional discussion of SSAs. Also per policy, the RLSA Overlay Map should be updated to reflect SSAs and Ave Maria SRA. John Passidomo stated that what you see [Appendix L] embodies the consensus of ECPO and the assistant county attorney. Staff Comments: With respect to July 15 Committee action, the amendments recommended are minor to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. f Comprehensive Planning] Torn Greenwood stated that the Assistant County Attorney would prefer that the language be brief in the RLSA Overlay and more detailed in the LDC. He stated that, should the Committee wish to include the specificity in the RLSA Overlay that is included in John Passidomo's language, then the language as submitted to the Committee is acceptable. Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney, corroborated Mr. Passidomo's statement and the content of the Ianguage before the Committee. Committee Julv 15, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the proposed minor text amendments to Policy 1.6 as outlined with no other changes. Committee Deliberations: John Passidomo presented and discussed with the Committee proposed new language for a new Policy [1.6.1] and an amendment to existing Policy 1.6. [refer to Appendix L]. Mr. Jones stated that the two attorneys have agreed to the language. Committee October 28, 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the additional amendment to Policy 1.6 [reference to new Policy 1.6.1] and the new Policy language for Policy 1.6.1. Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment) range of Stewardship Credit Clalues is heteb_y established- using the specific mahodologjr set tor-th on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated —herein as Attachment A. This methidology and related pracedures -for SSA designation - ili also be adopted as batt of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier Count L2ind Development Code (LDC). Such procedures. shall include but no. not be limited' to the followtngt (1*) All Eredi transfers sliall be recorded. with the Collier Eounty Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenaht or-perpctilgl restrictive easement shall also he recoxded -for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favorsof Collier County and the Florida. -Fish and , s . and (3) for each SSA, rhe Stewardship Sending.Area Credit Agreement will.idegti f the specific land management measures that_willibe undertaken and the�parry responsible for such measures. Public Comments: 1. Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid. This can have the effect of reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is split between activities. A proportional area of the land types within each grid could be applied to determine a more balanced index value. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix JI: The indices are not determined by a grid pattern, nor are attributes averaged. Rather, the natural resource data layers (e.g. FLUCCS) are mapped in a conventional manner and entered into a GIS. The individual polygons within a data layer are then scored according to the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values. After the scoring occurs, each data layer is then converted to a grid of one -acre grid cells. The gridding process was necessary to arithmetically add the data layer values in GIS. The gridding process does create minor discrepancies along the boundaries between polygons with different NRI values. However, the individual errors are less than 0.5 acres and are essentially random errors that will generally cancel out across a given property. When the value in any specific grid cell is questionable, it is easily rectified by reviewing aerial imagery and individual data layers that are coincident with the grid cell. The grid system is used solely for the Credit calculation process and has no effect on how environmental regulations are applied to the land during the permitting process. 1001 Page 2. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use layers from sensitive environmental lands, they are not conservation easements and should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process. Separate conservation easements should still be entered into with the necessary agencies for state and federal permitting mitigation requirements. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: No data and analysis, or clear rationale supports the contention that stewardship easements "should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process." The relevant question is whether or not a given stewardship easement is consistent with the mitigation requirements for impacts to wetlands and/or wildlife, as determined by agency protocols. It is the purview of the regulatory agencies to determine, on a specific case-by-case basis, whether the stipulations contained within a stewardship easement are compatible with project -specific mitigation requirements. 3. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that remove land uses per the RLSA program. These agreements are the mechanism for removal of land uses. As such, the Conservancy believes these agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land planning oversight agency, as a signatory. Also, the idea of requiring a national, state or local environmental organization signatory should be assessed. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide Iand trust. 4. No development south of Oil Well Road [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that may or may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses. The comment to preclude development south of Oil Well Road is not supported by any data and analysis. While large areas of panther habitat do exist south of Oil Well Road, there are also large areas of agricultural lands that lack evidence of panther utilization. These land use patterns are reflected by the current stewardship overlays. 5. No panther credits from sending lands that will be surrounded or significantly diminished in value by development [FWF] 1011 Page ECPO Comments [Appendix JI: The suggestion to preclude assignment of an "occupied panther habitat' score (per the Stewardship Credit Worksheet NRI scoring) is valid where SSA lands are entirely surrounded by development. Precluding the assignment of panther habitat scores is not applicable where connections to offsite panther habitat are maintained, because these areas may provide habitat support functions. 6. Review easement language and who holds the easements - possibly FWC should hold, but no stewardship easements to be held by private entities. [FWF] 7. Signatory to easements should include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust. 8. A concept is being discussed that would create a mechanism to ensure that when a landowner within the Collier RLSA establishes a SSA, a "conditional easement" is placed on the subject property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes permanent. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 20081 July 15, 2008 Public Discussion: Nicole Ryan stated that she would like to see the DCA as a signatory to the perpetual restrictive easement since the DCA is involved with land uses. Nicole Ryan stated that all issues listed in the Phase 2 Working Paper should be dealt with and not ignored. Additionally, any further discussion during the Committee meetings will be summarized in the minutes and also recorded verbatim. Staff Comments: Minor amendments are needed to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. Previously approved Stewardship Easement Agreements [considered the same as "perpetual restrictive easement"] are in the name of Collier County and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, as grantees. The language proposed to be deleted is found in Section 163.3177 (11)(d)(6)k, F.S. However, the Collier County RLSAO does not come under the Florida Statutes which would then give Collier County discretion to amend this language. Staff, in checking with the Legal Department of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in September, 2008, confirmed through Mr. Tim Breault, Director of Habitat and Species Conservation, that FWC is willing to be listed on future easements. Tom Greenwood stated that the summary minutes are intended to capture all the major points and discussions and all meetings are recorded. [Comprehensive Planning with additional analysis completed following July 15 action of the Committee] Committee Deliberations: Tom Jones stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is a regulatory agency and the RLSA program is mostly about preservation of natural resources and agricultural lands and the DCA is involved in actions which are the basis for the RLSA program and not involved in regulatory aspects of the program. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee's "read ahead" receipt of the Phase 2 Working Paper should be an indication that the Committee members have read the documentation. Brad Cornell stated that all discussion should be considered, both verbal and written. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on-going basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all.The Committee consensus was that this Policy should be amended to allow the FFWCC to be the grantee on future perpetual easements [Stewardship Easements] 1021 Page Committee July 15. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the annotated amendments as shown above and Tom Jones and/or ECPO may come back to the Committee at a later date with suggested language to amend Policy 1.7 which would provide for the possibility of a conditional easement which would be placed on the subject property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes permanent. Policy 1.8 The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is mea.suredtby the Stewardship ?natural Resource index (Index) set forth im the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource- valae by rJbjectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on eachicharacteristic. The sum of these six t~acters is the index value for the land:. Both the characteristics used and�the factors asci; ed- thereto were established after review pnd analysis of derailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within the RL,SA so that. development cooter be darccted awaay from important nate-al resources. The six characteristics measured arc: Stewardship Ovetlax Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potentials and Land Vse/Land Cover. Public Comments: 1. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off -setting indices should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-05] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA framework. Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the incentive -based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs. The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of acquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever. These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than $325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier. 2. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be revised to use current best available science with regard to the preservation of Florida panther habitat. The panther habitat assessment methodology that the habitat stewardship crediting valuation system is predicated on has been substantially revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for application by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain 1031Page by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain land cover types as Florida panther habitat. The Conservancy believes that in updating and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element of the RLSA program based on the best available Florida panther science will provide important incentives for preserving critical Florida panther habitat areas and more accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence and recovery of the Florida panther species.[Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The most current and accepted methodology should be used to evaluate the stewardship credit system. Habitat preservation and provision of buffered corridors in a Regional Plan and an all inclusive panther preservation strategy could also address this concern. 3. Revisit sending and receiving designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's Least Cost Analysis, Eastern Collier Study (Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution Letter, and Kautz, et a] (all have been submitted to the county for data and analysis) [FWF] 4. Corner of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest corner - change to sending to protect important panther travel corridors - panther 131 found dead 04/16/081 [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do not pre -determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther. The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential Iandscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review. The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that may or may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses. 5. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caracara, sand hill crane, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The wildlife value of agricultural land is highly dependent upon cropping systems, tillage, water management, fallow periods, surrounding land uses, and many other variables. The dynamic nature of agriculture precludes a general statement about habitat value within these areas. For example, a slight change in vegetation structure (e.g., maturing row crops, unmowed pastures) or water management can easily render agricultural fields unusable for all of the species mentioned above. For these reasons, agricultural areas were not necessarily assigned wildlife values. However, the potential habitat value of RLSA agricultural fields is already recognized in two important ways. One, agricultural fields that occurred within a landscape matrix of natural vegetation communities were incorporated into HSA overlays. Of the 40,000 acres of HSA overlay, approximately 13,000 acres are existing or former agricultural fields. Many of these areas have already been designated as SSAs. Secondly, over 3,000 acres of these farm fields and pastures have been designated for habitat restoration, serving all of the species mentioned. In summary, due to the dynamic nature of agriculture and landscape context, the most appropriate means for recognizing wildlife value of farm fields is through incentives for restoration within existing FSA and HSA overlays. 1041Page 6. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed, can be taken as gospel—it needs to be tested and re- evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that the score will be based on..."the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation," implying a need to update it regularly. The NRI was developed five years ago by Wilson Miller, but since that time new data have become available that could well lead to different answers. Nowhere is the NRI actually explained—it is presented as a black box with fixed weightings. At least it should be handled in detail in another companion document or as an appendix. There is no explanatory document posted on the RLSA website. There is also the need to re-examine the data upon which the NRI scores are based --for example, there are new panther data and new primary and secondary panther maps. There is also new scrub jay management guidance from FWS. Additionally, it might be a good idea to include a panther map overlay with your maps that appear at the end of the Phase 1 report. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Natural Resource Index (NRI) factors were developed as part of a public process from 2000-2002, with repeated input from Collier County staff and the general public. The intent of the NRI scoring was essentially to discriminate between areas of high environmental value and low environmental value. The NRI scores also provide a rational basis for determining how many acres of SSA lands are required to entitle a SRA. The NRI model was calibrated with input from Collier County staff and the general public, and the NRI maps closely correlated with lands that were deemed as environmentally sensitive. While listed species occurrence data, panther telemetry, land cover, and other data may change over time, the basis for the NRI scoring remains sound. The NRI scoring system and the stewardship overlays are consistent with the new data for panther telemetry and panther habitat selection. The primary and secondary panther maps are not primary data; they are derivative map products that are specifically designed to assist the USFWS with the panther regulatory program in south Florida. They are not designed to discriminate between lands that panthers occupy or avoid. Similarly, the scrub jay management guidelines may be useful if scrub areas can be restored, but there are few (if any) viable scrub jay areas within the RLSA (known scrub jay areas do occur within the Immokalee Urban Boundary). 7. Why are credits awarded in the ACSC, when there are already restrictions to development? [CCPC] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The underlying philosophy of the RLS program is that environmentally sensitive areas are valuable, and this value should be reflected in incentives for protection. The state of Florida recently paid $350 million for Babcock Ranch, which one could also argue was also under significant development restrictions. Within the RLSA, this protection comes at no cost to Collier County, and the property remains on the local tax rolls. Restrictions on development within the ACSC do not eliminate all development. As one example, the Florida panther utilizes many areas within the ACSC. Highly dispersed, low density development that is allowable under existing ACSC regulations can adversely affect panther movement within the ACSC. By providing incentives for protecting large blocks of interconnected panther habitat, and by eliminating development rights in those areas, the ACSC remains viable as an area for panther utilization and movement. 8. Incorporate wording in each policy group that reflects best available science will be used in conducting and analyzing the program (e.g., Group 1 Policy 1.22). The SSAs and SRAs should be reassessed in light of current scientific findings. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: There is often disagreement about what constitutes "best available science" for any given environmental issue, even among experts. A more workable approach may be to document the scientific references that were used for policy development in a data and analysis report that accompanies each review of the RLSA program. Staff Comments: Environmental Services Department had comments but subsequently withdrew them during the August 5 meeting. 1051 Page Committee Deliberations during the July 15 2008 Committee meetin : Brad Cornell stated that the RLSA program is doing what it is intended to do ... protect the environmentally sensitive lands and agricultural lands by using an incentive based system rather than a regulatory system.- Mr. Farmer stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Comell's statement but has some reservations about providing incenties [credits] on lands, because of their nature, are not likely to be developed anyway. Kirsten Wilkie stated that she would like to have item #16 on page 74 [Environmental comments] placed under Policy 1.8. The Committee agreed and asked Environmental Services to provide some analysis of their suggestions during the August 5 regular meeting. Laura Roys stated that the staff suggestions would result in a change to the NRI scores. Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy would like to have the Natural Resource Index mapping updated. Tom Jones stated that Darrell Land of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [spoke to the Committee on June 31 stated that the NRI used for Collier County is about 95% accurate and closely matches that in his use. Judy Hushon stated that the NRI needs to be updated. Tom Jones stated that each SSA and SRA application is accompanied by the most current FLUCCS maps and listed species and prepared by licensed professionals and are site specific. Tim Durham stated that the Committee needs to focus on the big picture. Darrell Land stated that Collier County mapping and NRI is 95% consistent with his information. The GPS study of collared Panthers indicates where the cats are traveling day and night and there is Iittle difference between their travel habits from day and night. David Farmer questioned why an NRI of 1.2 was used rather than 1.1 or 1.3 and whether there were ever any maps developed which showed the differences in "Open" lands using these two alternatives. Tim Durham stated that there were many computer/GIS runs on these and other alternative NRI cut-off scenarios and the 1.2 seemed to be the most appropriate score to use. Brad Cornell made a motion and seconded by Fred Thomas to refer Policies 1.8 and 1.9 to the Technical Committee as well as the Environmental and Transportation issues. After further discussion by the Committee, and a reminder by Torn Jones and Neno Spagna that these items have not come to the Committee and they felt uncomfortable about having the Technical Committee make recommendations before the Committee has thoroughly vetted it, the motion failed/withdrawn. Committee July 15 and August 5 2008 Actions: The Committee voted unanimously on July 15 to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged, but to have the Engineering and Environmental Services Department Staff provide at the August 5 meeting a detail and analysis of the changes suggested directly above and possible impacts on the RLSA Overlay with the understanding that the Committee may change its recommendation regarding Policy 1.8 during the course of its review of the entire RLSA Overlay. Committee deliberations on August 5, 2008: After hearing from Laura Roys and the public, the consensus of the Committee is that the existing language of this Policy is adequate. Committee August 5, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged. Policy 1.9 Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value forAall land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the 'natural Resource Index values in . effect at the OV4 of designation. tiny change in the Characteristics of land alae to alteration of the land prior to the establishment& a. SSA that either increases,or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a correspe ding. adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as apart of the 94! Overlay. Public Comments: During the August 5, 2008 meeting Nicole Ryan stated that she is concerned that the map is outdated and needs to be updated. Staff Comments: There should be an update of the initial mapping. Not all land use/land cover codes are included and there could be more areas like Lake Trafford Ranch and Half Circle Ranch that were improperly designated. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that all SSAs submitted must present the most current information on each specific SSA area at time of submittal and that Darrell Land stated that the county RLSA mapping appears to be about 95% accurate. Mr. Cornell stated that the natural resource index map NRIs in SSA is a good balance between science, preservation policy and private property owner rights. Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend not to amend Policy 1.9 1061 Page Policy 1..10 Ili SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are, generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the, incentivetto participate in the Stewardship Credit .System andprotect the natural .resources of the land. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Auggst S 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to leave Policy 1.14 unchanged. Policy 1.11 The -Land UOMi— Attachment l3; lists uses anis activities allowed iuile t ~A, ]ural Agricultural nnin I3xstrc within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in -the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matixx, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and. ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer, available. Each zayer is assigned a percentage, of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Tn x value on. a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.. Public Comments: 1. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing those remaining uses to meet mitigation obligations? [FWF] 2. Remove all layers at one time - concern that several layers are contrary to conservation and/or agriculture preservation goals. [FWF] 3. Clarify what is included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 - concerns about aquaculture [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix JI: When lands are designated as a SSA, the land owner voluntarily relinquishes specified land use rights, and retains other specified property rights. Depending upon which land use rights are retained, it may be appropriate to relinquish these "remaining uses" to meet mitigation obligations. For example, a land owner who retained Ag -1 land use rights to a farm field could relinquish their agricultural land use rights and restore the farm field as a native wetland to address mitigation obligations. The specific characteristics of the SSA will determine if removing additional land uses can potentially satisfy specific mitigation requirements, and is ultimately under the purview of regulatory agencies. The ability to remove individual land use rights in layers motivates property owners to put larger areas into SSAs because they can manage operations and unique resources that may be a smaller portion of the whole. Changing the policy to force removal of all layers at one time will likely have a negative effect on protection goals by creating uncertainty among the landowners and slowing the process of creating SSAs. The uses included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 are set forth on the Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, of the GOPs. The uses are the landowners' existing rights as permitted under the Rural Agricultural Zoning District. ECPO [Appendix J] supports the land use matrix as it currently exists. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August S, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended, by a vote of 9 to 2, that Policy 1.11 remain unchanged. Policy 1.12 Credits can be lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability criteriakattd standard ..set forth in Group 4 Policies.. Such lands sha13 be known as Stewardship Deceiving Areas or SRAs. 1071; .-c- Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Au ust 5 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.12 remain unchanged. Policy -1.13 'llkte procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRS, designation are set forth herein and will! also- be adopted as a paft of a Stewardship .District in -the LDC. (Djstrict)LDRs creating- the. District will be adopted within one tl) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5.2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.13 remain unchanged. VolicY Ui (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged foc additional residential or nonresidential entitlements in a SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Voliq 44$ 419. Stewardship density and.. intensity will thereafter differ from the Baseline. Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship .Credits shall not require -a CMP A:riendment. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: Minor amendment to provide for the accurate Policy reference. Committee Deliberations: The Committee supported the Staff recommendation to correct this Policy. Committee_ Auaust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.14 remain unchanged, with the exception of the correction shown above with strikethrough and underline. �'oliicy x.15 Land becomes designated as an. SRAM upon 'the adoption of a resolution by -the Collier tyounty. .9oard of- County. Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition- by the property owner seeldng such .designation. Any change in -the residentiM density .or.°non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel -of lard located within a SRA shall be specified- irl the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to. the parcel of land. "Density and intensity Within the RLSA or within an SRA; shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Creditor. System- the Affordable -workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in -the,.,Density Rating §ystern of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending,provision of the Immokedee Area.Master Plan, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.15 remain unchanged. Policy 1.16 .stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative. land use pIanning techniques and Credits shall be used -to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter 163.3.177 (j1), F.S.en&W9 5.006(5)(1). Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.16 remain unchanged. 1081 Page Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits. may ba-transfertcd between different parcels or within a single pareel, su€bject3to compEance -with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only -occur within the RLSAsthrolugh the use of the stewardship Credit System, and otherforms o4residential, clustering shall_not ]}e. permitted. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Aurst 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.17 remain unchanged. Policy 1-18 ,A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such a$ bur not limiwd to Florida Forever, Federal -and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private- onservation organizations, logia] option taxes, general county revenues, and other nwnies can augment the Stewardship program throhgh the acquisition of conservation casements, Credits, or I and that is -identified as the highest priority for natural FesAurce protection, inoluding, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Ar (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAJs and land within the Big Cypress. rpa of,Cntical State Concert (ACSQ. Public Comments: 1. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off -setting indices should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix JI: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA framework. Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the incentive -based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs. The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of acquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever. These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than $325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.18 remain unchanged. Q 1.19 All local land.or. easement acquisitioix prograrm that are intended to. work withinqhe RLSA Overlay shall be based upon.a willing participar!Vseller approach. It isnot the Intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquuisition within this systeu€, 1091 Page Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee August 5 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.19 remain unchanged. Policy, 1,20 The County may elect to acquire Credits through a ,publicly funded program, using sources identified. in Policy 1.48., Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship CYedit Truswo receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or other_wisc used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee Aueust 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.20 remain unchanged. Policy 3:21 (recommended amendment) The incentive based StcwardshipnCredit system telies on the projected demand for Credits as. the primar=y basis fm permanent protection of agriculruraI _lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation,and also recognizes that a pubUc benefit would be realized. by the early designation of SSAS.. To address this issue;atid to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shalltbe in thedorm of an additional one StewardsQ, Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside ofatherACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as H -SA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, -arid Water retention areas does not require the establishmenttof SRAs or otherwise requixe the early use of Cr..edits, and Ciedits generated under the early entry bonus -may be used after the termination of the -bonus period, The maximum numbcr of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27.,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be iransfen-ed into or used within the ACSC. Public Comments: 1. The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and only increased the magnitude of development and the speed in which it will occur in the rural areas. Because of this, a need to look at longer range studies in lieu of the typical 5 -years associated with concurrency issues should be considered. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Early Entry Bonus Credit was specifically designed to jump start the protection of natural resources, not the speed of development. Policy 1.21 states that: "The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits". During the review process of the RLSA, the Department of Community Affairs supported the EEB program as a way to jump start the program through designation of SSAs in advance of market demand for Credits. This objective has been realized, as approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending compared to approximately 8,000 acres of approved and pending SRAs. At full utilization, 27,000 Early Entry Bonus (EEB) Credits are allowed, which translates into 3,375 acres of Receiving Areas. To date, approximately 7,719 EEB Credits have been approved and approximately 9,195 EEB Credits have been applied for in pending SSA applications. By any measure, the EEB program has been a success, and has not resulted in an increase in either the magnitude or speed of development in the rural areas. Staff Comments: 1. The amendment in the first line is a simple correction and the second line adds "agricultural lands" as a land to be permanently protected. [Comprehensive Planning] 1101 Page 2. For information purposes, the Early Entry Bonus is scheduled to expire on January 30, 2009 per the existing Land Development Code. A total of 7,719 Early Entry Bonus Credits were approved for SSAs 1-9 with a total of approximately 15,500 estimated to be approved if all 16 existing and proposed SSAs are approved prior to January 30, 2009, or approximately 57% of the authorized limit of 27,000. The Committee should decide whether it wishes to recommend the continuation of the Early Entry Bonus to protect HSA. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was to make the minor correction and addition to this Policy as annotated. Committee August 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.21 remain unchanged, with the exception of the minor corrections and addition as annotated. P y1�.�22 (recommended amendment) The � A Ove{.lay was designed to be a long=term strategic place wirb a plwuting horizon Year of 2025. May of the t0, ilewplMiques and strategies of the Overlay are ��cw, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual Im ementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for -and reviewed by Coll ier Cour #y and Department of Community Affairste SMOon of the 8 as. art ofthc EvaluationsandtA raisal R ort rocess. The Ste—e– se' of°the eview. `shall a to assess the partiMUM Md effecti mess of rhe Overlay implementation in meed n G'o Ob'ective and Policies set forth e specific measures oAreview shall be as. follows.,. 1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs,:HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs: 2. The amountnand location of land designated as SRAs.. 3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or4held forJuture use. 4. A comparison of the, amount,. location and type :of Agriculture that -existed at the time of a Study and -time of review. 5. The amount, location and type of'land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in the Stewardship Credit System sincelits adoption: _ 6. The extent and use of fundis �'"' f;W "p g provided by Collier County Sri other Sources d tical, State# 1"e leral ai d.._n�vate revenues described in Policy 1'.18, 7. The amount, location and, of restoration throughpartitcipation in the. Stewardship Credit_Syster . sitcenA adoption: 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be each five years, not just at the first five year anniversary. [Conservancy] 2. Review should reoccur at least every five years. Establish interim process for modifications if new, sound and defensible information becomes available. [Defenders of Wildlife] 3. Monitoring: The program should include presentation of a written annual report to the Board of County Commissioners at a BCC meeting, with adequate public notice of the item and notice to interested parties. At a minimum the report should include the number of acres in SSAs and SRAs, proposed SSAs and SRAs, available credits that could entitle development, infrastructure (roads, utilities) constructed and proposed, a status assessment of listed species and their habitat, and acres and activities involved in restoration. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Policy 1.22 requires a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The initial 5 -year review period was put in place because RLS was adopted as an innovative, break -through program that incorporated many interests. Specific criteria are to be addressed, and this task is currently being conducted by the Review Committee. The County currently has procedures for review and appraisal of the entire GMP (the EAR process) and the RLS program should not be subject to a more rigorous schedule than already in place. Consideration should also be given to the staffing of County personnel to perform evaluation of specific GMP policies as opposed to review of the entire GMP. If it is determined that review is on a 5 -year cycle, it will be important to restrict this review to local agencies that are responsible for implementation and oversight of the program. 1111 Page Providing for a requirement to provide annual reports is onerous and unnecessary. Since approval of the RLS program, one new town has been approved and is under construction. All documentation relative to this approved SRA and all approved SSA's is public record and available for review by any interested party. County staff already has numerous monitoring and reporting requirements for various local and state initiatives and directives, and the costs associated with such a requirement (staff time, legal advertisement, etc.) would be an unnecessary burden on County taxpayers. ECPO [Appendix J] supports 5-7 year reviews. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that, with the completion of the first 5 years of the RLS Program, it should now be reviewed as part of the EAR process. The Committee discussed the possible need to have a special Committee involved in the EAR review process. Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.22 remain unchanged, with the exception of the annotated changes shown. Comments received which are not clearly associated with existing policies and would, therefore, require drafting new Group 1 policies. 1. Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP) policies may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME) now has additional provision for stormwater treatment that require 150% treatment. Certain GMP policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA and should be considered for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimum, exempting the RLSA from other provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The adopted GMP goals and polices and associated LDC provisions for the RLSA are extensive and clearly detailed, and were a result of approximately three years of meetings and public input. Keeping these provisions together in one place in both the FLUE and LDC provide for a comprehensive, single source guide. We are not aware of any data that supports the need to require other provisions of the Growth Management Plan be incorporated into the provisions of the RLSA. Existing permitting procedures address specific and detailed requirements. Adding permitting related regulations to the Growth Management Plan is not necessary and could also be a disincentive to potential participants. 2. Because there are only a few large landowners in eastern Collier County, they are generally using their own agricultural land to offset development on other land that they own (i.e., using their own credits). There is essentially no market for the credits accrued by several small landowners. [Create a County Credit Bank] [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Further discussion with Mrs. Hushon related this item to the establishment of a Credit Bank to track the availability of Credits. A "Stewardship Credit Trust is currently provided for in Policy 1.20 Preface to Group 2 Policies Group 2 Policies provide specific guidance for the preservation of agricultural lands. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 2 Policies include: Group 2 (amendment) The recommended amendment to the Group 2 language eliminates the language related to protection of agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses, and replaces this language with new language related to the retention of land for agricultural production. Policy 2.1 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 2.1 eliminate the language related to protection of agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses. Also included is the elimination of the language comparing acreage needed to 1121 Page accommodate the projected population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 with the acreage required to accommodate such projected population if the RLSAO were not utilized. Policy 2.2 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 2.2 provide for additional Stewardship Credits to retain agriculture lands within the RLSA. Group 2 } olici+es to Prot- _ r a rt land for a�icultural activities. through the use o1.established incentivesin order to continue the viability of icultur production #b_roq the_Colliier Coup4..Aural.Lands.5iew �sbupm0rAUrea Overlay. (recommended amendment) Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: This is a major amendment to the RLSA Overlay. The elimination of the word "premature" may seem like an innocuous change. However, it raises a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC - 99 -002 of the Administrative Commission. Any step perceived as undoing the Final Order -based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions. In view of the preceding, staff recommends that the language of the goal remain unchanged. [Comprehensive Planning Department]. Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus is that it is impossible to determine what is or is not premature conversion of agricultural lands and wished to provide additional incentives to retain land for agricultural activities. Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language amendment as provided above. Policy. 2.1 (recommended amendment) Agricaltureal landowners. will be pirovided with incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert agriculture land -to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Pol cyies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. _-if paet1!hnir�hrat.WeFO sueh rtY "n� r+... r��4ii 4he _"S1iT4• RHF Il.� Public Comments: 1. Policy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas] SRAs will allow the projected population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development." How this policy will be met needs to be assessed during the five-year review. Based on the figures from Policy 1.3, there are 182,334 acres of privately -owned land. These lands, prior to the RLSA, were allowed a density of one unit per five acres. Thus, 36,467 units would have been allowed. Assuming development would have occurred in the worst-case scenario of the allowed one unit per five acres, all 182,334 acres could have been impacted by development (though this is highly unlikely, as permits could not likely be obtained for development within the sloughs and other extremely sensitive areas). Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the future population being contained on 10% of this land, development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the RLSA. This would be a ratio of development to non -development of 9: 1. Currently, the SRA to SSA ratio for Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is 113Page approximately 3: I. Collier County must assess how the ultimate 9: I ratio, or development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in the future, if all new SRAs come in at Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios of less than 9: I. The Conservancy believes the manner in which this policy will be met should be further clarified. [Conservancy] ECPO Comment [Appendix fl: ECPO agrees with the April 1, 2008 minutes of the Review Committee where Alan Reynolds clarified the relevance and purpose of the 10% figure. Discussion during, September 2 2008 meeting: Mr. Greenwood stated that the language proposed to be eliminated by the Committee simply states that a typical compact urban development in the RLSA Overlay would have a density approximately 10 times that of the underlying zoning which is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres of land and this was explained by Al Reynolds during the April 1 meeting. Nicole Ryan stated that the 10% footprint for SRA should be recalculated. Do not eliminate this language, but simply update it. Al Reynolds stated that the language needs to be removed from Policy 2.1 and deal with the SRAs in Group 4 policies. The RLSA Overlay is voluntary, an option, and the language really just points out the difference is development density between the underlying zoning and the RLSA Overlay. Staff Comments: This is a major amendment. Staff detailed comments were outlined previously under the RLSAO Goal and under Group 2 -Policy introduction statement above with respect to eliminating the words "premature conversion". [Comprehensive Planning] Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on-going basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all. Committee Deliberations: Mr. McDaniel stated the credits and the SRA footprint needs to be quantified during the Group 3 and 4 discussions and that he favors the removal of this language as it misleads the reader as to what the intent of the language means. Brad Cornell stated that we need to get our arms around the projections of credits and SRAs under the existing RLSA Overlay versus the proposed RLSA Overlay. Mr. Farmer stated that approximately 85,000 acres of open lands could all be developed either under the underlying AG zoning or the RLSA as SRAs. There was general discussion, in particular by David Wolfley, about the number of credits increasing too much where the credit value would be diluted, as discussed by Tom Jones and Gary Eidson and that a proper balance would have to be achieved. DCA also pointed this out in the ORC letter relative to the Half Circle Ranch GMP amendment proposal which has been withdrawn. Mr. Farmer pointed out that all 85,000 acres of Open land is available for development, either under the underlying zoning or through the RLSA Overlay. Tammie Nemecek referred to the cap of 45,000 credits proposed under the summary of July 1, 2008 of the Florida Panther Protection Program. Gary Eidson questioned how we incentivize the Open Land owners to reserve their lands in perpetuity for agricultural uses. Mr. Jones stated that Policy 2.2 is proposing to incentivize Open Areas and provide a disincentive to underlying zoning development at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted, 8-2, to recommend the amendments to Policy 1.2 as outlined above. Policy Z2 (recommended amendment) AAgriculwre. lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending Ares S As as `described in Poliev 1,6. The protectio�� rncasures for SSAs are -set Both ip Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10; and.1:17. In 1141 P age Public Comments: 1. More lands east of 29 into sending or protective status - this is ACSC land. [FWF] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The RLSA Review Committee is already considering new agricultural policies that will incentivize the protection of agricultural land uses. The Agriculture Preservation program, if adopted, will result in the designation of many "Open" agricultural lands as SSAs. The proposed program provides extra incentives for protection of agricultural lands within the ACSC. The proposed program may work in concert with other regional conservation programs to provide vast areas of agricultural and native landscapes. 2. Agriculture preservation in receiving areas - incentives? What is left after towns/villages are built? [FWF] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The agriculture incentives within the Group 2 policies proposed by the Committee provide greater opportunity for landowners to continue agriculture operations while removing land rights on lands designated as "Open." This incentive is directly related to the desire for agriculture preservation. Provided landowners maintain the ability to create new towns and villages, with the addition of the new agriculture incentive full implementation of the RLSA should result in three land categories — natural resource SSAs, agriculture SSAs and towns and villages. 3. If the Committee genuinely wishes to adopt policies to encourage the preservation of meaningful Agricultural Lands for the future, these policies and incentives must reward the preservation of lands with substantive Aaricu_ltural value. The preservation of higher quality lands with the potential to produce citrus, row crops, or other high value horticultural crops in the future obviously should carry a higher incentive in development credits than minimally valuable grazing Iands or pasture. Agricultural value alone should be the criteria. The location of many of these lands in Collier County is well established_ In response to Mr. Jones' proposal, I do not believe that Any credits should be granted for the preservation of Agricultural lands in the Area of Critical State Concern. These lands are in environmentally sensitive areas and are under little development pressure. Most should never be intensively used and hold limited Agricultural value for the future. In my opinion, a separate category of A—gricultural Stewardship Sending Lands (ASSA) should be created. This could identify the difference between the Ag preservation effort and current SSA's which in practice are strictly environmental. Criteria for credits and goals should be separate. This need not be excessively complex, but should give the most reward to landowners who preserve the land with the most current and potential value to Agricultural uses, not natural resource value or conservation. This should be very acceptable and desirable to landowners as this rewards them the most for keeping the lands currently generating the most income. Agriculture is currently very well defined and highly regulated by a myriad of state and federal agencies. Any RLSA Agricultural policies should not be crippled by additional environmental restrictions. In any RLSA Ag. program there should be no additional restrictions of any kind to any legitimate agricultural uses. Landowners should be able to capitalize on future technology. Intensity of use should not be restricted or frozen at current levels. Any RLSA must function within laws including best management practices. Regulation and restriction should be left to the law makers and regulatory agencies, not the environmental advocacy interests. The committee has serious work to do in the details of a viable Ag preservation incentive policy. I hope that ail committee members will read, in detail the 2007 RLSA Program Annual Report to the legislature from DCA. This review outlines their concerns with the Collier County RLSA program and policies and defines issues and shortcomings that the committee surely must address. To develop an Ag policy that will be acceptable to DCA will no doubt be challenging simply because it will generate an additional inventory of development credits. It is most likely that DCA will be reluctant to endorse any policy that exacerbates their current stated concerns include the following: * The maximum number of stewardship credits in the RLSA is not known and therefore the maximum development footprint cannot be determined. * The Collier RLSA Plan has not established how many new towns and villages can be created. * Spatial arrangement and extent of various land uses has not been addressed. Fragmentation of both Environmental and Agricultural lands could make both unsustainable. The distribution pattern of Development as well as necessary buffers, greenbelts, or other provisions to preserve rural character have not been adequately addressed, putting it at risk. 115IPage The committee will ultimately have to address these issues, and most will have to be addressed en route to any functional and DCA -acceptable Agricultural incentive policy. All of this must be accomplished in light of the elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the underlying land use in Collier County of 1 dwelling unit for five acres of land. This density, although low, is the reason why only agricultural land with a high natural resource value has been preserved to date. All RLSA credits to date have been structured in a highly rewarded environmental context. A separate and well defined Ag policy, with similar incentives, is needed. To be acceptable, I am afraid this will require that the entire RLSA, at build out, be considered and better defined. Is the committee willing and prepared to do this? I look forward to discussing Group 2,3, and 5 Policies, however, in my opinion, the present Collier RLSA shortcomings and criticisms must be addressed before additional or new Agriculture policy (or for that matter, any other new policy ) can be created. I therefore propose to the Committee that a structured review and discussion of DCA stated concerns be undertaken at this time. This should be done before any complex new policy is considered, or any new specific policy Ianguage is adopted. [Tim Nance] 4. Will there be a continuation of loss of agricultural acreage in the RLSA in the future? Agricultural Productive areas need to be preserved. [CCPC] 5. Establish new category of agriculture preserves; however, assure that the process does not set up a competition between conservation and agriculture preservation that would result in failure to protect natural resources. [We note that while conservation benefits have certainly accrued from the acres currently designated as Ag 1 and Ag 2, very few (-650 acres) have actually been categorized as Conservation.] [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Review Committee has proposed new policies to provide incentives for landowners to preserve agriculture land within the Open designation. Note: The following Appendices were submitted to the Committee on July 1, 2008 as part of the "Florida Panther Protection Program Summary" dated rune 30, 2008: A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee 1161 Page Public Comments during September 2, 2008 meeting: Nancy Payton spoke in support of the language proposed under Policy 2.2 as it encourages keeping agriculture land in agriculture or similar uses. Nicole Ryan stated that the Committee should provide an incentive in the ACSC land for panther habitat protection; that the NRI values need to be updated; and passed out a color map showing [in yellow] areas where panthers habitat could be in conflict with Open lands where SRAs might be allowed. Mr. McElwaine, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, encouraged the Committee to vote against the proposed amendments to Policy 2.2 and raised questions about DCA's caution of not using the existing RLSA Overlay authorization, adequate infrastructure, justification and whether there is a need based upon shortage of existing development. Staff Comments: Staff can confirm that the average number of Stewardship Credits per acre assigned in SSAs 1-9 is approximately 2.65 credits per acre for lands classified as HSA, FSA, or WRA and 0.85 credits per acre for lands classified as Open Lands. The assigned credits include both R-1 and R-2 credits although. The development of additional stewardship credit values within the Stewardship Credit Worksheet to support the voluntary retention of Agriculture - Group 1 lands for permanent open or agricultural uses will be required to support definitive language amendments to Policy 2.2. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: David Wolfley suggested putting all credit reference in Group 3 policies. Tom Jones stated that the proposal is intended to create a new incentive for agricultural preservation and he felt the credit reference should be in Group 2 policies and this was discussed initially by the Committee in April and is attempting to address the criticism of DCA about not doing enough to protect agricultural lands. He stated that the 2.0 credits per acre outside of the ACSA is an incentive to the property owners to retain agricultural lands, as the current average NRI in Open lands would generate approximately just 0.2 credits per acre. He stated that the 2.6 credits per acre is an added incentive to maintain agricultural lands in the ACSC and is close to the 2.65 average credits per acre generated by lands classified as HSA, WRA or FSA in SSA 1-9. He stated that the Group 2 and Group 3 credit generation will need to be balance with SRA entitlement potential to be addressed in Group 4 policies. Mr. Wolfley stated that all credits should be discussed and reviewed in one area and not in several Groups of policies. Mr. Jones stated that if there are too many credits, then we will have to pull back on the number of credits being generated and too many acres of SRA. He stated that a potential maximum 45,000 acres of development footprint under SRAs was proposed in the summary of the Panther Protection Program presented on July 1, 2008 to the Committee. Brad Cornell stated that agricultural stewardship credits will need to be calculated and still wants an incentive for the preservation of agricultural lands. He suggested adding to the last sentence the words, "Agriculture" before SSA in the two locations in that sentence and that there be language placed that would disallow returning to the AG -1 land use layer after the land has been voluntarily taken down to AG -2. Mr. McDaniel stated that he could support the first part, but not the second part. Mr. Farmer asked about the acreage classified as Open in the ACSC. Mr. Jones stated that the 15,000+ acres of Open land within the ACSC can become SSAs but there is also a limit of 10% of clearing limitation in the ACSC. Dave Wolfley stated he agrees with the added language but not with the numbers. Committee September 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to recommend that the word "Agricultural" be inserted before "SSA" in the two locations found in the last sentence of Policy 2.2. Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee, by a vote of 7-3, to recommend that the following language be added just prior to the last sentence of Policy 2.2: "Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no longer available." Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to add the shown additional language to Policy 2.2 to better define Open Lands. 1171 Page (recommended deletion) €3P£ ,. u1VaFd4' and VAI; ff8PHFL �-'- ` Public Comments: none received Staff Comment&- no comments Committee Delibermiow- The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created; that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC; and that there are marry agricultural interest groups and organizations ahteady established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests. omml September -1 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Police 23 be deleted from the RLSA Overlay. l1Mky 2.4 (recommended delet6m) �,13C W lir-�avi'alL cr ........... of the A +E C - apd- i �#!dY Public Comments: now received Std Comments: no comments Committee Deliberatkm: Tine Committee discussed the fact drat the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created, that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC, and that there are many agricultural interest groups and organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests. mmWee September1 2006 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.4 language be stricken, Policy 2. (recommended amendment) AgricWtrrre is an important aspect of Collier County's quality. of life -and ecrmomic weU-being.-Ag&Wnual adfivities shall he protected frond -duplicative revlaOon as pravided by the Florida Right -10 -Farm Acct. Public Coanments: none received Staff Commmts: IF Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deieiion by tine Comrrrittee, then current Policy 2.5 would became Policy 2,3.(Comprelhensive Maanhgl Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2005 Action: The Committee unanimously retomnrtended to renumber Policy 2.5 to 2.3. Policy 2. �(recommended aweendment) Notwithatandirig the special pmvjsions of Policies 3.9 and 3..10, gcfi in herein or in the impkment i ag LDRs, shall restrict lawful agriciilhiral activities can lands witl is the Rj SA that hgve p_ot beett_placed into the Ste, ship program. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: The deletion of Policies 2.3 and 2,4 would require that current Policy 16 become Policy 2,4.[Comprehensive Planning] Committee Delfberadmis: none Committ" Seplgmbgr 1 20M Action:_ The Commiotee unanimously recommended the renumbering of Policy 2.6 to 2.4. 118 1 P a g e Preface to Group 3 Policies Group 3 Policies set the framework for environmental preservation, including "perpetual conservation easements" [Stewardship Easements] through Stewardship Sending Areas. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 3 Policies include: Policy 3.11 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 3.11: • eliminate the restoration priority language related to restoration work within the Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) or contiguous Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); provide language allowing for two additional Stewardship Credits (rather than the 4 Credits now permitted) for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA, regardless of location in the RLSA; elimination of the additional two Stewardship Credits for each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs; and provide additional Credits for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC; • provide for Stewardship Credits to incentivize the creation, restoration, and enhancement of a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection by providing for 2 additional Stewardship Credits for each acre of land so dedicated and, should the owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, an additional 8 Credits per acre would be awarded; • provide for Stewardship Credit incentives for restoration of shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat located in FSA, HSA, or Water Retention Area (WRA) at the rate of 2 additional Credits per acre and, upon successful completion of the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded; and • limit Credit incentives to only one type of restoration for each acre so designated for restoration Policy 3.13 (amendment) The recommended amendment to Policy 3.13 requires the acreage of a WRA, if such acreage provides for water treatment and retention exclusively for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be included in the SRA acreage and would require the use of Stewardship Credits to enable the use of such an area for this purpose in a SRA. Group 3 — Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Now way- Stewardship Areas:, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included. in the Rural Lands Stewardship Ama program. Public Comments: no comments received regarding the Group 3 objective above. The following documents received by the Committee on July 1, 2008, due to their length and relationship to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.11, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A -F and are described below: Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 Appendix B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan Appendix C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel 1191 Vage and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program Appendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee Staff comments: Mr. Greenwood suggested that all of the documents received by the Committee at its July 1 meeting related to the Florida Panther Protection Program be placed in the Appendices section at the back of the report in their entirety due to their combined 20+ pages. Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed, at the suggestion of Brad Cornell, adding reference to restoration activities to the Group 3 statement above. The Committee consensus was that this would be covered later in the Group 3 policies and need not be placed here. Committee September 2. 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to leave the existing language for Group 3 unchanged. Policy 3.1. Protection of water quality and quantity,, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall ocour througk the establishment of'Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA&), as SSAs within the RLSA Ovetlay. FS.As. are delineated on the Overlay Mapand contain approximately 3 1,100 acres. FSAs. am primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently Protect FSAs by the creation. and transfer of Credits, elimination of irkcompatible uses, and establishment. of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands. within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of them natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate highei value from lower value lands for the purpt)se of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the liidex Map Series shows that FSA hands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; apptoximately 9.690 score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2. or less. The average Index score -of FSA land is I..8, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the existing language for Policy 3.1 unchanged. Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment) Nsted animal and plant species and ,their habitats. shall be protected through the establishment of Hahirat Stewardship A#eas (k15As), as SSAs within the RISA Overlay... MSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map ai:d contain approximately 40,NQ 45,7.82 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include. both areas with natural characteristics that snake them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguousm habitat to hflp form a continuum of landscape that can augTho-at-babitat values.11he Overlay provides an incentive to pei�anently protect. HSAs by the creation and traxrsfer of Credits, resulting in the elft1bation of4ricompatible-uses and the establishment of protection measures described'in Group 1 Policies.Not•a1l lands Within the delineated 11SAs a're comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore 'rhe index shall be used -to. differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purposeAof Overby implementation. A� alysis of the lndex Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of -0.6 to 2.2. There ate approximately X800 15.150 aekes of cleared agricultural- fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of RAFT !a&designatcdr lands is 13. however, the. average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is. 1.5. - -- Public Comments: none received 12011'age Staff Comments: 1. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres as the 40,000 acres figure was an estimate, while the 45,782 acres is based upon current GIS data. The 13,800 acreages for HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres upon recalculation by the Environmental staff using the SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved pasture, un -improved pasture, row crops, field crops, and orchards to get a value for "cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not including woodland pasture, tree nursery, or upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff] 2. "HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA". [Comprehensive Planning staff] 3. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the requirements in the Growth Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect listed species and their habitat. During the first 5 years of the RLSA program there have been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do not provide adequate protection to listed species. Additionally the 2002 definition of panther habitat is very limited compared to the habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now. [Environmental staff] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs collectively comprise over 89,000 acres and provide large, interconnected blocks of high-quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. These overlay areas contain the vast majority of the native vegetation communities that occur within privately held RLSA lands, and also include over 13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented, often impacted by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality that native vegetation communities with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do not provide adequate protection to listed species." Collier County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was adequate when the plan was approved in 2002. We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitat is "very limited" compared to the current USFWS habitat valuation matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research (Land, Shindle, et. al., 2008) and a current USFWS review of multiple published studies indicates that the 2002 definition of panther habitat closely approximates the current understanding of panther habitat utilization. In fact, the RLSA Habitat, Flow way, and Water Retention Stewardship Areas as designed in 2002 incorporated ninety-one percent of the panther telemetry. Currently, the panther telemetry within these same areas has increased to ninety-four percent. This concludes that the habitat is protected. Committee Deliberations: The Committee was informed of the more updated source of the acreage numbers and concurred that the numbers should be amended as shown. September 2, 2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the text of Policy 3.2 as annotated above to more closely reflect the most current information in the RLSA Overlay. Policy 3:3 Eurther protection for surface water quality and quantity. shall he through the establishment of Water Retention Areas s), as SSAs within the RLSA. Ovezlay. WRAs are delineated on .the Overlay :biapand contain approximatel 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that/ ave been permitted by theiSouth Korida Water ManagementDistric to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation, in -other -cases they air excavated water bodies or may c[z in exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides art incentive to permanently protect WFAs by tine creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their naftlml resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate .higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of OverIay implementation. Analysis of the Index- Map Series shows that V42A lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% sdore greater than 1.2 while 26% score. 1.2 or less. The ,average Index score.-o&WRA; land is 1.5: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.3. 121 Policy 3.4 _ Public and private �cdnservation areas _ existfni the ADS -A-, .and serve do proced nattval resources. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloaccochee Slough. State l~orest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shout=s that they score wither an Index range oft&O to 2.2; with an average Index score- of 1.5. Because these existing Public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected; they are not -delineated as SSAs_and :are .not eligiltle . to. gpperayz,Credit , but do serve an important,role in meeting the Carnal ofithe RLSA. - Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.4. Policy 3.5 Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Riocessing. Uses, and. Recreat onai Uses (layers 1.-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange .for compensation u), the property owner as described in Policy 3.8: Conditional use essential seMed'9 anis governmental. essential serxices, other than .those necessary to scare permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in.FSAs with aNatural resource Stewardship ladex value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed- areas shall be utilized for ofd and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats.-t)_ther layers may also be eliminated at the election of thejproperty owner in exchange for compensation. The'elim natian of the Earth. Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes. or other water ha&es if such use is -,an integral part of -a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3,5 Policy 3.6 Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in #labitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be elin.iinated at the election pf.ft prty owner in exchange. for compensation. Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use Iayers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5. 1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not 1221 Page participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 2, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.6. Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment) General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on RSA lands vi th a Natural. Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or fess. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, -father than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for pui5fic safety, shall only fig allowed in HSA9 with a Natural Resource Stewardship- Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where- practicable, ditec_tional-drilling techniques and/or .previously cleared or distuibed area. shall be utilized for Gil and -gas Extraction Yin HSAs in order to minin ze impacts to native habitats.. In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only he.. approved upon submittal of an FJ& Environmental 1 rinpact Stateinent:(E)GS). which des�rionstrates that clearing of native vegetation has boon minimized,, the use will not significantly and adv%Mlt impact listed species and theWhabitats and the use v :i'll not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As. an alternative to the foregoing, theapplicant may demonstrate that such use is ansintegral part n1 an approved. restoration or, mitigation prr gram. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in. any HSA shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gond :l?rograrn and the Florida Department of )Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards. shall be considered by eollier'Ctounty as meeting the requirement for. minimization of impact: • Clearing of-madve vegetation shall not exeeed M of the native vegetatiod oti.the parcol, • Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vege tedrare • Buffering'to Conservation Land shall :comply with Policy 4.13, Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5. 1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity. 1231 Page Public Discussion during the September 2 2008 meeting, Lauri McDonald stated that mining should be kept out of the layers and dealt with separately as mines have a greater negative impact on habitat than most types of land uses. Nancy Payton agreed with Ms. McDonald. Bill McDaniel stated that he does mining for a living and that mines provide a site for new habitat once they are finished off and full of water. Mr. Wolfley stated that he felt that mines do not have the negative impact on habitat as many other uses which are permanently intensive land uses. Brad Cornell stated that it may be well to require HSAs to remove land use Layers 1-4. Mr. Jones stated that Layers 1-4 have been removed in the first 9 SSAs since the property owners felt it was the environmentally sensible act to take in HSAs. Al Reynolds stated that the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary program and that the earth mining is a permitted use in the underlying AG zoning and that it would be better to process an earth mining operation under the RLSA Overlay rather than under AG zoning. Staff Comments: This is a clarification for the reader who may not know what "EIS" stands for as "EIS" is used extensively throughout this portion of the RLSA Overlay. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. Committee September 2 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to not recommend any change to Policy 3.7 other than to make the clarification recommended by staff.. Policy 3.8 Compensation to the rop Tt owner -ma occur through ` � f' �.echatib i pe p pe . y y gii one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and-.nfei 48tewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, ortbmgb other acquisition of -land or interest in land thrcugh a. v.411ing seller pro Public Comments on September 16, 2008. Mr. Dane Scofield stated that he would like to broaden the language to allow other avenues to use credits. Staff Comments: Staff suggested adding the words, "such as, but not limited to Conservation Collier" to the end of Policy 3.8 [Environmental Services] Committee Deliberations: The Committee saw no reason to single out any agency. Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously not to make any to change Policy 3.8. Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment) I. Agriculture will continue to be,,,a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted as Conditional uses within 1~SAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described :io the Matrix. The Ag 1 group includes row crops., citrus, specialty farms, horticiAture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture limited to Open Land designation. onlvl and similar- activities, incladiog related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 1 areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agri lture to another and expand to the limits; allowed byjapplicable permits. Ouee the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, nQ further expansion of Ag I will beallowed in FSA,;. and HSAs. beyond.existiug or permitted. limits withal proN. rty subject to a credittransfer, except for -incidental cleating as setjorthj-in Para` W Below. 2. In order. to. encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to acco Modaw the abilityto eonvert.from one Ag ] use .to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag 1 areas, square up existing farm fields, -or provide access to or ft-orn other Ag 1 areas, provided than. the Ag I Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value scare has been: adjusted to re€lect the proposed change in land cover. Incident clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is limited to I'%- of the area of the SSA. In the -event said incidental clearing.Ampacts lands having a.Natural Resource Index Value. in excess of 1.2,1ppt'ate Ligation shall be provided, Public Comments: 1. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicates that out of the approximately 23,000 acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to 1241 Page their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should be more active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation purposes. While grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses, more active agricultural activities may not, especially if the environmental value of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of the uses removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval. [Conservancy] Note: Also related to policy 3.10 ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124 acres within approved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag -2 lands. Of the 19,034 acres under Ag -2 land uses, 16,334 acres exist under native vegetation, and an additional 1,781 acres are comprised of pastures. These Ag -2 land uses retain only grazing rights and other low -intensity agricultural uses that are entirely compatible with listed species conservation. Lands within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation purposes" are therefore more accurately quantified as the sum of Ag - 2 and Conservation land uses (19,684 acres), or 82% of all approved SSA lands. The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing. 2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs [FWF] 3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at a minimum. Discussion during Se tember 16' 2008 Meeting. Laura Roys stated staff suggested the BMP because SSAs should have higher standards and that the BMP language could be added to the Stewardship Credit Agreements. Dane Scofield stated that all his uses of land generate BMPs. Who will decide which BMP to use and how. He stated that he is opposed to the proposed BMP language. Nicole Ryan stated that her organization would support BMPS in that the property owners are receiving SSAs. Russ Priddy stated that he takes special care of his lands over the years and is opposed to BMPs being placed in the RLSA Overlay and that such is a huge disincentive to participate in the RLSAO. Staff Comments: Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at a minimum. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing standard agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations. Additional restrictions could potentially render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter to the goals of the RLSA. The prescription of BMPs could also create disincentives for land owners to include agricultural areas within SSAs, thereby fragmenting landscape mosaics that would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected blocks of land. Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he was not in favor of the Best Management Practices language because it will lead to more confusion as to who will verify it is being done, which BMP to use and for what use.. Brad Cornell stated that we should find a way to incentivize BMPs. Mr. Farmer stated that the incentives are already in place such that the property owner is not found in violation [SFWMD requires BMPs for developments of 10+ acres and DEP requires as well]. Mr. Eidson stated that we do not need more laws as we are short of staff to enforce the ones we have. Mr. Standridge stated that the BMPs are not regulatory. Mr. Farmer disagreed stating that property owners must use BMPs for 1251 Page 10+ acre developments approved by SFWMD and DEP. Brad Come]] stated that he would like to see aquaculture addressed in the LDC. Committee September 16 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3.9. By separate motion, the Committee voted unanimously have the language "limited to Open Land designation only", added after the word "aquaculture" in line fourth line of Policy 3.9. Policy 3.10 _ Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for gra and ra'ricluiYg, l=oiestry and similar activities, clu€lig relatediagriculSid support uses:gln existing Ag 2 areas wfthin FAs and HSAs, such. activities are permitted tea continue, and may.,convert frnxn one type .of Agriculture to another and. expamd to the limits allowed -by applicable permits, Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no furmer expansion aff Ag 2 or Obversion of Ag 2 to Ag I will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer. Public Comments: The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where development was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2 lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural states, the fact they are not truly conservation lands is misleading. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The majority of SSA lands designated as Ag -2 consist of native vegetation communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland land cover. Once an SSA easement is placed on such property, the residential, earth mining, recreation, and intensive agriculture land use rights are removed and no further intensification of these natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between "preservation or conservation lands", and Stewardship Sending Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact that the land owner is obligated to continue to manage the land in accordance with the Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather than the public incurring this obligation and cost for public preservation land. One critical land use that is retained by the Ag -2 designation is the right to graze cattle, which is an important land management tool. In natural forest communities within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exotic vegetation and controlling overgrowth in the understory. Ultimately, these Ag -2 lands do provide conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands within and adjacent to the RLSA. With respect to wetland impacts in SRAs, the RLSA is a planning tool that works in a complimentary fashion to wetland and wildlife regulatory programs, not as a replacement. Any proposed wetland impacts and mitigation requirements are assessed and approved by the regulatory agencies for each SRA independently of RLSA process, using standard methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The RLSA program addresses the issue on a major system basis, which regulatory programs do not, and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and larger high-quality wetland systems that greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and the US Army Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high regard by the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to not amend Policy 3.10. Policy 3.11 1., In certain Iocations there may be the opportunity for flow -way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow -ways have. been constricted or otherwise impeded h_ past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors. l&y shE�4ler- . Should a property owner be %i ing to dedicate land forx.estoration activities within a FSA or HSA.tke ('nmp . , f4a two additional Stewardship Credits shall -be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. mit t -fer< oahFr Ft i' and 14 The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity 126 undertaking -the .restoration. Should an.owner also complete-restor-ation improvements, this shall be. rewarded with feet additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the#restoration met applicable success criteria -as eterrnined by the penrit.agency authorizing said -restoration.. The;addition'al-Credits shall be rewarded far.ciaher caracara restoration at 2 Credits_per-Iacre.,. or for exotic. controVbuming_at. 4. Credits. ppr acres, owfm flaw war resforation _at 4 2. in .certain.locations: as _ nerall. Mustrated-in the-R'LSA Oy rla. Mgp,— ma -.be o,,.._..� � 'ties to create tcstore successtul , complete the restoratio and additional..6. Credits -.acre shall .bt a`warded. Qnly M. tym of restoration shalLbe: rewarded with these GREIts for each acre,designated_fortrestoration..This policy does not.l rcclude otheF Forms of compensation for restoration. which may be .addressed through public-private partnership agreement such a ; a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involve.i. Also not precluded areyarioas_b_ ate and pabiiclMfunded restoration prp'ams such as the Federal Farm Bill conservation progr4 s. The specific pros_ a§s faT assipment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC. Public Comments: 1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination. These uses include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be mandatory. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a permitted use throughout the RLSA, and may be allowed to continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its owners depending upon the land use Iayers removed. Land within an SSA that has been cleared or altered for agricultural support activities will be scored accordingly. SSA lands normally remain in private ownership and the property owner retains the obligation for land management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associated with agricultural practices. Environmental Audits are typically required only in conjunction with a change in ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be performed on thousands of acres of land would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property owners to consider placing their property within an SSA. Cattle dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state, and federal programs conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression, control, or eradication of the disease commonly known as tick fever by eradicating the cattle fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated under local, state, and Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in the eradication program was mandated by state law and not voluntary. Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes states: Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattle -dipping vats are located shall not be liable to the state under any state law, or to any other person seeking to enforce state law, for any costs, damages, or penalties associated with the discharge, evaluation, contamination, assessment, or remediation of any substances or derivatives thereof that were used in the vat for the eradication of the cattle fever tick. This provision shall be broadly construed to the benefit of said private owner. 1271Page Any potential oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and should there be an occurrence, immediate action is required. DNR maintains records of all petroleum spills and the action taken to address said spills. When wells are abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the wells and clean up the site under the direction of DNR. Hunting camps are handled via written leases with the property owner. The stipulations of these legal leases include the requirement for any lessee to properly dispose of all solid waste and also include annual inspection by the property owner to insure the terms of the lease are being met. Private property owners take great care in the protection of their land when allowing others to use their property for hunting or camping purposes. 2.The Conservancy believes that retention of AG 1 or AG2 uses on lands where credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for incompatibility. Even lower -impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship credits are generated for restoration plans and actual restoration activities, all land use layers should be removed down to the conservation use. In addition, appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation between agricultural uses and restoration areas. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The process for restoration credits requires the removal of AGI uses, so there is no potential for incompatibility between restoration and AGI uses under the RLSA program. Cattle grazing is a proven land management too]. When properly managed, cattle grazing limits under brush from becoming an extensive fire hazard, keeps exotics from more rapid proliferation, and requires more continuous oversight of the land. Removing all agricultural uses from the land would be a disincentive to restoration because there is a cost associated with land management. There must be a mechanism available to ensure that restoration and conservation remain viable options in the market. 3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the ability for additional Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication of land for restoration. The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: In the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land is dedicated for restoration, and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each step. By assigning credits for the first step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects lands for a future restoration activity. When viewed in a regional context this dedication process is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to protect and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to property owners to dedicate any restoration land until the restoration is to be completed, thereby depriving those other entities of knowing what the true regional restoration plan is. 4. Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving [Open] areas [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields within the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance between agricultural sustainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As noted in the previous response, ample opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within the FSA and HSA overlays. While restoration within the FSA and HSA overlays can occur within a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, restoration within the Open overlay lacks a landscape -scale context, and should not be a priority. 5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many credits. [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation of total potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits. 1281 Page 6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that does not have to be implemented? [CCPC] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: (See response to 3 above). 7. Restoration credits: credit should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could be a two step scale involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success criteria. [Defenders of Wildlife] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two -fold. One, the restoration designation credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the restoration work, including the costs of permitting, detailed restoration planning, etc. Secondly, there are situations where a land owner may be amenable to allowing a local (such as Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to perform restoration work on their land. The restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land owners to cooperate with agencies where they otherwise may have declined to participate, and the agencies can implement the restoration program. Staff Comments: Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review for sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensive Planning] 1. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit value should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be earned. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 2. The management plan should include more than the 1 exotic plants listed by County Code (FLEPPC Category 1). Various other exotics have been observed. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 3. The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail. [Engineering and Environmental Services] 4. Restoration should be to a native habitat. [Engineering and Environmental Services] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied to the restoration functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cost of restoration would be beneficial. An approach will be provided to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future. Management plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credit and Easement Agreements, so enforceability is already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate to include the 12 Category 1 exotic plant species identified by FLEPPC in future management plans. The SSA restoration management plans submitted to date have included sufficient specificity to ensure the achievement of restoration goals, but we will work with the RLSA Review Committee and staff if a standardized checklist will provide clarity for all parties while preserving flexibility in restoration implementation. We disagree that restoration should be limited to native habitats. Emphasis on pasture -dependent species highlights the need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat. Caracaras, for instance, prefer properly managed pastures over any other habitat, including native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to native habitats could potentially compromise recovery efforts for these species. Public Discussion on September 16.2008. Mr. Greenwood stated that there was a proposal submitted on September 2 to provide for amendments to Policy 3.11 prepared by Wilson Miller and intended to the provide language to accommodate the Panther Protection Program. Mr. Cornell prepared and distributed at the beginning of the September 16`h meeting a revised Policy 3.11 which was then aired by those present as follows: Mr. Farmer stated that he was concerned about unintended consequences. Mr. Jones stated that he thinks the breakdown is covered well and covered under the habitat language. Mr. Farmer stated that he will vote in favor of the amendment, but wants to know how we are going to spend all the extra credits. Tim Durham stated that Brad Cornell has the right idea. Judy Hushon stated that caracara restoration is easy to do and that there may be too many credits being proposed for this restoration. Mr. Jones stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-1 and R-2 credits. Russ Priddy stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-1 and R-2 credits. Laurie McDonald stated that she supports elimination of oil wells as permitted uses in certain land use categories of the Land Use Matrix and that the words, "restore, and enhance" 1291 Page should follow "create" in the second line of paragraph 2 and that the words "and maintain" should be inserted directly after "establishing" in the fourth line of paragraph 2. Laura Roys stated that it should be made clear that the credits will not be cumulative. Russ Priddy stated that he has an oil well with a location that is in some of the best habitat for bear, etc. and that there is no science that shows that oil wells are degrade the habitat. Nancy Payton stated that there is a map which has been circulated which shows the panther corridors. Noah Standridge asked if there had been consideration given to bonding out panther credits for up front dollars. Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. Committee September 16,2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 3.11 as shown above which includes the recommendations of Laurie McDonald and Luara Roys above. Policy 1.12 Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing publiclprivate conservation fano include the land appropriate and necessary -to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection. To further direct othev uses .away from.and to provide additional incentive forathe protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaleacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand tharis not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall :receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if sudh property isgnated as a SSA and retains only agricultural; recreational and/or conservation layers wtha fhemnatri�c, Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment [Conservancy] 2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas has not been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact, Restoration Zone overlays were already designated in 2002 along key portions of both regional flow ways, and comprise over 2,000 acres of potential buffers. These 500 -feet wide Restoration Zones create incentives for restoration of buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA buffers as well. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: limited Committee September 16 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3. -Policy 393 (recommended amendment) Watear-Retention Areas(WRAs) as .; ave - . _.... M r..... -.. generally 0epictetl on the Overlay Nlap hbeen. permitted for this purpose. and wall cnntinpe to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Morida Water Management District(SFWMD) permits applicable to -each W.RA. V&As can also be permitted to. provide such functions for -new uses -of land allowed within d:e. Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management- rutictions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in. such instances 'However if'the_ vroVides water treatment and .retention. ex.clusivLe for a SRA the acre of the WRA shall be inciudeddn the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and,,are subject to refinement in aMeorr-Rdce''wiith-�- FW 3 — permitting. Public Input: 1. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like 130 1 Page to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.[Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of three types of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to the comment: Policy 3.13 Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment andlor conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. Policy 3.14 During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough. The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue to be directed into these reservoirs, even after converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is anticipated by RLS Policy 3.13 and 3.14. There will be many cases where on-going agricultural operations continue to use the WRA simultaneously with the developed land. In these cases, there is no purpose served by trying to distinguish how much of the WRA is serving the farm, and how much is serving the development, as the overall acreage of the WRA will not change. Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the environment, and results in land use patterns that are more compact and cost effective. Eliminating water flows would negatively impact hydrology and hydroperiod and would cause detrimental changes to the habitat values of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically large (over 100 acres), and often are located between the developable Iand and ultimate outfalls to flowway systems. In instances where a WRA is permitted to function solely for SRA water quality treatment and detention, it may be appropriate to include this acreage in the SRA acreage calculation. Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he supports the proposed change as outlined above because the water treatment has to be done on-site and gives the developer the ability to use the remaining lands in the SRA. He stated that they were criticized with the Town of Ave Maria SRA because they were not counting the WRA as part of its SRA. Committee September 16 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to add the additional language to Policy 3.13. Policy 3.14 lludhg permitting -to serve new-uses,.Wtions and modifeatiions to WRAs may be, reyu red,:or desired, including but not limited to -changes to control elevations, .discharge rates, storm water- pre-treatment, grading, excavation or rill. Such additions and modifications .shall be allowedsubject to review and approval by th6S x ' th accordance with best manageFnent practises. Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall he designed to ensure IRat there is.no net loss oii habitat function within the WRAs. unless there -is .compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the. CatV Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee-Slough shall be provided wftliir or -contiguous to that Strand or Slough. 1311P a g Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 16, 2008 action: The Committee unanimouslk. volcd to not amend Policy 3.14. Preface to Group 4 Policies Group 4 Policies set the framework for conversion of rural lands to other uses in the form of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Written documents submitted, reviewed, and commented upon by the Committee relating to Group 4 Policies include Appendices G, H, M, N, O, Q, and R. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 4 Policies include: Policy 4.2 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.2 corrects/updates acreage calculations within the RLSAO which are both outside of and inside the Area of Critical State Concern and limits the amount of lands that can be designated as SRAs to 45,000 acres. The separate Comprehensive Planning Department Staff SRA build -out projection and Wilson Miller build -out projection of the maximum SRA acreage allowable under the existing RLSAO [if 100% of property owners participate using the existing Credit system] is 41,040 SRA acres and 43,312 SRA acres, respectively. This SRA acreage does not include any development which may occur under the underlying zoning of Rural Agricultural - A District and which would not be participating in the RLSAO. Policy 4.5 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.5 provides for the SRA Master Plan to be consistent with the County's Long Range Transportation Plan, the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, and Access Management procedures. The recommended amend to Policy 4.5 also includes a requirement for the provision of a Management Plan as part of the SRA Master Plan which includes provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions between the SRA and surrounding undeveloped properties. Policy 4.6 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.6 requires an SRA to include a mobility plan that includes consideration of vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. Policy 4.7 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7 eliminates Hamlets as a specific forms of SRA and reduces the number of specific forms of SRAs from four to three in conjunction with the recommended deletion of Policy 4.7.3 language related to Hamlets. Policy 4.7.1(amendment....Towns) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.1 increases the minimum size of a Town from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres, increases the maximum size from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres, and provides for the requirement of an internal mobility plan. Policy 4.7.3 (deletion... Hamlets) Policy 4.7.3 is recommended for deletion. Policy 4.7.4 [now renumbered Policy 4.7.3 (amendment... Compact Rural Development)] The recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.4 keeps the maximum size of a Compact Rural Development (CRD) at 100 acres while providing language supporting the location of research, education, tourism, recreation, and housing within CRDs. 1321Page Policy 4.7.4 (new) This new Policy 4.7.4 stresses that Towns and Villages are the preferred locations for business and industry in the RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification, and job creation with a list of examples of permitted uses such as environmental research, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences, corporate headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, etc. Policy 4.14 (amendment) The recommended amendments to Policy 4.14 provide: • language requiring a proposed new SRA, at the time of SRA approval, to provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to an adjoining SRA or adjoining lands designated as Open; • new language requiring that public or private roads and connecting signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA be maintained by the primary town or community it serves; and • new language providing for a variety of mitigation credits and offsets. Policy 4.19 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 4.19 provides for: • 8 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Credit Sending Area deemed vested under the 8 Credit ratio; and • 10 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area Policy 4.22 (new) This new Policy 4.22 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the RLSA through the SRA designation process, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources. Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 23,,2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to this objective unchanged. Policy 4.1 Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base Of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that -utili=s creative land use plaarfiug techniques and facilitates a compact fnrm of development. to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). incentives to encourage and support the diversification -and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited {iermilging.review, and targeted capital improvemems . h d be. incorporated into the ,LDC ,Stewardship District_ Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: no comments Committee Deliberations: none Committee September 23 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.1 unchanged 1331Page Policy 4.2 (recommended amendment) All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SIVA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land- that I7as been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meetithe suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long: -term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a -horizon year of .2025, an iir accordance with the guidelines established in Chapfer 163.3177(11) F.S., the stiecific location, size and composition of each SQA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. ire the RJ SA Over€ay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as theyiconsistxpredominately of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise. altered for this purpose. Lands shown ori the Overlay'Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately X4,500 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and' .a rcxiimatel ;SAB .15.000 acres within the ACSC. Total. SRA :desr ng�atic�n shall �e a maximum of 45,100 acres. e 2 of t�dsr ve-gar - Aecause theme Overlay requires gkM, to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability .are notwrelevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows thej.p6*6Vk-,-4, lam . �i h-4PAihPd. r�ures set forthhe, r nand the -adovted RISA Zoning OverlayDrstrict, Public Comments: 1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water resources for new SRAs. [Mark Strain) ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The fact that a farm operation may not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles, does not limit their legal right to do so when the demand dictates. Regarding seasonal agricultural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops (e.g. citrus) in the area whose temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in the dry season and use substantial quantities of water when impacts to the aquifer are most critical. Typical landscape demand associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the groundwater resource. 2. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas appropriate for SRAs within the plan. While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area (almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs. Further refinement of areas where development should be directed, based on infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed. For example, additional provisions should be included that further directs development and other incompatible uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). A maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and CROs within the RLSA should also be explored. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O] : RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development. Infrastructure includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater 134 1 . —yw management, and solid waste. SRA applications are required to include several components including a natural resource index assessment, an impact assessment report (relative to infrastructure), and an economic assessment report. These components are thoroughly considered during the review process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the size, location, and land use components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption of the RLS program and it does not appear that the existing regulations have caused a proliferation of development in the area. The timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing market conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove that the necessary infrastructure can be provided and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive. 3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance separations between SRAs. If SRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back, without any true separation, mega -towns could result in areas where rural character should be maintained. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000 -acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending. 4. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Immokalee. [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000 -acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending. Tom Taylor, a General Partner of Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, by email to Tom Greenwood dated September 24, 2008 stated: "We have an approved and adopted SSA Agreement that removed certain use rights from portions of our Ranch. Although we have not submitted an application for an SRA, the SSA Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners generated Stewardship Credits that may be utilized on the remaining portions of our Ranch within the RLSA. In addition, the Immokalee Overlay and RLSA have provisions that allow for transfer of development rights within our Ranch from our Immokalee Urban Area Lands to our Ranch RLSA lands as part of a density/intensity blending provision. Considering the fact that we have taken a significant step toward development our Ranch via the SSA Agreement, we request that no change be made that would inhibit our opportunity to utilize within our Ranch all SAA credits that exist or can be developed from our Ranch. The proposed comment should be revised so that it does not prevent utilization of SSA credits developed from lands that are near Immokalee within those lands." 5. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is written now, it is possible to locate towns near each other with only a small buffer between which encourages sprall. Without planning, all the density will be located on the western portion of the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be spread out, with large agricultural areas between them. Maybe a maximum number of towns needs to be agreed upon and the general areas where these can be located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be more guidance provided as 1351 Page to where towns can be located and their buffering requirements. This will facilitate all types of future infrastructure planning by the County. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open" on the RLSA Overlay Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide locational and suitability criteria as well as design standards to guide development. 6. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Further, just as natural resources are mapped, so should the areas most suitable for development. [Defenders of Wildlife] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix H] Staff Comments: Staff pointed out that the proposed additions and deletions were presented by ECPO via a communication dated September 18, 2008. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have the 45,000 acre cap proposed in the RLSA be reduced by an acreage amount each time a property is developed under the base zoning of Agriculture. Mr. Jones stated that he likes the 45,000 cap and that we need to keep away from baseline zoning as such a mechanism will hurt the credit system. Russ Priddy stated that one must understand that there are about 240 smaller property owners in the RLSA and that about 175-180 of these property owners own 5 to 10 acre properties. He stated that most of these properties have homes on them and, if there is 0% participation in the RLSA program by such owners, then there will be maybe 8,000 acres at a density of 1 unit/5 acres. He stated the proposal of Mr. Cornell is not warranted and could cause more harm than good to the RLSA Overlay. Committee September 23 2008 and September 30`h Action: The Committee, by a vote of 6-1, accepted the proposed amendments as shown. On September 3e the Committee voted to accept the Wilson Miller documentation regarding Credits and SRA authorizations under the existing the revised RLSA Overlay. [Appendix H] Policy 4,3 (recommended amendment) Land becomes designated as a SRA ugnn petition by a property ownerto Collier,County seeking such designation andsthe adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation.. Thelpetit on shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be'a finding. of consistency with the policies of the Ovei:41ay,. including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC: Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has cgrtireCl or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. With e-ae,year requite €or.. ; Public Comments: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: The language proposed was submitted on behalf of ECPO for deletion as it is no longer needed. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee stated that the proposed language to be deleted is obsolete and no longer needed. Mr. McDaniel referred back to Policy 4.2 and stated that he is not comfortable with the 45,000 cap on SRA acres in Policy 4.2. Mr. Eidson and Mr. Russ Priddy stated that there has to be some certainty as to what is going to happen in the RLSA Overlay area. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.3 as shown. 1361 Page Policy 4.4 Collier County will update the Overlay Map to- delineate the boundaries Ofheaeh approved SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the. Growth Management flan, but, shall be Tetrnactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay ,Map .during the EAR based amendment -process. when it periodically occurs. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee was advised that ECPO did not agree with Transportation Planning Department proposals for Policy 4.4 and several other Group 4 Policies. Committee_ September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. The Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve. Public comments on November 10, 2008: None. Staff Comments on November 10, 2008: the language shown above was agreed upon by the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this policy [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee voted unanimously not to amend Policy 4.4. Policy 4.5 (recommended amendment) To address the specifies of each. SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plata will demonstrate that the SRA complieswith all applicable policieg of the ,Oveirlay and the LDC Stewardship -District and is designed so thavincompatible land uses are directedtaway fxonk wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and IfSAs. on the 0verlay lvlap. To the extern practicable, the SRA. wastes disposabpraetices.. Public Comments: 1. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: LiID ghting is a design standard that is considered during the Receiving Area (SRA) application review. Public Discussion on September 30, 2008. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have Nancy Payton's proposal on outdoor lighting considered today as it is separate from the Transportation language. Nancy Payton stated that the outdoor lighting language should go into the RLSA Overlay in 1371 Page general and more specifics would be worked out for LDC language. Nicole Ryan stated that she supports the language and the lighting standards should be developed for the connecting roads between the SRAs. Staff comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. Committee action on September 23 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve. Committee Deliberations on September 30, 2008: Refer to discussions in earlier paragraphs. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to put the word "reasonably" in front of the word "managed" and that the wording in the last 3 sentences related to transportation be tabled. Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Judy Hushon suggested a few changes or word smithing to the new paragraph 2 language which changes are shown above in paragraph 2 of Policy 4.5. Thomas Greenwood stated that the same language should be amended in Policy 5.5 which was approved by the Committee on October 28`h. Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to approve the amended language for both Policy 4.5 and for the portion relating to the Management Plan contained in Policy 5.5 as approved by the Committee on October 28h and to amend the language in Policy 4.5 as shown above which is acceptable to the Transportation Division. Policy 4.6 (recommended amendment) SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 1:63.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J -5.006(5)(I.). These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based- allocations, clustering and open space provisions,. and mixed-use development that allow the gogver-sion offal and agricultural lands to. other uses while protecting environrrtemally sensitive areas, maintaining (hes economicLviabiltyo agricul • and outer predomirrdntly rural l uses and�providing for the cos:. -efficient delivery o public facilities am ser ices: 'phe SRA shall also ncludes _consideration. of velucul would increase internal ca lure and reduce trip.Much development strategies are recognized as methods of disco t~aing urban sprawl, ,encoura ink gliMative-modes lof transpgagion, increasing internal capture and reducing vehicle nIiles traveled. - Public Comments: Public discussion on September 30, 2008 Mr. Al Reynolds stated that the transit language will likely be placed in Policy 4.14 but that Policy language has yet to be worked out. He stated that the language does not have to be in two policies. Brad Cornell asked about trip capture rates in SRAs. Mr. Jones stated that Ave Maria is "over the top". Al Reynolds stated that the projected trip capture rate was 60% although it is now about 90%. He stated that the trip capture rate will likely get to the 60% range when the town develops further. Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy has some concerns about the use such words as "consideration", "encourage", etc. and that the language should be more definitive. David Wolfley stated that he agrees with Ms. Ryan. Russ Priddy stated that the RLSAO is a voluntary program and the property owners do not need more regulations or the program will be less likely to work and suggested leaving the language the way it is. Tammie Nemecek stated that the program does need to be flexible. Judy Hushon stated that sustainability of communities is key to making the RLSA Overlay program work. Gary Eidson stated that the language needs to be wide enough and broad enough to cover everything. Mr. Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentence the words "consider the applicability of to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence. Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr. Priddy stated that he was. 1381 Page Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on September 30 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the Policy 4.6 language unchanged. Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraphs. Committee action on November 10.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the proposed language change so as to amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed sentence the words "consider the applicability of to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are few- three specific forms of 3RA permitted within the Over -lay. These are 'Towns, Villages, 14a�nle€e, and Compam Rural Development {CRD-}.. 7�be Characteristics of Towns, Villages, llaw4m, and. CRD src set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 46.3 and 4-.7-4, 0*4 is, Specific regulations, guidelinmand standards within the LDC- Stewardship,DisWct to guide the design and de-w1opment of SRAs to include- innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.31.97 (1.1), FIS-. and 01- 5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set -forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as. set. forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and. intensity blending provision of the- Tmriaokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable -workforce housing density Bonus as referenced in the Density bating System of the Future Land Use Element'. `The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units. in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residedtial density of parcels within a SRA.. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis ,during the SRA designation review .and approval proces& Public Comments: 1. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these small development nodes do not contain adequate Ievels of self containment or self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered. [Conservancy] Note: Also related to the following policies 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18 2. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" compact rural development could be a "Coconut Point," - no cap on size of some types of CRDs. [FWF] Note: Also related to policies 4.7.3, 4.7.4 The following documents received by the Committee on July 1, 2008, due to their length and relationship to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.11 and the various proposals advanced to amend several of the Group 4 Policies, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A -F and are described below: Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008 Appendix B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan Appendix C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed 1391 Page Panther Protection Program Appendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine, President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee ECPO Comments [Attachment O]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRAs: • Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted] • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increased from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres] • Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres]. • Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern. • Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: Mr. Cornell stated that hamlets are too small to be self sustaining and could be seen as "controlled sprawl". Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy 4.7 as shown. Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment) Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, witli is f�:ll range of housingtypesrn old -uses. Towns Have urban level services and infrastructure that snpportide:uelopment that is compact, mixed use, hurnan scale, and provides a balance of land uses to.reduce automobile trips and increase livahility. Towns,shall be not lessathan ,O(XLM acnes or more than 4-099.5_,000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or.neilXbo - oods that .have individual identity and character.. Towns shall have a imixed: use town center that will serve -as a focal point -for community facilities andasuppprt services. Towns -shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and, bicycle circ`cuiation by including an intozconnected sidewalk and pathway -system servingrall residential,n_ iighboihoods. Towns shalt include an internal.mobility dlan,. which pint for Internal_ and eXtereal:t?ub.h'c°'�_trans[x rtatipn. Tpwns .shah. have. at.least one community park with # �aurri size 00 of 2squaxe_ feet per dwelling unit in the TWO f LL - Towns shall also have parks or .pubic green. spaces within neighbonccxyds. Tours shall include both community' -and. neighborhood scaled -retail and office uses, in mane as � described in Policy 4 Towns owns may also include those compatible corporate office.�research,. develolrnent compacies. and light industrial uses sack as those permitted in the Business Park and research and Technology Park Subdlist�ricts of the FLUE: and those included in. Policy. 4.7_4. Towns shall be the preferred .location for thetfull range of schools, and to the extent passible, schools and par � shall be located_ abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and .as provided in Poltcies,4. ,-3< Design criteria for Towns -are shall. be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be, located within the ACSC; 1401P a q e Public Comments: Towns shall not exceed 5,000 acres. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: Policy 4.15 was previously deleted and replaced with new Policies 4.15.1, 4.15.2, and 4.15.3. The above amendments would harmonize Policy 4.7.1 with these three new policies. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Committee Deliberations and Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the word, "may", should be changed to "shall" in the proposed new sentence included in the first paragraph. Tom Jones stated that he is comfortable with that change. Tammie Nemecek explained the minor changes to paragraph 2. Brian Gagen suggested adding "development companies" as a uses which may be permitted in Towns. Tammie Nemecek stated that she felt that would be a good addition. Committee action taken on November 10.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 as shown above. Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment) Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of4bousing types and mix of uses appropriate -to: the scale and Character of the -particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,GW' acres,insitde the Area of Critical Concern. and not more than ] 5.00 acres. outside the Area .of Cddr.a`i .Concern. Villages are comprised of resi8ential nei gghborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve .as the focal point for the commuhity's support services andfacilities. Villages shall be designed to encourag ,pedestrian anal bicycle circulation by including an 'interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all.: resider, neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods= Villages shall include nergliborhnad. scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriately scaled uses. described in Policy 4.,7.4 shalt also be!permitted xr�Villa. Villages are an appropriate- location for a full range of schools. To the extent�possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the- LDC Stewardship District. Public Comments: Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not exceed 1,500 acres. Inside the Area of Critical Concern, the current Collier County RLSA Overlay standards shall apply to Villages. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008] WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] September 30, 2008 discussion Nicole Ryan stated that, rather than increase to size of a village, the density should be consiereed for an increase. Mr. Eidson asked what the problem would be in increasing the maximum size of a village. Christian Spilker stated that the is related to the elimination of hamlets because it is difficult to develop hamlets from an economic standpoint because there is a substantial commercial requirement if over 1000 acres in size. He stated that villages with a larger footprint are easier to develop. Mr. Jones restated what Mr. Spilker stated. Mr. Priddy stated that he concurs with the 1,500 maximum allowable acre amendment. Anita Jenkins state that she also agreed with this amendment, stating that open space requirements on a 1,000 acre SRA would limit development on 650 acres which is not enough land to justify proceeding economically with a village. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Ryan about raising densities, but stated that doing such may not be feasible. Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph. 1411 Page Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.2 as shown in the second and third lines of said Policy. Committee Deliberations on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the addition of the 4'h sentence from the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4. Staff comments: none Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional sentence, "Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages." Public Comments: Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 20081 ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRAs: • Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted] • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres] • Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres] • Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern. • Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee felt that Hamlets are too small to be self-sustaining communities and are more a form of planned urban sprawl [see Committee deliberations related to Policy 4.7] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to delete Policy 4.7.3 as it relates to hamlets which are proposed for deletion. Policy 4"4 4j.1 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that 1- 142 1 assoclalM v�ith and needed to su Mol7,.rescarclL education. tourism of rerrcation. pprgj�dately scaled coinp .ble uses described. in ,Policy 4.7.4 ruay aho he re=itted in .CRDs, A CRD may include, but is not required to have perrnan"t residential h0usiiQg_ W. The number of residential uWts small be eguivalmt with the demes generr►tecl by the primary QRD. use. but sha31 not exceed the rnaxiinurn of two, units r Vass acre _ -A. CRD shall be a maxizmutn.size of 10'0 acres- -- -,ate -s waa4efft ! 4.. .. Bf as set•Amthon-A l frwe; C bimed euthe 54e of the , As _a,..., r �a�pm sit . 5 ffhswever-y 2134 Yf �r(w d -4* -- _. „, . Public Comments: I, Compact u" Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and could provide a loophole for increased development in areas that am already built up. A CRD of 100 acres or less -,eems to be a meaningless designation and it is Fny belief that this type of development could be dropped. [Judith Hushnn] 2. Compact Rural Development ("CRD) shall include, as a permitted use, eco tauism lodging, recreational hunting and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for the )trtral Landowners. [submitted as part of the July 1, 2W submittal to the Committee entified, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 20081 ECPO Comments [Appendix 1: The Fastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and characteristics of SRA's: • Hamlets are not a permitted roan of SRA [propose to eliminate • Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4.000 acres to 5,000 acres) • Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more thm 1,500 acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to 'Villages 11,000 acres] Town shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern, # Compact Mural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or recreation and shall not be mco than 100 acres. Wilsonhiil]er Comments: [A,ppeMix NJ Staff Cicimments. The language amendments were provided by ECF0 via Wilson Miller [Appendix Nj, [Comprehensive Planning] CoMmittee 1(leliberntiow. The Committee discussod the character, role and the need for CRDs in the RLSAD. [Also see the public discussion on NovernW 10 which follows.] xQmmittce_ September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.4 as shown and renumber it to Policy 4.7.3. Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R1: Tammie Nemeeek staged that the only additional sentence being added is the fourth sentence and that she would like to change the ward "shall" to "may" Gary Eidson stated that the word "compatible" could be addled after the word "scaled". Judy Hushon stated that she does not like industry in CRDs and felt that it should be limited to Towns and Villages. Fancy Payton stated that she felt the same but there are nature and agricultural based uses that would be appropriate and that the compatibility issue can be addressed in the LDC. 1431 Page Tom Jones agreed with Nancy Payton. Gary Eidson asked if CRDs, as proposed, are not morphing into Hamlets. Anita Jenkins pointed out that the first two sentences point out that the uses must be in support of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity and that the CRDs must demonstrate a set of uses to further these attributes within the RLSA. Mr. Farmer stated that the CRDs must be very small in size. Mr. Wolfley stated that he is concerned about an intense use being placed on a 100 -acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might do two or three CRDs and asked what if someone wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a use might be a fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as it is now written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to environmental and agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated that the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there will be a need for strong LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Tom Jones agreed to amend the motion by substituting "may" for "shall" and inserting the word "compatible" after the word "scaled". Staff comment: none Committee action on November ]0.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to add the fourth sentence with the two changes of changing "shall" to "may" and adding the word "compatible" following the word "scaled". Policy 4.7.41(new.�pokey) Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to add environmental research and agricultural research to the use of permitted uses. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the Policy as this is a preferred location of business as the infrastructure is already in place. Nancy Payton asked to have CRDs eliminated as preferred locations for business and industry although such would not necessarily prohibit such uses and that "environmental research" and "agricultural research" be listed as examples of permitted uses. Tammie Nemecek stated that she is comfortable with the changes promoted by Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff comments: Committee action on November 10.2008: The Committee voted, 7-1, to recommend the creation of new Policy 4.7.4 as outlined above, including all changes discussed. Policy 4A An SRA may be eon2iguptrs'to a IDSA or HSA, but sh' 1 iiot encroacFi ititb siacli areas, and shall b fei such' ares as described in Policy 4.1-3. A SRA may he contiguous to and served by a WRA without Te,9Wjjqg: the WRA to be desipated as a SIVA in accordance with policy 3.12 -and 3.13. Public Comments: L Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development. [Mark Strain] Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: We are not aware of any data that supports the opinion that buffers are inadequate. Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning technique to provide a transition between receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the benefit of water quality and wildlife. The state and federal wetland permitting procedures meticulously review existing wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface water management 1441Page designs, outfall control elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of preventing hydrologic impacts to surrounding wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits details these procedures. Permits are not issued until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these wetlands, regardless of the buffer location or distance. As part of the Environmental Resource permitting process, control elevations are determined based on average wet season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro -biological indicators, soil types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevations. 2. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: The most current peer-reviewed research on panther habitat utilization concluded, "[Our] results indicated that forests are the habitats selected by panthers and generally support the current United States Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system." (Land, Shindle et. al., 2008). This research employed GPS collars to characterize panther habitat selection during nocturnal and diurnal periods, and compared GPS data to standard diurnal VHF radiotelemetry data. As such, this research does represent "the best available Florida panther science" and does not support the Conservancy's contention that the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be revised. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix 01: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13. Staff Comments: Buffer requirements for FSAs and HSAs for adjacent SRAs allow open space uses such as required yards and lakes immediately adjacent to them. There should be a minimum buffer with no area of impact. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.8 unchanged. J'olicy 4 (recommended amendment) A SRA .must contain 'sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned develt merit in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means- of directing development away from wetlands and critical Habitas is the prohibition of locating SRAs inPSAs-, aid HSA.'4 RA . T further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, rnanufacturiungtlight industrial, group housing, and transiernhousmg, institutional, CkviG and community. service uses within .a SRA shall not be sitedon lands fat receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use, essential services -and governmental essential services, with the exceptioR of'those necessary to serve permitted uses arid. for public safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infiwtrugture necessary to serv,e�n�rmitFed uses may tie exem�t.frorn this. .restriction, provided that designs-seek�to_minimize the exte�ut ofeunpacts to -any such areas. The I=ndex value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas tha Have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy L8. hese than 2% of pptehtial SRA land achieves aniIn+ ez score of gr ater tban 1.2. Public Input: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] 1451 Staff Comments: Listed species that utilize uplands are not adequately protected by the NRI score. IAt is thought that this need is limited. However, the designation of the Ave Maria SRA did identify a caracara nest and habitat areas that did not score greater than 1.2. There were numerous listed species in farm ditches, fallow fields, and marshy areas within pastures. The only native habitat with protected species was some small remnant marshes within the pastures. The SSAs created to enable this SRA removed the development rights (except for agriculture and essential services) from approximately 13,352 acres of a mixture of pasture and row crop fields. Staff is uncertain whether the increase in NRI score would result in more on-site preservation of habitat. [CDES Environmental Services] Public discussion on September 30, 2008. Mr. McDaniel stated that the environmental provisions being advanced could be put into the NRI and/or LDC. Mr. Cornell stated that the language seems focused so that one does not have to use credits and is persuaded that it is something that should be considered. Mac Hatcher stated that the NRI scores will not protect these nests as the bald eagle is no longer a listed species. Mr. McDaniel asked if there could not be and adjustment to the NRI. Mac Hatcher stated that adjustment to the NRI score would be very complicated and difficult to do. Mr. Jones stated that he opposed to the language proposed because we might be looking at protecting nests in ditches and because the RLSA program is not set up to address all listed species and that he is not comfortable with the language proposed. He further stated that Policy 4.9 is not broken. Mr. Eidson asked if there is enough protection... Mr. Jones says yes and the county says no. He stated that he feels the DCA looks at agricultural protection first and environmental projection second and, because of that, he would not favor adding the environmental language. Tim Durham stated that the environmental protections are already in place and that he could not see where the added language would add value or solve a problem. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to keep in the sentence which provided exemptions for infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses. Nancy Payton asked why one would construct a road through a critical habitat area. Mr. Jones stated that the language referring to critical habitat area should be stricken as it has not been defined. Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraph. Committee Sentember 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to keep the language amendment in the second sentence and the additional sentence exempting infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses from the restriction and that all the other language provided by Environmental Services not be included in the amended Policy 4.9. Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment) Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, upderdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreationuses, will continue to l)e tht dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within. the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents .have such areas proximate to their homes, open space. shall also comprise a inhA um. of thirty --five percent of the gross acreage of -ah individual SRA Town; ur Tillage. Laiids within a SRA greater than one acre with index values of greater than 1.2 -half be retained as open space: except for the 0.owance of uses described,in Polig 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, a tr� 4ha A GSC exceedingthe r --uired five thirty- � }'eenf shall, not he -required. totconsume Stewardship Cm 'ts. Public Comments: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committed consensus is that these amendments are needed in order to harmonize the Policies within Group 4 of the RLSA Overlay and incorporate the Wilson Miller and ECPO comments. Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.10 as outlined by Wilson Miller and ECPO. Policy 4.11 The perimeter of each SRA shall be .designed Co provide a transition from higher density and intensity -uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property.. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and.recreationopen space placement may be used for this purpose. Where exNring agricultural activity adjoins :a SIVA, the, design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural. activity and to minimize any confhabetween agriculture and SRA uses. 1461PF q e Public Comm; none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliibe tions: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.1 i is acceptable in its current language. Committee Seutember 3f, 2008.Merlon: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.11 unchanged, Policy 4.12 Wh ae a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA; WRA or existing public or pri'v'ate conservation land deiineated on the Ovczlay lvlap; hest management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion wi11 not advcrscly hupact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRAC or coi s&wT ltion land. I tentioii and control Elevations shall be established to prptEct such natural areas and be et)nsivent with surrounding land acid project eontrol elevat-ions and wamt table, Public Comments: none received Staff omments: none omtrrittee Mliberations; The Committee consensus was that Policy 4,12 is acceptable in its current language. Committee Septernbicr 30, 2M Axtion: The Cornrnittee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.12 uncWnged, Policy 4.13 _ Open space. within of conti pons to a RA shall be used to prcNide a buffer kme-en the SRA and ari Afol 1 g FSA, HSA, or cxj sting public or private con Servation land delineated on the Over]ay Map. Open space contiguous tci dr within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, EISA, or existing public or private conservatism land may include, natural preserves, Takev�ways Takes, goif courses provided no fairof other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational are and parks, required yard and set -batik are as, and other natural or man-made open space_ Alruxg die ''west boundary of- the FSAs. and HSAs that comprise Camp Ktai9 Strand, i.e., the area south of lmmokalec Ruad, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and 'sl.a.li,preclude golf e fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet_ Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Delibera6ow; The Committee consensus was Ehai Policy 4.13 is acceptable in its current language. Commfttee September 30, 2W Atdo - The Committee tuned unaiiirnously to leave Policy 4.13 unchanged. Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment) The SRA must.baYe. either direct access tn'a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the 0gveloper that has -adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards, rpt the time of SRA approval. an SR&Vrppusctl tp a4rin land desigmated'as anSkA or lands. desi naled as Open shall pro,�cde for ft c�94qunffy to provide direct vehieWarr rand . destrirla cnrtnectioris from said areas to the C.ounty's arteriallcnll for roadway neEwork as shown on the Chun[ ' .Bt idd Out 'Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time. at}d u+'avel expenses. imp,ro a inteTccnxnectivi increase internal caoture, and keep titre use of oount arterial roads to a ]Yiiidnaum wherr travel ipgbetween develo raeais in Lhe RLS__ Public and private Toads within an SRA shall be aigintained by. toe. prim' tower <r cb4i3np tv it seI'Ves' i Eliz intersections within [rt' adjacent to an SIVA that serve& the SPA -,ha i be, maintained by thg—Eu= tnvwrn or wommunilit serves. No SRA shall be appnwed unksi s the capacity of County collecuv rxr arterial mad(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to -be adequate in accordance with the Colliet County Concurrency Managemeut Sy'stern. in effect at the Bene cif SRS. designation_ A transporMlion hapadu assessment meeting the rcquircmcnts of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or .its successOr regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SIVA to provide the necessary data and analy is. To tht extent t cgkg�q ._lq mitigate an SRA's traffic iLgpacts, .actions may he taken to include., but shall no.. b.e limited to, provisions for the construction andAff permitting of wildlife crossin ss. envircnmental mitt ation credits. right. of wa l dedic on (s water managemebt an&afr fill inatedal which may he needed to -t -,wand the exist nth or_propnsed roadway nctvrcrck.;_: n stwb-actions to offset traffic. im arts shall be mermarialized in a develrr r contribmion agreement. 'Fhese_2wt-I ins shall be considered within the arca of significant influence .of the pKct est traffic an ext ting nr .proposed roadwaw�s that are inticivated to be ex=ded.txr constructed_ 147 1 : n (- Public Comments: 1. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate developer contribution agreements are being created that provide excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the original SRA.DCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in order to better understand the impacts from the SRA. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County's adopted Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used throughout Collier County as a mechanism to address concurrency issues through public-private partnerships to improve the transportation network. All such agreements are subject to Board of County Commissioner approval and must be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacts of an SRA (or any development) are addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are approved either prior to or concurrent with approval of the development. DRI's, such as Ave Maria, are thoroughly analyzed because of the Regional Planning Council staff and other reviewing entities analyses and the transportation and other impacts are well understood prior to approval of the SRA. 2. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this area. Using the 5 -year modeling of the GMP is inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 30 -year build out study.[Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O] : The coordination of long range transportation planning with future land use planning is a continuous process. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Given that the future population projections of a full -build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that, in the past, neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are underway today that will provide a better understanding of the future transportation needs of the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a County -wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long -Range Transportation Model. In addition to the two County studies, the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the task of developing a long-range conceptual plan for the RLSA that depicts one possible scenario of how environmental and agricultural lands, and lands suitable for development can fit within the program. While the areas with the highest environmental value were clearly defined in the current RLSA Program, lands that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and likewise those lands most suitable for long-range development potential were not clearly understood. ECPO has identified one potential development concept plan that quantifies and locates the amount of development envisioned at a build -out horizon. While it is only one possible configuration, it does allow for a conceptual roadway needs analysis to be performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable corridors that can be further explored through regular County and State transportation planning channels. ECPO is working closely with the County in an effort to bring all three of these studies into alignment. All of these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of how the RLSA will "grow up" and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system of the future. Staff Comments: Provide for direct connections between traffic -generating developments so as to reduce travel time, travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, and to keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA [Transportation Division] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the language proposed is now in two paragraphs rather than the existing one paragraph and has been developed in working with ECPO. Gary Eidson asked about the Open Lands and if no development occurs in such lands. Laurie McDonald stated that "DCA" should be spelled 1481 Page out because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated that the language on mitigation needs to be clarified as to whether it is environmental or transportation impact. Nick Casalanguida stated that the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use the DCA abbreviation. After further discussion concerning language in the new second paragraph the Committee asked Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back to the Committee when resolved. Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed new language for the second paragraph and stated that this language was agreed to by those meeting this morning. Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committed voted unanimously to approve the above language amendments to Policy 4.14. Committee action on December 18, 2008: The Committee heard from Nick Casalanguida of the need to amend the November 10 -approved first sentence of the second paragraph of this policy so that it reads as shown and voted unanimously to make this amendment. No person from the public spoke. Policy 4.15..1 (recommended amendment) SRAs are intended to be mixed usesand shall be a1lQvrred the full`range oiiises pernnittecl 1 the Urban'Design ion -of die FLU 1, as modi#ied byiPolicies 4-7, 4:71, 4.7,2, and 4.7.3,-4..7-..4 and AttachmentrC: An appropriate mix of retail, Office, recreational, civic', governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily -needs and commu,aii_y -wide heeds-offresidents of the R=i_ A. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SPA, suchiuses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within. other SRAs4n the RLSA or within the Immokalee, Urban Area. by example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of sevai Villages and rxiay 'be required to suplrrirt community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. ,Standards for the minimum amount of non -re ent ak-uses i - each category are setyfonh in Attachment C, and. shall(be also included in the Stewardship MDC District. Public Input: WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: none Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee harmonize with the elimination of hamlets as an SRA. Poles 4.15,E voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.15.1 as shown to irhe Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development; require that suitable areas for partes, schools, and other public facilities ft set aside. improved, and/or dedicated for public :use. When the ACE~ requires such a sev-asidedor Arte or more public facilities., the set aside. shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC. as are applicable to public facility dedications required LaS.a condition for PUD rezoning, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.2 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.2 unchanged. olicy 4.15.3 Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier Cobnty. -Schuol Board staff to al low planix ` occ ir't accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a results: the -RA+. As a part of the.Sl A application, the fallowing information shall be piovided-, — Number-of,residential units by ty 2. Antestir ate of the number of school -a ed.children for each s ool impacted (elementary; middle, high school), and The potential for locating a public educational facility ar facilities within the 149 1 . SRP,, and the size of any sites. thatimay be dedicated,, or otherwise made available for. a Publiegeducadcmal facility. Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.3 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.3 unchanged. Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment) ,A4 SRA shall have adequate infiastructure available to serve the prnposed development, or such infrastructure must. be rovided concurrently with_ the demand. The level of infrastructure pro`rided will depend on rhe form. of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC rouirements. The capacity of infi astructure necessary to serve the 'SRA at build -out must be demmstratcd during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure. to be analyzed includes transportation, potable- water, wastewater, irrig'tin water.. stormwater management, and solid waste.. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and,--Viliages, , and m4y be �required in CRbs that -are one hundred (100) acres or less.insize, depending upon thelpermitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall .be constructed, owned, ri rate[1 and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the. lmamokaleeVi{aterASewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. .Innovative alternative water and wawaste.- treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided tha they meed all applicable regulatory�criteria. Fncliv'dual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited 1p, a maxim_ in of 100 acres of any fawn- Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centtalized/decentrali-aed community system. are available_ Individual potable water supply wells and�septic systems am maybe permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in;size. Public Comments: 1. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis. Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and affordable housing as example, were not adequately addressed and minimum standards should be considered as guidelines for SRA approval. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water management), roads, potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Section 106- 32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that infrastructure be analyzed with each Stewardship Receiving Area application, and also includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states: "A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. " While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each important types of facilities, they are not defined as infrastructure and not subject to concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of 2000 units will be required to undergo DRI review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuation, health care, and affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law. With respect to hurricane evacuation, the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County as demonstrated by the fact that no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category 1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely to require evacuation. In implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the university 1501Page buildings, and in cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space for emergency supplies that can be used throughout the county. Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed. Hospitals must go through a separate state needs analysis before any new hospital can be built. These items are addressed by SRA and DRI review procedures. The need for affordable housing was contemplated during the formation of the RLSA. The GMP policies, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics chart, and associated LDC standards state that the densities associated with a town, village, hamlet or CRD can be increased beyond the base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section 2.06.0l.0 of the LDC specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the RLS. Specific affordable housing conditions for a particular project are determined during the review and approval process for an SRA (similar to the PUD and/or DRI review/approval process). Affordable housing was provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of any other large scale community in Collier County. All infrastructure is carefully analyzed and consider throughout the public hearing process. 2. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water resources for new SRA's. [Mark Strain] 3. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlets, a comparison of water consumption proposed for the new development versus actual agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison of new consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing consumptive use impacts. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. 4. As it is universally recognized that the wide -scale use of septic systems as a long term solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should be required to have a plan for conversion to a private or public sewer system. While development may initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines, for conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approval. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: RLS Policy 4.16 indicates that interim septic systems are permitted within towns, villages and CRD's greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are permitted within hamlets and CRD's less than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems to centralized or decentralized community wastewater utilities is managed through the permitting process and additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary. 5. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements including a potential 1-75 interchange is the product of coordination between long-range transportation planning and future land use planning. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Future population projections of a full -build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. The County is beginning to develop a County -wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long -Range Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier Property Owners have prepared a Concept Plan that demonstrates one (of many) possible land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO 1511 Page has prepared a preliminary transportation network analysis that supports that Concept Plan, and will be working closely with the County planners to achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future potential of the RLSA. Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Today, there is a better understanding of how the RLSA is likely to mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future. 6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other resource requirements at the time they are being planned. You may want to consider the changes in these variables from agriculture to increased density. [Judith Hushon] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: See response to number 1 above. WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N] Staff Comments: Interconnectivity between traffic generating developments in SRAs is consistent with Policy 7.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which states: "All new existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Transportation] Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy 4.16 as shown by leaving in the ECPO proposed addition and strikethroughs to harmonize the language with language related to hamlets and CRDs previously approved and not to include any of the staff -recommended language. Policy 4.17 The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in: accordance with -the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 of the. Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for. Category .A public facilities. Final local development Orders will be approved wilhid a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance *ith the Concurrency�MWagernent System of the GVP and 1:15C in effect at the time of finallocal development order apnrovall. Public Continents: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.17 is acceptable in its current language. Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.17 unchanged. Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment) The SRA will be planned and designed to. be fiscally neutral 01-r positive to C��r C� at file liorizori year Yiased on g cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be. adopted by the County. The MC may grant exceptions to this .puliey to accommodate- affordable -workforce hopsing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may pmmote fiscal neutrality such as -Community. Development Districts, and otherspecial districts, shall be encouraged. At'Ek minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public -facilities and services: transportation, pots le water, wastewater, irrigation rater, storxnwater management, solid waste, parks, lar enforcement, and sc:bools. Oeveloptnent phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.. Public Comments: 1. Fiscal impact analysis model (F1AM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is acquired. This will provide the maximum protection to the taxpayers. The analysis needs to be re -visited and the development provided corrections made every year and 152 include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant effects on the outcome of the FIAM. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: FIAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24, 2007, as the official model for review of DRI's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the County has adopted FIRM, it is advisable for the County to keep the calibrated items up to date with the most current data available and meeting County- wide standards, such as current budgets, persons per household, millage rates, etc. Similarly, when an applicant prepares a FIAM for a specific project, the FIAM will be populated with the initial data projected for the project and subsequently with the most current data available at the five year interval or phasing dates to reflect adjusted development plans including sales prices, absorption rates, etc. Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District ("RLSAO") and Section 4.08.07.L of the Collier County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FIAM as a part of the application for SRA approval, and each 5 years after approval. An annual fiscal analysis and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the dynamics of the land development process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the period of time necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized balance of population, facilities and services are reached. The LDC specifically requires that the project demonstrate fiscal neutrality every five years as noted below: " Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ( "Report ") every five (S) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above. " The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all parties participating in the creation of the RLSA program due to the above mentioned reasons and the fact that there are significant fiscal variations from year to year. This timeframe allowed for the project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles. In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not generate the projected revenues, however, there will also be a corresponding reduction in the cost of public services. Therefore, any measurement must be in terms of net fiscal impact, not just revenue shortfall. 2. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for development storm water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included in development acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this additional use. This occurs for many uses within the developmental areas, thus making it appear as though development is using less acreage when in fact the impacts from development may cause changes to the water quality and quantity in land that is not part of the SRA. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13. Public discussion on September 30, 200 Mr. Greenwood stated that the staff -proposed language is intended to follow the annual fiscal budgeting which the county does, both for operating and capital expenditures and revenues and proposes a fiscal neutrality check every year rather than every five years. This would be consistent with the AUIR and the Capital Improvements Element done each year and the CIE must show committed revenues for projects during the first 3 years of the CIE, stating that showing impact fees as a major source of committed revenues may be misleading as impact fees are very difficult to predict lately due to the decline in construction in recent years. Mr. Farmer stated that 5 years may be too long, but that one year may be too short. Russ Weyer stated that Fishkind and Associates developed the FIAM used by the County and that the 5 years review was chosen because it allows the SRA to get established and stabilize. He stated that 50% for transportation purposes were paid up front for the Town of Ave Maria. He referred to the Developer Contribution Agreement as providing for other sources of private contribution. Mr. Eidson stated that he feels the language in this policy should be reflective of the language in the LDC. He wondered who makes up the financial gap and what happens if revenues are not available. Mr. Greenwood stated that some projects may be delayed or scaled back to fall within available revenues. Mr. Weyer stated that the revenues fall into two categories.. _operating and capital. He 1531 Page stated that when a project is not developing as fast as planned the operating costs of the county are not as high as they would be if development were occurring faster. Mr. Jones stated that he has an issue with a FIAM on an annual basis. He stated that the first few years is not a good measure for fiscal neutrality. He stated that he prefers the existing Policy 4.18 language. Mr. Al Reynolds stated that he feels the existing language is appropriate. Staff Comments: This Policy language should be modified to reflect the language which is already included in LDC Section, 4.08.07 K.L.2 and LDC Section 4.08.07 K.L.3 as copied below from the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning] LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 2. "Monitoring requirement, To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years until the SRA is ninety percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above." LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 3. — "Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or five year interval). The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing." Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to leave Policy 4.18 unchanged. . Public discussion on November 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek explained the rationale for this language. Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie McDonald asked if such surplus revenues could be used for environmental purposes. Tammie Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further economic development. Brian Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC, that he supported this language. Staff comments: none Committee action on November 10.200$: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the additional language to Policy 4.18. Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment) Eight Credits shall be rewired for each acre of land included in a SRL, where such Credits. were..exeated from -a 'p g hg_ diVratio. Ten -Credits oer aere. shall be required�.for each acro Sfewardshi Sendin Area deemed vested under the ei . € �Cre ofiland included is u SRA where such Creditskwere created*om other Stewardship en&Areae Open pace in. excess ofithe regaired � rty=five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public enefit use described in: Policy 4 9 4.20 do. not require use. of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use bevelogment and Rrovide the necessary supportAfaclities and' services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide- a mix of services to and ate supportive to the resideriiial population of a SRA, as provided for in .Policies 4.7- 4 4:151 and Attathinent C. Such uses shall be. identified,. located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Public Comments: 1. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and applied in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future adjustments should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September 18, 2008 [Appendix H]. Staff Comments: In the third line of Policy 4.19 the reference to Policy 4.19 needs to be corrected to reference Policy 4.20. Policy 4.15 was deleted and Policy 4.15.1 is now the correct reference. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed each of the changes and the information included in Appendix H. 1541 Page Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.19 as shown which is consistent with previous actions taken by the Committee. olicy,4.20 (recommended amendment) The acreage.of a public benefit use shall net 'counttoward the maximum acreage limits described_in Policy 4R9'1nrt_ shall not count toward.the _cozrsuna„ption of StewardssW Credits. l?or the nurpvw of this pohay,: public benefi includw. public schools (prel(-12) and -public orprivate post secondary, iostrtu ons, including ancillary, uses; community parks exceeding the mWmurn acreagwrequirements of Attachment C; rnunioigal golf courses; regiondl ks; and goveminental facilities excluding essenti Resources determine such at time of a development review. Gary Eidson questioned whether this Policy is superfluous. Noah Standridge stated that the Policy is intended to promote, once such is identified. Gary Eidson suggested moving the first clause to the back of the Policy. Christian Spilker stated that the State often keeps its responses to development reviews as quiet as possible because of the possibility of someone destroying or removing such if that information gets into the news media. Gary Eidson asked Noah Standridge to re -craft the language for each Policy and report back to the Committee. This item and Policy 5.8 were temporarily tabled. Noah Standridge reappeared during the meeting and presented revised language for Policies 4.22 and 5.8 which was re -crafted with input from Christian Spilker and ECPO. Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC. Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review for sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re -crafted above. Comments received that are not clearly associated with existing policies so therefore would require drafting new Group 4 policies. 1. Tie transportation planning to conservation goals ECPO Comments [Appendix O]: Agreed. Preface to Group 5 Policies Group 5 Policies set the framework for protection of water quality and quantity and maintaining the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program Appendices P and Q are referred to by reference. Major Committee -recommended revisions to Group 5 Policies include: Policy 5.4 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 5.4 provides language to establish a map of potential wildlife crossing within 12 months of the effective date of the GMP amendments to be used in evaluating community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 (amendment) This recommended amendment to Policy 5.5: • deletes certain outdated references relative to the preparation of management plans; • provides requirement for preparation of a management plan for the purpose of minimizing human and wildlife interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural lands uses; and • provides for a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres. Policy 5.7 (new) This new Policy 5.7 requires that any development on lands not participating in the RLS program to be compatible with surrounding land uses and that outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Policy 5.8 (new) This new Policy 5.8 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the RLSA, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources. 1561Page Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. 1 I Polio 5.1 `1"o proteet warm quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime lin meas .mapped 'as FSAs and desi nate l Restorati nes on the Overlay Map prior to the time- that they are designated' a.s S.SAs under the Stewardship CreditfProgram. ; ., Residential Uses, C'reneral Conditional lyses, h Mining g and l oeessing Uses, and Recreational Uscs (layers 1-4l as listed in the Nlatrixtshall be eliminated. in Asm Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, .except those .necessary to serve permitted uses or for public. safety, §hail not be allowed in FSAs. F' Of: 10 Where Wiere practicable, directional -drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utUized for oil or gas extraction In FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making .plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as MSAs. The .opoartunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Ttpgram, as well as the light to sell conservation easements -or a.ffee. or lesseLinterest-in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these. ghts. Public Comments: 1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5. 1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy] ECPO Comments [Appendix Q]: FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within FSAs and HSAs are necessary to enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems. The Group 5 policies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that apply only when a land owner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy 5.1, the FSA provision addresses a narrow issue of water quality within regional flow ways, where the more intensive land uses could impact offsite areas. Of the 31,100 acres of FSA, only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological experts, including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept at utilizing and traversing agriculture lands. Committee deliberations on October 7 2008 Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to accept Mr. Cornell's rewording of Policy 5.1 as provided to the Committee by Mr. Cornell this morning. Mr. Jones stated that he is opposed to the language proposed as Policy 5.1 is not broken and does not need fixing. Mr. Cornell stated that this is a way to ensure that development does not occur on the edge of the OK Slough and the Camp Keais Strand. Mr. Jones stated that the County may be subjected itself to a taking of a property owner's rights and subject to litigation. Mr. Cornell stated that the owner would receive compensation if he chose to participate in the RLSAO. The Committed discussed that would entail a property owner losing rights to use that land and that setbacks in the LDC may be the way to handle this. Also, if a land owner loses rights to use his land through a government action a Bert Harris violation would likely occur and the County could be subject to a lawsuit. Staff Comments: none 1571Page Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to amend Policy 5.1 by changing the period to a comma after the word "program" in the third line by adding the words, "and designated Flowway buffers" after "FSAs" in the second line and to change "only" to "not' in the second sentence. Policy 5. To ptotect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, H$As, and HRAs on the Overlay Map that are within the ACSC, all K CSC regulatory standards shall apkly, including those that strictly limit non-agrioultural clearing, Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy. Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged. Policy 5.3 To protect water duality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats .in areas mapped as FSAs,11SAS, and WRAs on the Overlay Map thavare not within the ACSC; if a properly owner proposes:to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Wolicy. 1.5 and does not elect to use Oe Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated. into the. .C, and shall supercede any comparable existing. County regulations that would otherwise apply.. Thcse regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural'use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system: Public Comments: none received Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy. Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged. Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment) Cbllier County will coordinate with appropriate State'and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to betappropriate_ A neap of these potential crossing locations will be developed; within 12 months of :the effective. date of the Growth .Manazement Plan -Amendment and used in evaluating community. A iteral and Public Input: 1. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations [FWF] ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands. The actual need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs through the efforts of state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for development projects. As one example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps of existing and proposed panther underpasses. 2. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are many. [Judith Hushon] 1581 Page ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are incidents on SR 29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east of Immokalee were considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were Iater designated along that segment of CR 846 specifically to provide opportunities for future panther crossings. Committee deliberations on October 7, 2008. Mr. Thomas stated that he would to have the word "cultural" added to the new sentence proposed by Mr. Cornell. Mr. McDaniel suggested eliminating the deadline of January, 2010 for the creation of the wildlife crossings map as that could be problematic. Mr. Eidson suggested making the date January, 2011. Laura Roys asked who is going to prepare the map and which study is it based upon. Mr. Cornell stated that the map to be used is that prepared for the Eastern Collier County Panther Study as the basis for crossing needs and for future used for site development plans, stewardship receiving areas, the MPO, etc. He stated that the map is essentially done. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the word "identified" would be better because the study has already identified such crossings. Nancy Payton gave a brief history of the development of the Panther Study. Staff Comments: none Committee Deliberations: see preceding discussions Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 5.4 as outlined above. Committee deliberations on October 14, 2008. Brad Cornell stated that he would like the Committee to consider adding additional language to Policy 5.4 which was acted upon during the October 7 meeting. He asked the Committee to add the following language at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies." Committee action taken on October 14: The Committee voted unanimously to add the words at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies" so that Policy 5.4 now reads as shown above. Policy. 5.5 (recommended amendment) For those:. lands that are not voluntaril , ncluded in. the Rural 1.-ands Stewardshi Program, y p p grain, non agricultural ilevelopmen. excluding individuai single family resid6nces2 shall be directed away -cam the listed species and � iCats_bX complying with4e following guidelines and standards- I- I— A wildlife sbrvty shall be required for all parcels ;lien listcd:spccies are known to inhabit: biological communities similar to those existing site or where listed species or protecd species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with, the requirements of the Florida. Fish and Wildlife Conser��aticm Commission (FFWCC and U-S. Fish ane. Wildli% SeMce (wI SF,wS)rguidelines. The County shall notifgathe I9,-WCCfand USFWS of the existence o%ahy lism.d species ori otected spgcies'that may-be discovered. 2. Wife Nabi at�,ement plans for listed species shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wi.I llife survey indicated lisied -specs are. uti izing the. site, or the site is .capes le of supporting wildlife asci can,tie ani ci to tie occupied 4 listed species. Terse plans shall describe.-bow thero[ect directs- ncoin�atible _land uses aw from .listed species-mnroteeeted species and their hab ta€i @,ja'q4`Najjgernen , pians shall incorpnr4re�lpropertechnique..s'to protect lined species o0listedxspecies deir- Ih tats -from the negative impacts of presprisetl developnaient c en 1591 Page I Habitat man---- f2mm: ,q E66jeff T G AeFOS ;?e!YPheFntkS) fbqe vtfti��- of Gopht PkVulai:ions found on 6w%& Slawdm L4Fge- Skmalim DF Val ]Ad* T4eeEd d; D@VejBPfReR4 Habitat j" 4m (AfAeeawa 6 Agen -M, f -M !i35}, Tcvsimirml RepsA 3!+v cR I G 1 99imm pmtoetisn Ke'�� ef the k-Wge-Seale Oe4GmPFRL-Mt Siieti ROAd Re game and FFMh Vi,,,, F -r, -,b Gffiffii�, -1941- i- iir The County FAA consider any rather techniques recd r ' ameg &d ' by OP P-.�FWS "d FFWCC, subject (0 the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy., ii,. i� When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence, such as derming, foraging, or other indications., a mini=m of 40% off` native vegetatioti on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purges- Thr Couray. shall. also' consider the recoum=dabom.of adim- agencies, subj"pW_*.pr of pqgrA.Vh 3 of this policy, b.34ana2emebt pians sbajj include provisions -for gAWMji�tg -huzpan and wildlife: imenctions. Low imerk3ity laud- uses drISMve CtUcatim areas, golf eLmne-S) and VP &q�iorl preservation requi remejvs. incbqd tg agtculture,sh�dl be used to q,5tablis h bufkrr arcaaberw�en A-ddlife habitat areas and areas'dominaied bihUwxl activities. Canside-ration shall be -given to the most c=ntgpidglu'les and ieg�qtkms an technigues to reduce. uxnaa wxldlifc Conflict. The rnaement_plans shall al, so requicf, K digsentinatian of iafo=ti6n to lex a) msidejus businesses and ggvemmeutal senice.5. about the p!'esence of wildlife and pLactwes- C.qjKhj!-5 j_ ap Fopriale waste disposal owthods) that. ,enable iesDunsible coexi�,�ncre with wddlife, yhAil mini rm 7.mg Wpcwtuaites for negative ineraction, such as appmIi ate wasw diWqsgp fices P C The �jn or Y pro n a than Wil , -ManaAement Plans shall corktain a. moniW!�Qy�r f . de clo - q ts M ter acirM ;F& PRF6elg (�UftlffifliRg P,(3phE!F. (GePhOf),P�i p64yr&enqU�), 'pFi(:)Aty 4.ail be given to PFetieedfig g9pheF RW�Ri 90 hO i tat M413 t4e- ffeIRWAIM-4 Fnh- PH: E-4 P -AA 10'8 -1—Ld fm PHWiding it Conn" en to e# )P,heF kffEE 49e-PFIMq§FVe-;- e4ladbkiatv�em ft��r-dw Rb6da &OM19 jlay �"@!Oef.�ffla C-&eV+k*OeBS+ P -A-44 �6 the gWd0iiBOS CON6-4PWd iB' T-e(!.;h84eA AePeA N9. 9, Wit M' ne�h pfegmm kind speeKy Em afffepAime fire AqWAAFg6ai PF&AOOO!'; tO HIRiMia #�e ftft?dF6"eTt* f4an shall also ea!14ne a pab4B awateftems�& [-U edRGU4dmF6Sjd&A4S iabfflA PA MI m FA�i &beam be W the 4 wbe- WRIb yogetalienm thL-m WMS� Routh pqofm& M the PEOvi F;iOm of P&Kl"04-34 of this pulioT d -fwc* Rh e- m bleW i� � 1 @ (H a) i ae e tu 4ueeA;-; e pbal t�!i the 4 e-4- h t egabl;A W-�:N,e -A *I.- - ag4e fle9t FeSMr;fjFW eef%ifl m Th@m FA afq'i "hem peF, of 4m�g the Fmst seasen. -;e shall be eell�,�ELn FqfA4da 11tj pjremej 4�001 40 dW PFOYi MOBS 1 4 e,F4af Wf3GdPOeIWF 1pi&klide� befteliS�; 4he F640iFA habli Phis "I Ourt4mem Rwarsures to —mm";AM �A.Mmm, &�ffi gi Fig m -ht- "M Wg- Whem m adveflime effeets ean 'moi emures FfliE&PdZe OH SAB difWbaiiO-e �ff4me9FRpenS910 OF Mitigate 44W 413paii� Tim SF ,WW :Witb 61:�e La, dij M:Ulg SPE�O;e, R" MentN Shah hO EOR &*qfy -Man- may 19991'MSUNJ� bf pmagmph Im� of this A emy m �M a R a ge meo t m Pkmrr I �F "--V —ji F e- th! a� m garb El go he Pj aeed i A be a prve 8 f e (%9 tai PA-�-S, R t ORB OF 1601 )1,0 &g,6 arrt , of + - by. dA "94>- _ Y"" x a 43 a t managed osing . 3311 Within t& li& a YWth ;he 11L'LIPC C fflL1g L7 4%[I�w�L13� �'rFCi!}1 C"s"��a#'eNtVff .Y.zr. May €lYIO .tSY.,zr.r to+4.......'"Sia ` r k mix 11 Tie County shall, consistent with appEcable policies of this Ovetlay, consider and uti3ixo' recortlmcz�daEions and letters of technical acsista ee from the Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservatiCH C:ommissiop and recommendations from the US Fish and NMIdlife- Service in issuing devel« pme.nt atdcrs. on property eeataiaig utili7cd by listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendarions, GD a case- by base basis, may changa 9t.cMgthen the requirements containbd' -within these wildlife protection policies and any suoh change shall be dternW cozy&istent with the Growth ManageFnent flan- However, no reduction of the v�ildlife protectiun policies of Policy 5.5wi.11 be considered as these shali.constituw minimum standards fru wildlife protection: Public lvonndnents: Gomm nittee deliberatkms on October 14,2008.- Tom Jones stated that he has a problem with inclusion of the additional language in Poticy 5.5, 2w&-ap but would hold his vote for later. Brad Cordell stated that he is OK with deleting that language. Brad Cornell stated that all the studies need to be updated. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee should consider reference language to the most current studies and not cite each plan. Brad Cornell stated that he does not object to a universal species clause rather than list specific studies. Tom Jones suggested that draft language be prepared for Policy 5.5f. Bill MoDmiel suggested drafting language and sending it out to the Committee. Tom ]ones stated that he is vying to forego a list of 68 species. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the language is a forward looking policy on people interaction. it would mire provision of information about wildlife to people, G, Ridson stated that this discussion would he a lot easier if there were specific motion language to vote on and not just ideas. ftblie Input: Lauri McDonald stated that she felt the use of the word "utilizing" rather than "containing" in the first sentence of Palm 5.5, parag ph 3 would be more appropriate. Staff Comments: none Committee Delib*rations: see discussion above. Committee Action on October 14.2005: The Committee voted unanimously to have staff develop language for Policy 5.5+2. ff and report back to the Committee on October 2 1, Comm ttee Action of October A 2005: The Committee voted, 7-1, to amend Policy 5.5, parap7aph 3 to include the changes proposed in the last two sentences. ommittee Actino of October 14, 200: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the word "containing„ to `utilized bye% 1611 Page Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: Mr. Wolfley stated that he did not feel that bald eagles should be called out specifically, but that other listed species should be included as well in paragraph 1 of Policy 5.5. Elizabeth Fleming agreed that other listed species should be cited so that the wording is more inclusive. Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton both agreed with Mr. Wolfley and Ms. Fleming. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on Paragraph It of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 1 of Policy 5.5 as shown above. Committee Action on October 28 2008 on paraeraph 2 of Policy 5.5 subsection a: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph a as shown above. Committee Action on October 28 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 subsection b: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph b as shown above. Committee Action on October 28 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 subsection b: The Committee voted unanimously to move the last sentence regarding mitigation to the last sentence of paragraph 2.2a of Policy 5.5. Committee Action on October 28 2008 on paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 subsection c: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as shown in subsection c of Policy 5.5. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on deletion of existing paragraphs 2b through 2h of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language. Committee Action on October 28, 2008 on amending the language of paragraph 3of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language. Policy 5z6 (recommended amendment) For those lands that are;not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship- progi am; Collier County shall direct ncnr agr#cultural land uses away from hiT,li f r ationing{wetlands by limiting direct i pacits within weilands. A di fectwimpac:tds hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland nr adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This pc liar shall bedruplemented as follows: 1. 'Mere are two (2) major wetlands system's Within the. RLSA, Camp Keats, Stud and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systerris have been riaappedtand are designate -d as ESA's. Policy 5.1 .prohibits certain uses. within the. 1~SA_s, lhus preserving. andop -tectin :tl a wetlands functions withi : those_wwefiand ,systems. 2. The other significant Wetlands within the RL -A are SIR 's as describe in Policy �.3.4I'hese areas maze protected by existing SFWA41) wetland's permits for each area.. 4. PSAs, H As and WXA—s, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing ana alteration limitations, nonperrneable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface°water flows which protect wetland :functions within' the wetlands in .those areas.. Other wetlands within-rhaRLSA ante isolated or seasonal wetlands. These wetlands will be protected based upon the wetland funetionaiiry assessment described below, and the final permitting requirements of the South. 9oxida Water Management District. a. The County, shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation requirements specified within this .Overlay to preserve. an appropiiiate amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall b e, presery edtas part of this vegetation. requirement accordingito�thed,ol�v g.criteria: i. The acreage,requuirernents specified,�within this: Overlay'shail be nriet by.-preser�ing,wetlands with the ugliest wetlandfunctionayity scores. Wetland fianctioznality assessmenneores shObbe those desenibed iit paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservations of wetlands laving a f4netionality assessmenvscore of 0.65 or a Vniiform Wetland lvlitigaticm Assessment Method'kore of 0.7, or greater. within one year from the effective. date of this Amendment. the County shall develop specific cczteria in the. L'DC to be. used to determine those instances in which wenands with I WRAP fanctionaiity assessment score of 0.65 or -a Uuiforrn Wetland Mitigation Assessnnent Method scot . of 0.1, or greater rqq .be:_presprved.aP excess of- the :preservat t . r+eq�r -d -by Policy :5.3: ii•. Wetlands and con ous u land buffers. that -are utlized by .listed species, or serving as corridors tor- the movement of listed species, shrill .be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained. 1621 Page ll: c, d. c 163 1Page- iii- PrOpmed development shall demonstrx4'e that griound water tattle. drawdovas or diversions will not adversely change the hy.dr43erlod of preserved wedandi, oa or offsite. Detention and -control elevations shall -be set to protect surrounding wedands .and h.- consistent VVIth sarrounding lana 'Aud project cuntrol elevations and water tables. In order to meet lhese reyuirernents�, Projects Shall he designed in aeoordance with Sections 4-2,.2A6-11 ud 6.12. of P'WVNI 's liasi,,� of Review, January 2bl}1- C,lplaiid-vegetative communities triay be utilized to mfet the vegetat vc' , open space and siw, preservation requirements of this Overlay wh" the -wetland functiemal assessment score is less than 0. 65, In order to uscss the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project rcview, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management Disbict's Wetlod Rapid Assessment Procedure ('4 KAY), .as deseiibed in Technical Publacatioat Reg -00.1, dated September 1957, aivd updated August 1959, or the Uniform'1 etland'Mltigatinn As.sessmtnt Nicibod., identified As F.A.C. Chapter -b2-345. The applicant shall submit. to County staff agency -accepted WRA P scares, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this fmctionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisioii� and shall use the rtsultS to direct incctmp4tih1r_ I -and uses away from the hi,ght-0 ftinuioning wetlands according to the requireftnts found in paragraph 3 above, AN direct impacts s'ball be ndtigated feu pursuant to the requiremems of paragr-aph (f) of~this policy. Single 1'araily residences stall .follow the requirements contained within Policy 6,2.7 of the Conservation and.t`'oastal Mar(agement Elem. ent- Thn County shall separate presery-ed wetlands from other land uses with appropriate baffe Im requiremc,nts. The County shalt require a minimum 50 -foot vegetated upland buffer abu.[ting a natural water body, and 1=or other wetlands a mirdmum 5 -foot vegetated upland buffer ahutrirkg the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in cor�ju tion with a vegctadve buffer that would reduce the Vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall he required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows.edi. Wetland buffer shall eonform to rhe followng standards= i- The buffer shall ire measured landward front the approved jurisdictional line. H. The buffer sane shall ccrosist of press d native vegetation. Where native vegetation does- n.at exist, native vegetation pomp4tible, with the existing sails andi pecwd.h1trologw auditions shall be planted; Ili. The. buffer Ofall i8irrtained free of Category i inwasive c oti pltfln , a5 -defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant CoLmOl, iv- The following lane uses are Ocrosidbred to be vo#lpeuii k with_. Te.0and funciiorts and are allowed within the buffer. (1)- Passive retTreational areas. boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2.) Pervious nature, trails; (3) Water management structures; {4) Mitigation areas; {5) Ariy other conservation and related open space ricbvily ctr use which is oornparalile in flat arc with'the .f6TCg0ing uses. v. A structural huf`# _r may consist of a stcm-wall, Berm, err vegetative hedge with S0table feneipg. N1itigation shaU W required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in iio net loss of wetland functions. Mitigetion RN.uirements: is " ct net loss of wet nd functions" shall. mean. that the. wetland funcrur al score of dw proposed ruiiigation equals or 'exceeds the wetland functiwal score -of the impaaed wetlands. Priority shall be given to rciitigaiico withiri F A's and HSA"s- U. Lass of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts t€t wexlands 9hafl be campcnsated for by providing an equal amount of_sor conveyance capacity ori site and with -in or.abatiing the impaotzd wetland. ijiy Notection shall be provided for -preserved. or cccated Wctiand ur uphind ve-getative communities offered as mitigation by placing a umNe-rvatiun. easement over the land In Mpelaity, pro%riding for iz tml exotic plant remaval Class 1 invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotir, Plan 'Council) -and continuing exotic plant maintenance, er ` y appropridte ownership transfer to a state nr federal agency along with sufficient,furtding�for-perpetiM managgga KIjvjt es 4�, v. Prior to issuance ofa y finM development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicahg shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of thistpolicy and .9l~ *Mb standards. If agency pemnits have not provided. nutigation consistent with this pglicyz Collier County will require mitigation exceeding,that of'thegurisdictional agencies. g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas; and mitigation areas shall be,identified or plattedrdparate tracts. In the case of -a planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also. be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained. free from trash and debris and from Category I Wyasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Pladt� Council. Land uses �ailowed hi these areas shall'lie limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities. that are detrimewai to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation: Public Comments: L The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an analysis of what amount of non jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited. [Mark Strain] ECPO Comments [Appendix P]: An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the entire 300 square mile RLS was not within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an analysis required for comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional overlay, it is an alternative to development under the existing zoning, not a replacement. The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land uses are permitted by right or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas, including the full range of agricultural activities, farmworker housing, commercial excavations, and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership can be subdivided and fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is very expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden Gate Estates). The RLSA creates incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis. In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional wetlands, yet provide important habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non - jurisdictional land are included in Habitat Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native vegetated areas or flowways. The "sense of urgency" for protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre -dates the RLSA, and in fact was a key catalyst that led to the establishment of the Final Order, the Rural Lands Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida Forever program (and its predecessors) targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough long before the creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development pressures on wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on potential wetland losses and landscape -scale fragmentation. Staff Comments: minor corrections [Comprehensive Planning] Currently there are no buffer requirements to FSAs, HSAs or WRAs if the project is going through base -line standards, besides the standard 25' for wetlands. Recommend some type of buffer -commercial excavation has no minimum setback to an FSA/HSA. Policy 5.6 [Environmental Staff] 1641 Page Committee Action on October 28.2008: The Committee voted, 8-1, to accept the proposed new language in Policy 5.6, section 3, subsection f iv. Committee Action on October 28.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection 3f iv of Policy 5.6 unchanged but to renumber to subsection 3fiv to 3fv. Committee Action on October 28.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection 3g of Policy 5.6 unchanged. Committee Action on October 28.2008: The Committee voted unanimously to add Section 4 to Policy 5.6.. Committee Action on December 18, 2008: The Committee following input from Brad Cornell, other members of the Committee, and the public voted unanimously to modify the first line of Policy 5.6, paragraph 3, subparagraph a, subparagraph ii to read as follows: "ii. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are...". (recommended new policy) gec'MELq. Public Comments: none Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: The proposed new language was advanced by Nancy Payton. Dane Scofield asked for someone to define a smoke easement. Christian Spilker stated that he is concerned about smoke easements and it gives him pause. Nancy Payton suggested eliminating the last sentence and that can be addressed in the LDC. Brad Cornell stated that he had no opposition to eliminating the last sentence. Russ Priddy stated that he would like to see the entire Policy deleted. David Wolfley stated that lighting is almost always an issue when land use intensity is proposed to increase. Staff comments: none Committee Deliberations: see October 28 public discussion Committee Action taken on October 28 2008: The Committee by a vote of 8-1 voted to add new Policy 5.7 as outlined above. Policy 5.8 (recommended new policy) awareness..=ortunities kegarding si ificant resources. Public comment on November 10, 2008: Refer to Public discussion above under Policy 4.22 and Appendix R. Noah Standridge stated that the re -crafted language has been developed and approved by Naples Cultural Landscape. Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning] Committee action on November 10 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re -crafted above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. 1651 Page SIEC 11 5 COMMITTEE-RIEC014E N E&NEW POLICY 3.7 OF11TE TR NSPORT*A,1 IONIELEMENT OF THE GR0'"gM MANAGEMENT PLAN Preface While the Committee discussed revisions to Group 4 RLSA Overlay Policies with the Transportation Planning Department of the Transportation Division of Collier County and, in particular Policy 4.5 of the RLSA Overlay, it became apparent that a new companion Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan would be required. Below is the Committee -recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. This recommended Policy was crafted by the Transportation Division due to proposed language amendments to Policy 4.5 of the RLSAO. New Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) requires County adoption of a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service through the build out of the County (County Build Out Vision Plan"). This Policy 3.7 was deemed appropriate because of other recommended amendments to certain Group 4 Policies. Policy 3.7 [New Future Transportation Element Policy] Vi7,iM12 months aftenadoption of this policy,. the county. shall V Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida, Director of the Transportation Planning Department, stated that this proposed new Policy is intended to apply county -wide and not be limited to the RLSA Overlay. Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located in the Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be considered for recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new language being proposed in the RLSAO with the Transportation Element. The above language represents a consensus by those Transportation Division staff personnel participating in its creation with representatives of Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO]. Committee Deliberations on September 23, 2008: Mr. Farmer asked what is considered "long distance travel" to which Nick Casalanguida replied that it is subjective, but generally a trip in excess of 30 minutes in length. Committee action on September 23.2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4 Policies to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy outside of the RLSAO was found to be needed. Committee action on November 10, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of new Policy 3.7 as outlined above. 1661 Page Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff October 22, 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper RLSA Restudy White Paper i Table of Contents Page Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….……………i-iii Definitions (LDC Section 4.08.01)……………………………………………………………………iv-v Section A. Introduction……………………..…………………………………………………….………1 Section B. Data Update (Acreage and Credits)……………………….…..…..……….……..……..12 Section C. Water Resources……………………………………………….……………………….....25 Section D. Agricultural Protection……..………………………………….………………………….. 35 Section E. Environmental Protection……………….…………………….………………………….. 42 Section F. Towns Villages and Other Development………………...….………………………….. 63 Section G. Credit System………………...….…………………………………………………………77 Section H. Consistency with Other Planning Areas…………………………………………………83 List of Staff Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..85 Appendix A. Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries List of Tables Page Table A-1: Major Bonus Credit Changes from Transmittal to Adoption…………………...………..7 Table B-1: Summary of Stewardship Designations within Approved Sending Areas Rounded to nearest acre……………...………………….………………………..…………………..14 Table B-2: Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending………..……………14 Table B-3: SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining……………………………………...………15-16 Table B-4: SRA Acreage………………………………..……………………………………...………16 RLSA Restudy White Paper ii Page Table B-5: SRA Acreage Pending*…………………..…………………………..…………...………18 Table B-6: Stewardship Credit Summary…..……………...…………….………………………...…19 Table B-7: Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria and Credits Remaining for Future Use…..……………...……………………………………….…….……………20 Table B-8: Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status…..……………….………20 Table B-9: Stewardship Sending Areas with Amendments Pending…....……………...…………21 Table B-10: 2002/2012 Agricultural Type Comparison…..……………...…………….……………21 Table B-11: 2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses…..……………...…………………………..………22 Table B-12: Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs…..……………...…………….………23-24 Table B-13: Restoration Acres Dedicated by Type (R-1)…………………………………...………24 Table E-1: Tiered Restoration Credits, 5-year Review………………...…………………...………50 Table F-1: CIGM Population Projections GMP Districts East of CR 951 Rounded to nearest 1,000 Est. Oct. 2018………………………………..……………………...…………………...………65 List of Figures Page Figure A-1: Stewardship Overlay Map…………………………………………..……………………..7 Figure B-1: RLSA Adoption Map……………………………..………………………………………..13 Figure B-2: Ave Maria TDR Transactions Credits…………………………………...………………17 Figure C-1: Adopted RLSA Overlay Features……..…………………………………………………26 Figure C-2: RLSA Elevations……………………………………………………..……………………27 Figure C-3: RLSA Surface Drainage……………………………………………………….…………27 Figure C-4: Collier County Hydrology………………….…………………………………….……….31 Figure D-1: 2012 FLUCCS Land Use – Agriculture Land………………………………..…..……..36 Figure D-2: Agriculture Economic Impact to Collier County……………………….……….………37 Figure D-3: Economic Considerations for Growers……………………………………….…………38 RLSA Restudy White Paper iii Page Figure E-1: RLSA Status Map, March 2019……………………………………………….…..……..44 Figure E-2: Proposed SSA 17 and SRAs…………………………………………………………….45 Figure E-3: HCP Exhibit Covered Activities……………………………………………………….....58 Figure E-4: HCP Exhibit Primary/Secondary Panther Habitat, SW Florida……………………….58 Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit Panther Telemetry Since 1981……………….………………….……….59 Figure E-6: Panther Collision Hotspots……………………………………………………………….61 Figure F-1: Town Transect…………………………………………………………………………..…66 Figure F-2: Vehicle/Panther Collisions…………………………………………….………………….75 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper Definitions (LDC Section 4.08.01) RLSA Restudy White Paper iv ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including: row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses. Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 B4). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including: pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses. Early Entry Bonus Credits (FLUE RLSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of one additional Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as SSA in an HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus expired for SSAs created after 2009. Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the future. FSA - Flowway Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the RLSA District. Future Land Use Map (FLUE). Map of the adopted and amended areas within the RLSA.. HSA - Habitat Stewardship Area. Lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. Land Use Layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use Matrix, “Attachment B”. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses, Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture – Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2, Conservation. Land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards set forth in “Attachment B”, with each Land Use Layer displayed as a single column. RLSA Restudy White Paper v Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, WRA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover. Open Lands. Areas in the HSA, FSA, WRA or 500’ restoration zone. Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA. R-1. (Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive credits. R-2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for development as a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. SSA - Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or more Land Use Layers. Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B. Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through the designation of SRAs. WRA - Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map, that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper A. Introduction Restudy Background and Purpose This White Paper provides a framework to address improvements to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, an overlay within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The White Paper is an intermediate step in the RLSA restudy process, a process that began in January 2018. The formal transmittal and adoption hearing processes will begin as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board). The RLSA restudy is one of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses, transportation and mobility, environmental stewardship, and economic vitality. As remarked by Board members, only 10% of County land remains available for new development. This is the last chance to “get it right” in terms of development form. These restudies are conducted with that perspective in mind. The basic format of the introduction includes the history and status of the RLSA and the public planning process. Following, staff will present data on RLSA activity updated to March 2019 (Section B). Sections C-G follow, providing staff analysis of program subject areas leading to staff recommendations, and a list of sources. A full list of staff recommendations will conclude the White Paper, prior to Appendix A. We often refer to these as preliminary recommendations for a number of reasons. First, public input was valuable in identifying areas for potential improvements, but not always accompanied by solutions. Second, the Outreach phase uncovered significant differences in opinion on many topics. Staff makes recommendations herein based on its view of data and analysis, fully cognizant of the fact that other outcomes may be preferred by decision-makers, and aware that further dialogue through the public hearing process may yield other solutions to the identified areas for improvement. As to the scope of the restudy, staff became aware through the course of public outreach that the terminology of an “area restudy” could have been improved at the outset- perhaps as “area update.” Many individuals assumed that the County could achieve a complete reformulation of this study area without regard to the system currently in place. As will be discussed, the RLSA Overlay Comprehensive Plan language, together with the LDC zoning overlay, provide certain rights to landowners that cannot be simply discarded or ignored. RLSA Restudy White Paper 1 History and Importance of the RLSA Overlay The Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay is the Future Land Use Element Sub- District which was adopted in 2002 through Ordinance 02-54, as a result of Final Order – ACC- 99-002. ACC-99-002 was issued by the State due to the County’s GMP being found to lack regulatory protection for environmentally sensitive property, not adequately discouraging urban sprawl and preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas: 1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas 2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal species and their habitats. 3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions and mixed use development. The RLSA Overlay, as expressed in the Future Land Use Element, contains one goal and one objective, which are furthered by policy groups. This Overlay implemented the mandates of the State’s Final Order. The goal of the RLSA is: Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County’s goal is to protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. The objective of the RLSA is: To meet the Goal described above, Collier County’s objective is to create an incentive-based land use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection. RLSA Restudy White Paper 2 To meet the requirements of the Final Order, the County appointed the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee. That committee was comprised of a wide variety of business and civic leaders as well as environmental, agricultural and academic members. The Committee was coordinated through the firm of Wilson Miller, an engineering and planning consultant. The work was further supplemented by a Technical Advisory Committee made up of state and federal subject matter experts. The initial RLSA study established a methodology and set of parameters to test different scenarios within the study area. These parameters included the use of the MPO 2025 projected population, and the base density allowed at the time of the study, 1 unit per 5 acres. The study methodology and findings within the Report concluded, “Zoning entitlement of 1 unit per 5 acres determines the number of units currently allowed – 36,466. Using an average gross density for compact rural development of 2.17 units per acre, only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the buildout density in compact rural development. The credit calculation process results in an exchange rate of 8 Sending Area credits per acre of Receiving Area land. The process yields the assumed number of rural development acres that are eligible to become designated Receiving Areas. The Report also recommended additional credits for Restoration activities on a “case by case” basis. There were no direct statements indicating how much these additional credits would potentially expand the baseline-equivalent footprint of 16,805 acres. Given the recommended basis for exchange, Sending to Receiving, at 8 credits per acre, it follows that bonus credits would necessarily expand the development footprint beyond 16,805 acres at maximum program participation. The RLSA study was included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment transmittal documents, and the same population and density parameters were used to describe the plan structure in the Transmittal Hearing staff report. The language in the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) incorporating the new RLSA overlay did not specifically limit the development footprint at build-out. In addition, the Plan language contained the recommendation for a “case by case” bonus credit allocation for restoration activitie s, as well as bonus credits for early entry Stewardship Sending Area designation. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in their Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report recommended changes to policy 1.21 and 3.11 to further defi ne early entry bonus credits and restoration credits. In response to the recommendation, the subject credits were further defined, resulting in a change to the original credit system. Policy 1.21 reduced early entry bonus credits: from one half credit per acre of FSA, HSA or WRA, to one credit per acre for HSA outside of ASCA, and one-half credit per acre for HSA inside the ACSC. A maximum was added of 27,000 early entry bonus credits. Policy 3.11 changed restoration credits. Originally described as “case by case,” these were now quantified on a per acre basis as requested by DCA. Within Camp Keais Strand FSA or HSA, 4 credits per acre were added for dedicated lands and 4 credits per acre for RLSA Restudy White Paper 3 completion as defined by a permitting agency. In all other areas, an additional 2 credits per acre were added for dedication, and 4 credits per acre for completion as defined by a permitting agency. Policy 3.12 changed the index score of lands within 500 feet of major sloughs from 0.5 to 0.6. The table below summarizes the major bonus credit changes from transmittal to adoption. Table A-1 Summary of Major Bonus Credit Changes from Transmittal to Adoption Transmittal* Adoption** Early entry bonus credits 42,382 27,000 Base credits 127,151 128,000 Restoration credits TBD on a case by case basis 160,000 Total credits 169,533 + restoration 315,000 *source RLSA Study, Appendix J, prepared by WilsonMiller, dated May 2002 **source WilsonMiller memo to Tom Greenwood, dated Dec 5, 2008 While the credits changed from the transmittal to the adoption versions as noted above (estimate made in 2008) the calibration for 8 credits per acre of SRA remained unchanged. This resulted in the potential for far greater SRA development acreage, as compared to SRA acreage without bonus credit provisions. These modifications were supported by environmental policy considerations, not the least of which was the encouragement of restoration activities at the expense of the large landowners rather than taxpayers. On December 10, 2002, DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find the RLSA GMPAs in compliance with Chapter 163 and the Final Order. The Five-Year Review A policy within the existing RLSA Growth Management Plan includes the requirement to review the Plan provisions upon the 5-year anniversary of its adoption. Like the original assessment committee, this committee was made up of a broad base of business, civic, and environmental leaders. It was not until the 5-year Review that a thorough assessment of program credits was undertaken, both existing (previously issued) and potential. At the same time, the Committee believed that additional program elements, using the credit system, should be applied to better protect agriculture, incentivize panther corridors, restructure the restoration credits and balance the credit system overall. In its assessment of existing and potential credits under the existing Plan, including Base credits, Early Entry credits and Restoration credits, the Review Committee estimated that 315,000 credits could be earned at 100% participation. This equates to an SRA development footprint of 39,375 acres. The Committee also recognized that credits are not required for RLSA Restudy White Paper 4 “public benefit” uses (schools, regional parks, and some governmental facilities). Based on an estimate that 10% of land area within a Town or Village could be public benefit uses, the footprint created through credits could, in fact, be 43,312 acres when public benefits are added. The important substantive recommendations from the Committee were structured in a way that required incentives in the form of additional credits. These included Agricultural Land credits within the “Open” areas of the RLSA, in order to place up to 43,700 acres of non-SRA (Town/Village, etc.) acres under agricultural easements, thus eliminating their potential conversion into “5-acre ranchettes”, a baseline land use right under existing agricultural zoning. Additional credits for Agricultural protection: 89,000 credits Panther Corridor credits within the “Open” areas of the RLSA, to assure connectivity contemplated by the Panther Protection Plan 23,000 credits Restructuring the Restoration Credit system to better reflect value by type of restoration, resulting in a small decrease in total potential (6,000 credit reduction) The sum of all potential credits under the existing Plan and the recommended changes totaled 463,104 credits, enough to allow the possibility of 57,888 acres of SRA development at build- out. In its recommendation to retain the bonus credits, and to extend bonus credit treatment for these new recommendations, the Committee proposed the following provisions to contract the development footprint outcome: Permanently eliminate the potential for any extension of Early Entry bonus credits Revise the restoration credit system Increase the number of credits required per acre for development, from 8 to 10, derived from future approved SSAs. Institute a cap on development acres or on total credits Thus, the total credits under the above recommendations would result in a reduction of the total theoretical development footprint from 57,888 acres to 47,120 acres. Then applying a cap on acres, the Committee recommended no greater than 45,000 acres of SRA footprint. The Committee noted that the footprint includes both public benefit uses (10%) and open space within each development (35%). At the Public Hearing, Board of County Commissioners, April 21, 2009, there was considerable debate as to whether a credit cap or an acreage cap would be the most effective limitation for development. Otherwise, the public and stakeholders found substantial consensus with the recommendations made. During that hearing, consensus was reached among stakeholders to limit both acres (45,000) and credits (404,000) under the program. Consensus included Florida RLSA Restudy White Paper 5 Wildlife Federation, Audubon of Florida, Conservancy, the Eastern Collier Property Owners group (ECPO) and the Board of County Commissioners. Following consensus at that hearing, the Growth Management Plan was not later amended, apparently due to some contention as to who should pay for the cost of the GMP amendments, how the cost would be calculated, the fact that the economic downturn continued to appear intractable, and other factors. The work completed by the 5-year Review Committee was extensive. Approximately 28 public meetings were held by the Committee in examining the many facets of the RLSA program. Following that work, at least 5 public hearings were held before the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), before the recommendations were heard by the Board. The findings and recommendations of the 5-year Review Committee should be respected and closely considered in the course of the current restudy. Today Presently, the Growth Management Plan elements adopted in 2002 remain in place with little alteration. The credits issued through the creation of the SSAs as of January 2018, total 129,987, equivalent to 16,987 acres of SRA development footprint. These credits were derived from 15 approved SSAs, providing easements over 50,431 acres, primarily Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) (28,233 acres), Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) (17,905 acres) and Water Retention Areas (WRAs) (3,071 acres). The County’s Stewardship Sending Log can be found at: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural- land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program/towns-hamlets-rural-lands-stewardship-area-overl/- fsiteid-1. The approved SSA’s cover approximately 55% of the HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs, leaving 45% as targeted environmental easement protection areas. Less than 1% of the Open areas are protected by easement. Open areas not developed as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) and not protected by easements remain under baseline agricultural zoning rules, allowing agricultural uses, potential conditional uses, and residential development at 1 unit per 5 acres. The RLSA Overlay, as adopted (and amended) in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, can be seen in Figure A-1, below. The text of the current RLSA provisions in the Growth Management Plan can be found at the following link, including Group 1 through 5 Policies, Attachment A- Stewardship Credit Worksheet, Attachment B- Land Use Matrix and Attachment C- Stewardship Area Characteristics: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural- land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program/-fsiteid-1. RLSA Restudy White Paper 6 Figure A-1 RLSA Restudy White Paper 7 As a final introductory note, it is important to consider the narrative that accompanied the directives in the Final Order: “This assessment shall recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of predominantly agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for the cost-effective delivery of public facilities and services”. To this end, the stewardship system does far more than transfer density from one location to another. It pays for the protection of natural areas and listed species habitats that necessarily require significant care and maintenance- in a word, “stewardship”. It has been estimated that an endowment covering the ultimate obligations of this system would approach $1 billion or more. Regardless of the methodology or final number, the benefit to the environment and the public welfare of these perpetual commitments is enormous. Public Planning Process “I strongly favor smarter growth principles that will save tax dollars and natural resources in eastern Collier County…” - Citizen comment, February 2019 The public planning process elicited comments, both general and specific. General comments, such as that above, reflect a broad consensus among citizens and stakeholders. As we look at comments that are more specific in nature, we see a divergence in how we view smart growth principles, how we measure public and private expenditures, and how we best protect the natural resources, both agricultural and natural, in the RLSA area. The public outreach effort began with an advertised public workshop on January 25, 2018, followed by public workshops almost every month for over 1 year. In all, 12 workshops were conducted, alternately at the North Collier Regional Park and the South County Library. Topics RLSA Restudy White Paper 8 progressed from an overview of perspectives and general structure of the Overlay to agriculture, natural resources, infrastructure, water, development patterns, specific public areas of interest, and finally consensus. Most workshops were captured on video (found at County main web page, video archive, RLSA Restudy) and broadcast on Facebook live. A compilation of Meeting Summaries can be found in Appendix A. Materials associated with each public workshop, including agendas, presentation materials, and recordings can be found on-line at the site below. This site also contains links to comment cards and correspondence to staff: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community- planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy- pub. The public was urged to consult the resources and material gathered as important background information for the RLSA restudy. Many participants were helpful in providing additional sources for review at this location. The RLSA Restudy Library contains a section on program creation, a section on the 5-year Review effort and a link to the current program status of approved SSAs and SRAs with associated documents. It also contains a number of documents created since 2009 that further inform the restudy. It can be found at this location: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community- planning-section/rural-lands-stewardship-area-restudy/library-rural-lands-stewardship-area-res. One important item that came up during the public Workshops involved the specific data sets that were used to create the composite Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores for each acre within the RLSA. The composite NRI scores were used to calibrate the stewardship credit system, and Collier County retains these composite NRI scores. These composites are also RLSA Restudy White Paper 9 used as a foundation for County review of SSA and SRA applications that include updated NRI scores. The County was never provided with each sub-composite “factor” making the NRI composite score for each acre. This data was not a part of the transmittal to the State as data and analysis. This data is not needed today by the County for any discernable purpose. These factors were developed by the firm of Wilson Miller, and later became the property of Stantec, a succe ssor corporation. Two stakeholder groups requested the NRI factor data used in the 2002 program. Stantec assisted the County in identifying the best available information in their archives, to provide to the County. Ultimately, the County determined that it would not take possession of the data as it was not used as data in support of its transmittal and it is not County data. Staff is grateful to County citizens who took the time to contribute to these public dialogues. Along the way, a diversity of opinions were shared and captured through various means, including break-out group discussions, comment cards, and open questions and comments. At the same time, staff acknowledges hurdles inherent in a year-long public discussion of a complex program. The more casual observers, those who attended only a few of the workshops tended to have difficulty understanding the material. RLSA Restudy White Paper 10 During the final two workshops, the public was encouraged to find areas of agreement or disagreement with many of the statements, concerns, or solutions mentioned in group discussion, comment cards, or correspondence. As in previous sessions, Dr. Amanda Evans, FGCU, a certified mediator provided leadership for group activities. These ideas or statements were sorted into “affinity” groups by attendees and ultimately discussed to determine where there was agreement, and where there was not. The results of this exercise appear at the beginning of each substantive section of this White Paper following the data update section. RLSA Restudy White Paper 11 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper B. Data Update Acreage and Credits Program Acreage Calculations This section updates some of the basic quantitative data associated with the RLSA program and the status at the present time (as of March 2019). These calculations and formats are similar to those provided in the 5-year Review, but include more recent data. Early descriptions of the RLSA describe an area of 195,846 acres. This was the original study area. However, when the RLSA was adopted, it excluded portions of state-owned lands, both in the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). The resulting Adopted RLSA totaled 185,935 acres. The depiction below, Exhibit A-1, shows the location and acreage of the adopted RLSA overlay areas, along with publicly owned land, at the present time. This map depicts areas designated as FSA, HSA, WRA, 500’ Restoration Area and Open. The map also indicated that 7,067 acres are in public ownership, resulting in 178,868 acres of privately held lands. Under current Plan provisions, only private lands are eligible to participate in the Stewardship Credit program. Of the 7,067 acres of publicly-owned lands in the RLSA, 4,136 acres are located within designated protection areas (FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and 500’ buffers). [Intentionally left blank] RLSA Restudy White Paper 12 Figure B-1 RLSA Restudy White Paper 13 Table B-1 provides a summary of the acreage of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending Areas since the RLSA program inception. The Approved Percentage column shows the percentage protected within each RLSA stewardship protection area type. A total of 50,431 acres have been protected to date through SSA designations, although some remain “in escrow.” Accordingly, approximately 56 percent of all FSA, HSA, WRA, and 500’ Restoration Areas (designated protection areas) have been protected in this way. Table B-2 shows the number of acres of stewardship protection pending under existing SSA applications. Table B-1 Summary of Stewardship Designations within Approved Sending Areas Rounded to nearest acre RLSA Designation Total RLSA Acres SSA Acres Approved Approved Percentage FSA 30,869 17,906 58% HSA 39,991 28,883 72% WRA 18,428 3,071 17% 500’ Restore 1,808 * Open 94,839 570 1% Designated protection areas 89,288 49,860 56% Total 185,935 50,431 27% Source: Collier County GIS, Recorded SSA Easement Agreements; SSA Land Characteristics Summary *500’ Restoration approved areas included in HSA % category Table B-2 Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending RLSA Designation Total Acres SSA Acres Pending Percentage of Designated Area WRA 18,228 3,122 17% Source: SSA # 17 application Table B-3 shows the land use layers remaining under SSA designations: Ag-1, which includes active agricultural uses remaining, including: row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar activities; Ag-2, which includes passive agricultural activities, including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 50,431 RLSA Restudy White Paper 14 acres of agriculture use, primarily passive uses. All other more intensive land uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from each of these SSA designated areas. Table B-3 SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining SSA # Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres SSA 1 146.6 146.6 SSA 2 704.1 704.1 SSA 3 858.0 2,337.8 3,195.8 SSA 4 654.0 585.9 1,239.9 SSA 5 1,201.0 651.3 Conservation 1,852.3 SSA 6 2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1 SSA 7 985.4 985.4 SSA 8 WD WD WD SSA 9 739.3 50.1 Earth Mining 789.4 SSA 10 4.1 5,864.6 5,868.7 SSA 11 3,663.9 35.1 Recreational Uses 3,699.0 SSA 12 4,775.9 4,775.9 SSA 13 7,414.0 7,414.0 RLSA Restudy White Paper 15 Table B-3 (Continued) SSAs and Land Use Levels Remaining SSA # Ag – 1 Ag - 2 Other Total Acres SSA 14 1713.5 1,713.5 SSA 15 5,259.0 5,259.0 SSA 16 2,876.2 2,876.2 Total 14,077.5 35,616.9 736.5 50,430.9 Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) Acreage. As shown in Table B-4, the Town of Ave Maria SRA approved by the county in 2005 contains 5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria University. As of March 1, 2019, no other SRAs have been approved. Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in an SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.20. Table B-4 SRA Acreage SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit Uses (Acres) Total Acreage Planned Gross Density Goods and Services per DU** Town of Ave Maria SRA 4,000 1,027 5,027 2.19* 112 s.f. Total 4,000 1,027 5,027 *Gross density is based on planned units within total acreage, excluding University housing, ALF, hotel, etc. ** Includes retail, office and medical Figure B-2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria, along with the SSAs created to produce credits used to support the application. A total of 28,658 credits were used, representing 13,974 acres of preserved SSAs. Credits from SSAs 1-4 were used in full; 20,118 credits from RLSA Restudy White Paper 16 SSA 6 were redeemed for Ave Maria, leaving 2,832 credits as a remaining balance in SSA 6. Thus, nearly 14,000 acres have been put under SSA easements to create a town of 4,000 acres, net of public benefit uses. Figure B-2 RLSA Restudy White Paper 17 Additional Towns and Villages have been proposed in the last several years. An SRA application under the name of Rural Lands West was submitted as a 4,090 acre Town but was withdrawn in 2019. Applications appearing in Table B-5 below have been submitted and are under staff review. Both are submitted as Villages. Table B-5 SRA Acreage Pending* SRA Designation Acres Public Benefit Uses (Acres) Total Acreage Planned Gross Density Goods and Services per DU Village of Hyde Park SRA 655 unk 2.75 25 Village of Rivergrass SRA 1,000 unk 2.5 32 Total 1,655 *Applications submitted as of March 1, 2019. Stewardship Credits Generated, Assigned, and Held for Future Use. Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as an SSA. However, lands having high ecological value, such as lands within an FSA, HSA, WRA or 500’ Restoration Area generate more credits per acre than the “Open” designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of Stewardship Sending Areas by the Board of County Commissioners using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The methodology includes: 1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and 2) The number of land use layers being eliminated. There are additional incentive credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs within the RLSA District, such as early entry bonus credits and restoration (R1 and R-2) credits. Stewardship Credits Generated As of March 1, 2019, a total of 16 SSAs have been approved; subsequently, one has been withdrawn. Together, these total 50,431 acres. As shown in Table B-6, these SSAs have been assigned a total of 129,987 Stewardship Credits, including Early Entry, R-1, and R-2 Credits. Additional R-2 Credits can be earned upon the successful completion of restoration work by the land owner. The maximum potential of R-2 credits within SSAs 1-16, in addition to the earned credits listed below, is 41,731.1. RLSA Restudy White Paper 18 Table B-6 Stewardship Credit Summary SSA # Acres Total Credits Generated Base Credits Early Entry Credits R-1 Credits R-2 Credits Earned 1 146.6 263.6 263.6 0 0 0 2 704.1 1,268.1 1,217.6 50.5 0 0 3 3,195.5 5,332.1 3,236.9 1597.4 497.8 0 4 1,239.9 1,676.7 1,155.8 520.9 0 0 5 1,852.3 4,573.5 2,195.5 814.9 1,563.1 0 6 9,911.1 22,949.1 13,393.3 3,559.0 4,286.4 1,710.4 7 985.4 4,034.2 1,711.8 486.5 1,835.9 0 8 (withdrawn) 9 789.4 4,481.0 1,560.2 155.2 2,765.6 0 10 5,868.7 26,943.8 9,232.5 3,838.9 13,872.4 0 11 3,699.0 8,504.8 4,432.9 1,396.7 2,675.2 0 12 4,775.9 14,780.6 8,956.8 1,458.0 4,365.8 0 13 7,414.0 20,916.1 12,999.3 1,317.6 6,599.2 0 14 1,713.5* 2,515.7 1,850.5 665.2 0 0 15 5,259.0* 7,261.8 5,434.9 1,826.9 0 0 16 2,876.2* 4,485.9 2,621.3 1,864.6 0 0 TOTAL 50,430.9 129,987.0 70,210.2** 19,552.3 38,461.4 1,710.4 Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements * Amendment applications pending for R-1 and R-2 credits, increased credits shown below **Base Credits include credits for 500’ buffer areas, Policy 3.12 Stewardship Credits Assigned or Held for Future Use As of March 1, 2019, the Town of Ave Maria is the only approved Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized 28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 4 and 6 (Table B-7). The balance remains available to the owners for future SRA development. [Intentionally left blank] RLSA Restudy White Paper 19 Table B-7 Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria and Credits Remaining for Future Use SSA # Acres Total Credits Generated Credits Transferred and Utilized for Town of Ave Maria Credits Held for Future Use 1 146.6 263.6 263.6 0 2 704.1 1,268.1 1,268.1 0 3 3,195.5 4,675.2 5,332.1 0 4 1,239.9 1,676.7 1,676.7 0 5 1,852.3 4,573.5 0 4,573.5 6 9,911.1 22,949.1 20,117.5 2,831.6 7-16 33,381.1 96,216.0 0 96,216.0 TOTAL 50,430.9 129,987.0 28,658.0 101,329.0 Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements. New Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status As of March 1, 2019, only one additional Stewardship Sending Area is pending approval by the Board, SSA #17. This is described below on Table B-8. In addition, three SSAs have applied for amendments seeking approval for new designated restoration areas. These are shown in Table B-9. Table B-8 Stewardship Sending Areas Pending in Application Status SSA # Acres Total Credit Potential Base Credits Early Entry Credits R-1 Credits R-2 Credits 17 3,118.3 4,844.3 4,844.3 0 0 0 Stewardship Sending Area Amendments in Application Status As of March 1, 2019, the County is in receipt of amendment applications for SSAs 14, 15 and 16. These applications identify restoration opportunities, and thereby affect the base credit calculations as well as the R-1 and R-2 potential values. Although the acreage of each SSA remains unchanged, the applicants seek additional base credits due to the restoration potential as a component of Natural Resource Index (NRI) scale, a component of base credit calculation. RLSA Restudy White Paper 20 Table B-9 Stewardship Sending Areas with Amendments Pending SSA # Acres Additional Base Credits under App R-1 Credits under App R-2 Credits under App (max potential) 14 1,713.5 1,485.8 4,945.2 4,945.2 15 5,259.0 4,660.4 14,178.4 14,178.4 16 2,876.2 1,642.9 1,269.2 2,538.4 Total SSA Amendment App. Credits 7,789.1 20,392.8 21,662.0 A Comparison of Agricultural Activity at RLSA Inception and 2012 Table B-10 below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of agriculture uses in 2012. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200-level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. The pasture/rangeland category is perhaps misleading, because the movement of livestock among various grazing areas may create anomalies in the land cover indicators. For this reason, the total agricultural land change of +8.5% reflects a doubling of the acreage counted toward pasture and rangeland and may not be a good indicator of overall agricultural activity change. Table B-10 2002/2012 Agricultural Type Comparison Agricultural Type 2002 ACRES With RLSA Without RLSA New Ag 2012 ACRES % CHANGE Citrus 39,468 35,881 -9.1% Fallow 7,974 4,262 -46.6% Pasture/Rangeland 17,863 36,386 +104.0% Row Crop 27,542 24,471 -11.2% Specialty 1,651 1,552 -6.0% TOTAL 94,498 -5,058 -480 +427 102,552 +8.5% Sources: 2002 and 2012 RLSA land cover/land use FLUCCS data, SFWMD Perhaps a better indication of the change in agricultural use is reflected in the reduction in citrus, row crops, and specialty products. When comparing these active agricultural categories, there has been a reduction in acreage from 68,661 to 61,904 or -9.8% over the 10-year period. Most of this loss can be attributed to the conversion of agricultural land to the master planned community (SRA) of Ave Maria, as noted in Table B-11. In addition, cyclical and regional shifts in production and operations should be expected and may reflect a diversity of factors including international trade, the national economy, and vectors such as citrus greening. RLSA Restudy White Paper 21 Table B-11 2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses Agricultural Type 2002 ACRES Citrus 839 Fallow 177 Natural Wetlands and Uplands (Non Ag) 572 Pasture/Rangeland 429 Row Crop 2,562 Specialty 449 TOTAL 5,027± The Amount and Type of Restoration Through Participation in the Stewardship Credit System Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program under Policy 3.11. Restoration 1 (R1) credits- for lands designated by the property owner for restoration activities under certain conditions. The “actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits…” The Policy also provides for Restoration 2 (R-2) credits- for lands designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable success criteria. To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land management measures required after restoration occurs. The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration design, data collection, state and federal permitting, and years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria. The types of restoration listed in Table B-12 are described below: Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities resulting in a functional decrease in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee flowways. Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and/or exotic removal within drained areas or excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging distance of a rookery. RLSA Restudy White Paper 22 Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA. Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or connecting with existing occupied habitat. Table B-13 documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within approved SSAs. This table includes the proposed restoration in amendment applications for SSAs 14,15 and 16. To date, restoration activities have been completed only in SSA 6. Table B-12 Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs Location Restoration Type Acres R-1 Credits R-2 Credits (completed) R-2 Credits (potential) SSA 3 Wading Bird 248.9 497.8 995.6 SSA 5 Wading Bird 651.3 1563.1 2605.2 SSA 6 Flowway 575.0 4286.4 1710.4 2576.0 Listed Species 619.2 Wading Bird 24.8 SSA 7 Large Mammal Corridor 331.9 1835.9 1835.9 Listed Species 75.7 Wading Bird 51.4 SSA 9 Flowway 571.5 2765.6 2765.6 Large Mammal Corridor 61.0 Wading Bird 58.9 SSA 10 Listed Species 1770.5 13872.4 13872.4 Caracara 1068.2 Wading Bird 317.7 Large Mammal Corridor 311.7 SSA 11 Caracara 1337.6 2675.2 5350.4 SSA 12 Flowway 403.5 4365.8 8731.6 Flowway 1779.4 SSA 13 Large Mammal Corridor 1622.4 6599.2 6599.2 Wading Bird 27.4 RLSA Restudy White Paper 23 Table B-12 (Continued) Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs Source: SSA recorded documents and applications *Includes pending amendment applications as of 4/15/18 Table B-13 Restoration Acres Dedicated by Type (R-1) Approved Proposed Total Percent Of Total Flowway 3,329 3,738 7,067 41% Large Mammal Corridor 1,995 154 2,149 13% Listed Species 2,466 520 2,986 18% Wading Bird 1,380 1,006 2,386 14% Caracara 2,406 - 2,406 14% TOTAL 11,576 5,418 16,994 100% Location Restoration Type Acres R-1 Credits R-2 Credits (completed) R-2 Credits (potential) SSA 14* Flowway 1130.7 4945.2 4945.2 Wading Bird 90.5 Listed Species 15.1 SSA 15* Flowway 2606.5 14178.4 14178.4 Wading Bird 914.5 Listed Species 23.6 SSA 16* Large Mammal Corridor 153.7 1269.2 2538.4 Listed Species 480.9 RLSA Restudy White Paper 24 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper C. Water Resources The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019 (Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries). Consensus: • Affirm conformance with Lower West Water Supply Plan • SRA approvals should stop if water quality/quantity is negatively affected • Advocate/Encourage filter marshes before any discharge into WRAs, where appropriate • Redirect development outside important flowways and wetlands • If a water retention area is used for an SRA it should count toward SRA acreage (does not include downstream receiving bodies) • Incentivize water storage on farm lands • Water resources must be preserved • Observe growth plan – runoff after development cannot exceed runoff before development • County should closely monitor water pollution and water levels (quality and quantity) Non-consensus: • Low impact development practices to manage stormwater run-off where appropriate • Add provisions to protect water supply • 3rd party study of cumulative impacts on water quality/quantity from 43,000 acres of development • Require more stringent water management in SRAs than SFWMD requirements 5 Year Review Recommendations • If WRAs are used for primary water treatment, count acreage in SRA Water issues represent a major part of the environmental analysis, including environmental sustainability. Surface water management and aquifer health are the two most important components of total water resource planning in the RLSA. Recognizing the importance of this topic, a Water Resources Workshop was convened on September 27, 2018. The panel of experts included Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Collier County Stormwater Section Manager; Brad Cook, Section Leader, South Florida Water Management District; Steve Me ssner, Director, Water Division, CCWSD; Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrologist, Water Science Associates. Establish a working partnership with Collier County, the Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board and the 189 Stewardship District. Surface Water Unlike manmade systems prevalent in the urban and Golden Gate Estates areas of the County, the natural topography in the RLSA has historically accommodated the principal water flows to RLSA Restudy White Paper 25 the south. These natural flowways have been supplemented by permitted uses of water retention areas (WRAs). Together, these systems have served the needs of the agricultural uses in the RLSA. The map below (Figure C-1) depicts these areas as indicated by Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and WRAs, first identified as such by the RuraI Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee. These Overlay features encourage development outside important flowways and wetlands. Figure C-1 Adopted RLSA Overlay Features According to Mr. Kurtz, the County’s water management programs historically focused on drainage improvements to increase areas of habitability and to maintain these areas with a minimum of nuisance flooding. More recently, the focus has shifted to include watershed health management. The County’s Stormwater Division actively manages the smaller canals, lakes, RLSA Restudy White Paper 26 and ditches, while the SFWMD actively manages the larger systems. This Division also contributes to planning analysis during the rezoning process. The SFWMD continues to regulate stormwater discharge rates (0.15 cubic feet per second per acre) so that new development does not impact downstream areas to any degree greater than the pre-development scenario. However, the County has supplemented this regulation, having identified 16 of 51 sub-basins that are now subject to County maximum peak discharge rates- rates that are more stringent than SFWMD would otherwise allow. In large part, this is due to areas within those sub-basins that were developed before the SFWMD standards applied. One of the 16 restricted sub-basins falls within part of the RLSA. It is the Faka-Union Canal Basin North with a rate of 0.09 CFS/acre. Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. The Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) identified within the RLSA serve as receiving bodies and conduits for surface water in the RLSA, generally moving from north to south. The flows continue through the Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park and ultimately, Ten Thousand Islands and the Gulf of Mexico. This north to south flow becomes very evident in reviewing the topography shown in Figure C-2, and the altered surface drainage pattern shown in Figure C-3 as published in the HCP application. Figures C-2 (left) and C-3 (right) RLSA Elevations and Surface Drainage RLSA Restudy White Paper 27 As stated in the FDOT study entitled SR 29 Road and Canal Corridor Report, the Okaloacootchee Slough (OK Slough) is among the largest and most regionally connected natural flowways in the Big Cypress Basin. It is a vital lynchpin for achieving water resour ce goals such as wetland preservation, water quality maintenance, and aquifer recharge. Much the same can be said for the Camp Keais Strand. Agricultural operations currently use the FSAs as receiving bodies for surface waters. These include the Camp Keais Strand toward the west and the OK Slough toward the east within the RLSA. Agricultural operations currently use the FSAs as receiving bodies for surface waters. These include the Camp Keais Strand toward the west and the OK Slough toward the east within the RLSA. These are supplemented by water retention areas (WRAs) permitted by the SFWMD as primary treatment and detention areas for agricultural operations. These WRAs serve an important purpose and should remain available, as permitted, for stormwater management. As a point of consensus during the 5 year review, WRAs converted for SRA development use as primary treatment areas should count toward SRA acreage. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. Two observations can be made about the use of these natural flowway systems. First, they are more effective in attenuating discharge as compared to ditch and canal systems found in many parts of the County. Second, they require periodic maintenance since they are affected by upstream activity over time. For the second reason, staff recommends Flowway Management Plans as a required component of development (or continued agricultural operations) in the RLSA. Flowway Management Plans would be created through a public/private partnership and would involve at least two major functions. One would be monitoring the health and changes over time, including wetland health and water quality. The other function would be operational- maintenance functions may be required from time to time, and these should require upstream entities to contribute to needed maintenance activities. Examples would be natural lands inspection and management when necessary, identifying and addressing any debris and vegetation accumulation over time, which can affect the flowway’s capacity for normal overland flow conveyance. Flowway Management Plans might be further described to include: 1. Mapping limits of actual overland flow areas 2. Vegetation mapping 3. Annual water level gauging and monthly level recording throughout the year 4. Annual ground inspection of the flow path areas 5. Inspections following significant storm events 6. Estimation of flow quantities and rates RLSA Restudy White Paper 28 7. Controlled burns where appropriate as well as other accepted natural lands and/or forestry management techniques 8. Vegetation harvesting 9. Mowing 10. Spraying herbicide 11. Exotic or invasive vegetation control 12. Silt build-up or shoaling removal 13. Downed tree removal Require flowway management plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. Similarly, coordination with FDOT and SR 29 improvements should be addressed, so that functionality of the OK Slough is maintained and areas needing hydration are properly hydrated. This, in turn, affects wildlife habitat, area susceptibility to wildfires, and point discharge to the coast. Support for a multi-disciplinary “SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan”, as recommended by FDOT, should be considered. Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the Okaloacoochee Slough. Water Supply and Aquifer Health The RLSA is largely served today by shallow wells drawing from the surficial aquifers, principally for agricultural use. One major exception is the new Town of Ave Maria, which is served by a centralized private water/sewer system. In addition to the Ave Maria utility, Immokalee also is served by a centralized private utility. The service boundary of the Immokalee Water and Sewer District extends beyond the Immokalee urban area, although a relatively small distribution system currently extends into the RLSA. Otherwise, the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) service area now extends to all areas within the RLSA not otherwise contained within the two aforementioned private utility areas. The CCWSD plans to build a new Northeast Raw Water Treatment Plant (NERWTP) and North East Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) to serve the eastern areas of the County, including the RLSA, for future water, sewer and irrigation service. The County is responsible for the data, analysis, and report for the 10 Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (10 Year Supply Plan) every five years. The latest 10 Year Supply Plan was completed in February 2019 and likely adopted by the time of this White paper publication. The 10 Year Water Supply Plan is built upon the foundations of the Lower West Coast Supply Plan (LWCSP), which looks out 20 years into the future. The current Plan extends to 2040. The current LWCSP updates the demand projections for water use by public supply and private systems, agriculture, irrigation, commercial, recreational, and other users. RLSA Restudy White Paper 29 Both plans conclude that there are sufficient water resources and facilities to accommodate demand over the planning periods. Of note, domestic per capita demand has decreased significantly over the past 20 years due to conservation practices, including increased use of reclaimed water for irrigation, block rate structures, and flow efficient fixtures. These conclusions are based on regional supply and demand and not tailored specifically to the RLSA. Moreover, it is prudent to look beyond a 20 year horizon for the RLSA given the unique development pattern there and the vital importance of water resource sustainability. In 2002 when the RLSA was conceived, a Technical Memorandum was produced to address groundwater Issues (CDM Missner ver. 9/2002). This study noted the primary concern for attenuation and groundwater recharge: “Residential developments tend to have larger areas with impermeable surfaces such as roads, housing, and parking areas. Directly connected impervious surface areas can lead to increased runoff that does not enter the groundwater system” (p. 4-1). However, the report explains that modern permitting standards require stormwater management systems that restrict runoff to pre-development levels. Thus, provision of appropriately designed water management systems allows area recharge characteristics to be maintained even with an increase in impervious systems. With respect to consumption and SRA development, the report concludes that the conversion of land from agricultural use to residential and commercial development results in a net reduction in water use. Concerns were raised during public outreach as to the accuracy of the net reduction in water use from agriculture to development. Specifically, there were concerns that the studies looked at permitted supply rather than actual use, and that the recharge characteristics of agricultural irrigation were overlooked. To that end, a 2009 study by Johnson Engineering looks at water consumption and recharge extending through a hypothetical “build-out” scenario. The study reviewed the effects of water draw as well as evapotranspiration (ET) in comparing actual water resource demand during a long-range planning horizon and considering the possibility of 45,000 acres of SRA development. This study concluded that the conversion of land from agriculture to residential will result in a decrease in water use due to decreased ET. Additional assurance of sustainability derives from the emergence of alternative water supply practices. These findings were updated and confirmed by Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrogeologist, Water Science Associates at a public workshop in 2018. Mr. Martin stated that water use reduces significantly when agriculture converts to new communities. His research has indicated that such conversion would reduce actual withdrawals 50-65%. Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local programs. In a collaborative paper entitled “Water 2070”, the authors note that the overall increase in population in the state of Florida will stress available water availability by 2070 unless additional measures are undertaken. In its recommendations, it notes the importance of increasing supply through alternative water supply programs and decreasing demand through conservation efforts. “The single most effective strategy to reduce water demand in Florida is to significantly RLSA Restudy White Paper 30 reduce the amount of water used for landscape irrigation.” Among the other conservation recommendations appearing in this statewide publication, nearly all have been adopted in Collier County. The CCWSD has been at the forefront of these and other conservation efforts and continues its progressive campaign into the future. Irrigation Quality (IQ) water supply has been a focus of the CCWSD for many years. It is moving to dramatically increase the efficiency of the IQ system through seasonal supplementation to extend total distribution and storage methods such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells. The CCWSD balances withdrawals from various aquifers to meet seasonal and total demand, and in this way has been in the forefront of Florida utility systems. Withdrawals from the Hawthorne (brackish) aquifers with reverse osmosis treatment has been a practice in Collier County for over 20 years. The Figure C-4 below shows the relative locations of these aquifers. Monitoring of supply and salinity occurs on an ongoing basis. Figure C-4 Collier County Hydrology RLSA Restudy White Paper 31 Other conservation programs include low-flow fixture enforcement, stepped water use rates, leak detection systems, asset management systems, irrigation restrictions, and education including the promotion of Florida-Friendly landscaping practices. Both Ave Maria Utility Company and the Immokalee Water Sewer District have moved in the same conservation direction. In 2015, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the “Integrated Water Resource Management Strategy,” that seeks to integrate stormwater and utility planning and operations in a holistic manner. Two slides, below, provide some insight into this strategy. One important goal is the move toward a “net zero water footprint.” RLSA Restudy White Paper 32 During the public workshops, questions arose as to the potential impact of sea-level rise on aquifer health. Currently, there is a great deal of study on this and other sea-level issues at the national, state, and local level. According to the United States Geological Survey, drainage canals, withdrawals, and other factors contribute to salt-water intrusion in Southwest Florida. However, the USGS states that the existing monitoring network is insufficient to properly evaluate the level of intrusion. In contrast, Kirk Martin, Water Science Associates, states that there is no apparent movement of saline water in Collier County at present. He cites the incidence of “connate water,” which is brackish in nature but does not rise to the level of saline water, in areas within the Lower Tamiami aquifer. Connate water is trapped water from ancient sea bed areas, that has not been flushed out and is not attributable to salt water intrusion. Additional recommendations were received by the public that would apply County-wide or in areas beyond the RLSA, and so not made a part of the White Paper recommendations for the RLSA. These include: • Fertilizer Ordinance- review and enhance • Florida friendly Landscaping- beyond education • Irrigation Restrictions- review and enhance • Climate change best practices following the reports from the collaborative efforts of the County, FGCU, NOAA, etc. Water Resources- List of Sources SR 29 Road and Canal Corridor Report, 2019, Big Cypress National Preserve Draft Report [web library] Saltwater Intrusion in the Surficial Aquifer System, Big Cypress Basin, USGS, 2013 [web library] Water 2070, UF, 1000 Friends, Dept. of Agriculture, 2013 [web library] Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan, Collier County Water Sewer District, 2019 [web library] The Immokalee Area Study Stage II Tech Memorandum- Groundwater, CDM Messner, 2002 [web library] Eastern Collier Water Resources Availability, Johnson Engineering, David Hoffman, P.G., 2009 [web library] RLSA Restudy White Paper 33 RLSA Public Workshop Summary, Water Resources, 9/27/18 [web workshop page] Stormwater Management Staff Stakeholder and community input Five Year Review Recommendations [web library] RLSA Restudy White Paper 34 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper D. Agricultural Protection The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019 (Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries). Consensus: • Create credits to keep Ag in open lands in perpetuity • Ag Stewardship Credits: keep 5-year review recommendations • Remove the word “premature” from description of agricultural conversion • Support and incentivize the preservation of agriculture Non-consensus: • Agriculture should not be allowed in SSAs • Ag 1 should not be expanded in SSAs, even if in escrow Five Year Review Recommendations: • Provide agricultural credits for use in open areas From cattle ranching in the 19th Century to the rapid expansion of orange production in the 1960’s to further expansion of vegetable production in the 1980’s, agriculture has played an important role in the economy of Collier County. South Florida is the only location in the U.S. where certain crops can be grown during the winter months. Agriculture remains a backbone of economic activity in Collier County, although development has impacted its range. As noted the data update (Section B) in this report, the RLSA has lost between 6,000 to 7,000 acres of citrus, row crop, and specialty crop production during the period 2002 to 2012. A look at the latest FLUCCS depiction (2012) of Agricultural activity in the RLSA is shown in Figure D-1. This is the best available information reflecting current conditions. The acreage used in support of these agricultural categories are provided. [Intentionally left blank] RLSA Restudy White Paper 35 Figure D-1 RLSA Restudy White Paper 36 Current conditions reflect an overall decrease in active agriculture between 2002 and 2012, as noted in the “Data Update” section of this report. Citrus, row crop and specialty operations contracted in the RLSA by over 6,000 acres. Development of the Town of Ave Maria would be the major contributor of this factor. Otherwise, current data does not expose signific ant reductions in active or passive activities. A similar but more acute trend is noted by Dr. Fritz Roka, FGCU (formerly UF/IFAS), in looking at County-wide agricultural losses. The area of total County active farm land has decreased from 181,000 acres in 2002 to 124,000 acres in 2012, a decrease of 46%. Most of this loss has been in the area west of CR 951, the County’s “urban area,” where gated communities have displaced agricultural operations. Over the same period, Dr. Roka notes that the average value of farm land has increased about 78%, reflecting development pressure. In looking toward the future, one study predicted little change over the next 15 years. In its study of freight movement, FDOT District 1 estimated the net impacts of development encroachment on agricultural production in Southwest Florida Counties. While many coastal counties will see significant out-migration of agricultural production, Collier will remain very stable (showing a modest gain). This study does not go beyond 2035. The economic importance of agriculture to the County can be seen on the Figure below, derived from a UF/IFAS study, 2015. The positive economic impact of farming in Collier County exceeds $4 billion annually. Along with economic significance, the importance of food security, local sourcing and employment were all factors mentioned by the public. Figure D-2 Agriculture: Economic Impact to Collier County RLSA Restudy White Paper 37 Another important consideration in agricultural retention is the profitability of each enterprise. When Dr. Roka provided input to the 5 Year Review Committee in 2008, he identified the following business threats: disease, regulations, water allocations, land values, knowledge, and foreign competition. The same factors were mentioned again in 2018. Thanks to the work of UF/IFAS, best management practices, and education reduce some of the threats. Nevertheless, profitability remains a major obstacle to Collier agricultural viability, as demonstrated by grower (pre-market) price volatility and break-even cost points for the 3 largest Collier commodities (Figure D-3). Because of this volatility, bank financing is difficult, and owner financing becomes necessary. Figure D-3 Economic Considerations for Growers During the 5-Year Review, Committee members noted that agricultural protection may have fallen short in the balance between development, environmental preservation, and agricultural protection within the RLSA. A 2007 study by FGCU noted that even if SW Florida agriculture merely maintains the status quo in production, it could grow in relative importance as production statewide continues to shrink. The Review Committee considered exiting language in Group 2 policies, Policy 2.1, referring to the protection of lands from premature conversion to other uses. The consensus and recommendation from the Committee was to remove the word “premature” from the statement, despite the fact that the word was used in the State’s “Final Order.” The apparent implication of that adjective is that conversion is somehow inevitable at some point in time. RLSA Restudy White Paper 38 The public, during a Workshop on the subject, also picked up on this word and were substantially in favor of removing this from the goal and policy of protecting agriculture. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group (included in Five Year Review Recommendations). In the RLSA public workshops, the public expressed strong support for agricultural preservation. While economic support for agriculture is provided by the state through various programs, local support may make the difference in maintaining agricultural viability locally. The public brainstormed ideas for local support, including stewardship credits, County-funded purchase of agricultural easements, County subsidies, and County tax incentives. The 5-year Review Committee considered long term agricultural viability and the desirability of achieving two goals: certainty of agricultural preservation and elimination of baseline residential rights. For these reasons, the Committee supported stewardship credits in exchange for agricultural easements. Where an easement is obtained, it runs with the land and permanently extinguishes the underlying baseline rights, including 5-acre ranchettes and an array of conditional uses. Because the Stewardship credit system favored environmental values above all, the credits associated with agricultural land in the open areas was comparatively low. These values were perceived to be far to low to provide reasonable compensation for easements. Based on parallel or average Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores in designated FSAs, HSAs , and WRAs, the Committee proposed 2 credits per acre for agricultural easements (2.6 if located in ACSC). Potential advantages of agriculture credits: • Incentivizes permanent protection of agricultural operations in open areas • Prevents the environmental degradation of low density “ranchette” development Potential disadvantages of agricultural credits: • Creates too many credits in the system, resulting in more SRA development area • It won’t work- owners will not voluntarily accept this option With respect to the second disadvantage, we heard from one owner at a public workshop who predicted that the firm would never accept credits for a permanent easement, preferring to always keep the baseline development options open if agriculture someday loses its viability. On the other hand, another owner enthusiastically embraces the option, notable because it would allow that owner the ability to derive credits and create SRA development on owned parcels. In staff’s estimation, the possibility that this tool will not work, or will not work for all owners, does not speak against its adoption. It is a tool that can be available to incentivize permanent agricultural retention in some locations. With respect to the concern over too many credits in the system, staff remains sensitive to this point. Given the advantages conveyed, staff believes that credit values should be adjusted to RLSA Restudy White Paper 39 reflect this increase in supply while maintaining an appropriate balance between agricultural credits and environmental stewardship credits. To the extent agricultural credits become available, reductions in other credit allocations will be necessary. The 5-year review estimated the value of agriculture credits by comparing these to environmental area credit generation. Specifically, they looked at SSAs 1-9 to determine the average credit per acre generated and associated this figure with the most important open areas for agriculture preservation- those in the ACSC. This calculation resulted in 2.6 credits per acre for agricultural preservation in the ACSC. The ACSC is most important for agricultural preservation because of the desire to protect this fragile environment from other baseline zoning uses. The non-ACSC open areas were proposed to have a 2.0 credits per acre, mirroring the lesser base credits available even to environmental targets in non-ACSC areas. In both cases, credits need to be sufficient to incentivize preservation under this voluntary system. Other preservation options include state programs such as the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, which has already purchased an easement in the RLSA covering 1,600 acres. Additional ideas were provided through public input, including the purchase of local easements. Local easements can be time-limited, so that Collier County could purchase, say, a 10-year agricultural easement to help farmland preservation through difficult economic times. These options are not likely to be initiated for many years, and probably decades. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements allowing active or passive agriculture(included in Five Year Review recommendations). Finally, one concept brought forward in the 5-year review and repeated in public workshops was to exclude any aquiculture operation from the ability to obtain credits. As credits are an incentive and not regulatory, this exclusion would not offend the Right to Farm Act. Staff agrees with this exclusion. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language(included in Five Year Review recommendations). Policy 2.3 directs the County to establish, within one year of adoption (2003) an Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) to advise the BCC on matters relating to agriculture. No such advisory committee has been established to date. In conversations with various representatives of agricultural interests, there did not appear to be a firm desire to create this body, although it might be appropriate at some point in the future. Staff recommends that this provision remain as a possibility, but not as a commitment. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC(included in Five Year Review recommendations). RLSA Restudy White Paper 40 Agriculture Protection- List of Sources Economic Importance of Agriculture to Collier County and Southwest Florida, UF/IFAS, Dr, Fritz Roka, 2018 [workshop #1] Ag Business in Southwest FL: Present and Future, Lutgert College of Business, FGCU, 2007 [restudy library] Agricultural Growth and Development in District One and the Impacts on Transportation and Freight Logistics, FDOT, 2017 [restudy library] Meeting Summary, RLSA public Workshop, 3/22/18 Five Year Review Recommendations, Group 2 Minutes of RLSA Review Committee, 3/4/08, 4/1/08 [restudy library] RLSA Restudy White Paper 41 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper E. Environmental Protection The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019 (Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries). Consensus: • Provide NRI data used to create program prior to 2002 to County • Include species of special local concern to wildlife protection efforts (County Wide) • Create outdoor lighting standards (County Wide) • Enhance regional water flow • Allow conditional approvals of SSAs Non-consensus: • Align restoration credits along cost basis • Required external wildlife crossings at certain locations, developer contributions • Sustainable panther habitat must be preserved • Make wildlife corridors 1 mile wide • Create panther corridor creation credits • Agriculture should not be allowed to increase in SSAs • Zero development in primary panther habitat or adult breeding area • Add primary panther area as panther present on Natural Resource Area scoring • Don’t allow golf courses in HSAs • Require 3rd party monitoring of restoration areas • Easements should require more specific land management practices • Limit extensions of SSA conditional approvals to 1 year • SRAs should require 4 of 5 votes for BCC approval • No conditional uses in HSAs if SSA created 5 Year Review Recommendations • Allow SSA approval through conditional process- 5-year period plus 1-year extension • Add additional state grantee to perpetual restrictive easements in SSAs • Reduce restoration designation (R-1) credits to 2 per acre in all locations • Structure restoration completion (R-2) credits according to difficulty and value • Add credits for creation of wildlife corridors • Limit restoration credits to one type per acre RLSA Restudy White Paper 42 Staff Analysis Introduction Environmental protection is one of three legs of the RLSA stool. The topic of water resources is described separately but absolutely interwoven into the environmental preservation fabric. This section will discuss the Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) in the context of creating easements, restoration provisions, panther science, Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), wildlife corridors and other environmental concerns, Without a doubt, the environmental component of the RLSA stirs the most interest and passion among many groups and individuals. Although disagreement on the ways and means of environmental stewardship was evident from the beginning, all participants agreed with the following goals, which can be considered a composite statement culled from many comment cards, table exercises, and correspondence: To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should maintain functional flowways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Those of us who live in North Naples, the City of Naples or East Naples must come to terms with the fact that our predecessors in title have displaced the Florida panther from its habitat as recently as 50 years ago. We live in areas that were once the home of this magnificent animal, yet few of us would voluntarily relocate to encourage its resettlement. Like most environmental causes, we awaken to the damage well after it has occurred, and we press for recompense in those areas that have not yet been affected to the same degree. This is not only natural but in many ways, appropriate. We learn lessons from the past. At the same time, areas less disturbed that support a greater variety of wildlife are often under private ownership. While vast acreages of land in eastern Collier County are under state and federal ownership, 96% of the RLSA is owned by private interests. There were no public recommendations from the workshops advocating large scale public purchases within the 179,000 acres of private property in the RLSA. Private ownership confers property rights. In the RLSA, there are at least two layers of private property rights that must be considered in reaching an appropriate balance in regulatory action. First, “baseline” rights include land use rights that existed prior to the adoption of the RLSA. Those rights were generally derived from the agricultural zoning that was in effect prior to and after 2002: one dwelling unit per 5 acres; agricultural uses and support uses; the ability to apply, through the conditional use process, for various mining, social, institutional and recreational uses. RLSA Restudy White Paper 43 Second, the adoption of the RLSA conferred an optional/voluntary right to create SSAs, derive credits, and use credits to build Towns, Villages, and smaller developments. These rights were conferred by the County under requirements created by the State of Florida, and can be seen as an agreement between State, County, and landowners within that sub-district. These were memorialized in the GMP as well as in the LDC as a zoning overlay. This is not to say that the 2002 GMP and subsequent LDC cannot be improved, but rather that existing rights created in 2002 must be respected in the process. An observation related to habitat and species protection might be noted. Much attention is paid to panther protection, not only because it is endangered and considered an “umbrella” species, but also because of its anthropomorphic and mammalian status. Insect and especially bee species, meanwhile, are undergoing massive reductions in numbers and diversity across the world. These were not mentioned by any participants. Keystone species, critical to the natural habitat, will deserve a great deal of attention in the coming years. No doubt other species, whether listed, keystone, umbrella or none of these deserve similar attention. Figure E-1 RLSA Restudy White Paper 44 In any event, the design of the RLSA program favors the preservation of the most environmentally significant lands as of program creation in 2002. As can be seen on the RLSA Status Map (Figure E-1), 15 SSAs have been created to date, resulting in approximately 50,000 acres of preserved area, shown cross-hatched in red. Preservation through the SSA process covers about 55% of the targeted designation areas (HSAs, FSAs, WRAs). An additional SSA, labeled as SSA 17, has been proposed (Figure E-2). Figure E-2 Proposed SSA 17 and SRAs RLSA Restudy White Paper 45 The Voluntary Stewardship Process Three aspects of creating Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) were discussed with the public. These include the approval process at the Board level, the conditional approval option, and grantees of the SSA easements. Approval of SSAs by the Board of County Commissioners requires a simple majority (3 of 5 votes). Similar to the discussion of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) discussed in a later section, some members of the public believed that a supermajority (4 of 5 votes) should be required. Staff does not perceive any advantage to this proposal, since SSA creation is generally fostered by the Board. To this end, staff also believes that clearer easement protections should be secured, such as better guidelines for land management within the recorded easements (discussed below). Conditional approval is a concept that derived from the 5-year Review Committee. It is similar in nature to the current “escrow” process that was adopted by Board policy. Its purpose is the encouragement of SSA protection with some security to the owner to opt out, if conditions change. The Committee recommended a shorter timeframe for this wait and see approach- 5 years plus an optional 1-year extension, compared to a more open-ended approach as used under the escrow approach today. The public also felt strongly that Agricultural activities should not be intensified during the conditional period, other than rotational or access uses. Staff also observes that escrowed SSAs can be in effect for many years, avoiding program changes such as those through a restudy of other plan update. Consideration should be given, after legal review, to require escrowed SSAs to conform to any GMP or LDC plan changes while these plans remain in escrow. Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions; require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Require a provision within conditional or escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Current requirements under the GMP and LDC require perpetual restrictive easements to run with the land and remain perpetually enforceable by the County and one additional state agency. Public opinion favored an additional easement grantee, and this was also recommended in the 5-year review. The 5-year review Committee recommended that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FFWCC) serve as one of the necessary grantees. Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, should they agree (included in Five Year Review recommendations). RLSA Restudy White Paper 46 As pointed out by the Conservancy of SW Florida, there may be instances where proposed development adjacent to areas under consideration for SSA application and approval may have an effect on the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of the SSA. In such circumstances, the applicant should address the effect of the SRA proximity on NRI values in the adjacent SSA. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed (draft LDC Amendment). SSAs: Management, Maintenance and Restoration Land management received considerable attention from the public and stakeholders during the Workshop phase. Many people expressed concern with the lack of standards inherent in the SSA designation process, and even more attention was paid to restoration credits, particularly the number of credits issued for “designation” without requiring completion of any plan. The recommendations in this section are preliminary recommendations, acknowledging the fact that the transition from the public’s identification of the issue to finding and implementing the best solution may still require more steps. Clearly, the goal of improving the restoration credit system is to improve measurability, transparency, incentivization, and overall environmental quality in result. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Land Management under SSA conservation easements Within the SSA areas, there is an opportunity to apply for restoration credits along with the base credits otherwise created on every acre of an SSA. Base credits are calculated under a number of factors that make up the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of the base credit system. NRI values are multiplied by factors reflecting use reductions (land use layers) that are voluntarily removed as part of the system. 100% of the NRI values would result from the removal of all land use layers down to the Conservation layer. To date, most owners have opted to remove most, but not all layers: Ag 2 uses are predominant, which allow owners to graze cattle. Removal of uses to this layer provides credits equal to 90% of the NRI values. Ag 1 uses are retained to a lesser extent, to allow the continuation (but not expansion) of active agriculture such as vegetable and citrus crops. Credits for Ag 2 designation equal 60% of the NRI values. To date, all other uses, such as residential, mineral and gas extraction and a wide variety of conditional uses have been permanently removed from all but 90 acres of the 50,000 acres of SSAs now in existence. SSA credits are secured by easements that contain restrictions and land management standards. Typical easement language in SSA instruments approved to date include the following: RLSA Restudy White Paper 47 (a) “On those lands on which Agriculture Group 2 uses are the only remaining agricultural uses, land management measures will be those customarily utilized in ranching operations in Southwest Florida. These customary measures may include brush clearing, mechanical brush control (“chopping”), prescribed burning, other exotic and nuisance species control, fence construction and maintenance, silvicultural management, and berm, ditch and road maintenance.” (b) “On those lands on which land use layers 1-4 are eliminated [Ag-1 uses retained], the measures above may be utilized. In addition, disking, irrigation, ditch, dike and pumping construction and maintenance, mowing and other exotic and nuisance species control measures, farm road construction, and maintenance, storage of farming equipment, and other practices consistent with the restoration and land management measures specified herein shall be utilized.” (c) “For those areas designated for restoration activities, additional land management measures will be required. The additional land management measures are set forth in the Restoration Program.” While easements of this nature need built-in flexibility, some specific maintenance standards for the predominant Ag 2 uses may be appropriate. For example, exotic vegetation control may invite a reasonable standard, such as “maintenance to assure no greater exotic vegetation cover than existed at time of SSA application.” In this way, at least a minimum exotic maintenance will be required as part of the SSA designation, thus reducing the need for restoration activity in the future. Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of SSA designation (draft LDC Amendments). Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements (draft LDC Amendments). Improving Standards for Restoration Credits (R-1 and R-2) When the RLSA was adopted in 2002, there was a move to include additional credits for restoration of certain areas that needed more than standard maintenance. Improvements to constricted flowways and habitat corridors provided some of the rationale. The Land Development Code is slightly more specific in identifying, along with wildlife corridors and flowway widening, other recreated habitats for listed species and wading bird foraging areas at appropriate locations. At time of adoption, no one could have predicted exactly how many credits would be generated by restoration activities. As an incentive, the plan provided credits for simply designating land for restoration- known as R-1 credits- a status that would allow any public entity to enter the land and perform the restoration work. Restoration completion credits, R-2 credits, would be RLSA Restudy White Paper 48 available to the owner after the owner or agent (not outside agency) completes the restoration according to success criteria. The 5-year review Committee recommended some reform measures associated with restoration credits: No more than 2 credits for R-1 designation (Camp Keais Strand currently allows 4) and structure the R-2 credits to better reflect difficulty and importance. As noted in the data summary, above, a large number of credits have derived from R-1 restoration designation. Only a small portion of that designated area has received R-2 restoration completion credits. This is not to say that restoration activities are not underway in other locations. The overall amount of earned and potential restoration credits seems to be out of balance with the base credits in the program. As a percentage of approved SSAs, the earned restoration credits are already at 55% of the base credits (38,461/70,210). This percentage does not reflect the completion of most of the restoration work and would be much higher if successful completion results. The program allows amendments to SSAs for additional restoration. Thus, SSAs 14-16 have submitted amendment applications for another 49,844 credits based on restoration potential and completion. If we consider only the restoration designation (R-1) credits, those result in a figure that is 95% of the SSA designation credits when looking at SSAs 1 through 16, without requiring any actual completion. In other words, R-1 designation credits have doubled the credit compensation to landowners who have created SSAs, without the necessity to complete the restoration projects. The result if restoration is successful in all designated and applied for SSAs, which we certainly hope obtains, would be 116,838 credits or 166% of the base credits. If projected through the remaining targeted stewardship designated areas at the same rate, we would add roughly 95,594 additional credits for restoration. Such a projection would result in a credit balance, as between these two types, as follows: • Base (SSA) credits 127,432 • R-1 and R-2 credits 212,432 Meanwhile, only 34% of the existing SSA acreage is proposed for restoration at this time. The regulations do not prohibit owners from amending SSA applications at any time to earn additional restoration credits in areas not previously identified for restoration. In practice, applicants have sought R-1 designation for exotic vegetation removal on the basis of listed species enhancement, rather than performing this maintenance function under the terms of the SSA easement. As indicated in the recommendation above, at least a minimum exotic maintenance standard should be included in all SSAs. RLSA Restudy White Paper 49 With respect to restoration credits, these can be modified to better reflect the importance, difficulty, cost, and value of different restoration activities. The 5 year review recommended new categories for restoration depending on type. The credit projections as a result of this recommendation only reduced total restorations credits slightly. Table E-1 Tiered Restoration Credits, 5-year Review Restoration Type Acres Credits Per Acre Restoration Credits Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000 Caracara 2,750 4 11,000 Exotic Control/Burning 2,750 6 16,500 Flowway 2,750 6 16,500 Native Habitat Restoration 2,750 8 22,000 Total 11,600 N/A 72,000 Staff agrees with the 5-year Review recommendation to reduce credits for restoration designation (R-1 credits) to 2 in most instances. However, staff proposes to address the effectiveness of R-1 credits by awarding only one credit at time of R-1 approval, and only after a restoration plan has been approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) or other appropriate state or local agency. The second R-1 credit would be awarded only after successful completion of all restoration activities (R-2) as determined by the permitting agency. In this way, completion of restoration becomes highly incentivized. Within each restoration plans, as approved by the permitting agency, staff is in full support of ongoing maintenance requirements included in such permits. As suggested by Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and Audubon Western Everglades/Audubon Florida (Audubon), the activities associated with R-2 restoration could be simplified and structured to make the efforts more predictable and transparent. Other than wading bird habitat creation/restoration and large mammal corridor creation/restoration, all other restoration activities could be structured as follows: • Hydrological restoration, approved by a permitting agency- 2 credits • Flowway restoration- 2 credits for recontoured areas, 1 credit for flowway expansion areas • Planting- 2 credits The specific requirements and need for these activities would be contained in the permit, and in most acreages, only a portion of these total activities/credits would be appropriate. Through this system, the labels of “Native Habitat Restoration” and “Panther Habitat Restoration” would be replaced by activities that make those habitats viable. RLSA Restudy White Paper 50 FWF and Audubon would also support separate categories for large mammal corridors and wading bird restoration. Each would be eligible for up to 10 credits per acre; 2 R-1 credits following permit approval by an ERP agency, 2 R-1 credits following full completion of R-2 activities, 3 R-2 credits following completion of hydrological restoration and 3 R-2 credits following planting. It is anticipated that a limited acreage within these categories would be eligible for all 10 credits. It should also be noted that the total area of these special restoration areas is estimated at approximately 1,500 acres- far smaller than the likely sum of other restoration areas. Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining “R-1” credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development (draft LDC Amendments). Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits (included in Five Year recommendations). Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract (draft LDC Amendments). Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in Flowways (address with regional water partnership). Projections of credits can be found within Section G - Credit System. Review of Panther Literature Given its stature as an endangered species and an umbrella species, a great deal of attention has been paid to the preservation of a viable panther population in South Florida. The RLSA area comprises about 196,000 acres of the 2.27 million acres of its south Florida range. While the RLSA promotes a land use plan that accommodates significant development, it is the development itself that affords the possible protection of this species through the stewardship credit system. The RLSA program aims to place half of its private acreage into stewardship areas that would accommodate panther habitat and provide connectivity to other panther habitat areas, with required maintenance standards paid by the private sector. Because of its importance, a number of articles have been identified in public comments during the restudies and can be found on the County website (link in introduction). A brief overview of RLSA Restudy White Paper 51 this literature is described below. Discussion of the ways and means to effect appropriate species protection is located in the following section, “Relevance of the HCP process.” How Much is Enough? Landscape-scale Conservation for the Florida Panther (2005), Kautz et al., Biological Conservation, 130, 118-133. This journal article was written by a consortium of individuals from state and wildlife agencies, universities, and consulting groups. It seeks to identify high value regions of the south Florida landscape important to long term Florida panther (panther) preservation; in particular, it seeks t o establish a baseline understanding of landscape types preferred by the panther using landcover types and radio telemetry, resulting in the identification of Primary and Secondary zones. The article concludes that: • The Primary and Secondary zones as described and illustrated, in their current condition, would support 80 to 94 panthers, a number that is likely to remain stable for 100 years, assuming loss of habitat, especially in the Primary zone is minimized; • A comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners to protect, enhance and restore panther habitat in all three zones (Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal) is essential; • Dispersal to areas outside of South Florida is possible for establishment of a breeding population north of the Caloosahatchee River. Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3d rev. (2008), US Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther Recovery Team and South Florida Ecological Services Office, Atlanta GA, 217pp. This paper estimates that between the 1970’s and date of study, the panther population has increased from 12-20 to 100-120 in number. It notes that panthers are wide-ranging, secretive and occur at low densities; that habitat selection is related to prey availability; that dense understory is important for feeding, resting and denning; that forested habitats are used in combination with other habitat types in proportion to their availability. The PRP sets forth strategies for recovery of the panther, including maintenance, restoration and expansion of the panther population in South Florida; expansion into South-Central Florida, reintroduction into at least two additional areas outside of South or South-Central Florida and increased public awareness and education. The goals of the PRP include an interim goal (to result in reclassification): • Expansion in South and South-Central Florida beyond 80-100 adult panthers • Two subpopulations established within the historic range • Sufficient habitat to support all subpopulations for the long term. The goals of the PRP also include a long-range goal (to result in de-listing): • Establishment of three viable, self-supporting populations over 240 panthers each, maintained for a minimum of 12 years each RLSA Restudy White Paper 52 • Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations in the long-term. Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data (2008), Land et al., Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(3), 633-639. This Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) team studied telemetry points using two technologies, effectively reviewing not only daytime, but also nighttime habitat preferences. Comparing the data, the team concluded that its limited sample size generally supported similar preferred upland and wetland forested habitats during both night and day. One observation was an increase in panther presence in open grasslands at night, suggesting continued study to distinguish these results from possible study bias (location; false negatives). The team concludes that its findings do not indicate any departure from the established habitat assessment methodology employed by the USFWS. Technical Review of the Florida Panther Protection Program Proposed for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area of Collier County, Florida (2009) Florida Panther Protection Program Technical Review Team, Final Report, 84pp. Members of the Florida Panther Protection Program Technical Review Team (PRT) included biologists from USFWS, FFWCC, consultants, UCF and Conservancy of SWF. They reviewed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2008 by eight major land-owners, Audubon of Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and Florida Wildlife Federation (the Parties). The PRT recognized that the RLSA incentive-based program was designed to protect land with the highest environmental resource value, but also allow for future development. As a team, they agreed to review the details of the MOU to determine its new effect on the existing program. The purpose of the MOU was to approach the issue of panthers and their habitats in the context of environmental resource permitting in the RLSA in a comprehensive way, distinguished from the piecemeal approach more typical under Sections 7 and 10 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The current breeding range of Florida panthers encompasses 2.27 million acres south of the Caloosahatchee River, of which there is overlap in the 196,000 acres in the RLSA. The MOU contained provisions that included: • Provision of 25% more mitigation for impacts to the Panther Primary Zone • Generation and use of panther credits on lands set aside as Stewardship Sending Areas • Protection of agricultural lands through establishment of Agricultural Preservation Areas • Establishment of a core transportation network to serve 45,000 acres of development • Proposal to create two corridors intended to enhance landscape connectivity • Creation of the Paul J. Marinelli Florida Panther Protection Fund • With consensus of the PRT, the Parties would enter into binding agreement, undergo formal consultation and develop a formal Consultation Agreement or its equivalent RLSA Restudy White Paper 53 The PRT concluded that the proposed plan, if incorporated in combination with the 5-year Review recommendations, “would represent an enhancement of panther conservation over the existing RLSA program.” At the same time, the PRT recognized that development within the RLSA has the potential for loss of habitat, and that habitat loss does not aid in panther recovery. Additional PRT findings: • Additional protection of 39,000 acres of RLSA land should still leave room for 45,000 acres of development activity; • Additional mitigation cost in Primary Panther habitat (125%) would only have an indirect benefit of increasing the trust fund donations, but no meaningful impact given the source of credits from SSAs • Increase minimum width of north corridor to 1,200 ft. • Trust funds should be used only for acquisition, restoration, wildlife crossings , and monitoring • Recommend no new interchange at I-75 • Acknowledge that the 45,000 acre development cap, including mining activities, is an improvement to the 2002 Plan with no cap Finally, an important connection was drawn between ownership interests and preservation: “The PRT recognizes that new development is the driving force for achieving natural resources conservation within the RLSA program” (p.4). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat (2015), Frakes et al., PLoS ONE 10(7) 1- 18. This paper utilizes radio telemetry data from 2004-2013 with land cover within a large South Florida study area to predict the suitable habitat for adult breeding panthers. It examines the characteristics of land type and uses within the study area, and finds the preferred habitat based on forest and forest edge, hydrology, human settlement, and other factors. By examining the use of land types in the context of existing land cover, the model predicts an area of suitable breeding habitat for panthers over 3 years of age, and notes that 25% of this available breeding habitat is in private ownership. The study concludes, based on panther density derived from earlier studies, that: • There is less available breeding habitat than previously thought • The carrying capacity for panthers south of the Caloosahatchee is already at a maximum • The maximum carrying capacity south of the Caloosahatchee is not sufficient to maintain a genetically viable population • Further reduction in viability would occur with any future reduction in primary panther habitat A Critical Review of Efforts to Protect Florida Panther Habitat on Private Lands (2015), Kreye and Pienaar, Land Use Policy 48, 428-436. RLSA Restudy White Paper 54 This paper surveys many of the tools that have been employed in panther preservation. These include traditional federal mitigation programs under the Endangered Species Act (Conservation Banks, PHUs and Habitat Conservation Plans), Transfer of Development Rights programs, Safe Harbor Agreements (SHA) and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). SHAs are intended to provide assurance from regulatory approaches, useful mostly in areas of expanding panther populations such as north of the Caloosahatchee. PES programs are more useful as an additional tool in currently occupied areas such as private lands in Collier County. PES programs provide monetary payments, federally funded, to private landowners for conservation and management of panther habitat. They should be based on quality and quantity of land preserved, and should compensate owners, typically ranchers, for costs of depredation and land management. This is an incentive-based tool that can complement other tools for preservation on private lands. The authors conclude that no single program or policy will effectively achieve recovery. Regulatory approaches typically result in permanent protection, but lack connectivity. (The authors classify the RLSA credit system as regulatory.) Voluntary approaches are often of short duration, but can achieve contiguity. Both regulatory and voluntary programs are needed in support of the panther. Tolerance of the Florida Panther in Exurban Southwest Florida (2018), Rodgers and Pienaar, Journal of Wildlife Management 82 (4) 865-876. As panthers continue to recolonize portions of their historic range, development continues to grow in the same areas. This paper looks at the attitudes of the human population with regard to panther-human conflicts. The greatest conflict area in the recent past is in Golden Gate Estates. From 2004-2015, there have been only 110 confirmed interactions, and most of these have involved domestic animals. Only two (2) incidents were said to have involved threatening behavior by a panther directly toward a human. The authors state Florida residents are supportive of Panther conservation in principal, but tolerance in areas where residents are experiencing negative interactions is essential for panther conservation efforts. How can tolerance be improved? Findings of interest: • A high percentage of the population in Golden Gate Estates are aware of panther presence and are highly tolerant, exceeding expectations • There appears to be no correlation between tolerance and gender, education, income, or ethnicity. Older residents, however, are less tolerant. RLSA Restudy White Paper 55 • Residents who experienced depredations of domestic animals or livestock are less tolerant • Residents who adequately secure pets and livestock in panther resistant pens are more tolerant. HCP relevance and discussion As indicated by those who attended public workshops on the RLSA, the public is very interested in the long-term viability of the Florida panther and other listed species. There is a clear need for a plan that protects these species in a realistic way. Collier County is not in a position to mediate the best science behind panther or listed species studies as described above. County staff does not include subject-specific experts with Ph.D.s or similar levels of subject matter competency. Rather, the County has traditionally relied on federal and state environmental review permitting (ERP) processes in listed species regulation, playing an enforcement role during the permitting process. The health and long-term viability of panther and other listed species is the primary responsibility of USFWS, USACOE, SFWMD, and FFWCC. Collier County’s RLSA program is primarily a land use planning program, grounded in a balance between environmental goals, agriculture, and economic development. Further, It recognizes that development can support environmental goals through the transfer of credits representing land use rights and responsibilities, but land use regulations does not substitute for the specific environmental permitting requirements of state and federal agencies. As a planning document, the RLSA provides a 95,000 acre area designated as “open,” where Stewardship Receiving Areas can be located under County zoning. However, the ERP process further refines the rules of development, and may deny, restrict, or approve with conditions development in any location. The RLSA and the ERP review process are parallel approval mechanisms. The most restrictive of either set of rules applies to any potential development. The majority of land owners in the RLSA, the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO), submitted an ERP application document several years ago, known as Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP is a preferred process by ERP agencies because it takes a cumulative, holistic analysis on a landscape scale, as distinguished from a piecemeal approach. The HCP application here covers 18 listed species, most notably the Florida panther. The HCP, because it covers the majority of the RLSA, can assure one of the most noteworthy goals of panther preservation- the linkages between large panther habitat areas. The HCP application is based on a prospective 50-year permit (ITP) covering the 152,000 acres under the ECPO application. It will also inform and facilitate future regulatory actions by the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). To receive an ITP, the applicants must provide a conservation plan that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates harm to listed species and their RLSA Restudy White Paper 56 habitats. The HCP proposes measures to achieve these goals through ecological restoration, wildlife crossings, land management, and research under a system that ensures funding and continual monitoring. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS) issued by USFWS in 2018 recognized the history and importance of the RLSA program, and that the proposed HCP is complementary to its goals of conservation for wildlife, listed species, habitat, and agriculture. It recites that the HCP was “built upon the original RLSP framework and selected recommendations from the Florida Panther Protection Plan.” The RLSA and the HCP mutually reinforce each other with environmental protections: the RLSA through design and local stewardship easements; the HCP through permit conditions and additional easements, ensuring habitat protection in perpetuity. The draft EIS references a tremendous volume of research and literature, including many of the publication mentioned in the previous section of this paper. Staff does not intend to mediate the science or positions presented as part of the scoping or evaluation process. Rather, staff relies on the determinations of the FWS in applying best available science in support of sustainability for panther and seventeen other covered species. This is consistent with the County’s traditional role in deferring to federal and state agencies in environmental permitting in general, and in recognition of the greater level of expertise and resources at the federal level. To be sure, Collier County has created its own standards for wildlife management plans in the RLSA. Where lands are not voluntarily included in the RLSA program, wildlife management plans are required for a number of listed species and subject to County approval. These reviews often rely on technical assistance from a state or federal agency and defer to those agencies with respect to state and federal environmental permitting requirements. As stated in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (RLSA Policy 5.5 (3) and CCME Policy 7.1.4): “All development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species.” Ultimately, through a final biological opinion and incidental take permit, the Service must decide whether to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the HCP application. The County supports the professional judgment employed by the USFWS staff. USFWS takes primary responsibility for enforcement of the federal Endangered Species Act. In passing, staff notes two points captured from the final application for the HCP plan. First, where preservation is ultimately determined to be appropriate, conservation easements will be placed on the land to secure this preservation in perpetuity. A state agency, either FDEP or FFWCC, will hold the easement. Importantly, the federal government through USFWS will hold third party enforcement, further securing the obligations in parallel with County easements. A second point involves the HCP application and acreage. In its application, ECPO offers a condensed area where “covered activities”, such as towns, villages mining of other conditional uses could be located. Their analysis included the “primary and secondary” panther zones, a more recent designation analysis as compared to the RLSA scoring process. The result is that RLSA Restudy White Paper 57 ECPO offers to put significant excess acres located in open areas under easement as well (through ERP process), restricting uses to agricultural activities and accessory dwelling units no greater than 1 per 50 acres, a huge benefit in reducing the impact of baseline development. Several depictions from the HCP application illustrate important aspects of the RLSA area and a better understanding of the HCP application: Figure E-3 below shows areas of preserve and very low density (green hatch and cross-hatch), areas of “covered activity” (yellow hatch) and acres not a part of this application process (non- ECPO members). Figure E-4 below provides RLSA and the HCP area in the context of the Primary and Secondary panther zones developed in 2008. Figure E-3 HCP Exhibit- Covered Activities Figure E-4 HCP Exhibit Primary/Secondary panther Habitat, SW Florida RLSA Restudy White Paper 58 Figure E-5 below illustrates panther telemetry points over 3 decades. Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit Panther Telemetry Since 1981 Miscellaneous Transportation issues will be discussed further under Towns and Villages, below. Of note in the environmental discussion is a recommendation in that section to reduce speed limits on arterial and collector roads, consistent with allowable FDOT parameters. Lower speed limits, particularly at night, can provide a significant reduction in panther mortality. According to the RLSA Restudy White Paper 59 Naples Daily News, there have been at least 140 panthers killed by motor vehicles since 2014, far outpacing any other mortality factor. Environmental organizations have called for lower speed limits along with wildlife crossings to curtail the high vehicle mortality rate. Wildlife crossings such as underpasses should be highly effective, but overall reductions in vehicular speed may prove a potent protection for these animals. Along with lower speed limits, traffic calming and enforcement measures would be necessary. Along with fencing and crossings, night time speed limit reductions may further reduce the panther collision “hotspots” as identified in Figure E-6. The USFWS has established a Transportation Sub-team to assist the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team in protecting the Florida panther. Figure E-6 Panther Collision Hotspots RLSA Restudy White Paper 60 Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night (address in Five Year Review Transportation Element Companion Amendment). Finally, the 5 year review Committee recommended new rural lighting standards to improve environment, quality of life, and safety. These should be studied along with the further development of improved lighting standards throughout the County, reflecting context and Dark Skies principles, and implemented in the RLSA. Reduced and improved lighting has benefits for both wildlife and human well-being. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance security and safety (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Environmental Protection- List of Sources [See panther articles listed above] USFWS Panther Recovery Implementation Home Page (2019) [web] Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Habitat Conservation Plan USFWS (2018) [restudy library] Habitat Conservation Plan updated, Stantec (2018) [restudy library] RLSA Overlay Recommendations, League of Women Voters (2019) [restudy workshop page] Critique and Recommendations, Conservancy SWF (2019) [restudy workshop page] Restoration Credits and Suggested Policies, M Seef (2019) [restudy workshop page] 5-year Review Recommendations (2009) [restudy library] Meeting Summaries (2018 to 2019) [appendix] RLSA Restudy White Paper 61 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper F. Towns, Villages and Other Development The following points were discussed at Public Workshops on February 28 and March 28, 2019 (Appendix A: Public Outreach Meeting Summaries). Consensus Items Consensus: • SRAs should have Mobility Plans • “Universal Design” should be available to buyers • Plan for aging in Place • Encourage shade trees, narrow streets, healthy community checklist (countywide) • Housing should be diversified by type and price • Encourage more compact development • Encourage Florida-Friendly Landscapes (countywide) • Encourage best practices for town core and town centers density • CRDs should be more carefully defined • Incorporate green building standards (countywide) • Require Florida Green Building certification (county-wide) Non-consensus: • Hamlets should be eliminated • Increase minimum densities • Firm up phasing schedules for commercial components • Require annual monitoring reports • Require periodic measurements of internal capture • Change size parameters: Villages to 1,500 acres; Towns to 5,000 acres • Incentivize economic development for self-sufficiency • Use ¼ mile standard for walkability 5 Year Review Recommendations • Cap maximum acres and credits • Create “build-out vision plan” (transportation network) • Require wildlife management plans • Require mobility plans, both internal and external • Eliminate hamlets from allowable SRAs • Change size parameters: Villages to 1,500 acres; Towns to 5,000 acres • Define CRDs more effectively RLSA Restudy White Paper 62 • Require 10 credits per acre for SRAs from future SSAs • Refine uses in ACSC • Protect historical and cultural resources • Create outdoor lighting standards Staff Analysis Introduction Much like environmental issues, the public was highly interested in forms, requirements and incentives related to SRA development- the use of stewardship credits to create Towns, Villages and other forms that best represent “smart growth.” The public was well versed in many smart growth goals and principles, including walkability and alternative transportation modes within developments, efficiency in transportation costs outside of developments, self-sufficiency, economic development, housing diversity and affordability, social opportunity and community character. When the Board initiated the eastern area restudies in 2016, one comment heard many times was that, given the 10% of remaining area in Collier County available for future development, this is the last chance the County has “to do it right.” There was and is a growing recognition that the development pattern dominating the urban area of the county could have been better, particularly with respect to transportation, housing, and other smart growth principles. Opportunities for different community designs are quickly diminishing. Many members of the public see the benefits of smart growth not only for life in the 2020’s, but also for future generations. We have heard time and again that the largest cohort following the baby-boom generation, the millennials, will prefer to live, work, and play in close proximity. Meanwhile, the development community informs land owners that the “market” prefers an automobile-centric, low density environment with certain upscale amenities. To the extent this remains true for the next several years, the remaining development area gradually disappears. The next generation will either adjust to these 20th century preferences, or existing housing stock will move lower in relative value, and its infrastructure maintenance will increase in per unit cost, if and when vacancy rates increase. Certain members of the public have been quick to criticize the RLSA program as a “whitewash” in favor of developers or a program that encourages “unrestrained growth.” In fact, it is neither. The important issues in the RLSA, where the stewardship program was launched over 15 years ago, revolve around the form of growth, the design of well-planned communities with character and economic sustainability, allowing the physical space needed to create a smart growth transect. Along with that opportunity comes the responsibility for land owners to assume permanent maintenance of the 90,000 acres of natural area expected to be protected. RLSA Restudy White Paper 63 The development that will occur over a long period of time in the RLSA will make the preservation, restoration and long-term maintenance of natural areas possible, without commensurate public expenditure. Rather than a drain on taxpayers, this aspect reflects a huge win for taxpayers. Meanwhile, the public should continue to demand that in other respects, development proves to be fiscally positive to the County over a reasonable period of time, and that communities are sustainable in terms of environmental compatibility, water use, transportation, goods and services, employment, housing and economic development. The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) developed by Metro Forecasting Models predicts future populations in various parts of the County based on subdistrict characteristics. This differs from the County-wide population projections in methodology and detail. The CIGM estimates a current population in the RLSA at roughly 5,000 persons. A majority of that population resides in the Town of Ave Maria. By 2040, the population of Ave Maria will triple, and the population in the RLSA is projected at approximately 47,000 people. For perspective, this compares with about 76,000 people who will live in the Golden Gate Estates area east of Collier Blvd by 2040. Table F-1 CIGM Population Projections GMP Districts East of CR 951 Rounded to nearest 1,000 Est. Oct. 2018 CIGM 3 2017 CIGM 3 2040 CIGM 3 2070 CIGM 3 Build-out RLSA 5,000 47,000 116,000 243,000 RFMUD 8,000 31,000 53,000 65,000 Immokalee 25,000 34,000 41,000 47,000 GG Rural and OT 45,000 76,000 82,000 82,000 Totals E of 951 83,000 188,000 292,000 437,000 Totals W of 951 286,298 339,171 348,466 357,760 RLSA Restudy White Paper 64 General Design, Towns and Villages Over 15 years ago, Dover, Kohl & Partners prepared a document for Collier County entitled Toward Better Places, the Community Character Pan. The principles of town development embodied in that document are well known to many: • Identifiable center and edge • Walkable neighborhoods • Proper building placement • Special sites for civic uses • Mixed uses and building types • Integrated street network • Diversity of housing types and price points The Dover Kohl document provided a basis for support among diverse perspectives. Developers can enjoy lower land costs per unit when higher net densities are achieved; more market flexibility is inherent in mixed housing types within the same neighborhood. Municipalities and taxpayers benefit from a more balanced tax base and higher tax values per acre, as well as lower overall infrastructure costs inherent in transect design. Similarly, the firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) has long promoted walkable urbanism, complete neighborhoods and smart codes that deconstruct older notions of Euclidean zoning (separation of uses requiring motor vehicles as predominant and necessary), favoring a mix of uses that results in less motor vehicle dependence. Smart codes reflect context and transect zones just as Dover Kohl described- higher density and mixed uses near the town centers, lower density closer to edges. An idealized rendering of a transect, inherent in these new urbanism concepts, appears in Figure F-1. In practice, there would be many variations depending on context, local conditions, and community vision. The Community Character Plan suggests neighborhoods with connectivity and walkability, made possible through density increases near town core and town centers. A requirement for a minimum density within a ¼ mile of these mixed-use areas should be established and required, RLSA Restudy White Paper 65 accounting for area-wide context and character. Given the sentiment to retain a continuum of density or transect, from denser to semi-rural or open space at town edges, low density should be expected in many town locations, bringing the gross density much lower than within walkable neighborhood areas. Doesn’t this ideal run contrary to compact growth? It is important to recognize the differen ce between gross density (the entire Town or Village) and net density (such as would be encouraged in and near Town Core and Town Centers). To achieve the vision of a transect, density and intensity needs to diminish approaching the edges, particularly where SRAs border important environmental resource areas, common throughout the RLSA. Moreover, the requirement for 35% open space, not counting any single-family yard areas, contemplates a larger overall town footprint while also encouraging a denser mixed use core and center. The way in which population is accommodated and the design elements derived from smart growth principles form the backdrop of recommendations related to SRAs. These recommendations should serve and enhance livability, fiscal responsibility, and environmental objectives while respecting property owner rights. One of the recommendations of the 5-year Review Committee would alter the size parameters of Villages and Towns. Specifically, the recommendation would allow Village development beyond its 1,000 acre maximum to 1,500 acres, and would allow Towns to grow from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres, inclusive of public benefit acres or excess open space. In thinking about town size and design, consideration should be given to sustainable, compact development and its relationship to economies of scale and critical mass. In an analysis by Metro Forecasting, one might envision a minimum size rural village or town as one large enough to support a grocery-anchored plaza, a mix of goods and services, park space large enough for a range of recreational activities, emergency medical services, and an elementary school. To achieve this mix, a population of between 14,000 and 18,000 residents would be required. Based on expected persons per household and a gross density of 2.5 units per acre, approximately 2,700 acres would serve this ideal vision. Larger development would garner even more critical mass, since middle schools, high schools and a broader range of commercial, civic and governmental services could be supported, in turn making the SRA more self-sufficient. Of course, to the extent that residents of Golden Gate Estates become a part of the commercial and cultural “shed,” the critical mass is more easily reached. The same can be said for smaller Village development that is close geographically and well connected by collector roadways. And SRAs need not follow the same patterns- communities geared toward seniors may not need to accommodate schools but will need sufficient population to support retail, civic, and entertainment options. Density near the Town Core and Town Center provide the critical mass to allow trip capture, shorter trips, community engagement, and healthier walkable community hubs. These factors RLSA Restudy White Paper 66 are generalized and could be considered met with two large Villages adjacent to each other, each with a Center, or possibly sharing a Center/Core. In this configuration, it will be important to consider the level of required services similar to Towns when measured in total. Draft Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Characteristics LDC Amendments to address (a-k): a. Minimum densities within a ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v.9.2, those areas (center/core plus ¼ mile) should exceed 6 units per acre, excluding acreage for civic uses. b. An aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. c. Village sizes additional commercial, civic and governmental minimums; Town size efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts. Another factor to consider is the required square footage in Towns and Villages for the provision of commercial goods and services, parks, civic and governmental services. The requirements enumerated in Attachment C in the RLSA GMP are less than half of the likely need as estimated by Metro Forecasting, in both Villages and Towns. The restudy did not dive into the specificity of needed retail, services, and parks with opportunity for public input and refinement. However, the need for explicit timing of these provisions in the phasing of the entire SRA was mentioned several times. Likewise, the need for economic diversification and development was a theme brought out by the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and many public speakers, noting that it would provide the kind of synergy to allow a well-balanced rural town environment, where people can live, work and play in the same area. These opportunities take time and talent to identify and deliver, but a reservation of space for corporate office, light manufa cturing, or business park would help the long-term sustainability of SRAs. d. Greater minimum requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and Villages. e. Propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park, available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development. f. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. The current RLSA Overlay provides an exemption from the use of credits for “public benefit” uses and excess open space. Public benefit uses are closely defined as public schools K-12, RLSA Restudy White Paper 67 public or private post-secondary institutions, excess (over required) acreage within community parks and government facilities (excluding essential services). Excess open space is not well defined, and consideration should be given to removing this exemption from the use of credits. On paper, it may appear that open space beyond the required 35% would be a benefit to people and the natural environment. In practice, it appears that this reduction in “credit cost” is incentivizing poor land planning, including “sausage lakes” with long cul de sacs, golf courses and the like. Open space should be carefully defined, and no exemption should be given for excess open space. g. Define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit yards, to reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for excess open space. Housing Affordability and Suitability Affordable Housing has been a high priority topic in Collier County for the past several years . This White Paper does not attempt to survey all possible aids or remedies within the RLSA, as these in some ways parallel the needs of the entire County and should be considered in a holistic way as the County continues to refine its approach to the topic. It has been staff’s perspective throughout the restudy that most areas in the eastern lands would not be suitable for affordable workforce solutions to problems arising in the urban area. That is primarily because of the distance between the RLSA and the urban area. When one critical goal of development in the RLSA is trip capture, and fewer vehicle miles traveled, the notion of providing affordable workforce housing in the RLSA for an urban workforce runs counter to that goal. On the other hand, RLSA housing affordability is important for other reasons. These include workforce housing for a workforce that will be needed in the developed areas of the RLSA. There is also a need for affordability for retirees and elderly populations. Prior to state-level reforms to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review process, applicants were required to undergo a “Housing Analysis.” The benefits of the housing analysis were the exposure to review of the prospective market for retirees, families, single individu als, and second home buyers. More importantly, the Housing Analysis required a market study of housing availability to accommodate the needs (by projected income levels) of all persons to be employed within an SRA. Availability could be measured both on and off-site. Off-site accommodation required an estimate of commuting length, time, and cost. A plan was required to address any shortcomings. As an example, the Town of Big Cypress, following its inventory and needs analysis, committed to providing 500 moderate income units and 732 Low Income units under the Collier County definitions. In return, they requested eligibility in trip count adjustments, impact fee deferral RLSA Restudy White Paper 68 program, and an infrastructure investment tax offset. Staff believes that the Housing Analysis makes sense in the context of new towns and Villages in the RLSA. In addition to that, housing affordable to the elderly should be provided. The smart growth goals in the RLSA include a diversity of housing types for a diverse population. By requiring a mix of smaller units at lower price points, close to Town/Village Centers or Cores, the needs of many elderly people will be met, both in terms of cost and accessibility. Standards for market price points for smaller units should be a feature of the Housing Analysis. h. A Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA. Based on the demographics of Collier County as a whole, it is believed that many home buyers in the RLSA will be 50 years old or older. The Senior Advisory Ad Hoc Committee, in its final report in April 2019, recommended Universal Design in the sale of homes County-wide. This should be a required option, not mandating its selection by homebuyers. Universal design allows later age-related home modifications at low cost, simply by accommodating certain structural elements at time of first sale. Universal Design is embraced by the National Association of Homebuilders and AARP and adds on average about $300.00 to the original price point. i. All homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. Fiscal Responsibility Fiscal impacts and fiscal neutrality were concepts not well understood by the public during the restudy. The GMP requires demonstrations of fiscal impacts and a projection of fiscal neutrality at time of application for SRA development. These are critical to the determination of application approval, and the County should continue to review these projections with clear eyes, requiring supplemental information or third-party review where deemed appropriate. Some commentary has been received that underscores the value, from a fiscal perspective, of compact, as opposed to spread-out (sprawl) development. This is an obvious conclusion, but the notions of compactness seem to be an important point of diversion in perceptions. One can always show that 1,000 units placed on 100 acres provides a better fiscal outcome than 1,000 units placed on 400 acres. Infrastructure costs, in particular, will be far lower in the former example. What matters is context, and the balance to be created by creating livable areas that are marketable. Marketability leads to a fiscal outcome that can be attained with some assurance. The outcome not only assures fiscal neutrality with respect to infrastructure costs, but also affords the huge costs associated with saving and maintaining very large wildlife and natural areas. RLSA Restudy White Paper 69 A review by Smart Growth America was submitted that provided the obvious tenant that compactness is good. It was completely deficient in understanding the context of the RLSA, its historical antecedents, or the important facts involved in community development in reaching its financial conclusions. It did not consider impact fees, developer contribution agreements or “proportionate fair share,” it provided no basis for the assumption that County growth will “accelerate” in the future, and no apparent understanding of which roads are public and which are paid by development/CDD. It also based a fiscal assessment for future ad valorem revenues on a per capita basis, which is not acceptable in any form of fiscal modeling. Finally, it lacked understanding between revenue from single family and multi-family development and offered a significant mathematical error in the body of the material. This review was unfortunate, because fiscal impact is extremely important. An economic assessment is required by the GMP and LDC to address the fiscal impacts of transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. The methodology must be pre- approved by the County, and the modeling, assumptions, and calculations should be disclosed and reviewed thoroughly. All SRAs should be subjected to rigorous and disciplined fiscal examination. The fiscal analysis should be reviewed by both the County and a third-party peer reviewer. A special assessment should be imposed for any identified shortfall in any public service. j. Review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments. k. Annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. Wildlife and Flowway Management Plans SSAs are allowable in Open Areas, which generally score lower on the Natural Resource Index scale, yielding few stewardship credits. However, Open Areas are not devoid of environmental and wildlife significance. SSAs will contain within them pockets of higher value wetlands or uplands, preservation areas and wildlife corridors for various species. As described in the 5-year Review, SRA Master Plans should contain Wildlife Management Plans, assuring that incompatible uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat, that buffer areas are created and maintained, and that human and animal conflicts are minimized through best management practices and resident, business and governmental services share in the dissemination of information. Although not considered previously, a similar requirement should deal with wildfire protection through best management practices and public education. This has traditionally been required in the form of a “Firewise” community designation. RLSA Restudy White Paper 70 Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs (included in Five Year Review recommendations). As described in the Water Resources section, natural water management systems such as flowways require periodic maintenance, since they are affected by upstream activity over time. Flowway Management Plans would be created through a public/private partnership and would involve at least two major functions. One would be monitoring the health and changes over time, including wetland health and water quality. The other function would be operational- maintenance functions as needed from time to time, and these should require upstream entities to contribute to needed maintenance activities. Examples would be natural lands inspection and management when necessary, identifying and addressing any debris and vegetation accumulation over time, which can affect the flowway’s capacity for normal overland flow conveyance. Require Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities (address in regional water partnership). Types of SRA Development SRA types: Most public discussion revolved around Towns and Villages. The 5-year review recommended elimination of a third type of SRA, the Hamlet. Hamlets may be created between 40 and 100 acres and would have a very limited convenience retail component. One of the original rationales was that Hamlets would be a better alternative to 5-acre (baseline ag zoning) ranchettes. There may be limited instances where property owners own small tracts within and outside the higher value stewardship designated areas, so that credits could be transferred. However, properties within the Open designation only would need a very high aggregation of protected Open areas in order to create clustered residential development in place of 5 acre ranchettes. This is an unlikely scenario. Moreover, no applications for Hamlets have been submitted to date. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this category at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in certain locations (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) are the fourth type of allowable SRA in the RLSA. A recommendation was made in the 5-year review to better define its purpose and extent. The proposed language supported the County’s valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources, and economic diversity, and land uses may include uses related to research, education, convenience retail, tourism or recreation. The Review Committee also further limited the maximum size to 100 acres. With the exception of convenience retail, staff is in agreement with RLSA Restudy White Paper 71 these further limitations to the original plan. Convenience retail, if allowed, should be defined as an allowed use ancillary to the other listed uses. Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity, allow retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres (included in Five Year Review recommendations). The Area of Critical State Concern The Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) is a large area in eastern Collier County, with its northern reaches comprising about 62,286 acres surrounding the OK Slough. The ACSC has been a state designation going back to the 1970’s, recognizing the critical importance of surface water protection in this area, with particular emphasis on protecting and/or recreating sheet flow. The state still maintains a review function over all zoning and building permits to assure compliance. SRA development is required to use credits from such development solely from lands within the ACSC. The 5-year Review further restricted Village and CRD development in the ACSC: SRA development along State Road 29, may not exceed 1,000 acres in total, and the only SRA development east of the OK Slough would be CRDs less than 100 acres. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to 1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the Okaloacoochee Slough (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Transportation and Mobility There is a close link between land use planning and transportation. The best arrangements of land uses, placing residents close to goods, services, cultural location, and jobs, result in mobility and infrastructure efficiency. Smart growth principles underscore this connection, and this factor was an important aspect of the creation of the RLSA: providing innovative land use practices while preserving environmental and agricultural assets. This connection also underscores the importance of economic development and job creation in the RLSA and in the Immokalee urban area. The County’s Master Mobility Plan, accepted by the Board in 2002, provides guidance for internal and external mobility with respect to eastern lands, including Towns and Villages. It incorporates land use strategies, multi-modal transportation alternatives, wildlife crossings, and roadways designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through connectivity. “Developments outside of the built/urban environment must be self-sustaining, especially in terms of employment and non-residential services to achieve the same vehicle miles traveled (VMT)- reducing impact as development within the urban area… self-sufficient development will not completely eliminate the need for inter or intra-county travel; however, self-sufficient development will increase localized daily/routine travel”- thus reducing VMT and vehicle hours traveled (VHT). RLSA Restudy White Paper 72 The 5-year Review recommended a Mobility Plan as a component of the SRA Master Plan. The Mobility Plan would include “vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and other areas of outside development and land use.” Strategies might include “bus subsidies, route sponsorship, or other incentives which encourage the use of mass transit services.” Importantly, the mobility plan would demonstrate “land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture and reduce trip length and long-distance travel.” Internal mobility planning should address FDOT’s “complete streets” program, including the accessibility and safety characteristics, for pedestrian movement, bicycle travel, neighborhood electric vehicles, and other motorized carriers. Safe street crossings and traffic calming designs should also be included. Separated pathways should be favored for some modes, depending on context. Transit infrastructure, including bus shelters and transit cut-outs, should be required in Town Core, Town Center and Village Center areas. In terms of fiscal impact, the 5-year Review clarifies that all internal roads, both public and private, should be built and maintained by the SRA that they serve. External mobility should be demonstrated through connection points to adjacent or future SRAs and other developments. These are best accommodated by having an internal network that is a grid of local collector roads. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity (included in Five Year Review recommendations). All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA (address in the Companion Transportation Element amendment). The Master Mobility Plan recommends that the County work with USFWS and FFWCC to optimize the placement of wildlife crossings along County roads, to protect wildlife and allow passage across arterial and collector roads. These should be financed, to the extent possible, with road impact mitigation funding. Speed Kills In addition to wildlife crossings, consideration should be given to lowering speed limits on collector and arterial roadways, consistent with FDOT standards for a minor arterial roadway where listed species are well documented. Lower speed limits, particularly at night, can provide a significant reduction in panther mortality. According to the Naples Daily News, there have been at least 140 panthers killed by motor vehicles since 2014, far outpacing any other mortality factor. RLSA Restudy White Paper 73 Figure F-2 Vehicle/Panther Collisions RLSA Restudy White Paper 74 Environmental organizations have called for lower speed limits along with wildlife crossings to curtail the high panther mortality rate. Wildlife crossings such as underpasses and fencing should be highly effective, but overall reductions in vehicular speed may prove a potent protection for these animals. Lower speed limits have also been shown to reduce human fatalities and injuries and result in fewer crashes overall. Health and safety of Collier residents and visitors are better protected by slower speeds in rural areas. Along with lower speed limits, traffic calming and enforcement measures would be necessary. Lower speed limits also reinforce self-sufficiency in rural towns and villages. Longer travel times between the rural areas of the County and the urban area create an incentive to provide more needs, including goods, services, entertainment, civic uses, and employment within the same geographic area. This is consistent with the smart growth philosophy. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Towns, Villages and Other Development- List of Sources Master Mobility Plan, Final Report, Tindale-Oliver et al. (2012) [Comp Planning web page] Toward Better Places, Community Character Plan for Collier County, Dover Kohl and Partners (2002) [Comp Planning web page] SmartCode v. 9.2, DPZ Codesign et.al., (2009) [web] RLSA Recommendations to meet LOS, Metro Forecasting (2019) [restudy library] Collier County Ideal Future Town Size, Metro Forecasting (2019) [restudy library] Fiscal Implications of Development in RLSA, Smart Growth America (2018) [restudy workshop page] Universal Design in Homes, Center for Universal Design (2006) [restudy library] RLSA Overlay Recommendations, League of Women Voters (2019) [restudy workshop page] Critique and Recommendations, Conservancy SWF (2019) [restudy workshop page] 5-year Review Recommendations (2009) [restudy library] Meeting Summaries (2018 to 2019) RLSA Restudy White Paper 75 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper G. Credit System Analysis and Recommendations This Credit System portion of the White paper is intended to (I) memorialize the estimations of the current credit system as provided by the 5-year review Committee, (II) summarize the effect of additional recommendations from that Committee, (III) update the estimations made in 2009 given the data on hand as of March 2019, and finally, (IV) to suggest a realignment of credits under the general recommendations made in the Environmental Protection portion of this White Paper and those stated below. This short introduction and the material under section IV should be the most informative. As discussed in the Environmental Protection section, the solution to better credit management requires a third-party analysis of the potential restoration credits, including clear definitions of different restoration types, and a quantitative analysis of acreages that would qualify under each definition. Staff’s intent in part IV is to find a credit balance that does not exceed the need for the desired or anticipated SRA footprint. Both credits and acreages should be capped. Accordingly, the following recommendations for the credit analysis follow: Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review “tiered credit system” approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint (included in Five Year Review recommendations). Cap credits (included in Five Year Review recommendations). I: Background: Credits Under Current System Estimated by 5-year Review The credit system put in place in 2002 is the credit system in effect today. It includes credits from creating Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), from creating and executing restoration projects within the SSAs (R-1 and R-2 credits), and credits for early voluntary entry into the program (Early Entry). The estimates of credits yielded under each credit type was estimated during the “5 -year Review”, 2007-2009, since estimates would have been more speculative at the time of adoption. The 5-year Review estimates of current plan provisions have been updated, below (Section III), based on program information. The 5-year Review also recommended changes to the program, and the estimated credits are shown in Section II. Staff recommendations and estimated credits are shown in Section IV. RLSA Restudy White Paper 76 SSA creation credits: These were calibrated to yield a development footprint to accommodate the former baseline zoning sprawl potential of 1 unit per 5 acres, or 36,444 units spread throughout the RLSA. These units could be accommodated through higher clustered density in rural developments (calculated at 2.17 units per acre) SRA acres: 16,000 Credits: 128,000 Restoration credits: Restoration credits were created with broad support among landowner and environmental groups between the Transmittal hearings and Adoption hearings in 2002. Other than those groups, it is not likely that many members of the public were fully aware of this additional credit type. Two types of credits were envisioned- “dedication credits” (R-1) and “completion credits” (R-2), available in Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and 500’ Restoration Areas. R-1 credits can be earned at the rate of 4 credits per acre in the Camp Keais Strand and 2 credits per acre in the Okaloacoochee Slough. Completion of restoration earns 4 credits per acre in both locations. SRA acres: 20,000 Credits: 160,000 Early Entry Credits: Although these credits expired in 2009, they were designed to reward early program participation in the protection of lands designated HSA. This was a slight reduction from the earlier program design, as requested by the FL Dept. of Community Affairs. SRA acres: 3,375 Credits: 27,000 “Public benefit acres” Acres: 3,940 TOTAL, 2002 Plan Estimate in 2009 SRA Acres: 43,315 Credits: 315,000 Comment: Credits must be accumulated to entitle SRAs- Towns, Villages, etc. These require 8 credits per acre for development. “Public benefit” acres within SRAs that do not require credits, but are estimated at 10% of each SRA. Remaining “baseline” development potential under agricultural zoning (either agricultural uses or other baseline zoning development) was estimated at 43,700 acres. II: Five-year Review Recommended changes to Credit System (2007-2009) As discussed throughout the White Paper, the 5-year Review provided an important analysis based on significant public participation and agreement. With respect to credit calculations, Section 3, Supporting Documentation of the Phase 2 Report, provided the following data: RLSA Restudy White Paper 77 • Estimated credits and development acres under the 2002 Plan based on track record (above) • Emphasized Agricultural protection and additional wildlife corridors in “Open” area • Recalibrated Restoration credits as “tiered” system • Addressed need to incentivize large mammal corridors • All recommendations supported by Board, land owners, committee, environmental groups at a Board hearing, April 21, 2009, as part of Final Report to Board • Five-year Review recommendations were not adopted, due to the downturn in economy and disagreement over the fee for the amendment process • 45,000-acre maximum, below, is consistent with current application to USFWS for multi- species habitat conservation plan (HCP), an environmental review permitting process Base credits 128,000 Restoration credits 144,000 Early Entry Bonus 20,000 Agriculture credits 89,000 Panther/wildlife corridors: 23,000 Tentative total: 404,000 Modifications to reduce expanded development impact: 1. Slight reduction in Restoration credits 2. No further Early Entry credits 3. Recalibration in credit currency (new SSAs would require 10 credits for each acre of SRA development) Net effect on development: SRA acres: 47,120 Comment: Acreage calculation includes 10% increase to reflect “public benefit” acres Additional restriction: Capped SRA acres: 45,000 Capped Credits: 404,000 Comment: Capped credits reflected 76% at 10 credits per SRA and 24% at 8 credits per SSA. RLSA Restudy White Paper 78 III: A Review of RLSA credits (Part I) based on Today’s Data SSA Base Credits: Assuming all FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and 500’ Buffers (target areas) are included in SSAs; calculations are based on approved SSAs 1-16 (#8 withdrawn) plus SSA amendment applications (14-16): SSA 1-16 acres: 50,431 SSA 1-16 credits: 77,999 Factor, credits per SSA acre: 1.55 All target area acres: 86,960 SSA base credits based on historic factor: 134,788 Comment: This Base Credit estimate is slightly higher than the 5-year Review estimate of 128,000 Base Credits. One explanation is that the amendments for restoration push the base calculations up, as they are one factor in the NRI score for Base credits. Early Entry (EE) Credits All EE credits 19,552 Comment: EE credits expired in 2009 Restoration Credits R-1 (Dedication) SSA 1-16 credits (with amendments) 58,854 Target area acres 68,553 R-1 credits (extrapolation to all target acres) 80,207 Comment: The factor per gross acre is 1.17, based on all approved SSAs and 3 amendments that remain pending. This figure is not a cap, in that approved SSAs 1-16 could still apply for additional amendments for restoration dedication that would increase the total. R-2 (Completion) Actual R-2 credits earned to date 1,710 Potential R-2 credits, 1-16 (with amendments) 63,393 Target area acres 68,553 R-2 credits extrapolation to all target acres 88,433 Comment: Like R-1 credits, this total is based on extrapolation and may be greater if a higher percentage of SSA areas become restoration areas. Potential Credits, Current RLSA Program 322,980 RLSA Restudy White Paper 79 SRA Development Footprint (8 credits/acre) 40,373 Comment: Extrapolation of existing credits and acreages are 2.5% higher than the estimate made in 2009. This estimate does not include changes proposed by 5-year Review Committee. IV: RLSA Credits Based on White Paper Recommendations (rounded nearest 100) Base SSA Credits: Recalculated Base credits (Section III) 134,800 @ 8/SRA acre 78,000 @10/SRA acre 56,800 SRA Acres Attributable to Base Credits 15,500 acres Early Entry Credits 19,600 SRA Acres Attributable to EE Credits @10 cr/acre) 2,500 acres Agricultural Credits NRPA “Open” areas, 15,278 acres* (50% participation cap; 7,850 acres) @ 2.6 credits/acre 19,900 *Open acres reduced by SSAs (181) and Priddy Easement (1,617) Non-NRPA Open areas, 74,443 acres (50% participation cap; 14,300 acres) @ 2.0 credits/acre 28,600 (Open reduced by SRA 45,000; less 864 corridors; less SSA 389) Total Agricultural Credits 48,500 SRA Acres Attributable to Ag Credits @ 10 cr/acre 6,100 acres Public Benefit (PB) Acre Adjustment 2,300 acres Comment: Public benefit acres are estimated at 5% on the basis that excess open space will no longer be eligible for credit deduction. SRA Acres: Base, EE, Ag, PB 26,400 acres Restoration Credits 18,600 acres Restoration credits should be calibrated to result in the total development footprint projected and approved as part of the restudy. Further, they should be calibrated such that if the total anticipated RLSA Restudy White Paper 80 need for restoration throughout the RLSA private lands is fully realized, then credits to entitle the full desired footprint will result, and no more. Given the recommended credit allocation for Base, EE, Ag and PB above, the credits for restoration, vested or future, should not result in SRA acreage that exceeds 18,600 acres if 45,000 acres is the desired SRA cap. As with all credit categories, credits and acres should be subject to caps. Restoration credits should be calibrated to cover all needed restoration acres, including appropriate large mammal corridors, resulting in credits yielding the desired acreage above. To date, credits equivalent to 15,300 acres of development are vested at the current 8 credits per acre standard, although more than half would require completion. Recalibration will be necessary for future restoration area credits. Comment: The existing SSAs (1-16) already cover 68% of areas where restoration credits are possible (FSAs, HSA, and 500’ buffers). Within existing SSAs, 36% of these eligible land areas are claimed as restoration areas. However, some of these existing SSAs have not applied for restoration credits yet. Care should be taken to assure that credits are available for all areas needing restoration, giving priority to large mammal corridors. RLSA Restudy White Paper 81 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper H. Consistency with Other Planning Areas Following is a list of items that were discussed and considered during the RLSA restudy and incorporated, directly or indirectly, into the Overlay or recommended revisions. Immokalee: 1. Agricultural land use retention is critical to the continued support of the agricultural sector within Immokalee. Processing and distribution operations depend on quality agricultural land to grow cattle and produce. Jobs within Immokalee and field operations in the RLSA are major employers. 2. Additional workplace opportunities will grow in the RLSA to the benefit of skilled workers coming from Immokalee. These will emerge in the traditional building and service sectors as Towns and Villages grow. In addition, the requirement for future business park locations will provide an avenue to higher paying jobs following location of target businesses to these pad-ready locations. 3. The RLSA required “housing analysis” will likely include Immokalee as a potential source of housing options, keeping the vacancy rate at a minimum. 4. The emphasis of the Immokalee Regional Airport as a commercial catalyst will help attract new target businesses to the RLSA (and Immokalee) area. Golden Gate Estates: 1. Proximity of a large community living in the eastern portion of the Rural Estates will have access to new locations for goods and services within new Towns and Villages in the RLSA. This will provide a benefit to the transportation system by reducing vehicle miles traveled, a benefit to the Estates residents by providing f ewer vehicle hours travelled, and a benefit to Town and Village development, lending support for goods and services within those new communities by reaching critical mass earlier in time. 2. Estates residents will also benefit from job creation. Like Immokalee residents, they will enjoy new employment opportunities in the traditional service sector (building and resident services) and in the emerging new business locations in the RLSA that can attract target or export industries. 3. It is important to note that Estates residents disfavored any upsizing of commercial locations within the Estates, although the Immokalee curve at Randall Blvd. will likely RLSA Restudy White Paper 82 meet some of that need. Again, for estates residents in the eastern area of the Rural estates, the RLSA Towns and Villages provide an important option. Urban Collier County: 1. As recommended in this White Paper, the conversion of stewardship credits for use in the urban area should be considered. This would provide a tool for the Board to consider if development at a given location requests more density than is otherwise available under the density rating system. Such use by an applicant with approval by the Board should be discretionary. 2. The County may decide to procure additional lands within the RLSA as part of the Conservation Collier mission for the recreational benefit of all County residents. 3. The County may wish to purchase land in the RLSA or stewardship credits and ultimately retire those credits, thus reducing the available build-out footprint in the RLSA; private firms including not-for profit organizations may wish to do the same. RLSA Restudy White Paper 83 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations Water Resources 1. Establish a working partnership with Collier County, the Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board and the 189 Stewarship Districts to address: • the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream; • potential for filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate; • flowway management, and a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities; • an SR 29 Comprehensive Water Resources Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK Slough; and • aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state, and local programs. 2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Agricultural Protection 1. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Provide credits to owners in open areas at the rate of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC and 2.0 credits per acre in the non-ACSC open areas in return for permanent agricultural easements allowing active or passive agriculture. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 4. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) RLSA Restudy White Paper 84 Environmental Protection 1. To achieve sustainable environmental value and balance, the RLSA overlay should maintain functional flow ways, wildlife habitats, wildlife connectivity, and quality agricultural land and help assure the regional long-term viability of the Florida panther population. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 2. Add a provision in the SSA approval process that allows a conditional approval for 5 years, with optional extensions; require under the terms of the instrument that no overall increase in Agriculture 1 activities may occur during this period. Require a provision within conditional or escrowed SSAs that any new RLSA master plan amendments arising during the escrow/conditional period shall apply to the SSA. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Establish a third grantee for enforcement of easements under SSAs; one grantee will be the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, should they agree. (included in 5- Year Review recommendations) 4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. (Draft LDC Amendment) 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 6. Add specific exotic vegetation control measures to the SSA agreement and easement and require a maintenance standard that assures no greater infestation than that existing at time of SSA designation. (Draft LDC Amendment) 7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. (Draft LDC Amendment) 8. Restructure the timing of R-1 credits: only half of R-1 credits awarded at time of permit approval through the ERP process (or County permit if no ERP required); the remaining “R-1” credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration. (Draft LDC Amendment) 9. The County, using existing data, will adjust restoration credits as necessary and will provide for a reconciliation of known restoration credits. (This will be addressed as part of the tier restoration system) 10. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. (Draft LDC Amendment) RLSA Restudy White Paper 85 11. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 12. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. The County may use an agency consultation process or contract. (Draft LDC amendment) 13. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in Flowways. (Address with regional water partnership) 14. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. (Address in 5- Year Review Transporation Element Companion amendment.) 15. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance security and safety. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. Draft LDC Amendments to address: a. minimum densities; b. an aggregation rule for Villages: if adjacent and under common or related ownership or control and judged to be part of a unified plan of development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage; c. village sizes, should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless, unless there is releationship to the need for additional commercial, business, civic and governmental uses; Town size increases to 5,000 acres should be allowed only if, in the discretion of the Board, greater efficiency in service provisions and fiscal impacts are demonstrated; d. requirements for commercial, civic and governmental uses, and specify the timing of these uses in the phasing of the residential portions of both Towns and Villages; e. propose a required acreage set-aside for corporate office, light Industrial or business park, available for sale or lease for a specific number of years for economic development ; f. allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages; g. define open space more clearly, including the elimination of single family dwelling unit yards, to reach the minimum required 35% open space; eliminate the credit exemption for excess open space; h. a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirement to assure a wide range of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA; RLSA Restudy White Paper 86 i. all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes; j. review SRA applications with careful attention to fiscal neutrality at a reasonable horizon date and closely scrutinize calculations and methodologies to assure that SRAs become fiscally positive by the horizon date or impose special assessments; and k. annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 2. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. (included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 3. Address Flowway Management Plans as part of the SRA approval process to supplement the SSA maintenance functions in a more specific way and to provide a mechanism for flowway management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. (Address in the regional water partnership) 4. Eliminate the category of Hamlets as a form of SRA development; consider adding this category at a later time if environmental, economic, and equity factors favor its creation in certain locations. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 5. Describe allowable uses in the Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) with greater clarity, allow retail only as an ancillary use, and limit the size of any CRA to 100 acres. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 6. Restrict SRA development in the ACSC by limiting the total development along SR 29 to 1,000 acres and allow only CRDs as a form of SRA development in lands east of the Okaloacoochee Slough. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 7. Require Mobility Plans as a component of an SRA Master Plan, with specific components as identified in the LDC. Additional LDC components should include specification in the Master Plan to provide depictions of local streets to demonstrate connectivity. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) 8. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. (Address in the Companion Transporation Element amendment) 9. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) Credit System 1. Procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised Restoration program prior to Transmittal hearings, considering the 5-year Review “tiered credit system” approach and alternatives, including the FWF/Audubon approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that will no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations) RLSA Restudy White Paper 87 2. Cap credits (Included in 5-Year Review recommendations hearing) RLSA Restudy White Paper 88 Appendix A Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries January 2018 – March 2019 Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall I Introduction and Selected History Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager, opened with welcoming statements at approximately 6:30 p.m. He advised that the meeting includes a series of presentations meant to provide background information and perspectives on the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RSLA) program and the Five Year Review. Mr. Van Lengen said there might be an opportunity for speakers from the audience after the presentations, however time is limited because the meeting room must be cleared at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Van Lengen displayed the future meeting schedule and advised that future meetings will allow time for speakers from the audience; he said the next meeting is planned to open with time for public speakers, and each meeting thereafter will have time for speakers. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County has four restudies underway. The RLSA encompasses an extensive area and there are many interests in the area. He displayed the link to the County website (https://www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies) and advised that it contains a great deal of information, with around 150 documents. The website is useful, and if anyone finds that information could be added to the website, the County welcomes that information. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the “1999 Final Order” spawned the RLSA program and the Rural Fringe program. The program is for protection of agricultural activities, and protection from unrestrained growth to protect wetlands, protected species, and wildlife habitat. The program aims to direct growth to appropriate locations through creative land use planning techniques. The program is a way to balance continued agricultural viability, environmental resource protection, and long-term economic prosperity and diversification, including smart growth principles. These are the three legs of the three-legged stool, and the program is about balancing the three elements. In some cases, these elements reinforce each other, and in some cases, they don’t, especially land use allocations. That’s been a point of contention, and it’s important to consider all three and find balance. Mr. Van Lengen said he was going to talk about a slice of history, but because there is such a lineup of speakers that he’s going to be brief. Instead of going into detail on footprints and 16,800 acres versus 45,000 acres, he said all slides will be available on the website, and a narrative report from Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 staff will be on the website. He said that it’s important to start with consensus on the facts to move toward consensus on solutions. Mr. Van Lengen stated anyone is invited to critique staff’s narrative after it is published next week. He said the narrative covers the program history of transmittal, adoption, assessment, base credits and bonus credits and how they were expanded. He said there was a quote in the staff’s Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners that was repeated at transmittal and adoption stages, and it was misleading about the estimated 16,800 acres (or 9% of the RLSA study area) for clustered development. That statement was taken from the assessment out of context; it referred to base credits and not bonus credits. At that time, the bonus credits were simply not quantified in the way they could be today. Mr. Van Lengen stated the RLSA program was adopted in 2002, and an excellent Five Year Review report was done but not adopted for a number of reasons. At this point, he said the original habitat areas, flowway areas, and water retention areas are high value environmental areas that are slated for protection. Almost an equal amount of 95,000 acres is open for development. He explained that base credits yield around 16,000 acres of development. Early entry credits translate to another 3,400 acres of development. He said there was no way at inception to quantify restoration credits, quantification today relies on assumptions, and there is no cap on restoration credits. New ideas from the Five Year Review, such as agriculture protection in the open areas and panther corridors, were very important concepts that involved new credits, but they were not adopted. It was realized that too large a footprint was possible, so the footprint was reduced through different recommended strategies. Mr. Van Lengen went on to discuss participation in Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). He said of 90,000 acres, there are 50,000 acres protected under permanent Conservation Easements. The majority of the easements relate to agriculture, and some are at the conservation level. The easements are protective and require maintenance by the owner in perpetuity. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that new towns of 9,000 acres include the 5,000-acre town of Ave Maria and an application for a new town called Rural Lands West. The SSA credits earned so far already entitle 16,000+ acres of development area, and at least 40% of the SSA areas are yet to be protected. These remaining areas will yield credits as well, and all of this information will be part of data and analysis during the Restudy. Mr. Van Lengen said the evening’s scheduled speakers will provide various environmental, citizen, landowner and agricultural perspectives. He said he hopes this is the beginning of an experience considering views and facts on this complicated topic, and it needs to begin with facts and slowly build to a consensus. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 II Comments by Stakeholder Groups 1. Florida Wildlife Federation Nancy Payton, SW Florida Representative (Maps were displayed.) Ms. Payton introduced herself as the Southwest Florida Field Representative with the Florida Wildlife Federation. She explained her background with the Federation since 1994 when their Southwest Florida office was opened to address rural lands. She was the point person for the Federation involved in the Final Order and the planning process through today. The Federation and Audubon Society joined the State of Florida to challenge Collier County’s Growth Management Plan and its failure to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. Ms. Payton displayed an old Future Land Use Map that showed the rural area was not “green” at the time of the administrative challenge, which was an issue because of the significant wetlands and wildlife habitat in eastern Collier County. She displayed a map she dubs the “Blood Map” created by the 1000 Friends of Florida and University of Florida GeoPlan. The map shows the rural area as if there was no Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Baseline density would be one unit per five acres with no protections, no clustering, just platted property and mining with little if any consideration for wildlife needs. She explained that this is why there was a challenge and Final Order for the County to generate a better plan. She said that when the Final Order was issued, there were two major documents that were relied upon regarding wildlife: (1) A report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, formerly the Game Commission, called “Closing the Gaps.” Eastern Collier County was identified as the most important wildlife area in Florida for wide ranging species (panther and black bear). She cited the report’s reference to the low percentage of conservation lands in this part of the state. (2) A report by Frank Mazzotti with University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). He studied the Immokalee Rise and his study identified the need for uplands to have healthy wetlands. The report is dated in the 1990s. Ms. Payton added that uplands are important, and they get overlooked when dealing with conservation. Ms. Payton displayed the 2002 Buildout map for the Rural Land Stewardship Area, which she said shows the benefits of the RLSA program. She said that benefits include: more green area, connections are protected (including Camp Keais Strand and Area of Critical State Concern, connection to the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Slough, which helps move wildlife, particularly the panther). She went on to describe benefits of the current program including wildlife crossings. She described the crossing and bridge locations connecting private conservation lands (SSAs) thanks to the cooperation of private owners. She said there are roughly 50,000 acres that have been restored, privately maintained, and still on the tax roll. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 Ms. Payton gave examples to illustrate why preserve lands are far too expensive for outright purchase. She said Edison Farms in Lee County was just purchased for roughly $10,000 an acre. The Triple H Ranch in North Belle Meade was recently appraised at $8,000 an acre. She calculated that 50,000 acres at $9,000 per acre equals $450 million, and noted that Florida Forever can’t get $100 million. She explained the RLSA allows for conservation to be done and maintained forever, for the benefit of wildlife, on the tax rolls. She said the goal is to conserve 100,000 acres or more, which would cost well over $1 billion if it had to be purchased. Ms. Payton described that 14,000 acres of preserved land buffer the Panther Refuge, and about 4,500 acres buffer the Big Cypress. Privately restored and maintained conservation habitat along Camp Keais Strand is ambitious and more supportive of wildlife than the boundaries determined by Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), which only covered the deepest flowways and not upland buffers. Ms. Payton asserted that the RLSA Program is a holistic approach for wildlife species that provides incentives, not burdens, for hosting listed species. The more species on the land, the more credits the land yields, and uplands get equal consideration. Ms. Payton explained that a few other programs have come out of the RLSA Program. One is the Florida Panther Protection Program, which is a partnership of organizations and owners working cooperatively to enhance wildlife habitat. The $150 million Paul Marinelli Trust Fund is anticipated for additional enhancements, including hopefully a wildlife institute for additional research in support of the Stewardship Area and the habitat that is forever protected. Ms. Payton displayed a map based on amendments proposed by the Five Year Review Committee. She said it’s restricted to 45,000 of developable land. She reminded that if 43,000 acres are to develop with credits, the balance would be for platted communities or mining. Agricultural credits allow areas to be protected for agriculture. She referenced that Frank Mazzotti’s study emphasized the importance of agricultural and natural lands together for wildlife. She pointed out that the 45,000 acres of development includes public uses. Ave Maria University was not included before in the development area, and the Five Year Review Committee recommended including all uses in the development area. She referenced the incentives for habitat links, coexistence plans, management plans, and dark skies strategies. She said Florida Wildlife Federation supports the RLSA program and looks forward to working together to make it a great program. 2. 1000 Friends of Florida Thomas Hawkins, Policy and Planning Director Mr. Hawkins noted that the Florida Legislature is in Week Three of its session. He shared that he has been with 1000 Friends of Florida for 18 months. He described that in 2014, 1000 Friends of Florida reviewed the RLSA on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Their report recommended eight changes to the RLSA as it was originally created in 2002: Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 5 • The first recommendation was to re-evaluate the RLSA credit system. Originally there was a conception, as reflected in the Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the RLSA, that the credit system would allow around 16,000 acres of development. He said it’s now known based on the credits available, around 43,000 acres is for urban type development (2.5 units per acre) and another 43,000 acres is for ranchette type development (one unit per five acres). • The second recommendation was to restructure the RLSA to do more to protect rural agricultural lands. • The third recommendation was to consider panther habitat when identifying protected lands. • The fourth recommendation was to identify appropriate locations for new towns. • The fifth recommendation was to address infrastructure costs, which Mr. Hawkins said he’ll discuss further. • The sixth recommendation was to limit infrastructure in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. • The seventh recommendation was to incorporate Immokalee in RLSA planning. He said an integrated plan will be better in the long run. • The eighth recommendation was to limit the extensions of stewardship agreements to one year exemptions. Mr. Hawkins reiterated a statement from the Executive Summary from the 2002 RLSA transmittal hearing regarding the credit system. (For the text on the slide, refer to Mr. Hawkin’s PowerPoint presentation that is part of the record of this meeting.) Mr. Hawkins said it’s recommended to focus development in the secondary panther habitat and not to encroach on primary habitat. Mr. Hawkins moved his focus to the cost of infrastructure and displayed images from Alachua County, Florida, produced by Joe Minicozzi of Urban 3, regarding ad valorem tax production geographically. He explained that downtowns are more productive of tax revenue because they are denser, create unique places, and more desirable due to sense of place. He said single family housing is not productive of taxes compared to shopping centers or undeveloped land, especially considering homestead exemptions. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that development requires services, and the costs of services must be paid somehow. Costs to provide service to development is a function of how development is designed, and how much space is taken up. He referred to downtown areas, where development is very close together, and the ratio of developed space to length of roads is much different from suburban areas where it is more expensive to provide services to development. He gave the example that a small three-acre downtown development has higher productivity and ability to repay infrastructure cost than a suburban development. He said a thirty-acre development in the suburbs costs $28,000 per unit for services compared to $15,000 per unit in a downtown area, Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 and he summarized that the tax productivity is better for downtown style development compared to suburban development. Mr. Hawkins urged review of walkability and density as development occurs in the RLSA, stating that higher density development is more desirable and incurs less public liability for costs in the long term. He concluded that building better communities and environmental conservation are mutually beneficial goals. 3. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Nicole Johnson, Director, Environmental Policy Ms. Johnson described her tenure with The Conservancy since 1997, and that she was involved in the RLSA program since 1999. She said her presentation will focus on why the RLSA is important to all in coastal and eastern Collier County, what’s been learned over the past 16 years, and the Conservancy’s recommendations for moving forward together. Ms. Johnson referenced the intent of the Final Order to protect agriculture, natural resources and habitats and allowing for Smart Growth development and avoiding sprawl. She said it all came together in the RLSA Overlay map, and the RLSA precludes residential development in flowway areas and habitat areas and allows intensification in certain areas. Ms. Johnson reiterated the intent per staff’s Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners from the 2002 adoption hearing. She quoted: “It is believed that the adoption and implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay will not result in an increase to the total number of allowable dwelling units or population in the Eastern Lands area, but rather result in a re‐allocation of the density and population allowed under the pre‐Final Order conditions from a land‐consuming checkerboard pattern into compact, mixed‐use development.” - Collier County Board of County Commission Adoption Hearing Executive Summary. Oct. 22, 2002. Ms. Johnson said the whole intent was to remove the one unit per five acre development pattern and consolidate it into development areas. She said 16,800 acres and no ranchettes was the intent of the program. During the Five Year Review she said it was learned that there is capacity for 230% more new towns in the RLSA. Another 43,700 acres of ranchettes means 87,000 acres of towns and ranchette sprawl has resulted. She said there is a vast difference between 16,800 acres of compact development versus 87,000 acres of sprawl. Ms. Johnson said The Conservancy’s recommendation is to reevaluate the RLSA based on the original intent. She said the RLSA program is complex with different layers and valuations, and the currency in the RLSA is a stewardship credit. She said in order to balance credits for the system to work, the RLSA requires eight stewardship credits to equate to 1 acre of development. She added that eight credits per acre is the balance for having the right amount of development and not having too much development. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 Ms. Johnson said the system ended up with more credits than anticipated. Credits were added for restoration, which needs to be re-evaluated in the 2018 review, because credit is given not only for restoration, but for saying that the land can be restored by a third party. Ms. Johnson said this can be fixed by recalibrating the credits, meaning the 137,000 credits thought to be in the system could be factored by 2.3 times to equal the anticipated amount of development acre age, so that greater than eight credits still equals one acre of development. Ms. Johnson said that The Conservancy concludes that 87,000 acres of new towns and ranchettes constitutes sprawl. She quoted: “The large 93,000 acre area eligible for designation of receiving areas, which also allows the conversion of land uses to the underlying low‐density uses, is the exact opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas.” - Dept. of Community Affairs Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature She said The Conservancy recommends, as it did during the Five Year Review, that these areas where intensification is allowed be re-evaluated based on latest science, economic conditions and the original intent of the program. Regarding best available science, Ms. Johnson explained the RLSA was based on year 2000 science, and now 2018 is best available science. She gave an example of the area critical for the panther that could be more valuable and provide for protection of agriculture. She referenced a map prepared as part of the Five Year Review showing 45,000 acres of development area and highlighted the lines indicating expanded or new roads. The cost in 2010 was calculated by the Conservancy to be $2.1 billion, some of which will be borne by taxpayers, which she said was learned from the Oil Well Road expansion. She said the costs to be borne by taxpayers, developers and new residents needs to be updated and evaluated. Ms. Johnson said public participation has been a hallmark in the past for the RLSA program, and the Conservancy appreciates it being a part of the 2018 Restudy. She encouraged people to get involved and stay involved. She ended by saying it’s rare to have a chance to reevaluate a program like this. It’s an opportunity to look at what went right or wrong in 2002, and what’s been learned since the Five Year Review. She said there is nothing binding us to the Five Year Review recommendations. She reiterated The Conservancy’s recommendations as the “five R’s”: reassess, recalibrate, revise the overlay, recalculate cost of infrastructure to taxpayers, and remember participation by all stakeholders is critical. 4. Audubon of the Western Everglades Brad Cornell, Southwest Florida Policy Associate Mr. Cornell explained the organization’s name was Collier County Audubon when they collaborated with other agencies and the State on the original RLSA related litigation against the Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 County. He said it’s important to think about the whole community and getting things done in the big picture. He said when things are going the wrong direction, it’s important to raise a hand. Mr. Cornell was on the Five Year Review Committee, and he recalled that there was a lot of concern the RLSA program might not work, because no such program had been done before in the State of Florida. The Five Year Review was meant to evaluate whether the program’s intent was accomplished. He explained the Five Year Review Committee spent two years, and he showed that they wrote three volumes of material and pointed out that this Restudy is not new. He said the recommendations of the Five Year Review Committee had a great deal of public input and participation, and the Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments that were recommended are still prudent today. He said the end for this Restudy is to look at the GMP amendments, tweak and update and adopt them, adding that almost all of 1000 Friends of Florida’s questions are answered in the GMP amendments. Mr. Cornell gave highlights of the Five Year Review Committee’s Technical Review (Phase 1 Report). Almost 55,000 acres of stewardship sending easements had already been put in place, which is a lot of land and high quality habitat, which he said was a success. He said the 5,000 acres of Receiving Areas including Ave Maria was a success too. He said landowners did participate and saw value in this program. He described the current SSA acreage is 50,600 acres because one SSA was removed unfortunately, and new town of Rural Lands West is pending. Mr. Cornell explained that an issue identified in the Five Year Review was that the leftover land constituting 43,000 acres of open land could become like the Estates or ranchettes. He said that’s sprawl, and another incentive is needed to prevent it. Mr. Cornell showed a map of Camp Keais Strand, noting how it is almost entirely protected, which is a success. Mr. Cornell discussed why the 43,300 acres of land is proposed for development. He said there is a need to calibrate credits, but what counts is the map in the end. The owners of almost 195,000 acres of land need to have access to equal benefits, otherwise the program does not work. He said 43,300 acres of equitably distributed development potential relates to 134,000 acres or 92,000 acres of benefit. Mr. Cornell discussed the 17,000 acres of primary panther habitat and the conservative assumption that all of it would be destroyed, when in fact the permitting requirements for avoidance and minimization result in landowners developing least valuable habitat first. He said the impacts to primary panther habitat could be zero; it is offset by the mitigation credits. Mr. Cornell displayed the adopted RLSA credit system and pointed out the restoration credits. He said it is not known how many credits restoration will yield and stressed that restoration is desirable. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 Mr. Cornell pointed out important outcomes from the Five Year Review: • Capping development at 45,000 acres. • Recalibrating and prioritizing restoration by types of restoration, referring to wordstork, wetlands, and panther. • Regarding the 43,000 acres with potential for one dwelling unit per five acres, he suggests agricultural easements. He stressed this is still not in the RLSA program, and this is what his organization is looking for. • 45,000 acres for development is a lot, but it is over fifty years. • The value of farm fields is that they provide two to three times as much panther habitat. Mr. Cornell elaborated on the Florida Panther Protection Program, and said the Five Year Review was based on this. He said it’s a commitment between four leading conservation groups in 2008 and eight major landowners, and this was done in parallel to the Five Year Review and identified ways to improve rural land stewardship beyond the Five Year Review. Mr. Cornell advised that the $150 million Marinelli fund is explained on floridapantherprotection.com, and that the program was reviewed by six panther experts, and their assessments agreed it’s positive and good for the panther. 5. Collier Citizens Council Charlette Roman Growth Management Committee Neville Williams Ms. Roman explained she is not representing Marco Island or the Marco Island City Council. She is representing the Collier Citizens Council, which is a coalition of leaders that represent citizens’ views on local and state policy. The Collier Citizens Council Growth Management Committee has been a part of the Restudy process since its beginning almost two years ago. She expressed appreciation for Growth Management staff for their professional efforts. Ms. Roman said the focus of her presentation is on smart growth. Smart growth includes walkable communities, sustainability, compact new urbanism, green building standards, and eliminating gated communities with no connectivity due to car-centric design. She also shared the following principles of sustainable communities: connected, compact, complete, complex, convivial, conserving, and cost-effective. She said sustainable communities reinforce compact communities, making for livable and desirable places where people want to live. Ms. Roman displayed images of Seaside, Florida as an example of new urbanism. She explained Seaside is walkable with green space and a town center. She also showed images of Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Maryland as another example of a success story, and said it shows effective environmental and urban design in a larger region, with central parks and green space. She showed images of Fifth Avenue South in Downtown Naples as another example. Neville Williams explained he is not an expert, just a citizen. He lived in Kentlands, Maryland which was designed by Duany Plater Zyberg (DPZ), the original authors of smart growth. He said they planned in cooperation with the City, the County, landowners, and multiple developers. Mr. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 Williams suggested inviting DPZ for a couple of days to advise on how different communities have devised smart growth plans, zoning regulations and laws. Mr. Williams referred to Babcock Ranch as an example of smart growth. He said without smart growth in planning, the County will be in big trouble, referencing an excerpt from the December issue of Florida Weekly about impacts of development pressures in Southwest Florida. Mr. Williams said he has lived in three counties under pressure from developers and is just an observer. He said each county had agricultural land and open space, and quality of life was accomplished through transferrable development rights (TDRs). Mr. Williams said Collier’s TDR program is stalled, and the stewardship program is complicated. He said Collier County has a first-rate Growth Management Department, but it needs to be given the tools to achieve the vision derived from these workshops, noting that the Board of County Commissioners has yet to approve recommendations from the Five Year Review. Mr. Williams said if the public doesn’t act, there will be 300,000 new residents spread across the Rural Fringe and the eastern lands and a nightmare of runaway sprawl. Four votes of the County Commission will determine the County’s future, so public involvement is important. (It was acknowledged at this point of Mr. Williams’ presentation that Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Taylor were in the audience.) Mr. Williams said Rural Lands West will be a test and stressed that the roads can’t take any more traffic, so he advised members of the public to let public officials know what they want. He concluded that instituting progressive smart growth planning may be biggest political challenge the County has faced. He said he knows it can be done, and he advised the audience to speak up and get involved. 6. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Al Reynolds, Regional VP Mr. Reynolds acknowledged the turnout for the meeting. He said he has been a land use planner in Naples and Collier County for forty years and is a planning consultant to eastern Collier property owners. He gave thanks to Nancy Payton and Brad Cornell for getting the ball rolling to challenge the County Comprehensive Plan, because otherwise the County would not have such a good Rural Land Stewardship program. Mr. Reynolds explained that the stewardship program is incentive-based planning, not regulatory, and private owners choose to participate. He said that incentives encourage owners to do things that help owners and help the public. He further stated the stewardship program also balances needs and opportunities for resource protection, conservation, agriculture, restoration, promoting sustainable growth and economic diversification. Mr. Reynolds listed guiding principles of the RLSA: • The program is data driven, and credits are based on science that can be updated over time. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 • Participation is voluntary, and the same rights exist today that existed twenty years ago before this program; the overlay is a choice while protecting underlying rights. • There are limited public dollars. The stewardship program relies on private ownership and management of conservation as another tool in the toolbox. • Economics of growth drive the ability to conserve land. The credit system monetizes development rights to allow for preservation without costing public dollars. Mr. Reynolds pointed out the Collier County program is a model for others throughout the state, and the program is award-winning. He explained around 80% of the eastern land is controlled by private owners, who are good stewards by either preserving or using the land for agriculture, and they’ve been cooperating for twenty years to make sure the program succeeds. He referred to the credit system and pointed out that the more valuable land is for environmental purposes, the more credit it generates. Landowners get more credit for protecting more environmentally sensitive land. By giving more credit for protecting high value environmental land, he said this makes sure the most important land is protected first. He highlighted that 50,000 acres of the most critical habitat has already been protected. Mr. Reynold advised that any development at a density other than one unit per five acres requires use of the RLSA program. He also stated that all the estimated development acreages are assuming 100% participation by all private property owners in eastern Collier County. Mr. Reynolds gave an example of scoring stewardship credits which can be sold or used for development. He explained that over 50,000 acres have been protected, and most of this was done in the first five years of the program. He said the target for protected lands in 2025 was 89,300 acres, and the vision for 2050 is 134,000 acres. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the RLSA program is one of the five most successful transfer of development rights (TDR) programs in the United States. He pointed out the two public conservation programs in Southwest Florida are Conservation Collier and Lee County Conservation 2020, and they are both funded with tax dollars and are both successful. He said the incentivization of private conservation is a good way to contribute to successful outcomes. He said Conservation Collier has $144 million in economic benefit annually per the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council formula for quantifying conservation in terms of ecosystem service value (or “TEV” value) to monetize public benefit value. He said the Rural Land Stewardship program has incurred zero cost and has $1 billion of economic benefit for the 53,000 acres preserved. He suggests a balance of programs including public acquisition and incentivized private conservation. Mr. Reynolds also spoke on behalf of Barron Collier Companies. He explained they have owned 65,000 acres, approximately one-third of the RLSA area, since the 1920s. He said they developed Ave Maria and protected 17,000 acres by creating the first SSA, and conservation and active agriculture was included in the sending area. He said Barron Collier Companies are retaining ranching along with conservation, and they enabled panther crossings at no public cost. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 12 Mr. Reynolds said Ave Maria is the fastest growing master planned new town in Southwest Florida, and infrastructure inside the town was put in place by the private owner at no cost to the County. He said Ave Maria has brought diversity and investment to eastern Collier County, which is part of the RLSA balance for economic diversity and prosperity. He also said the $200 million university with 1,100 students couldn’t have happened without the RLSA program. He added that Arthrex built a 400,000-square foot facility in Ave Maria employing 1,600 people, helping meet the goal of the program to bring economic development to Collier County. 7. Collier Enterprises Christian Spilker, Vice President Land Management Mr. Reynolds spoke on behalf of Collier Enterprises, stating that they own approximately 44,000 acres. Their Rural Lands West proposal has been in process for approximately three years, with around 18 months left to go. He said Rural Lands West will be a complete town with a 4,000-acre development footprint, and 1,400 acres are open space. He pointed out the development footprints must have 35% open space. He said the project represents a tax base of $2.8 billion and will generate $260 million in impact fees. Mr. Reynolds said the Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) constitute regional scale habitat, providing a complete connection from Corkscrew Marsh to the Panther Refuge through Camp Keais Strand. He said this completes the conservation vision for land that is worth $80-120 million but won’t cost tax payers a dime. 8. Barron Collier Companies Tom Jones, VP, Government Affairs Mr. Jones said Barron Collier Companies is the largest property owner in eastern Collier County. He referred to other presenters’ references to the timeframe of 1999, and he said it’s important to consider events before 1999. He said the challenge to the Growth Management Plan was then assumed by participants in the process to be resolved by downzoning all property east of Golden Gate Estates so that land allowed with a density of one unit per five acres would be downzoned to densities of one unit per twenty or forty acres. He said landowners of eastern Collier County had no idea there was a settlement agreement by interest groups with the State of Florida. Mr. Jones described how Barron Collier Companies is a multigenerational company that has been good stewards for decades, and there has never been a shortage of other people deciding what to do with Barron Collier Companies’ property. Rather than pursuing a lawsuit, Barron Collier Companies worked with consultant Al Reynolds to take a step back and set a direction for what landowners could do with their property. He said the Governor and Cabinet and landowners agreed to a three-year moratorium to study how development could proceed while protecting resources and maintaining the agricultural base. After three years, all parties agreed the RLSA program is a good program. He pointed out that Rural Lands West will be the second town; Ave Maria was the first. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 13 Mr. Jones said the outcome of the 2008 Five Year Review was worthwhile, and the map got more “green.” He recommended that the outcomes of the work done in 2008 should be considered, and he supports moving forward with the recommendations of the Five Year Review. 9. Consolidated Citrus LP Mitch Hutchcraft, VP, Real Estate Mr. Hutchcraft stated that Consolidated Citrus is a landowner within the RLSA. The parent company of Consolidated Citrus is King Ranch, which has a legacy of agricultural innovation and stewardship and is one of the largest citrus producers in the United States. The company is proud of its operations and land management practices and its history of cooperating with environmental partners to achieve regional goals. Mr. Hutchcraft said connected open spaces and wildlife areas are critical. He said the RLSA will provide long term environmental benefits, and the benefits are maximized when agriculture is a valued part of the regional landscape. He also said that incentives to protect natural resources and economically viable agriculture are critical to achieving regional goals. King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus are supportive of the RLSA program, and their corporate interest is to remain in agriculture as long as it is economically viable, which could be five to fifty years. As adopted, the current program does not provide incentives or assurance for agricultural use, which leads to these lands to be unprotected and ultimately developable as low density residential. As part of the Five Year Review, Mr. Hutchcraft supported updating incentives for retaining long- term agriculture. He said this must be done in a way that ensures equity for all landowners regardless of size or number of credits. He stressed that all parties agreed with the need for incentives to retain agriculture, and that incentives to retain agriculture would assure less open land conversion to one dwelling per five acres. He added that incentives to retain agriculture also provides an opportunity for agriculture to transition and buffer between natural areas and developed areas. He also said incentives for retaining agricultural lands ensure credits are in the system for developing later, and this warrants recalibrating the credit system. Mr. Hutchcraft supports the Five Year Review recommendations to further the intent of the RLSA program, consistent with recommendations of DCA and the Five Year Review Committee. He encouraged putting weight on the Five Year Review Committee’s work and recommendations to recognize the value and importance of agriculture retention credits, and to provide equity for all to participate in the program in a meaningful way. 10. UF/IFAS-Southwest Florida Research & Education Center Dr. Fritz Roka, Food and Resource Economics Dr. Roka began his presentation on the Economic Importance of Agriculture to Collier County and Southwest Florida by stating that agricultural activities should be valued. He displayed Agriculture Census data indicating agricultural land has decreased in Collier County over fifteen years, but the number of farms has increased, indicating diversity. He said the value of land is $1.8 to 2 million per farming activity, which is an increase in value per acre. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 14 Dr. Roka disagreed that there was no value in eastern Collier County before Arthrex. He highlighted the following statistics on the economic conditions for the area: • $2.6 billion in direct sales in mining, recreation, agriculture, which produces $4 billion in economic impact • For every dollar of taxes in agricultural areas, it costs the government thirty cents in services. This is a surplus of value for agricultural areas. • The total economic impact correlates to 49,000 jobs generated from agriculture and natural resources. • In the Southwest Florida five county area, farm value is over $1.3 billion. Dr. Roka explained there are high risks in agriculture. Hurricane Irma devastated citrus groves, but there is still optimism. He explained that significant dollars are spent to produce and harvest agricultural crops, and break-even financials are precarious. He said the agriculture industry has done a phenomenal job of coping with various challenges and bouncing back with help from a diversity of products and producers. Dr. Roka said it’s important to recognize that agriculture is a business, and there needs to be a reasonable rate of return for the business. He said that enhancing the value of agriculture through public policy is going to help keep the industry going. He urged that benefits to the agriculture community can be beneficial to other aspirations of the RLSA program. Dr. Roka shared thoughts about agriculture being considered adversarial in Southwest Florida; it’s considered detrimental to the environment. In fact, he said there is synergy between agricultural and environmental interests. He said it is good to enhance and extract environmental benefits from agricultural land with a reasonable rate of return for the landowner. He added that there is opportunity for wildlife habitat, however ranchers need compensation for calves that have been food for panthers. Dr. Roka mentioned best labor practices and that the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has done a lot for the industry. He said that social justice is happening in Immokalee, yet no value is going to growers in exchange for the good labor practices they perform. He said this is an opportunity to market the good practices and return value to the growers. 11. Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Michael Dalby, President and CEO Mr. Dalby said the mission of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce is to make Collier County the best place to live, play and work in the United States. His focus is on economic prosperity and his plea is to reserve space in the RLSA for primary employers. He explained how employers are important to the community and displayed a list of various companies that are primary employers, which provide high paid high skill jobs and are primary economic drivers. Mr. Dalby identified there are challenges and opportunities in eastern Collier County. He identified the challenge of population growth, and the continued need for jobs. He said he seeks to find companies that will bring high wage jobs to the region. Another challenge he identified is that the Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 15 top five occupations from 2016 to 2024 are lower wage service jobs. He also identified that primary employers need talented employees with proper skill sets, which makes workforce training important. Yet another challenge he identified is commercial real estate availability and limitations on primary employer space, Class A office space, business parks, and technology parks. Mr. Dalby displayed a map showing primary employer locations scattered around Collier County and pointed out that there are no strong geographic clusters. He said eastern Collier County allows spaces to plan for a business park or tech park. He shared that Lee County has a tech park, and letters have been sent to attract Collier County businesses to the 135-acre clustered tech park for high wage and high skilled job opportunities in conjunction with Florida Gulf Coast University. He said this is something that could be accomplished in Collier County. He described opportunities in the eastern lands for two such parks, including one operated by Collier County. He stressed he is not suggesting recruitment. He envisions growth of small businesses that are in Collier County now. Mr. Dalby concluded that the plea of the Chamber of Commerce is to include space for primary employers in the RLSA to provide for economic opportunity and living wage jobs. 12. League of Women Voters Charlotte Nycklemoe, Co-President Ms. Nycklemoe spoke without digital aids. She said growth management is priority issue for the League of Women Voters. She said the group has a long commitment to smart growth and protecting environmentally sensitive lands. She also said they support development that supports its own impact and support government action that results in sustainability for this generation and future generations. Ms. Nycklemoe said all members of the Collier County community are affected by what happens in the RLSA. She expressed concern that not all members of the community are aware of the workshop meeting schedule and urged the County to reach out in many forums and venues to inform citizens about the RLSA and related decisions. She asked that the County move the next four workshops from 4:00 p.m. to later in the evening for working people to attend. Ms. Nycklemoe agreed that re-evaluating the RLSA program using County staff is vital to success and may provide an unbiased approach. She stated that in 2002 the RLSA program was adopted to protect agricultural land, direct incompatible uses away from wildlife and listed species, and to allow appropriate development while avoiding sprawl. She said the original RLSA established that only 9% or 16,800 acres would be developed, and the rest would remain in agriculture and conservation. She said the Restudy should consider Environmental Advisory Council recommendations generated during the Five Year Review, most importantly the issue of credits that exceeded the original RLSA program, because she said the proliferation of credits or incentives would contradict the integrity of the 2002 program. Meeting Summary for RLSA Restudy “Kick-off” Meeting - Introduction, History and Perspectives January 25, 2018, 6:30 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 16 She expressed concern of water supply impacts to the Lower Hawthorne aquifer. She referenced a 2016 report by the University of Florida, the Florida Department of Agriculture and 1000 Friends of Florida titled the “Water 2070 Report,” which examined water availability and needs of people, agriculture, and the environment. She said much has changed since the original RLSA was adopted and the Five Year Review was published. She referenced three studies by panther experts that identify areas in the RLSA that are essential for the survival of the panther. She referenced new water studies including the 2016 Water 2070 Report. She said the new information and other changes like climate change, increased traffic, and population growth need to be factored into a new proposal. Following Ms. Nycklemoe’s conclusion, Kris Van Lengen apologized that no time remained for speakers from the audience because the room must be cleared before 9:00 p.m. He said the next meeting will be at 4:00 p.m. in the same room, four weeks from today. He said anyone who had submitted a speaker slip will get priority to speak at the next meeting, and the time limit for speaking will be extended. In response to an audience question about changing the start time of the next meeting, Mr. Van Lengen said the Oversight Committee will be polled to determine whether to change the start time. The meeting concluded at approximately 8:45 p.m. Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall Kris Van Lengen opened the meeting at 4:15. He appreciated those in attendance and said the County will continue working on getting more people to attend the meetings going forward. (Note: The meeting room was arranged with ten roundtables, each identified by a different color. Each attendee was assigned randomly to a table, forming groups at each roundtable.) Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged Johnson Engineering team members for helping with the logistics of this RLSA Restudy meeting and the meetings going forward, including Laura, Ashlynn, Josh and Marina. Mr. Van Lengen introduced Amanda Evans, a professor at FGCU with broad experience including facilitation. Dr. Evans described her role to facilitate dialogue. She explained her background is in mediation and facilitation. She has also taken students to Tallahassee every session for nineteen years to work with legislators on policy issues. She said she’s also a native Floridian but does not own land in Collier County, does not live in Collier County, and does not have interests in the RLSA Restudy process. Therefore, she is a neutral party, and she is not emotionally involved in the process. She is only involved to get the conversation going. She described how the study process involves gathering data, and as a researcher, she sees the data and outcomes being derived from the participants. During the evening, questions or comments or feedback will be welcomed. She agreed with comments from attendees that working groups could be combined to make them more robust. Mr. Van Lengen conveyed that Dr. Evans’ experience is extensive, with very interesting research projects she has conducted. He then described the agenda. He announced there will first be time for speakers who had submitted speaker slips at the January RLSA Restudy meeting. Their names will be called in order and they will be given the time they need to speak. Mr. Van Lengen said he will then give an overview of the RLSA process, including how the program works. He said he’ll give a quick tour of website to identify pages to help with finding material online. Then the meeting will move into group exercises meant to review Group 1 policies which are the basic purposes of the RLSA. He said the group exercises will be somewhat experimental, and a couple of policies will be assigned for the groups to discuss. Mr. Van Lengen called the public speakers’ names as follow: Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 Gaylene Vasaturo Ms. Vasaturo explained that there are several topics that are important to the decision making on changes to the RLSA program. She said some additional topics should be included as topics of workshops, including: 1. Water resources – Impacts of new development to water resources must be discussed. She said the Growth Management Plan should be revised to include explicit policies to protect water resources considering all those living downstream from the proposed RLSA development. She said Rural Lands provide water storage and groundwater recharge that is important to our water quality, water supplies and flood protection. 2. Natural resources index (NRI) – She said the County should discuss Group 1 Policies 1.8 and 1.9 concerning the NRI. This was developed by Wilson Miller in 2000 and should be revised to consider new information from two panther studies and the 2008 panther recovery plan. She said the 2002 NRI assigned a low resource value to agricultural lands and disturbed lands which affects the number of credits for those lands and affects what lands are determined to be preserved. She said Wilson Miller noted in 2000 that panther use of agricultural land was not well understood and acknowledged the science would continue to evolve. She said in Willson Miller’s 2002 study, they referenced ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and the updated Panther Recovery Plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She said we now have the 2008 Panther Recovery Plan and two other studies by panther experts. She said we now know that the active agricultural fields and open areas in some cases are highly valuable to panthers. Portions have been identified as primary panther habitat, and all studies and reports agree that primary panther habitat must be preserved for long term survival of the panther. She said revision to the NRI should be discussed. 3. Infrastructure – She said workshops should include discussion of infrastructure. She asked what will be required to meet Level of Service requirements for roads, schools, wastewater treatment plants, and water plants? She asked what will infrastructure cost, and who will pay? She said the costs will impact all Collier County residents, and it should be discussed in workshops, so all can participate. Michael Seef Mr. Seef asked about transportation issues and associated costs, and who will pay these? He said population is an issue that drives the plan. Population projections have been twice the actual population increases. He said from 2015 to the present, the population increase was 35% lower than anticipated, so population has not been growing as fast as people thought it would. Since population drives decisions, the population growth needs to be right and worked out early in the process, not as an afterthought. He said realistic projections are needed. The bureau that provides long range projections (BEBR) is a usual source for population figures. He said we also Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 need to understand how many households will be formed, considering 2.1 or 2.2 people per household. He said we need to make sure 20% or so of seasonal people are accounted for. He said population should be addressed early in the study, not as an afterthought. Density issues also relate to population. He questioned how dense the new towns will be, Rural Lands West and Ave Maria, for example? He questioned if there will be more sprawl like the current Naples metro area repeated in the Rural Lands? He said demand is demand, but part of the RLSA will be a denser population. Mr. Seef said the County’s CGI model can determine roads and transportation, which was a weakness in the earlier work because there aren’t accurate costs identified for transportation. The County’s urban area will end up paying through fees or taxes for the new proposed infrastructure for the new proposed towns. He is hoping the CGI model will give guidance on infrastructure and costs. Bonnie Michaels Ms. Michaels said the information shared at the meetings is important, and not enough people are attending. She said there are not enough people in attendance representing the whole population. She asked about recording of the meeting, and Mr. Van Lengen responded there is an audio recording. She said it is really important to have a recording, because she would like to refer back and listen to the meeting. People who can’t attend should be able to have the frame of reference. She said Mr. Van Lengen’s presentation should be online so people have a chance to learn from it. Dr. Judith Hushon Dr. Hushon described that she chaired the Environmental Advisory Council for Collier County during the last review (Five Year Review). She said she participated in hearings and attended all the pre-sessions. She grew familiar at the end of the whole process. She highlighted her desire to discuss whether the RLSA plan is working. She specified that the question relates to the 2002 plan, and asked whether it is working. She suggested that there are ways that it is working and ways it is not working, and the ways that it’s not working need to be looked at. She said agricultural land usage has decreased over 30% since 2002. The purpose of the RLSA plan was to encourage smart development while ensuring agricultural lands remained and were protected and that incompatible uses were directed away from wetlands and uplands to protect Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 water resources and wildlife. She reiterated that agricultural lands have declined. Areas were identified that were environmentally sensitive, yielding credits from 15 sending areas, allowing 28,233 acres of development that is registered. She said development was only to occur on 16,800 acres according to the original plan. One town has been built on 5,000 acres that can be doubled, with several others being planned. She said 4,000 acres are in phase one of Rural Lands West, which can be doubled. She said Alico has 778 acres, Hogan Mine has 1,200 acres, and this all adds to over 19,000 acres already planned or beginning to be planned. Dr. Hushon said there is a total of about 95,000 acres not in conservation areas in the eastern lands. She said the panther protection team has published results and defined primary and secondary habitats to be set aside for foraging or breeding. She said this needs to be accounted for in the RLSA plan. She said setting aside the primary panther habitat still allows 40,000 acres for building and allows corridors. She said the 2009 review (Five Year Review) was run by the landowners, which was the main reason it failed. Taxpayers need a voice, because their dollars pay for infrastructure and their future water needs must be met. Taxpayers must also endure traffic congestion and shortened resources if funds are diverted eastward. Dr. Hushon referenced that other counties have adopted different approaches for agriculture and groundwater recharge. Charlotte and Lee Counties set aside eastern lands where development is prohibited. She said in Collier, you can presumably build anywhere except in the Area of Critical State Concern along the Everglades. She said each of the eight landowners wants to build a town, and she asked whether they really have this right. She said we need to look at how to do smart development and how to do development that pays for infrastructure that goes into it. She said infrastructure is exceedingly expensive, which was learned due to Oil Well Road. She said Oil Well Road went in for Ave Maria, and the County paid for it, noting that it was supposed to be paid for by impact fees, by they were not paid. She said taxpayers paid for it, sacrificing other projects. She said we need to make sure we’re not doing things that don’t make sense as development moves forward. Dr. Hushon said other counties in the country have concurrency, and Collier County does not have concurrency. She said concurrency means development is not allowed to be built until the infrastructure is in place. She said we want to build smart, and don’t want to jeopardize the future of Collier County. Scott Boyd was called as the final speaker. He was not present. Mr. Van Lengen thanked participants for comments and explained this is a long process, and this is the beginning of the outreach process. He said there will be a lot of meetings and opportunities to speak about different topics because there are many policies involved. Mr. Van Lengen noted Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 5 that his presentation is a basic run through of how the RLSA program works, and that an expanded version of the presentation is available on the website. Mr. Van Lengen mentioned the RLSA program history, starting with the 1999 Final Order by the state saying the County was not doing enough to protect natural resources. The RLSA plan began in 2000 and wrapped up with the 2002 Board of County Commissioners’ adoption of the RLSA overlay. In 2004 the town of Ave Maria was approved. In 2006 the Big Cypress Stewardship Area was approved in terms of the Community Development District (CDD). In 2007 the Five Year Review began, which was required by the original legislation. The Five Year Review wrapped up in 2009 with a report to Board, and none of recommendations were adopted for a number of reasons. The Five Year Review involved a lot of important study, data and analysis from that period which is important to use and update for this project. He said in 2015, the Rural Lands West application was submitted for a new Stewardship Receiving Area west of Ave Maria, and this still in staff review, not at the public hearing process yet. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the Restudy is an effort to find what works and doesn’t work, and how well the program works and is balanced. Balance between agricultural viability, environmental protection, and responsible growth is the key so the economic prosperity of the region can be enhanced. Sometimes these things work together and sometimes they don’t, and the tradeoffs need to be considered when reviewing policies. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the RLSA overlay map adopted as part of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management. The map shows the original plan provided the most important environmental assets to be protected – blue areas are flow way stewardship areas, green areas are habitat stewardship areas, and light blue areas are water retention areas, which are all important environmentally. White areas are called open areas, which are important for agriculture, and where towns villages and hamlets can be built. Mr. Van Lengen said the private ownership occupies 186,000 acres. Environmental protection targets are at 91,000 acres. Open areas are slightly more than half (roughly 95,000 acres), which are areas where towns and villages can be built. Mr. Van Lengen explained that credits are the currency of the program. Stewardship credits can be derived from high value areas. The value of areas as higher or lower can be debated. The application process allows an applicant to recalibrate the values. The values are Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based. Credits are sold to developers or builders for rooftops after removal from habitat or stewardship areas. Mr. Van Lengen described the stewardship credit worksheet, which can be perplexing to most people because it looks complicated. He said the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process involves trading dwelling units from one place to another. The RLSA program is a more Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 complicated two-step process. He noted the worksheet will be on the County website and is provided on a display board in the meeting room. He described the various elements that create the Natural Resource Index (NRI), including soil, groundcover, habitat values, and water resource values. He described a typical score of 1 to 3 when all elements are tallied together on an acre by acre basis. The second part of the worksheet is the land use layers. The owner decides how many layers to remove from a property. L ayers removed from the property give a multiplier, with a maximum multiplier of 1 if all layers including conservation are removed. Most sending areas have been submitted with layers removed down to Agriculture 1 or 2. He explained the first layer constitutes the removal of residential dwelling units, yielding a 0.2 multiplier. The more layers removed, the more credits an owner gets. Other layers include conditional uses, mining, active agricultural (versus passive grazing). Mr. Van Lengen gave an example of a 500-acre parcel with an average NRI score of 1.8, which is a relatively good score. He described the removal of layers down to grazing for cattle. The formula for the owner to determine stewardship credits would be the multiplier x 1.8 x 500 acres, yielding 810 stewardship credits. The stewardship credits are divided by 8 to determine the number of acres that could be developed. Early entry bonuses and restoration bonuses are another factor in the equation. He noted this worksheet and presentation explaining the credit formula is online. Mr. Van Lengen described Ave Maria as an example. The developers of Ave Maria set aside 16,000 acres of sending areas in easements, mostly habitat areas along the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee (OK) Slough. To get the stewardship credits, the easements require the owners or designees to maintain the areas in perpetuity in agricultural use or in conservation. This is done with no cost to the taxpayer. Mr. Van Lengen gave an example of a challenge in establishing protection and maintenance of high quality habitat areas in perpetuity. The North Belle Meade area in the Rural Fringe District has high environmental importance but is vulnerable to development because there are no easements provided for. The idea of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program was to convey ownership of sending lands to a government agency. The County sought out agencies to take ownership of the lands, but no agency was willing and there is a lot of reluctance by the County to take ownership because it’s costly to restore and maintain long term. The 3,000 acres is estimated to cost $12 million for establishing and maintaining the lands in conservation over a five year period. Apply similar costs to 90,000 acres, and the costs are quite large. He summarized that the RLSA program accomplishes the removal of the development rights afforded by the Agricultural zoning from sensitive lands, and moves those rights to areas using smart growth principles (which will be reviewed during the Restudy) and in the process yields a no-cost benefit of having the sending areas being protected in perpetuity by the owners under easements. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 Mr. Van Lengen said today’s conditions reveal that out of 91,000 acres of highest value areas to be protected, 50,000 acres are protected (some of which are conditionally approved). To protect the remaining areas, more credits are assumed to be forthcoming. In open areas, Mr. Van Lengen explained, conservation is still allowed, and easements are allowed for agriculture, but the NRI values are low so there is no incentive, thus less than 1% of those lands are currently protected. Mr. Van Lengen said the County will not be allowing the entirety of the 95,000 acres of open land to be developed with SRA development. The open areas outside of SRAs are vulnerable to underlying zoning, which is Agricultural zoning with development rights of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This was a big concern during the Five Year Review and a big concern of staff. He said the resulting development pattern would be sprawl, and the County wants to protect open areas that won’t be SRA development from such a result. As an aside, Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that a large initiative of the County’s restudy effort is the Immokalee Area Master Plan Restudy that just began. He said this is important because so much social equity can be achieved through redevelopment, and there is a lot of synergy between the RLSA areas and Immokalee. Complimentary land uses are a major theme to be aware of. He explained that if agriculture is healthy in the Rural Lands, it’s healthy for Immokalee’s people and economy. Immokalee is considered a possible hub of industrial and high-tech companies. There are problems with low income housing and a lack of working family housing to the extent there are no homes available for $100-200,000 suitable for younger workers. The idea of enticing businesses to locate in Immokalee means that the affordability and diversity of housing can be addressed in the RLSA. Rules for hamlets close to or bordering Immokalee is an idea to achieve this synergy. Mr. Van Lengen challenged the audience to think of ways to achieve this synergy between the future of Immokalee and the RLSA. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the Restudy process. The current stage is public workshops. Six public workshops were originally scheduled, however Policy groups 3 and 4 will take two sessions each. The question of infrastructure and fiscal impact will be a separate session. The polici es of Group 1 and the credit system will have to be revisited at the end of the process. After workshops, the recommendations will be compiled and revisited with the public. A white paper will be taken to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to explain the ideas, pros and cons. Then the BCC decides either to revisit items or to move forward to the public hearing process, which takes nine months with public hearings at the Collier County Planning Commission, the BCC, back to the Planning Commission, and back to the BCC. There will be lots of opportunities to weigh in and work on making the program a better program, which is the goal of the Restudy. Mr. Van Lengen showed how information is on the County website. He provided the email address rlsarestudy@colliergov.net and confirmed that written comments can be submitted, and they will be addressed. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 Mr. Van Lengen showed the Colliergov.net/GMPrestudies webpage. He showed the link to the Rural Land Stewardship Area page. He showed the Workshops link which has dates, times, and meeting documents. He said the Growth Management Oversight Committee meeting will be next Thursday at 3:00 p.m., where workshop start times and a greater number of meetings will be discussed. He said the fourth Thursday of the month will be used for workshops, and it’s possible to skip summer. He made it known that attendance at the Oversight Committee meeting is welcomed at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. He showed where RLSA Restudy meeting documents can be found online, including agendas, summaries, and PowerPoints. Meeting audio will also be posted. Mr. Van Lengen described the RLSA Library link. He said 150 different documents are available and encouraged the public to send documents to include in the online Library. Mr. Van Lengen pointed out the Collier County staff memo entitled “RLSA Footprint.” He said the memo details the factual background on the RLSA footprint, including discussion of the original intent and factual history. He welcomed all to read and send comments, criticisms, additions, and factual challenges. He emphasized the word study means to gather the facts and then come to conclusions, and noted the Library will include the PowerPoint that expounds upon today’s presentation. Mr. Van Lengen explained the purpose of arranging today’s meeting in table group format is to work together and report out what the group finds important about the Group 1 policies. He said it’s an experiment that allows for us to learn and improve the next time. He said the County will post the Group 2 polices online in advance of the Group 2 policy workshop, allowing participants to tell the County in advance which policies should be considered for discussion during the next meeting. Mr. Van Lengen summarized the Group 1 policies (printouts of the Group 1 policies were provided to all attendees). Mr. Van Lengen said the NRI should be addressed at the end of the Restudy Workshops because values and credits will be reviewed along the way. Mr. Van Lengen explained there are two policies identified by the County for working group discussions during today’s workshop. Policy 1.7 relates to Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) easements. Mr. Van Lengen referenced the requirement for easements to obtain a SSA. He said during the Five Year Review, it was recommended to include Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in addition to Collier County and a state agency or land trust as grantees. The question to consider is whether it helps to have more than one grantee or enforcing party for the required easements, and whether easements are the adequate mechanism for the protection of resources. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 Dr. Evans explained the group format is meant to get as many voices heard as possible. The groups may have commonalities or divergent opinions. The forms provided for gathering group input is divided to identify items for which the group has consensus, and actions items that are agreed upon; and to identify non-consensus items and the barriers to group agreement. The purpose is to gather data through the restudy process to reveal the thinking of the people who care most. There is space on the forms provided to the work groups for adding comments or questions that need to be probed further for discussion at future meetings. Dr. Evans advised that somebody in each group is needed as a scribe to take notes, and somebody is needed as a speaker to report the group’s outcomes. The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions. The following outcomes were presented by the groups regarding Policy 1.7: Red and Purple group • Consensus: Three grantees should be required: county, state, and land trust or regional/state/national environmental non-profit. • Non-consensus: There was not consensus on whether easements should be recorded at time of entering them, not held in escrow. • Action item: Amend the plan to provide for the three grantees. Blue and Brown group • Consensus: Limit growth and sprawl. Two grantees should be required: county and at least one other grantee, preferably an environmental group. Easements must be in perpetuity. • Non-consensus: There was not consensus on easements being sufficient or not for preservation. Selling of the development rights yielded from an easement still results in sprawl. An easement is a transfer of development rights. If the county purchases the easements, then the property owner should not be transferring any development rights. • Barriers to consensus: If a property owner got a tax credit for easements instead of transferring development rights, there was concern the owner’s tax credit would not be enough to compensate for the development rights. Possibility of the County buying the easements to conserve the land and avoid the area becoming Fort Lauderdale or Miami in 20 years. Grey and Pink group • Consensus: Update NRI science, e.g. panther data and shallow wetland science. Easements in appropriate areas are appropriate mechanisms to permanently protect high value environmental lands, as well as transfer title to County or state is also adequate. An Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 additional entity for a total of three to monitor and enforce the easement is needed to ensure the easement is not going to terminate. • Barriers to consensus: Not enough time for such a complex issue. The formulas and ratios should change as science updates (panther and shallow wetlands). Easements depend on credits. Credit system is arbitrary, so those values should be discussed. The topic of easements is not a good starting point for discussion. Green and White group • This is a diverse group, and they could not answer the questions. There’s a difference in knowledge of easements among the group. Those with easements were trying to explain to the group. Adequacy to protect depends on the terms of the easement. Is the easement enforceable? None of the information needed was provided. The group sat and looked at an easement, which was helpful, but it’s hard to answer the question. They understand RLSA easements are similar but customized. More information was needed for members of this group to complete the exercise. Dr. Evans then announced the next policy will be discussed by the working groups. Mr. Van Lengen explained Policy 1.15 relates to the action by the Board of County Commissioners to approve or deny a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) through a resolution by a simple majority vote (3 of 5 commissioners) versus an ordinance by a supermajority vote (4 of 5 commissioners). Mr. Van Lengen explained that the RLSA Overlay itself is a zoning action that required a supermajority vote because it determined the types of development and densities and intensities allowed in the RLSA area. After that zoning action, the implementation or consideration of an SRA is by resolution. Florida Statutes indicates that SRAs should be done by resolution. On the other hand, Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that SRAs are a lot like Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) around the County, which are zoning actions that are subject to approval by a supermajority vote. Mr. Van Lengen explained this issue of the simple majority versus super majority voting requirement went to nonbinding arbitration in 2010 because the County felt the similarity to the PUD process correlated to a supermajority vote being appropriate for SRAs. The Arbitrator’s finding was that a resolution approved by simple majority vote was sufficient for SRA approvals. Mr. Van Lengen noted that given the provisions of Florida Statutes, it may or may not be possible to impose a supermajority requirement for SRA approval. He pointed out that all answers derived during workshops will require another layer of scrutiny by lawyers at the end. Mr. Van Lengen posed the questions to the working groups: should SRAs require simple or super majority approval by the Board of County Commissioners? Are there other alternatives to ensure responsible development? Are the Florida Statutes informative? Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 An audience member asked if there are criteria for SRA approval that the BCC will consider, like the criteria that applies to a PUD? Mr. Van Lengen replied the SRA process itself is like a PUD, and there are requirements including a master plan and supporting data. The question was asked, what criteria is used as the basis for approval? Mr. Van Lengen replied that it is like a PUD – a lot of data and information is submitted and reviewed by staff, then staff makes recommendations that are considered by the Planning Commission and the BCC. An audience member said it would be helpful if the County will post the Arbitrator’s decision and the relevant State Statute on the website. Mr. Van Lengen said the staff will do so. The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions. Amanda announced there is a form for attendees to identify personal views of the purpose of the Restudy. Group Presenters on Policy 1.15 Grey and Pink • Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on whether three or four commissioners should be required to approve an SRA. All but one in the group felt it was vital to have four. The rationale for three commissioners was to incentivize landowners and that the program is “prescreened” via the overlay that identified the best areas for development. • Barrier to consensus: Disagreement on whether Ave Maria is a success. Purple • Consensus: Super majority should be required for all approvals. • Barriers to consensus: Not enough knowledge base to ensure alternatives that result in responsible development. Red • Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on simple majority versus super majority. • Barriers to consensus: Loss of DRI requirement is an issue. Blue and Brown • Consensus: The County should be consistent with State Statute, and the simple majority should remain. • Non-consensus: Could not reach consensus on whether there is responsible growth. If the County would buy credits and not have development rights transferred, the problem would be solved. Need for adequate water, panther habitat issues, and infrastructure issues translate to non-responsible growth. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 1 Policies Meeting – General Purpose and Restructure of RSLA February 22, 2018, 4:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 12 Green and White • Non-consensus: Half of group felt supermajority requirement would lead to lawsuit. Half felt if the project impacts the entire county, it should be supermajority. Dr. Evans asked for completion of the forms for attendees to identify personal views of the purpose of the Restudy. She asked the participants to give feedback on the work group format of the meetings or any other comments to rlsarestudy@colliergov.net. Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting is on the meeting schedule for 4:00 p.m. on March 22, but this might change. He advised that the website is the best place to look to keep apprised of the meeting schedule. The meeting ended at 6:10 p.m. Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall I Introduction Kris Van Lengen opened the meeting at 6:15. He welcomed those in attendance and the meeting will be composed of some good speakers and involvement by attendees to give feedback about agriculture, its importance and the ways to incentivize it. (Note: The meeting room was arranged with roundtables, each identified by a different color. Each attendee was assigned randomly to a table, forming groups at each roundtable.) Mr. Van Lengen presented the agenda, beginning with opening comments by Dr. Amanda Evans who will provide and her perceptions from the last meeting. Mr. Van Lengen will then go over housekeeping items, followed by Dallas Townsend, a member of the Florida Agriculture Hall of Fame, who will provide history of agriculture in Southwest Florida. Dr. Calvin Arnold, Director of the Southwest Research and Education Department of the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) will then discuss business, technology and environmental aspects of agriculture and IFAS’s role. Mr. Van Lengen will then return to speak about the five-year review and the recommended changes in relation to agriculture, which were never adopted. Those recommendations are some of several ideas that may be considered to incentivize agriculture. The agenda also includes a landowner perspective, and other landowners will have an opportunity to share their perspectives. Finally, the working session will focus on incentives of agriculture according to the points that are important to the audience. Mr. Van Lengen went over the restudy process, reminding the audience that this is a long process, and we are at the beginning of the process with public workshops to gather public input which will last most of 2018. After public workshops, the staff will gather recommendations and present them back to the public for comments. The staff will put the public comments and staff recommendations into a white paper, which will be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), who will determine if enough public outreach has been done. Then they can authorize a more formal public hearing process that involves the Planning Commission and the BOCC for two rounds of public hearings. He noted this process is a long haul from start to finish. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 Mr. Van Lengen provided a new schedule, noting the new schedule is on a flyer provided at the sign-in table. He said the Oversight Committee provided for a lengthier schedule for workshops based on public suggestions. Additional workshops have been added for certain topics, particularly infrastructure costs and water resources will be addressed in separate workshops in August and September. After the final workshops on Group 4 and 5 policies regarding the built environment, meetings will be scheduled for wrap-up and discussion of recommendations. Workshop dates may change at the Oversight Committee’s next meeting in June. In case there are schedule changes, Mr. Van Lengen encouraged everyone to visit the website (www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies) and the associated workshop page for the latest meeting information. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted communication efforts, noting that the County hears the public’s interest in getting more people participating. He said the County’s typical public notice process has been used, including the County website, email distributions to the press and others, Naples Daily News guest editorial, and the County Facebook page with announcements of topics and meeting schedule. On top of these methods, the County has directly contacted 180 Civic Associations and Homeowner Associations with flyers, however that outreach has not yielded too many participants. Florida Weekly was included in advertising efforts, and flyers were also included in County Commissioners’ newsletters that are communicated to constituents. Mr. Van Lengen explained this meeting is also being filmed and will become a part of the Restudy library and part of the County’s video-on-demand series. Video-on-demand allows the proceedings to be viewed at the public’s convenience, and the video of the workshops going forward will be accessible on the County’s main webpage. He noted the audio from the first meeting was not good quality; the audio from the second meeting came out well and is posted on the County Restudy webpage. Mr. Van Lengen thanked the County Video staff and the County Manager’s office for providing the video support services for the workshop. He said Facebook Live will allow this workshop and future workshops to be streamed live allowing the public to interact with comments and questions. Mr. Van Lengen mentioned a staff member will be dedicated to gather those comments and respond accordingly as time allows during future meetings. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that there will always be comment cards available at each workshop to allow feedback, which will be logged and part of the permanent record. He said the email address (RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov) is also a tool for providing feedback, and emails will be part of the permanent record. Dr. Amanda Evans reminded the audience that this is an ongoing study. She stressed the importance of feedback from the public, noting the actions taken in response to feedback received thus far, including the video service which allows people who are north during the summer to stay involved. She described the importance of quantitative data based on facts and qualitative data that adds a well-rounded picture of issues. She said her perception is that these workshops are an important part of the qualitative data collection, because the community’s input helps put the Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 “meat on the bones” of the study. She reiterated the numerous ways for providing input, including the website. She said that all the input being written down and provided during workshops is being captured and reviewed to inform the next meeting. For example, during group discussion sessions of the last workshop, the feedback was that not enough information was provided for participants to weigh in on certain subjects. In response, the agenda has been changed at this workshop to include presentations to provide more information up front, allowing the group sessions to be informed with more substantive background information. Dr. Evans reminded participants that comments will be captured on the worksheets at each table. The worksheets allow for capturing issues that the group agrees on, issues that the group does not agree on, and other comments can be also provided on the form. She also reiterated that comment cards are at the back of the room for anyone who is not comfortable making comments at their table or for anyone who has to leave early. She said Facebook Live will also afford an opportunity for comments. Mr. Van Lengen said one feedback item from participants was that the prior workshops got too specific too soon without enough background information. Today’s topic of agriculture allows the opportunity for broad questions and discussion without getting into specific policies. In the future Mr. Van Lengen anticipates the opportunity for the audience to identify the policy issues to discuss. Mr. Van Lengen introduced Dallas Townsend, who formerly worked for IFAS and is now a celebrity. Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged the participation of IFAS, and noted the success of their recent agricultural tour. II History of Agriculture in SW Florida Speaker: Dallas Townsend, Florida Agriculture Hall of Fame Mr. Townsend said there is a lot to cover in a short time, like Smokey and the Bandit. He will present the high points of agriculture in Collier County. Mr. Townsend served in Collier County as a Livestock Agent from 1965-79 and is familiar with Collier County. Agriculture is a big industry in Collier County. The cattle, citrus and vegetable industries generated $247 million in gross sales in 2015. The economists at the Research Center in Immokalee determined a direct and indirect impact of over $435 million in 2014. Collier is the largest county in Southwest Florida, but comparatively has a lower percentage of the County in agricultural land because so much of the county is owned by the government. Nearly one million acres is owned by the government in the Fakahatchee Preserve, Big Cypress Preserve, Panther Habitat Preserve, and other areas. Collier County has around 11,600 head of cattle, 73,350 acres pasture, over 29,000 acres of citrus, and 13,700 acres of vegetables, however some are double crops so there are close to 25,000 acres Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 of vegetables produced in the county. These major commodities utilize over 116,000 acres which does not include wetlands that are within an agricultural operation, nor does it include nursery, timber, sod or other agriculture uses. Mr. Townsend provided a brief history of Collier County starting with 1822. Hendry and Collier County were separated from Lee County in 1923. He presented a 1922 map depicting Lee County as the largest county in Florida and east of the Mississippi River. He said 12,600 people were living in Lee County at that time. Cattle was the first major agricultural industry in Southwest Florida. Cattlemen were in the area before 1840, and in 1840 there were 30,000 cattle shipped to Cuba from Punta Rassa. During the Civil War this area provided around 50,000 cattle to the confederate army. Around the 1900s, no law required cattle to be fenced. Florida was an open-range state. Brands and ear marks identified ownership of cattle at round ups. Mr. Townsend showed an example of an old brand registration page. Due to the Texas Fever Tick, the state and federal government mandated a cattle dipping program in 1923. Over 3,000 dipping vats were built in the State of Florida. Cattle had to be dipped in pesticide to kill the ticks every fourteen days, which was expensive. The cattle dipping program put small farmers out of business. In 1946 the tick problem was eradicated, and the cattle dipping program ended. Mr. Townsend displayed the Jerome dipping vat on an aerial photograph from 1940, noting the dipping vat is still there. Mr. Townsend explained that screwworms became a problem for the cattle industry in the 1930s. The female screwworms laid eggs on the umbilical cord of calf and at flesh upon birth, killing the calf. Research showed that female screwworms mated once and died. Mass produced sterile male screwworms eradicated the problem during a two-year program from 1957-1959. Mr. Townsend presented maps of Collier County showing the geographic coverage of the cattle industry in 1923-1996. He said that cattle reached 40 cents per pound in the 1940s. In 1949 Florida passed the “no fence law” so Florida was no longer an open range state, and major freezes in 1951 and in the winter of 1957 and 1958 killed thousands of cattle. In 1952, cattle prices crashed to 10 cents per pound because the quarantine in Mexico was lifted, allowing millions of heads of cattle to come across the border in eight months. By 1973, the price of cattle raised to 80 cents per pound, and two years later prices dropped to 15 cents per pound. He summarized that the cattle industry has had its ups and downs. Mr. Townsend said that several freezes between 1977 and 1989 caused the citrus and vegetable industries to expand, reducing the land available for the cattle industry. This results in around 11,000 head of cattle now compared to 40,000 in 1975. The timber industry was short-lived for about 28 years between approximately 1928 through 1956. Pine and cypress timber was harvested by large companies. The town of Copeland was Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 5 created by a timber company. Mr. Townsend showed a map of Copeland in 1953, depicting the railroad trams used to transport harvested cypress timber through the Fakahatchee swamp. The tram road is located where Alligator Alley is today. It takes a long time for cypress trees to grow enough in size for harvesting, which led to the end of the timber industry in the 1950s, with the exception of some mulch and some pulpwood. Mr. Townsend said the vegetable industry started in 1873 in Everglades City. Sugar cane and pineapple was grown in Everglades City and Marco Island. During that time vegetables had to be grown on the coast or river because of the lack of interior roads. In 1921, the railroad made its way to Immokalee. In 1928, the Tamiami Trail was completed, and State Road 29 reached Everglades City spurring commercial operations. In 1929, tomato farming also began in Ochopee. He showed maps of farm fields around Ochopee, Monroe Station, Copeland, and Deep Lake in 1940. He said farmers used Ochopee prairies with little clearing and mules. Soils were naturally warm, there were very few frosts, and vegetables (mostly tomatoes) were grown mostly in the spring due to the wet weather. There was no irrigation or water control. Weeds and diseases made production nomadic. Between 1928 and 1955, there were over 35,000 acres in the area of Ochopee, Monroe Station and State Road 29 being farmed. Very little evidence of that can be seen today. Before World War II the soils in the pine and palmetto woods areas were highly acidic with a ph of 4.5 or less. However, research showed that adding limestone or high calcium lime to the soil could raise the ph and allow vegetables to grow. There was a massive use of this type of terrain for farming after World War II. In 1949, Collier County created the Extension Service. In 1955, the Collier Development Corporation and Atlantic Land Improvement Company donated 320 acres for the research center that is in Immokalee, now known as the Southwest Florida Agriculture Research Center, which Dr. Calvin Arnold now directs. Mr. Townsend explained in the early 1960s, pine and palmetto flatwoods were abundant but they were rocky, not accessible, poorly shaped, and clearing cost was expensive. Soil fumigation and mulch culture had to be developed in the 1960s. Between 1940 and 1979, roughly 175,000 acres of palm and palmetto woods was cleared by the vegetable industry of Collier County. Most was cleared before 1970. The vegetable acreage has remained stable in the last ten years, with around 25,000 acres of vegetable farming remaining (with actual production land area of 13,000 to 15,000 acres). Mr. Townsend said that citrus is another large industry that arrived in Florida early. Prior to the freezes of December 1894 and February 1895, Marion County, Florida was the center of citrus farming. Citrus groves had been planted along the Caloosahatchee River and at Orange River in Fort Myers, and they survived these freezes. Shortly after 1900, a 200-acre grapefruit grove was Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 planted at Deep Lake Hammock north of Everglades City. Fruit was hauled by ox cart to the Barron River and shipped by barge to Fort Myers for packaging and shipment to market. Mr. Townsend showed a 1940 aerial photograph depicting the grapefruit trees that remained at that time, however the trees are not evident today. Mr. Townsend displayed a 1922 map that showed the Deep Lake Railroad that hauled grapefruit to Everglades City. Before 1914, a grove was planted in Immokalee, part of which still exists as part of the Roberts Ranch property. Citrus was historically planted on elevated hammock land or pine ridges. Research showed that citrus could grow on flatwoods soils, and a few small groves were planted on flatwood soils in Immokalee in the early 1960s. Citrus expansion began with the freeze of 1962. The Collier Company and Turner Corporation each planted around 1,000 acres near Immokalee in late 1960s. Major freezes of 1977, 1981, 1983, and 1989 prompted large expansion of citrus acreage in southwest Florida. In 1960 there was very little citrus, and the peak year for citrus was 2000 with 35,000 acres of citrus groves. There has been a reduction since then due to canker and citrus greening disease. Mr. Townsend said the agriculture industry has been significantly impacted by major purchases of land by the government. The federal and state government purchased over 910,500 acres of land in Collier County for the Big Cypress Preserve and panther habitat in the 1970s and 80s, which adds up to approximately 71% of the county. At the time the land was mostly swamp. By 1994 the Big Cypress Preserve and Fakahatchee Strand had been purchased. In 2003 the government started purchasing good agricultural production land in Hendry County. Government purchase of good agricultural land has taken a toll on the agricultural industry. Mr. Townsend summarized that it was the agricultural industry in Southwest Florida that made this area habitable. This area is the only place in the continental United States where the vegetable crops grown here can be grown in the winter. Mr. Townsend stated that government regulations are often imposed on farmers with little scientific basis. Environmental concerns have been impactful to the agriculture industry including water supply, water quality, wildlife habitat preservation, and free trade agreements such as NAFTA. He noted that this particular agreement nearly put all small vegetable farmers out of business. There were 60 tomato growers in Immokalee, and now it would be hard to count seven tomato growers. Mr. Townsend said food safety regulations have become a serious issue. Consumers want very clean, wholesome foods so a farmer must hire a third party to confirm sanitary conditions in the field. If a wild animal fecal sample is found it becomes a problem. These are expensive issues that drive the exporting of our food production to other countries. Several years ago the United States became a net importer of food. Less than 1% of imported food is inspected, and quality and food Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 safety is no longer under our control. The last ten years has seen an increase of serious illness due to imported foods. III Business, Technology and Environmental Factors in Agriculture Speaker: Dr. Calvin Arnold, UF/IFAS Southwest Florida Director Dr. Calvin Arnold said he is a fifth generation Floridian. His family still operates a cow-calf operation in Okeechobee. Dr. Arnold said the University of Florida has a role in southwest Florida and Collier County agriculture. Like Florida Gulf Coast University, he said University of Florida is here and prepared to assist in the restudy process in any way possible. Fritz Roka has been participating and was not able attend today. Dr. Arnold introduced the new natural resource economist, Dr. Tara Wayde, who is involved in research of the interface between commercial agriculture and natural resources. Dr. Arnold acknowledged that Dr. Mike Martin, President of Florida Gulf Coast University, is a great resource and has a lot of knowledge about the agriculture industry. Dr. Arnold said he is talking about the IFAS Center because many people have probably not visited the center or did not know it was in Immokalee. The IFAS Center is strategically located in the middle of Southwest Florida amidst the agricultural lands being discussed. The University of Florida IFAS has been committed to agriculture for over 70 years. Collier Development Corporation donated 160 acres and Alico donated 160 acres, comprising the 320 acres at the IFAS research and education center operating today. The IFAS Center was officially established in 1986 as research and education center, however the presence goes back to the 1950s. Today there are over 80 employees with an annual operating budget of $11 million per year that is comprised of state funds, contracts and grants. The center is located one mile north of Immokalee on Highway 29. Dr. Arnold shared the mission statement: “Generating new technologies to help agriculture industry be profitable and successful.” For agriculture to be sustainable, not only must it be profitable, but it also must maintain a compatible interface with the natural environment. A lot of IFAS research is focused on the interface with natural resources. The bulk of the Center’s research is focused on citrus and vegetable commodities. A lot of different vegetables are grown in this area, with tomatoes and green peppers being the largest contributors. The citrus industry has gone through hard times for the last 10-15 years with constant urban encroachment and disease such as canker and citrus greening. While canker is a serious issue, citrus greening is a larger problem because citrus greening will kill the tree. Hurricanes have added to the plight, making it difficult to be profitable in the citrus industry. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 Dr. Arnold shared the resources of the Center, including 13 research/extension program faculty members who specialize in topics related to the environment and agriculture. The staff works to reduce pesticides applied to crops and increase biological control. The Precision Agriculture Engineer has a primary objective to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of agricultural production, which helps incentivize the industry. The focus is on natural protection as well, with efficiency of spray applications, etc. Dr. Arnold said there are currently five County Extension faculty in Collier County. Matt Krug is a new state specialized agent in food safety, which is a big issue for vegetable growers and citrus growers. Regulations needs to be sensible and logical. There is a groundbreaking ceremony in Immokalee next Wednesday from 10:00 – 2:00 for the new culinary accelerator at the Immokalee Airport. Matt Krug, Food Safety Specialist, will be managing food quality assessment lab for the accelerator. This will serve the entrepreneurs looking to commercialize food products, such as sauces. Dr. Arnold said development of best management practices (BMPs) is important to IFAS. The BMP program for all agricultural industries statewide is under the direction of a faculty member in Immokalee, Dr. Kelly Morgan. Dr. Arnold said Dr. Wade started conducting research to better understand the economics of BMPs. Asking farmers to carry out practices must be economical for the farmer, otherwise it is not a realistic BMP. Dr. Arnold explained that water farming is storage of water on agricultural lands. Florida has about 55 inches of rainfall per year. That rainfall needs to be stored because it pollutes estuaries. Storing fresh water inland helps the public collectively. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is storing rainfall inland. If landowners are expected to store water on their farmland then it’s realistic they should be paid for it. This program involves dispersed waters, not large reservoirs. It makes the owner’s land wetter, increases the water level which creates less land for cattle and decreases vegetable and citrus production, which all equates to lost income. Compensation is based on per acre-foot of land for the loss of agriculture production. Dr. Arnold suggested that the RLSA Study group should look at and consider the option of water farming and the PES program. Dr. Arnold said the IFAS Water Resource Engineer Dr. Sanjay Shukla is a foremost researcher in water storage. Currently there are around seven or eight landowners involved in PES. Dr. Shukla has been working on delineating the watershed around Lake Trafford and has discovered some discrepancies. Improvements are being made in the watershed. Dr. Arnold referenced biological control of pests is important. He estimated that 90% of all citrus in Florida has a micro sprinkler system. A lot of water conservation is achieved through micro sprinklers rather than flooding the entire field, which in turn provides frost protection. Frost Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 protection is provided through heat effusion. First water is sprayed over the trees before the freeze event, creating ice on the tree. Water continues to be sprayed until the ice melts off the entire tree. The conversion of water to ice releases heat to save trees if the water is turned on early before a freeze. Dr. Arnold’s closing remarks focused on the value of retaining agriculture. He reminded that the majority of natural areas are already owned by the government, and there is not much agricultural land left. Whatever is proposed, it needs to be economically feasible for the agricultural landowner. Water is the common denominator and is really important to agricultural landowners. Cutting water supplies for agricultural operations will not be sustainable. Regulations are needed in society, but they need to be moderate and realistic for agriculture. Regulations have skewed to the unrealistic zone and balance is needed for agriculture to be economically viable. An audience member asked the question, “What is the source of funding for IFAS?” Mr. Arnold responded that state funds, federal funds, and grants support the Center, and reiterated that IFAS is an agency of the University of Florida, which is an agency of the state of Florida. He said of the base budget is about 40% coming from higher education funding from the state of Florida to UF passed through to IFAS. Faculty has worked hard preparing grant proposals and contract proposals. Federal grants come from the United States Department of Agriculture and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Funds also come from private companies. Money from a private company must be compatible with the mission of the center. Approximately 60% of funding comes from private contracts and grants. Another audience member asked, “In relation to water storage on farm lands, is the water then used for irrigation in dry season?” Dr. Arnold responded that normally the water would not be pumped back and used for irrigation. Depending on the design of the individual system, it is possible. He reiterated it not a big reservoir. He said it is also worth mentioning phytoremediation. Plants are used to improve the quality of water. The Water Management District tries to accomplish this through stormwater treatment areas, and agriculture does a lot of phytoremediation, or cleaning of the water, in addition to storage. The final question asked by the audience was, “Is IFAS undertaking specific studies within the RLSA?” Dr. Arnold responded that the BMP research is conducted in the agricultural production fields. Ron Hamil added that a wildlife study was conducted, and Dr. Arnold said Dr. Frank Mazzotti is the UF wildlife specialist whose research team documented wildlife in the agricultural production areas in the late 1980s. Research was also done by Dr. Marty Main on the Florida panther in conjunction with agriculture. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 IV Open Lands: Agriculture, SRAs and Baseline Zoning Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen noted that Mr. Paul Meador will have time to speak as a landowner about the future of agriculture, and time will be given for other landowners to share their perspectives. Mr. Van Lengen gave an overview, stating the 2008 Five Year Review findings were that the RLSA program lacked incentives to support agriculture. He presented a map of current agricultural activities (2012), which was also on display at the back of the room. Mr. Van Lengen noted the activities mapping should be updated, and he welcomed input on any aspect of data that can be updated. He clarified it is difficult to quantify grazing areas, but citrus and row crops are easier to quantify. Mr. Van Lengen said the Overlay Map is the basis for the RLSA overlay and credit system. The colored areas are high value areas on the Overlay Map. More credits get derived from higher environmental quality areas than what is derived from Open Areas. A lot of active agriculture takes place in the Open Areas, so there is competition for land. The majority of high value areas are protected with easements, and the credits derived are being used to build towns and villages. In Open Areas, less than 1% of lands are protected. This is a problem that the Five Year Review Committee reviewed and sought to better protect agriculture in Open Areas. In 2009 the recommendations focused on agriculture being an appropriate use in Open Areas. He noted the acreage for Towns, Village and Hamlets is an important topic that will not be covered today and will be covered at a future time. He said agriculture is the most appropriate use for Open Area lands outside of Towns, Villages and Hamlets. Incentivizing agriculture in those areas does not necessarily require easements. Incentivization can be through creation of other incentives or revising the underlying Agricultural zoning. The existing Agricultural zoning allows agricultural use or residential use in five-acre ranchettes. Five-acre ranchettes are a concern. In an economic down cycle, a landowner might sell to a developer and subdivisions can be created. Ranchettes are not good for water or natural habitat and are very expensive in terms of infrastructure. During the Five-Year Review, it was reviewed how the credit system works. Mr. Van Lengen gave an example of how 135 credits can be derived from a Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), and 40 credits can be derived from an Open Area, which is not enough incentive for the Open Areas. It was recommended during the Five Year Review to substitute two credits per acre for the Natural Resource Index (NRI) to encourage retention of agriculture. The advantages include permanent preservation of agricultural land and prevention of subdivisions that degrade the environment. Disadvantages include more credits in the system and more development. The Five Year Review Committee suggested changing the use of the credits in the development areas and requiring that more credits be used. Then the system can be balanced and not create very much more Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) development. Mr. Van Lengen said this idea was never acted Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 upon by the BCC, but it’s worth considering whether the credit system should incentivize agricultural lands as one method to protect agriculture. Mr. Van Lengen introduced Paul Meador and advised that any other owner or operator in the agricultural business is welcome to share comments and discuss incentives that makes sense to them. V Landowner Perspectives: Past and Long Term Outlook Speaker: Paul Meador, Local Grower Paul Meador is a fourth generation grower from Florida. His family has farmed in the Lake Apopka area from the late 1800s until the 1977 timeframe. After 1997, his relatives started exploring other areas to farm and in 1983 or 1984 purchased farming land in the Southwest Florida area. Mr. Meador highlighted that all land is not good for agriculture. Collier County had some of the best vegetable land in the world, but it no longer exists because it’s been developed. Farmers cannot sell their land for a premium and move somewhere else. Immokalee is special for the ability to grow winter fruits and vegetables; it cannot be replaced. As an example, Homestead is not the fruit and vegetable growing area it used to be. After the growth of that area following Hurricane Andrew, farming is nearly non-existent in that area today. Mr. Meador said having agriculture in proximity to residential and commercial development doesn’t always work. Agriculture requires intense hours, heavy equipment, traffic, and employment, and is not always growth friendly. Residential area next to farms are not always compatible. For example, the loud noise of spraying late at night is not compatible with residential uses. The Meador family came to Collier County assuming the area would be rural forever, and they now have Ave Maria nearby. He said aerial spraying is not the ideal set of circumstances for everyone involved. Mr. Meador said agriculture has all the risks of any business, plus mother nature, and this includes global competition. Agriculture in Florida is under attack since NAFTA was passed. The industry’s main competitor is Mexico due to low wages and almost nonexistent food safety oversight. Pests and disease from all over the world impact the citrus industry. There were 900,000 acres a decade ago, and half that acreage today. He mentioned that Hurricanes Irma and Wilma add to how risky the business has become. Mr. Meador said in the past a farmer could grow crops, suffer through a few bad years, but still make a living. In today’s global market, dollars don’t add up like they used to. To start a simple tomato or pepper crop, an investment of $10,000 per acre is necessary. Banks will not finance this type of endeavor, so personal capital is required. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 12 Mr. Meador said his family owns approximately 2,000 acres on Camp Keais Road and some near Corkscew Swamp Sanctuary with a small cow-calf operation and some vegetables, but mainly citrus. Mr. Meador said at some point Collier County will have a limited amount of developable land, and he asked what value will credits have at that time? He also asked what are options to liquidate land if it is tainted or burdened with a credit system that may or may not be workable in the future? Mr. Meador added to the water farming discussion to say that water farming allows recharge of the aquifer. All of his properties have an engineered reservoir system to clean water and recharge the aquifer. The system produces cleaner water and is an accomplishment. Mr. Meador is concerned about the influence of County and public policy on the value of his land now and in the future through the credit system. He wants to farm as many years as reasonable or feasible. If competition, risks, and misfortunes continue, it becomes desirable to go a different direction. Mr. Van Lengen offered the opportunity for other landowners or operators to comments, but no others spoke. VI Working Session: Ideas to Incentivize Agriculture Speaker: Dr. Amanda Evans, FGCU Dr. Evans reiterated that feedback from the prior workshop was that more information is needed before beginning the discussion group session, therefore more information has been presented this evening. She said three questions are provided for group discussions: Question 1: The RLSA program promotes natural resources, agriculture and smart growth. On a scale of 1-10 (10 = extremely important), how important is agriculture within Collier County? Assume that you will be asked to rank natural resources and smart growth on the same scale, in future workshops. What are the reasons for your group’s ranking? Question 2: Is the Group 2 Goal statement still valid, or does it need to change? (see Group 2 Policies sheet) Question 3: Brainstorm ideas to make agricultural stewardship work. Some options to discuss and expand upon based on your thoughts: • Private stewardship through transfer of development rights (stewardship credits) • Public stewardship through County purchase of easements restricting land use to agriculture • Public stewardship through County-funded subsidies for agricultural operations • Other Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 13 Dr. Evans asked the groups to designate a scribe to record the areas where the group reached consensus and where the group was not able to reach a consensus. Those comments will be captured to help identify themes that emerge in these discussions. She said the point of the exercise is the dialogue and discussion of divergent opinions. The meeting attendees convened in working group discussions. Dr. Evans reconvened, and the group representatives reported on their discussions as follows: Yellow/Green/Red Group The Yellow/Green/Red Group reached consensus that the importance of agriculture ranks as a 10. In Collier County, conservation of agriculture is important for sustainability. The economic impacts of undeveloped lands, conservation of water, and minimal infrastructure are the main reasons why it is a 10. A consensus was reached that the Group 2 goal statement needs to be changed. This group agreed to strike-through the word “premature” in the Group 2 goal, noting there are no other incentives to protect and preserve lands in the program goal. An action item identified by the Group was: “Where does this actual conversion happen?” There is a policy need for protection and smart planning to prevent urban sprawl. Include details in the plan to incentivize agricultural land owners to keep their land. This Group wants to consider tax benefits, cash incentives or credit incentives to preserve lands long term and create a generally higher value for the land. There were no barriers to consensus for this group. Blue/White Group The Blue/White Group agreed that the importance of agriculture ranks as a 10. The Group reached a consensus that the goal statement is valid, except the word “premature” should be removed. The Group agreed that agricultural land should be protected from conversion. All ideas weren’t crystallized in this Group, however, it was agreed to establish an agriculture advisory council (per policy 2.3) or establish a roundtable with broad-based multisector membership to advise the BCC on how to save agriculture. Mr. Meador should participate in that advisory board. The BCC should learn from the group of landowners, researchers and other related experts. The Group felt the County should prioritize where infrastructure improvements should be to enable concentrated development in the RLSA at a higher density, noting that compact development will leave more land for agriculture. Ave Maria and Rural Lands West do not appear Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 2 Policies Meeting – Protection of Agricultural Lands March 22, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 14 compact. The Group indicated that the County could shape the RLSA by determining infrastructure where development will be concentrated. Purple Group The Purple Group reached a consensus that agriculture is a 9 or 10. The Group is concerned that adding more credits to a system awash in credits is not a solution to the density problem. The density problem must be solved first before determining the value of credits. Commissioners have the responsibility to decide where roads will go, and not determine infrastructure after towns are proposed. Commissioners should prioritize where schools, roads, and fire departments should go. Pink Group The Pink Group unanimously agreed that agriculture is a 10. It intertwines with two other qualities completely. This Group also agrees that the goals in the Group 2 policies are valid. This Group also had a problem with the word “premature” for many reasons. The Pink Group was also unanimous about incentivizing agriculture, but reached no solutions or answers to the issue. Grey Group The Grey Group also agreed that agriculture is a 10. The goal statement should be changed to revise “premature conversion.” The Group agreed that the policies should preserve and protect agricultural lands from other uses. The barriers to consensus were: 1) Who will pay for credits and how much? and 2) Are citizens willing to pay for credits or pay for the land? VIII Next Meeting and Adjourn Dr. Evans reiterated that comments are important. She referenced the schedule of upcoming meetings, noting there will not be meetings in June in July. She said if anyone cannot make it to meetings, the videos will be available, and Facebook Live from the Collier County Facebook page will allow participation. The meeting ended around 8:20 p.m. Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen went over the restudy process and stated that we are at the beginning of the process with public workshops to gather public input. This public input phase will last most of 2018 and likely into early 2019. He stated the County is looking to gather input and share facts and information in an efficient way. Once these monthly workshops are completed the County will circle back to readdress important issues like credits. The County staff will then make recommendations and present those recommendations to the public before bringing the recommended changes before the Board of County Commissioners in the form of a white paper to get their permission to move forward with a more formal proposal to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. To amend the Growth Management Plan it takes two visits to each of those venues. This is the beginning a long process and everyone’s participation is appreciated. Mr. Van Lengen advised that May 24th is the next meeting at 6:00 p.m. The meeting focus will be environmental issues again, focusing on panther and listed species. David Schindle, a Florida panther expert from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is expected to speak. Mr. Schindle will be available for questions. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to provide input on other topics they would like to discuss during the May 24th workshop. Workshops will resume in August at a new location and the topic of discussion will be infrastructure, who pays for it, and initial impacts. Water resources, aquifer health, stormwater health, quality, and quantity, and other water resource issues will be discussed in September. The topic in October and November is sustainable development, Group 4 Policies, SRA receiving areas including towns and villages, and non-SRA types of development that was discussed during the agricultural presentation. Mr. Van Lengen suggested that there will be opportunities for agriculture in open lands, which should be incentivized. He reminded that if the economy changes, landowners still have base underlying zoning rights. Mr. Van Lengen described improvements in communication and outreach to get people in the door for workshops. The use of electronic messaging signage was a new addition for this meeting, Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 and by a show of hands the audience indicated that the message board was successful in encouraging attendance. Facebook Live is active for this workshop, affording those who travel a way to tune in. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to comment and ask questions on Facebook. He added that the public workshops are video recorded and accessible online, and a written summary and PowerPoints are available on the RSLA website. Writing or emailing to the RLSA email address is another way to comment. Every meeting also has comment cards available, and a record of comments from group discussions is maintained. Mr. Van Lengen described that the agriculture workshop (Group 2 Policies) revealed that retaining agriculture within Collier County, not nearby, is a high priority. Every group rated the importance of agriculture at least a 9 or 10 out of 10. Each group also identified that “premature” conversion verbiage should be removed from the goal statement. Overall, the workshop participants suggested that reduction in agriculture is undesired. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that incentives for agriculture were suggested at the workshop, including cash incentives from the local government, tax abatement, short term easements, and creating an agriculture advisory board to evaluate agriculture incentives. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the library on the RLSA website and described how data sources have been suggested, including Closing the Gaps in Florida Wildlife Habitat Conservation System (1994), Fragmentation of Pine Flatwood and Marsh Communities (1997), 1000 Friends of Florida 2070 Water Report (2016), Technical Review – Florida Panther Protection Program (2009), and Florida Panther Recovery Program (2008). He explained that public comments also included references to “two other studies by panther experts” and a reference to “shallow wetland science.” Mr. Van Lengen asked for the audience’s insight and assistance to gather those resources. II Protection of Natural Resources – Group 3 Policies Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen introduced the Group 3 Policies and stated that each policy in Group 3 would be discussed with more time spent on the important issues. He gave background information, including the genesis of the Rural Fringe and RLSA dating back to the 1999 Final Order that resulted from a lawsuit brought by environmental groups against the County. The result was the State required the County to devise a plan to protect agriculture activities and protect from unrestrained growth including protection of wetlands, protected species and wildlife habitat. There was also an intent to direct growth to appropriate locations through creative land use and planning techniques. The RLSA plan adopted in 2002 was the result, which has changed very little in subsequent years. The program balances agriculture viability, environmental resource protection, and long-term economic prosperity goals. Mr. Van Lengen invited the audience to evaluate those goals, consider if they are being met, and identify areas for improvement. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 Mr. Van Lengen read the Group 3 goal statement: “(Policies to) protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural lands Stewardship Area program.” Mr. Van Lengen noted that this is a voluntary program and landowners are not required to participate. The Overlay Map was presented depicting the flowways in blue, which are actually wetlands, and which are very important to protect. The green areas are habitat stewardship areas (HSAs) where uplands have high value for listed species. Water retention areas (WRAs) are helpful for the water management regime; these are also important areas to protect. Mr. Van Lengen presented the Overlay Map Acreages. He advised the reason for two sets of numbers conveyed as acreages is because 195,000 acres is inclusive of publicly owned land and 182,000 acres accounts for privately owned land. The Habitat Stewardship Areas constitute the largest stewardship area, followed by the Flowway Stewardship Areas, and then Water Retention Areas and buffers. Open areas include approximately 95,000 acres. The Open Areas are the only areas where Stewardship Receiving Areas such as towns, villages and hamlets can be built. However, the locations where development may occur in Open Areas is not specified. Mr. Van Lengen displayed a map of Public Lands and described that they include the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest and the Corkscrew area which is owned by the Water Management District. Since the adoption of the Plan, Pepper Ranch Preserve and Caracara Preserve have been added to public lands through Conservation Collier purchases. There are also other areas of preservation under public ownership that need to be inventoried to ensure they are not counted as generators of credits in the long term. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the rules of engagement, which he noted relates somewhat to questions from the public that were received by his office earlier in the day. In Flowway Stewardship Areas in order to get credit you must remove the first four layers of land uses, and Mr. Van Lengen referred to the Stewardship Credit worksheet, noting it is difficult to understand. The natural resource index (NRI) values, which is the sum of a number of indicators of the land masses under consideration to get credits to put them under a conservation of some kind, or at least down to an agricultural use, including passive agriculture or cattle grazing. The NRI values are an accumulation of indices that indicate habitat value, soil value, water presence, vegetation value, proximity to like areas and potential for restoration. Mr. Van Lengen went on to explain the multiplier and how you can get a score from 0 to 3.4, and only a portion of that score is based on Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 how many land uses you remove. The incentivized program involves more credits generated for the removal of more land uses. Mr. Van Lengen received the question: Why allow uses in Habitat Stewardship Areas that are not allowed in Flowway Steward Areas, such as recreation, mining, conditional uses such as churches, day care, and essential services? Mr. Van Lengen did not know the answer and suggested there should be a review of the past data and then an answer can be brought back. An audience member asked: Who decides the values of the credit system ranging from 0 to 3.4? Mr. Van Lengen said Wilson Miller was the consultant who designed the credit rating system and he was unsure if any sub-consultants worked on it as well. Bruce Johnson from Stantec (formerly with Wilson Miller), responded to the question first by recognizing Brad Cornell and Nicole Johnson in the room whom were also involved with the credit rating system. Mr. Johnson went on to explain that Wilson Miller was hired by property owners, but the process was directed by County staff because the County was subject to the administrative order. The County pulled together stakeholders including property owners and environmental groups and had a series of public meetings. The intent was providing for economic development, the continuation of agriculture, and protection of natural resources. At the time it was deliberated that there must be a way of inventorying and categorizing. The method or overarching objective was to identify the areas to protect and create an incentive to protect them. The NRI scoring system was created as an objective tool. The land use characteristics, such as soils, were identified from USDA Natural Resources soils map. Land use cover was created on aerials and refined through the public review process. The scoring was a consensus approach among the consultant, property owners, environmental groups, County staff, independent observers, and members of the public. Nicole Johnson then stated that all data layers were from year 2000 best available science. She also stated the Conservancy would like to see mapping updated with best available science. Dr. Evans reiterated that this restudy process is intended to make those updates. Mr. Van Lengen confirmed that the intent is to update the Plan, and it will be a consensus issue on how and when the updating would occur and he defers to scientific experts. Dr. Evans, noting that speaks as an outsider, requested that if the audience is drawing opinions or perceptions from updated science or studies that they provide that information via email, link or disclosure of the most updated source. She said any studies that are being referenced should be shared with the County. Mr. Johnson stated that initial data was circa 2002 at the time of adoption. Each Stewardship Sending Area uses the best available science as of the current date. In other words, if a landowner applies today, they have to use today’s panther telemetry and land cover data. It’s important to update for purposes of calculating credit generation. Applying for a Stewardship Sending Area or a Stewardship Receiving Area uses current science. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 5 Mr. Van Lengen said it’s important to update the entire overlay area because of the credit implications. An audience member asked: For the NRI figure of 1.2, how was it arrived at, and what percentage of Habitat Stewardship Areas score 1.2 and below? Those values are shown in Group 3 Policies for FSA and WRA and not HSAs. Mr. Van Lengen responded that the County is going to find that data and put it on the RLSA website. Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.8 which deals with compensation to landowners other than the creation of transfer of stewardship credits. Landowners can avail themselves with acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than a fee interest (such as leasehold), and other willing buyer/seller programs. These opportunities have always existed, but are probably mentioned because people need to know it is a voluntary program. There are other opportunities to create conservation land without using the credit program. Agricultural uses are referenced in Policies 3.9 and 3.10. When stewardship sending area is Active Agricultural (Ag 1) such as row crops and orchards, you can’t increase or change other than minor squaring and access issues. Likewise, when credits are derived from a Passive Agriculture (Ag 2) SSA, you can’t go back to Ag 1 and create areas of row crops, etc. A member of the audience asked: At what point can you not go back and expand Ag 1 in an SSA; it is not clear in the policy. Is it when the SSA is first approved? Mr. Van Lengen responded that it was intended that when Ag 1 is first approved, it’s really the approval process. Since that time, there has been another layer of process and some of these SSAs are now in escrow. He said the question of what happens once in escrow should be considered in this Restudy. The audience member clarified her question, stating: Once the SSA is approved initially, there’s a long process of deciding whether to restore and there are pending amendments. Credits are awarded at all different times, so specifically at what date does the limit on expanding Ag 1 area apply? And for Ag 2, the policy says you can’t go back to Ag 1 after the credits are awarded, but specifically what credits are we talking about because there are credits for all different things and they are awarded at different times? Mr. Van Lengen said only base credits are being discussed here, and not restoration credits. This only applies to base credits. The audience member asked: Are base credits awarded at the time the SSA is approved and the land use layer is specified to be removed? Mr. Van Lengen responded credits are awarded at the time the easement document is recorded. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 The audience member asked: Is the easement document recorded at the time the SSA is approved? Mr. Van Lengen responded that it is true for SSAs #1 through #9. For SSAs #10 and after the answer is maybe. Some of those were put into escrow, which means they are not recorded, and it is up to the landowner to wait and see whether they want to pull out or not. The audience member asked about pending amendments to approved SSAs #14, 15, and 16. Mr. Van Lengen advised that the amendments relate to restoration, which is a different issue. The audience member asked: Is an easement established already on SSAs #14, 15, and 16? Mr. Van Lengen responded that he wasn’t sure, but indicated those easements are in escrow. They could change, but the applicant would have to come back with new paperwork because the calculations would change. The audience member asked: What policy allows escrow? Mr. Van Lengen responded that the Board of County Commission policy allowed escrow. Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.11 related to Restoration. This provides additional credits, it is not the transfer of base credits from those areas designated as HSAs. This is a different type of credit called restoration credits. These provide a really good service, which is restoration and long- term maintenance by landowners in perpetuity with no public expense. Looking at the costs, such as mitigation of $4,000 to $5,000 per acre, or Conservation Collier costs of $20,000 per acre or $10,000 per acre in an endowment for perpetual maintenance and restoration. If these costs are multiplied by 1,000 acres, it equates to $10 million. That money comes from landowners deriving the credits, and not the public funds, which is positive. Functions of restoration include functional enhancement of flowways (which may be widening of flowways), widening and enhancement of wildlife corridors, enhancement of listed species habitat, and creation or enhancement of wading bird habitat and creation or enhancement of Caracara habitat. These are presented to the County as a separate application form. The process requires an ecological expert to provide the information, it’s reviewed by County staff, GIS staff reviews for boundaries, and then County environmental staff does a field visit to verify conditions stated in the expert report. Mr. Van Lengen noted there is no third party review built into the system. Nicole Johnson mentioned that restoration credits are for restoration, but some restoration credits are tied to not actually doing anything. Mr. Van Lengen recognized that comment and said it will be discussed and not slip between the cracks. An audience member asked: Once approved, do people go out to monitor how the land has been restored? Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 Mr. Van Lengen responded that there are two types of credits, R-1 and R-2. One is for dedication of restoration, and one is for performance of restoration. For dedication there are field visits to verify field conditions. Mr. Van Lengen clarified that the discussion this evening is focused in the colored areas of the map. In the white areas of the map, the 5 year review committee recommended restoration credtis or creation credits for panther corridors in the open areas. Mr. Van Lengen pointed to the locations which panther experts recommended as critical areas. He said this will be further discussed next month. Mr. Van Lengen reiterated the two types of Restoration Credits are R-1 and R-2 credits. The R-1 credits are fordedication of land for restoration activities, but implementation of improvements is not required. Just for dedicating land for restoration, there are four credits in the Camp Keais Strand and two credits in the Okaloacoochee Slough. These areas were considered as needing more protection because of proximity to the Area of Critical State Concern overlay. For restoration, once local, state, or federal permitting agency success criteria are met, which is typically five years out, the applicant gets the other four credits per acre. Then there is a perpetual maintenance requirement for those improvements. Mr. Van Lengen gave a summary of lands proposed for R-1 restoration and displayed a slide with acreages, showing 11,576 acres approved and 5,418 acres proposed, totaling 16,994 acres for restoration of flowways, large mammal corridor, listed species, wading bird and Caracara habitat. Mr. Van Lengen explained that 55% of all potential SSA areas are designated, or approximately 50,000 acres. Almost 1/3 of areas within SSAs are designated with R-1 restoration dedication status. Restoration Completion (R-2) acres is 428 acres. So, 2.5% of all acres dedicated for restoration have been restored, which means the County has been advised, credits have been awarded after five years, and the success criteria is met. County does not know why the delay for restoration efforts, but it could be related to cash flow or that the credits are needed at a later time. There was originally more interest by state agencies to buy or acquire land fifteen years ago when this program was initiated. The R-1 credit does include an easement for performing restoration and maintenance activities. The 5-year review committee recommended a schedule of those restoration maintenance credits that were tiered based on complexity and cost. The proposal is in the RLSA library. This is something to look at and could be pursued, or the R-1 / R-2 system could be looked at in a whole new way altogether. Mr. Van Lengen gave the example of SSA #3, which was created in 2005. The land was a 250-acre old farm field and pasture that could be rehabilitated and made suitable for wading bird habitat. Due to soil types and hydrology nearby, wading bird habitat could be created with varied elevations, ditch and swale contouring, and the property would be maintained in perpetuity. The applicant received the dedication credits, but has not applied for restoration credits. The reason why is unknown to the County staff, but it’s presumed that nothing has been done. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 3.12 related to flowway buffers, which states Natural Resource Index (NRI) values in open lands within 500 feet of flowways get increased NRI values. Policies 3.13 and 3.14 relate to water retention areas (WRAs). These areas can be used for development purposes. The acreages used for stormwater treatment does not need to be included in the hamlet or village areas, and landowners do not need credits to include those water retention areas within the functional area within a town or village. He advised this topic can be discussed further if the audience wishes. The 5-year review suggested that acreage should count toward villages. Mr. Van Lengen concluded the quick run-through of policies and opened the audience to questions and the group exercise. He pointed out the worksheets and questions provided on the tables and offered to add more questions, such as WRA question or the HSA question in terms of allowing fewer than four layers to be removed. Dr. Evans mentioned that questions were created for each group to discuss and then record the areas of consensus and areas of non-consensus. With divergent opinions on land use, Dr. Evans encouraged people to talk to each other to find the good ideas through conversation. Feedback forms can be found at the tables and there will be other opportunities to give feedback as well. Dr. Evans invited groups to reorganize as needed and allowed a forty-minute timeframe for group discussion before providing feedback. III Working Session: Importance of Preservation and Restoration of FSAs, HSAs and WRAs Dr. Evan invited each group to choose a spokesperson and present areas they were able to reach consensus and areas in which they were not able to reach a consensus. Question 1 On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), please rank the importance of preserving the following target areas: Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) Water Retention Areas (WRAs) Question 2 (a) On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), please rank the importance of restoration work within FSAs and HSAs. (b) Given your understanding of restoration credits within the existing Overlay, what, if anything, would you change? Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 (c) Please identify any additional information that would help in your assessment, such as costs or standards. Question 3: Please discuss and report on any other Group 3 Policy that your team feels is important to update. Brown Group The Brown Group reached a consensus for question 1 that HSAs, FSAs and WRAs are a 10. It’s important to handle the development, protect the habitat, water flow and natural system and do it appropriately because WRAs are important. For instance, Rural Lands West will have WRAs and surround them with development, and it is important for the County to have a way to protect the habitats and water retention. The Brown Group reached a consensus that restoration is a 10. Only 2.5% acres have been restored and something needs to be done to get more restoration accomplished. The LDC should be tightened up to require successful outcomes of restoration through metrics and parameters to show progress toward achieving results, such as the water flowing, wildlife returning and the presence of wading birds. The Brown Group also agreed that the model used for the restoration and all SSAs needs to be reevaluated and changed because the underlying assumptions have changed in last 18 years. The Brown Group also suggested to reevaluate the underlying credits, incorporate best available science, and a ratio of R-1 to R-2 should be reconsidered. Perhaps the R-1 credit is too high and should not be equal to the R-2 credit. Restoration Credits are out of balance. The Brown Group had no areas of non-consensus. Orange Group The Orange Group essentially agrees with the Brown Group, although they did not get too detailed. The group does not understand credits, incentives, or the market. HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs were all rated 10. The Orange Group wanted clear boundaries to maintain function of habitats and waterways. Isolated pockets of restoration are ineffective. The Orange Group suggested to not issue credits until restoration is complete. That might create a challenge relative to the market and valuation, but again there was a lack of market understanding amongst the group. Grey Group The Grey Group representative stated it was an agreeable group. Consensus items included that all FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs should be ranked high. Specifically, FSAs and HSAs were ranked 10, but WRAs were ranked 9 because they are manipulated with dikes around them, but still were considered valuable. The Grey Group suggested consideration of restoring WRAs. The Grey Group found the restoration credit process to be unpredictable. Everyone wants everything to be restored, but what is the implication? The Grey Group also suggested adding the 5-year review recommendations on wildlife corridors and connection areas. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 Action items identified included updating mapping techniques. Consider adding Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) data, which is state data, to map SSAs. Consider public restoration, such as Florida Forever, Amendment 1, or public tax dollar funded restoration. Black Group The Black Group had similar opinions as to the other groups. The group representative identified that they are a laypersons group of ordinary taxpayers. Consensus was reached that FSAs and HSAs rank 10, but WRAs should be ranked 8.5 to 9.5 if they are manmade. The biggest concern of this group is that the credit system is inordinately complex and maybe complex intentionally to be manipulated to benefit the group using it. It’s so complex, it seems like funny money being generated to achieve predetermined goals. The group is not sure how to influence the process, but these citizens feel left out of the process. This group had a very strong agreement on their suggested action item to completely revamp the credit system to be more clear, straightforward and honest. Using the updated science is important. The group also suggested possibly using a nationally recognized system. Purple Group The Purple Group reached consensus similar to other the groups. There was a consensus that FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs rank 10. The Purple Group found a need to reevaluate the whole credit system. The current system usurps the original intention of RSLA with an incredible number of credits being created. In terms of restoration, the group suggested to close the gap between R-1 and R-2. Very few lands have actually been restored. A time limit could be established for restoration to take place. Credits awarded before action taken is questionable. The Purple Group questioned criteria for restoration and determining how much needs to be restored in an area designated for restoration. Blue Group The Blue Group had a strong consensus that the group does not know a lot about the credit system. The group agrees with others that FSAs, HSAs and WRAs are important and rank 10. Protection is important and essential, but who’s going to pay for it? The credit system is an optional market, and no money is changing hands. Until a money market exists and there is a value, it’s a lost point. The Blue Group expressed that there should be oversight and timetable for the credits to be awarded, not necessarily before the work is done. There should be accountability involved with Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources April 26, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 an explanation for the restoration activity benefits. Look at land being lost to both conservation and development because it’s no longer available for agriculture. IV Next Meeting and Adjourn Dr. Evans thanked everyone for their participation. She said that all the comments and feedback would be recorded and available. She invited the audience to provide feedback through comment cards and email if there the audience had items there were not able to discuss today or thought about later. Dr. Evans gave a reminder for next month’s meeting scheduled for May 24 at the same venue (North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall) and mentioned that a panther expert will be speaking. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 1 Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting Protecting Natural Resources – Part 2 Emphasis on Panther and Listed Species May 24, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, opened the meeting at 6:10. He said the program will be different tonight because the working session will be sooner in the meeting to discuss thoughts about panthers and listed species. Mr. Van Lengen gave a brief introduction and welcomed Mr. David Shindle, Florida panther coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Dr. Robert Frakes, formerly with USFWS. He stated that questions for presenters can be fielded either during or after the presentations. Mr. Van Lengen displayed the timeline for the Restudy process, stating this is the beginning of the process with workshop meetings scheduled through 2018, followed by Board of County Commissioners review followed by a public hearing process to the extent there is consensus on the recommended changes. The next workshop meeting will be at a new location, at the South County Library (the address will be posted on the RLSA website). The topic of the August workshop will be Infrastructure and Fiscal Impact. For those who can’t attend there is Facebook Live and Videos on Demand for remote attendance. The next meeting will bring in Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), impact fee staff, people from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Utilities Department staff to talk about how infrastructure works, how it gets extended to new towns and villages, and fiscal impacts. Water Resources will be discussed in September, along with water quality, water quantity and the estuary health issues. Then discussion of sustainable development and the built environment (Policy Groups 4 and 5) will happen later in the year. Future meetings will be directed by the Growth Management Oversight Committee and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. It is anticipated that the credit system will be trued-up and discussed at every single angle at that time, and facilitation and consensus building among stakeholders will be underway in order to make recommendations. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 2 Facebook Live and video on demand is available for those up north or on vacation. Workshop summaries are available on the website. Workshop feedback is documented in the Feedback Tracker on the website, which captures all comments so far without attribution. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the outcomes of the last meeting. He said the last workshop revealed many 10s (i.e., high scores) in the importance of maintaining the integrity of the restoration sending areas, and the retaining and restoration of the habitat and flowway stewardship areas. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted comments received on the restoration program including: a rebalance of the restoration (R-1 and R-2) credit system, consider credits for water retention areas as part of the restoration program, base success criteria for restoration not only on water flow or exotic removal but also on desired wildlife outcomes, seek state and federal funding or grants, and create a timetable for restoration completion. Mr. Van Lengen said the additions to the RLSA library are appreciated. He referenced the following literature that has been added: “How much is enough?”; Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther, R. Kautz et.al. (2006); Landscape analysis of adult Florida panther habitat, R. Frakes et.al. (2015); and Florida panthers v. Collier County, U.S. District Court (2012). Mr. Van Lengen gave a reminder that the Rural Lands Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) known as Rural Lands West is scheduled for a neighborhood information meeting on June 4 at 5:30. Dr. Amanda Evans explained that the subject of panther habitat has come up frequently in recent months, so the group discussion session allows for discussion of the main comments and concerns of attendees. This helps make the best use of the speakers’ time because they will hear what the attendees’ concerns are and can address them in their presentations. Dr. Evans thanked the audience for rearranging seating to better distribute group size and diversity. After a group discussion, the following comments were provided by representatives of each working group: Blue Group A primary concern is to preserve primary panther zone habitat. The group wants to identify where the primary and secondary areas of panther habitat are located. Preservation of sufficient and viable panther corridors for north and south movement is also a concern for the group. The Blue Group is concerned about development currently planned in primary panther habitat. The Natural Resource Index (NRI) does not take into account the best available science. NRI science is based on 2002 data and needs to incorporate 2006 and 2015 studies. This group asked three questions including: 1) Is there a commitment to panther recovery issues; 2) Are there enough wildlife crossings now and planned for the future; and 3) Will panthers survive the development in the rural lands stewardship area? Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 3 Wildlife crossings should be an important part of the environmental permitting process. Panthers being killed on the roads is a major issue. Wildlife crossings are not the only solution, other things can be done. The Blue Group members want to know if there are pathways panthers have traditionally followed over the years. The permitting process should ensure that wildlife crossings are established, restored, and can be scientifically viable for the panthers and their paths. How wide must the panther corridor be to be viable for the panther, especially in the Rural Lands West development? Grey Group The Grey Group stated concerns about preserving habitat in Southwest Florida and Collier County with an emphasis on creating preserved lands that are contiguous and reducing fragmentation. This group suggested creation of buffers around habitats and planning for compatible land uses in proximity to habitats. Multiple corridors should link major habitats instead of one main corridor. The group members questioned the adequate width of corridors and asked if corridors should be virgin or if other buildings and structures would be allowed in corridors? Specific questions for the speakers include: 1) What are the specific parameters for corridors and human activities nearby; 2) What will motivate USFWS and other agencies to mitigate for habitat destruction; and 3) What is the difference between primary and secondary habitat? The Grey Group presented two topics to address during public outreach and education including: 1) how to live with panthers relating to livestock and pets; and 2) how to react when encountering a panther? The group stated that with eighteen listed species including birds and reptiles, wetland preservation should be a major consideration in the rural lands area. Yellow group The Yellow Group presented four topics of importance to the group including: preserving habitat, connectivity, road mortality, and human/wildlife interaction in Southwest Florida. Because Collier County is a core area for panther habitat, there are preservation issues in light of development and growth. The same four issues above pertain to specifically to Collier County. During the permitting process, avoidance and minimization of panther impacts should be a priority. In addition to roadway underpasses, signage, fencing and onsite mitigation efforts are needed as protection measures. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 4 Roadway design in the RLSA should consider other and smaller listed species besides the Florida panther. Purple Group The Purple Group identified their top three concerns related to the panther in Southwest Florida as: 1) connectivity, maintaining corridors, and increasing genetic diversity; 2) protection of appropriate habitat to support the species; and 3) advancing science, investigating predator-prey ratios, and preventing interactions with humans such as those involving starving cougars out west. Issues relating to the Florida panther in Collier County include that the open lands designation should be revisited in relation to appropriate areas for development. Increase the amount of panther collars to increase data sets for analysis of habitat use and population levels as habitat changes over time so it can be adaptively managed. The environmental permitting process should consider avoiding impacts through creating less towns and more density. The best biological data should be used during the environmental review process. Also, the environmental permitting process should be enforced, specifically regarding cumulative impacts. Management and enforcement of invasive species management will subsequently support native habitat and wildlife. Brown Group The Brown Group’s top concerns for the Florida panther include: preserving habitat, mortality, corridors, and genetic diversity. Primary and secondary panther habitat areas need to be recalibrated over time. These areas were defined over ten years ago and should be updated. Collier County should expand the use of panther corridor crossings. Primary panther habitat should be off limits to development. Panther habitat should connect with the stewardship areas and corridors. Set the lands aside and dedicate that land so it cannot be developed. Collier County needs improved Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) linkages. What are the optimal solutions to the interface of development and wildlife? The Brown Group further stated that protection of panthers aids in the protection of a large number of other listed species, with the exception of the Eastern indigo snake and Florida black bear. The Brown Group advocated for following the USFWS Department of Interior recommendations on the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by determining areas for wildlife crossings first and then Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 5 using a planning approach to locate towns accordingly. This approach is supportive of panthers and might extend the panther’s life. The Brown Group members asked when should Collier County reevaluate the primary and secondary habitats, and stated that development planned in primary panther habitat is at odds with the best science available. Black Group The Black Group identified these three main concerns: preserving panther habitat, decreasing road mortality, and providing education for new residents. The Black Group presented questions for the speakers including: 1) How many panthers are typically radio tracked; 2) where are the panthers most concentrated; 3) What pathways do panthers use most often; 4) How do wildfires impact panthers; 5) How do they return to the area after wildfires; 6) Are new developments required to adopt infrastructure that addresses panther safety; 7) What is the most effective infrastructure at keeping panthers safe (fences, underpasses, signage, corridors); 8) Has there been any discussion or ideas on the interface between development and the remaining natural area and what makes a good buffer between those two areas; and 9) What are the best ways to create new preserves in the RLSA whether it be federal, state or local ownership? Mr. Van Lengen introduced the presenters, noting they will do their best to address questions. Presentations have been prepared by the experts and the areas of concern presented from each group will be emphasized. The first speaker is David Shindle, a Florida Panther Coordinator with the USFWS. Mr. Shindle has 24 years of research experience involving cat species in New Mexico and Texas. He moved to Florida in 1998 and became the lead field biologist for panther research and monitoring associated with the Florida panther. Mr. Shindle has worked for the Conservancy and is a certified wildlife biologist. Speaker: Mr. David Shindle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Shindle said he used to capture cats, and now he herds cats. He is able to touch on most questions that were asked. Mr. Shindle gave a quick overview of past and present panther recovery because perspective is important. He will talk about challenges and threats to the panther population any time development or conservation occurs. He will give a quick overview of the USFWS processes in place and what is being worked on. Mr. Shindle gave perspective that the Florida panther has the widest distribution of any mammal in the western hemisphere. The range formerly spanned across the United States. They need large prey, large spaces, and the minimal human intrusion possible. The primary prey for the Florida panther is deer and hogs. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 6 The question of taxonomy is a hot topic. Panther is a listed sub-species by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act. The sub-species classification is based on earlier classifications and a low number of specimens (approximately 17), including skull morphology, pelt color, and things like that. New genetic science supports recent recolonization of the puma in North America. It may not be a sub-species classification under that analysis incorporating genetics. There is a proposal for a single North American sub-species. More recent work by a group of experts (Cat Classification Task Force) involved systematically looking at all cats even further and a revision is proposed for a single North American/Central American/South American puma. How the USFWS will address a new classification will be reviewed later in the presentation. Historically, many large carnivores were subject to exportation by Europeans. The panther’s prey was heavily exported including 250,000 pounds of deer hide from Pensacola and Mobile in 1771. Even with only a few panthers in existence, in 1968 the Florida panther was still considered a detriment to livestock. In the early 1970’s experts didn’t know if panthers were still in Florida, but 10 individuals were surveyed south of Lake Okeechobee by the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). The Florida legislature named the panther as state animal in 1982. The future of the Florida panthers was not looking good and showing signs of inbreeding and depression with only 20-30 animals in the 1980s. In 1995, cats were brought from Texas to enhance genetic diversity and it was a successful project. The panther population has been increasing with an upward trend. The project resulted in a healthier population and healthier animals, both genetically and physically. Mr. Shindle displayed a telemetry location map differentiating locations of male and female panthers which indicates geography of the well- studied panther population. Mr. Shindle said a lot of the habitat questions can be answered by the next presenter. A lot of information is known on preferred panther habitat. Different models are based on different parameters and cohorts of the panther populations. He displayed a map depicting the Primary, Secondary and Dispersal Zones for panther habitat. He noted that panthers are really resilient animals. They use a wide variety of habitat types, and agriculture lands are important for panthers. The USFWS is figuring out how to use the best available science. Additional sources of data are also considered. Females and kittens show up outside of the Zones and although it’s not ideal habitat, it does show where connectivity areas are where transient animals are supported. Private lands, including working ranch lands, south and north of the river, provide excellent panther habitat. Balancing ranch property rights for owners who provide the habitat and finding a way to compensate for the panther impacts is a challenge. Being smart about the growth of Florida is important, and it’s the undercurrent of all these workshops. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 7 The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a hot topic and has impacts to the RLSA overlay and eastern Collier County. Bruce Johnson with Stantec can answer questions about the HCP. The USFWS role is to draft the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Chuck Kelso is the lead biologist on that project. You can contact Chuck or check the website for updates on the EIS. Questions on the HCP, which is a landowner plan, can be directed to Bruce. Mr. Shindle noted that a lot of questions were asked about how to live with panthers. The increasing panther population trend tracks accordingly with the frequency of road kills. The frequency of road kills is not the best way to count panther population, but is an indicator of an expanding population. Expansion of the breeding range is illustrated by the expanding range of female road kills over time. Mr. Shindle noted it is surprising that the Golden Gate Estates area supports breeding female cats and their kittens. Vehicular mortality threats for panthers can be ameliorated and mitigated with wildlife crossings and innovative tactics. Mr. Shindle displayed a map depicting current wildlife crossings in place, with many south of the river along I-75. For example, modifications under an existing bridge along Alligator Alley, along with fencing, helps create wildlife crossing opportunities that are useful for panthers. Challenges of future recovery and growth management include habitat loss and population growth. The 2070 human population projections are extreme, and it shows the challenges for Floridians in the future. Moving north will be tough for panthers, so keeping the landscape permeable is important. In reference to grizzly bears but still applicable to panthers, Chris Servheen said “…habitat is more than just space on the ground. It’s the level of human acceptance that exists for them.” Large carnivores should be part of any planning process when people are being placed in close proximity to large carnivores. How will people and large carnivores coexist? Workshops are presented about “living with panthers” and it’s all about “living with people” in hopes that panthers will figure things out. If you build in panther habitat then expect to see panthers. How the puma operates out west is no different, and there is a lot to learn from innovative approaches to puma management and interactions. Florida’s approach is unique because the Florida panther is a listed sub-species under the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Shindle explained that panthers have been documented to eat wildlife and pets. Panthers have not attacked people in Florida, however these cats have killed and injured people on the west coast. A lot of agency efforts are driven to make sure humans can coexist with the animals and be proactive. An Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan is in place as a guide for how to respond to interactions, categorization of sitings, encounters, threats, or attacks. Categorization of human- panther interactions is in the eye of the beholder based on experience, but the Florida Panther Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 8 Interagency Response Plan does define interactions as sighting, encounter, incident, threat and attack. Mr. Shindle displayed a map showing panther depredations in the Golden Gate Estates area, indicating a clear collision course of panthers and people. Many other occurrences are reported by private ranch owners that choose to report cat depredations more than others. The map does not display all depredations, and it’s becoming more important to focus in the exurban zones. Typical or basic fencing does not detour panthers. Securing pets and animals in predator-resistant enclosures is important. Defenders of Wildlife and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida contribute time, money and effort to reduce panther-human conflict through programs such as the Pen Building Assistance Program. Innovative approaches are working. For example, Mark Danaher uses a Shepard that responds when carnivores come outside his fence. The big issue in eastern Collier County is impacts on cattle ranches. Young calves are often prey for panthers. How panthers hunt, catch and kill their prey is a challenge for ranchers. When panthers catch their prey they hide it from scavengers and other predators, making it difficult for ranchers to document their losses. One example in the presentation depicts the path a panther dragged a calf across a pasture, road, fence, and ditch for 350 meters under dense cover. Efforts are underway to help with this problem. The current program relies on finding the animal to verify the loss was due to a panther, and finding the lost animal is difficult. USFWS is working with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to pay a percentage of loss, but it is not going too well. The program was designed to compensate for the loss for a listed species. In the past, ranchers would take care of the problem on their own. An incentive is needed to provide for the loss in a different way. Mr. Shindle showed example photographs of panther sightings and encounters in Corkscrew Swamp and Port Royal. He explained that not all panthers can be relocated. If a panther exhibits threatening behavior to a human, the cat cannot remain in the wild. For example, FP243, a panther in Farmworkers Village south of Immokalee frequently came out in the middle of the day and was taking cats and dogs. The panther was not showing threatening behavior, but it was not the behaviors people want to see. FP243 was relocated south to Big Cypress. He moved far south and settled in Big Cypress Seminole Indian village. He continued exhibiting similar behavior, going to people’s homes and removing cats and dogs from people’s front yards. That specific panther is now part of a zoo. Physical habitat is not the only factor; people must consider how to live with these animals with less space and more people. Mr. Shindle summarized that social intolerance is a common theme for large carnivore recovery driven by the previously mentioned threats. Some panthers are found dead with multiple gunshot wounds. The Naples Zoo does an excellent job of educating the public on coexistence and the challenges of living with panthers, as well as opportunities for large carnivore restoration. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 9 Mr. Shindle explained that the Florida Panther Recovery Plan has the same goal as most recovery plans: to achieve long term viability so the species doesn’t need to be listed as a threatened or endangered. Achieving that goal is a challenge, but several measures are used including having three viable self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals established for a minimum of twelve years. More populations are needed outside of south Florida. The panther issues addressed in south Florida also need to be handled in north Florida and elsewhere. South Florida needs to improve on living with panthers, management, smart growth, setting aside habitat, and compensating private landowners who provide habitat. The Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team includes members that represent private land owners, sportsmen, ranchers, conservation NGOs, and federal agency representatives. The team also formed sub-teams with experts in various areas such as vehicular mortality, inventory and monitoring and recovery criteria. Vehicle mortality is always a hot topic. The transportation sub-team is a group of experts that look at better ways to design wildlife crossings, where they should go, and they put data together that provides guidance so the USFWS can make good recommendations and consultation. This sub-team has identified roadway hot spots based on the number of roadway kill locations. When a crossing or fencing is implemented, the hot spots are cooled down or resolved. Mr. Shindle referenced questions on how to count panthers. Existing recovery criteria proves to be challenging messaging because the Florida panther is hard to count, especially with any statistical precision. How do you know when you get to the recovery goal when the panthers are hard to count? Camera grids and spatial models are better ways to count panthers. The USFWS staff hope to get to the point of not needing to collar animals because they would rather do it less invasively. One of the published statistically-defensible range-wide population estimates by Dave Onorato is based on roadkills of panthers with radio collars and looks at collective information to estimate the number of panthers. The Recovery Criteria sub-team also estimates populations by looking at adult female survival or other measures to verify there is a viable population of panthers. Another priority of the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team Work is making panther recovery compatible with ranchers and sportsmen by looking at incentive programs. When setting aside land for conservation and recreational access, sportsmen are an important stakeholder group. Mr. Shindle recalled earlier issues with access in the Big Cypress Preserve. Private owners, sportsmen or advocates may disagree, but there is a shared purpose. Finding the shared purpose is key. Sportsmen prefer large contiguous areas to recreate. A healthy deer population is a common goal for sportsmen and panther recovery. Working ranchlands are supportive of the common goal of panther recovery. A five-year status review of listed species is required as part of the Endangered Species Act. The status review looks at the present state of the population, threats, and conservation efforts. At the end of the review, the USFWS makes recommendations about the classification status of the Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 10 panther (endangered, threaten, or delist). Delisting could be due to recovery or new information on taxonomy. The assessment is underway now. The science behind the five-year review is the Species Status Assessment (SSA), which looks at the species needs, current status of the population, threats, and conservation measures in place, and then projects into the future looking for scenarios to obtain a viable population. The goal is to meet objectives of resiliency, redundancy and representation. These documents inform all USFWS decision documents. The SSA will inform the five-year review that is being worked on now, and part of the SSA will assess best available science on the topic of taxonomy with considerations for morphological analyses and more recent genetic analyses. The SSA does not provide a recommendation, but provides all information on the best available science on this topic. Mr. Shindle said a petition to delist the panther based on taxonomic error is a likely outcome. Range expansion and panther recovery is occurring naturally. Female panthers are documented along the Caloosahatchee River. The river is not a barrier, it may be an impediment but panthers do swim. Females don’t disperse far from their mothers. A wildlife crossing was put in on State Road 80 and easements were secured to help facilitate crossing. Females are north of the river for the first time since 1973. Two female panthers are at Babcock Ranch, and one female has had two litters. It’s encouraging natural range expansion. Other panthers have been documented at Platt Branch. Range expansion is occurring naturally and it’s very encouraging. Cats have also gone outside of Florida. The book Heart of a Lion by William Stolzenburg is about a cat that traveled to Connecticut. Males can disperse a significant distance. Cougars have been documented in Tennessee. There is a lot of support for the panther, which can be seen by the support in this room, Uno Ale brewery, the Florida Panthers hockey team conservation night and Protect the Panther license plates. Mr. Shindle concluded that globally, exurban areas are where the panther needs to be. Mr. Van Lengen thanked Mr. Shindle for the abundance of information. He said it’s important to move to the next speaker and then have time for questions, and if more time is needed the meeting can extend longer. He introduced Dr. Robert Frakes who has a PhD in eco-toxology and was the Maine state taxologist for seven years. Dr. Frakes was a wildlife biologist with the USFWS for 22 years starting in 1992. He worked with several listed species including the Florida panther, keydeer, snail kite, and peregrine falcon. He helped developed the original panther habitat assessment methodology panther tool in the early 2000s and more recently developed a new panther habitat model intended to provide better scientific basis for panther conservation decisions. Like Mr. Shindle, Dr. Frakes has also participated in many peer reviewed publications. Speaker: Dr. Robert Frakes, (formerly) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce Dr. Frakes stated that the questions raised from the attendees were excellent. Some will be answered by the model, David can answer some of the questions, and some questions cannot be answered because no one knows the answers. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 11 Dr. Frakes explained that the model being presented, PLOS One, was published in 2015 and the report is available online. The model is at the PLOS website for anyone wanting more details. The Species Distribution Model (SDM) is specifically for the Florida panther in south Florida. The model cannot be used elsewhere as it is unique to this area’s characteristics. The model is a random forest model which is a powerful statistical classifier used in a lot of applications outside of the USFWS. The model uses presence/absence design based on telemetry points to identify areas where panthers are present or absent. The model then analyzes the landscape characteristics in those areas to make predictions. The landscape scale model uses a resolution of one square kilometer which is a little over 200 acres. The scale is appropriate considering the large range of panthers. There were fifteen explanatory variables in the model including land cover types, forest edge, human population density, road density, dry season water depth and wet season water depth. The model predicts the probability of presence in each grid cell. Dr. Frakes said the model can be used for evaluating the impacts of proposed developments. The model can be used for prioritizing areas for panther conservation when acquiring land, putting an easement on the land or evaluate the best area for conservation. Another application for the model is identifying areas for possible panther reintroductions. A statewide model is in development to quantify panther habitat throughout Florida based on model results to help identify suitable places for the panther to be relocated. The model can be used to evaluate impacts by sea level rise and changes in hydrology. The study areas extends to a ten-mile buffer around the panther primary zone. The study area was divided into one square kilometer grid cells, so there are 16,600+ grid cells in the area. The presence and absence part of the model is based on telemetry data from 2004-2013. The date range was chosen based on the available landscape data. Only adult panther data was used; transients, juveniles or subadults were not included. There are 25,000 telemetry points representing 87 panthers comprised of 55 females and 32 males. Dr. Frakes showed a map of the ten land cover variables showing that the study area is two-thirds wetlands, which is unusual for cougar habitat. The model gives priority to wetlands because it better helps identify where the panthers are. Each cell in the study areas has a value for each of the land cover types. This data goes into a spreadsheet for the model to analyze. Other variables include forest edge, hydrology, human population density (from the 2010 Census) and road density. Most of the study area is uninhabited, but there are some higher density areas. Dr. Frakes showed what the model output looks like. The model predicts probability of presence in each grid cell as a number ranging from 0 to 1 broken up into five intervals. He showed a map depicting the probability of presence from low to high. Using this output and a cutoff threshold, a map is generated to depict the remaining adult panther habitat in south Florida. The model Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 12 prediction matches up fairly well with a majority the primary zone. Some of the primary zone is not good panther breeding habitat, such as water conservation areas, Shark River Slough and Everglades National Park. The secondary zone contains very little panther habitat, but is still useful for transient panthers, connectivity to other areas and potentially for restoration. However, very little breeding habitat is available in the secondary zone. Dr. Frakes explained that the software gives an estimate of variable importance based on accuracy and Gini index. Variable importance is highest for wetland forest per the model. The second highest variable importance was human population density, which helps conclude that panthers like forests and don’t like to be near people. Dr. Frakes said it was surprising to see how important human population density is for determining panther population location. Forest edge was the next variable of importance, followed by hydrology variables. All fifteen variables were maintained in the model to retain accuracy. Sensitivity analysis of the individual variables indicates the effect of each variable on the model’s output. Dr. Frakes illustrated how population density was and important variable, showing that there is a dramatic drop or 20% reduction in panther presence probability as people are added to a grid cell. An increase in wetland forest increases the probability of panther presence. Dr. Frakes presented a graph displaying the average probability of presence in Florida panther home ranges. The graph showing home range values of 87 panthers that were in the study. No panther home range had an average P value below 0.4, and about half the panthers had a P value above 0.8. This data is important in selecting habitats for panther reintroduction or protection. Good panther habitat is any area that scores a high probability value. Dr. Frakes presented the summary of the model results. Over 5,500 square kilometers of breeding habitat was identified in south Florida, which is significantly less than previously estimated. The USFWS panther tool called Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology is based on how much panther habitat remains in south Florida. The tool assumes much more habitat exists, which needs to be changed. Dr. Frakes’ model supports the current Primary Zone except for the three previously mentioned areas (water conservation areas, Shark River Slough and “witch’s finger”). The Secondary Zone contains very little adult panther habitat, only 3.8% of the total. The most important factor to determine panther presence is forest cover, human population density, amount of forest edge and water depth. Panther home ranges have a probability of presence value of 0.4 to 1.0, with a median of 0.8. Dr. Frakes said his report lists recommendations, and the most important conservation recommendation is protecting the remaining breeding habitat. Movement corridors also need to be protected. This was recommended in 2006 by Randy Kautz. Dr. Frakes said he is making the recommendation using density figures from literature indicating there may not be enough breeding habitat in south Florida to maintain a viable healthy population of panthers in the long Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 13 term. He said we need to protect the remaining breeding habitat because all future panthers will come from the existing habitat. Dr. Frakes said the next recommendation is to revise or replace current Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology (“panther tool”). The tool assumes more habitat is remaining than what is available. The tool assumes that the Secondary Zone is two-thirds as valuable as the Primary Zone, and assumes another zone is one-third as valuable as the Primary Zone. Dr. Frakes argued that the Secondary Zone is not nearly two-thirds as valuable as the Primary Zone. When those numbers are calculated, there is an inflation in the amount of panther habitat available and an underestimate of the compensation needed. The calculation inflation and underestimation has been going on for years and needs to be investigated. The third recommendation directly from the Recovery Plan is to establish additional panther populations north of the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Frakes is working on a statewide model to identify good locations to establish additional panther populations north of the river. Dr. Frakes ran a model focused on the RLSA and surrounding areas. The model predicted habitat values showing good panther habitat is left in the RSLA boundary. Dispersal corridors are seen on the model that link to CREW, which is marginal, and another dispersal corridor toward OK Slough. GPS data from Dave Onorato shows almost a perfect match with the predicted panther habitat from the model. About 97% of the GPS points fell within the predicted panther habitat areas estimated from the model. The best way to check model accuracy is to use data from outside the model. Dr. Frakes ended his presentation and invited the audience to ask questions. Amber Brooks with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida asked about a timeline for the SSA and HCP because those efforts would be relevant to the County’s process. Mr. Shindle said the EIS and HCP is in process. Everything in the Service is on an accelerated schedule, including the EIS. The SSA and completion of the five-year review recommendations are anticipated generally in summer of 2019, which is a general idea of the timeline and can’t be guaranteed. The SSA will go out to peer review which adds a bit of time. The SSA is the body of the background of the five-year review and recommendations. An attendee said the model and GPS points show a clear indication of the panthers and where they are located, and asked if this data is being incorporated in the process for decision makers to consider? Mr. Van Lengen responded that the restudy is to gather information, and all information will be considered regarding new standards and incentives. The map will definitely be part of the package. Mr. Van Lengen asked about prey-based studies, noting that there are different prey species in the east zone, and will the different prey base raise a concern in the future? Mr. Shindle responded prey density and availability is a big issue. Prey availability is a component of panther Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources (Part 2) May 24, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliergov.net Page 14 habitat. The big decline of deer population in the southern areas of Big Cypress National Preserve south of U.S. 41 is likely due to hydrology, water releases, and the increasing native (panther) and non-native (Burmese python) large predator population. Availability of prey is a social issue because people assume the issue is caused by the panther. Habitat improvement and burning can help ameliorate prey decline. Mr. Shindle added that the University of Georgia and FWC is conducting a south Florida deer study to examine deer dynamics in south Florida across three study areas to find better ways to monitor the deer, and to look at factors affecting deer survivability including impacts of the panther. Brad Cornell asked about the issue with compensation to ranchers for depredation. Is the problem that ranchers are not interested in the program or funding sources? Mr. Shindle replied that the Conservancy of Southwest Florida will compensate for calf losses. The issue isn’t funding, but rather the roadblock is the design of the system that requires verification of loss, verification it was due to a panther, and basis of the losses on a percentage criterion. Changes are required to the farm bill and down. The rules are tough and can change. It is required to establish a beginning inventory based on pregnancy checks which is costly, the inventory at time of sale, and then calculation of loss. In the past veterinary checks was an acceptable measure of inventory. Three applications were denied this year because the veterinary pregnancy verification method is no longer acceptable. This drives frustration and the program doesn’t work for ranchers. Ranchers must provide so much documentation and then the payment is only 75% of the loss. It’s necessary to design a new program. A collaborative approach might work similar to the coexistence councils. For example, the Mexican wolf livestock coexistence council is a group of stakeholders including agencies, NGOs and ranchers. They use funds from the Livestock Demonstration Project Fund allocated by Congress. The council makes their own rules and pays out based on the criteria they set. The new budget has language for the wolf livestock demonstration project legislation including the option to evaluate this program for the panther. This program involves collaborating with the state, which is not a problem. Mr. Shindle added that the FSA Livestock Indemnity Program will always be available. The issue of the panthers snatching money from the ranchers’ pockets needs to be addressed. Mr. Shindle advocates for building rancher receptivity. Ranchers north of the river are watching what is happening in south Florida with the lack of compensation and incentives. An attendee mentioned water recharge, noting the panther preserve is already in an impaired watershed. There is so much development in the priority panther habitat. The information presented by Dr. Frakes suggests there is far less priority panther habitat than originally estimated. Issues with ranchers, development pushing panthers to ranches, and development creating less food sources is a recipe for disaster. The situation looks very grim. Mr. Van Lengen ended the meeting at 8:15. He thanked everyone for their participation and invited attendees back for the next meeting at the South Library. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1 Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, welcomed attendees and opened the meeting at 6:10. He described that comment cards are distributed to ask attendees about their concerns about infrastructure. He asked for it to be filled out tonight or at home because it is good to have the feedback. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted the items on the agenda, starting with Long Range Transportation Planning Concepts, noting that these topics are important to Group 4 polices, urban villages and design factors. He said Ann McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director, will talk about how the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) conducts business, long range transportation planning, the evolution of costs and revenues (specifically technology and the status of eastern Collier County). Keith Robbins, the District Freight Coordinator for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 1, was next on the agenda to provide perspective on agriculture and freight distribution on the roadways. Mr. Van Lengen advised that Joe Bellone, Director of Operations for Collier County Utilities, will share the vision and strategy for water, wastewater and irrigation as populations move east. He noted that water sources would be addressed at the next meeting, but distribution was the subject for today. Mr. Van Lengen added that Tindale Oliver was present to tie together the concepts of infrastructure costs to the public and the best way to grow with fiscal neutrality. He said that questions and answers will be addressed at the end of the meeting because it will be more efficient to move through the speakers’ presentations and then have Q&A at the end of the session. Mr. Van Lengen explained that this is the beginning of the restudy process with workshops throughout the fall, and there are plenty of opportunities to be involved. The upcoming workshops will be in the South Regional Library. Water Resources will be discussed in September, Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 and discussion topics will include surface water, basin rules, quality, quantity, Water Resource Areas (WRAs), aquifer health, potable water sources, and salt water intrusion. Built environment will be discussed in October and November with an interactive approach similar to the format in previous meetings. Those two workshops will consider design components and process implications associated with Group 4 policies. Mr. Van Lengen added that a meeting with the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) meeting will be two weeks from today. This committee provides guidance on public interaction and will advise how to structure meetings after November, at which point it will become important to reach consensus and review Group 1 policies that tie all the elements of the RLSA program together. Mr. Van Lengen advised that Facebook Live is one way to participate in these meetings. Video archives are available on the County main website, and workshop summaries and PowerPoint presentations are available on the restudy website. Mr. Van Lengen noted that workshop attendance has been steady, and the County appreciates public input. Comment cards and emails have been captured in a feedback tracker by date. There has been a request to have emails in a discrete folder with attribution. Mr. Van Lengen asked attendees about their comfort level with posting emails online, and the consensus was that emails can be posted online with the email address redacted. Mr. Van Lengen introduced Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director with 35 years of experience in her field, noting she has served in her current capacity at the MPO since 2016. II Presentations Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Speaker: Mrs. Anne McLaughlin, MPO Executive Director Ms. McLaughlin said the MPO coordinates closely with the Growth Management Department (GMD), even though the MPO is a separate entity. Transportation and land use are closely linked together. Ms. McLaughlin highlighted the MPO’s transportation planning process governed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). Continuing, cooperative and comprehensive, the 3-C’s, are key words for the MPO. These words take on meaning during the 4-year review process. The MPO is data driven and must address federal and state performance measures. Ms. McLaughlin acknowledged Penny Taylor as an MPO Board member in the room. Ms. McLaughlin described the make-up of the MPO as the County Commissioners and city representatives, noting that they address regional planning. She described the three major documents produced by the MPO including the Unified Planning Work Program that sets goals and budgets, the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has a 20-year planning horizon, and the Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) has a 5-year horizon. The LRTP must be updated and adopted every 5 years. The short-term outcome of the LRTP is the TIP, or 5-year spending plan. This is required for state and federal money to be used locally. Plans are based on future growth, the current system, and future transportation needs. The LTRP is constrained by revenues and must reflect financially feasible projects. A list of needed projects is narrowed to a list of financially feasible projects. Now the MPO has a 2040 LRTP in place, which can be found online. As early as January, the 2045 Plan update should begin, which must be adopted by December 11, 2020. Ms. McLaughlin explained that there are certain “givens” for MPO LRTP updates including BEBR population projections for Collier County. The population of roughly 360,000 in 2017 is projected to be 520,000 in 2045, reflecting an increase of 160,000 people over a 20-year timeframe. FDOT revenue projections are $776 million. The money is not guaranteed but is simply a planning figure. This is the primary source of funding for new capacity that serves new growth. Statewide trends per FDOT include increasing population, increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), increasing congestion, decreasing transit ridership, increasing fatalities, and increasing serious injuries. FDOT plans for the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and for freight are givens. The SIS cost feasible 2029-2045 funded items include: 1) State Road 29 right-of-way, and 2) preliminary engineering and managed lanes study on I-75. Ms. McLaughlin described assumptions about the future. The growing technology of automated, connected, electric, and shared use vehicles (ACES) will have major impact on transportation planning, affecting capacity, the existing road system, safety, equity, access, and land use. FDOT indicates there is an unprecedented amount of change between now and 2045. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funded sea level rise study is underway showing vulnerable infrastructure including transportation. Scenario testing is needed considering the impact of the ACES technology based on FDOT guidance, land use alternatives, higher density mixed use, bus rapid transit corridors, and transit- oriented developments. Efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure is important. Additional items that haven’t been extensively looked at, but should be, include travel demand management and alternatives to grade separated intersections. Ms. McLaughlin posed the question, where is the majority of the growth heading? She said that eastern Collier County will see the majority of growth because it is where big land parcels are located that allow larger mixed-use projects, as opposed to smaller infill parcels in other parts of the County. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 Ms. McLaughlin the posed the question, where do we start? She said it begins with the current Cost Feasible Plan of the 2040 LRTP. An LRTP Amendment added back into the 2040 LTRP several projects including the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension to 16th Street NE and funding for the Randall Boulevard/Oil Well Road corridor study. Ms. McLaughlin added that the difference between needs and fundable projects is a huge gap. The huge gap is everywhere between perceived and forecasted need and the ability to fund. Modeling the cost feasible LRTP helps determine the best ways to make decisions about where improvements should be. Ms. McLaughlin stated that the TIP is updated every year. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan is anticipated for adoption in the fall, and the transit development plan is also a factor. She reiterated that land use planning and vision are important considerations driving the transportation plan. Ms. McLaughlin described that the County Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) and FDOT District 1 Regional Transportation Demand Model (D1-RTDM) are closely integrated. The growth model allocates population, employment and other factors according to transportation analysis zones that directly feed into the Transportation Demand Model (D1-RTDM). The MPO advisor network is made up of several volunteer committees including the Technical Advisory Committee, Citizen Advisory Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Congestion Management Committee and Advisor Network. The MPO has an email Listserve and Ms. McLaughlin provided guidance to sign up for the advisor network. She also mentioned that summits and symposiums will be upcoming as part of the development of the 2045 LRTP. Agriculture Shifts and Transportation Impacts Speaker: Mr. Keith Robbins, District Freight Coordinator, FDOT District 1 Mr. Van Lengen introduced Keith Robbins, the District Freight Coordinator for FDOT District 1. Mr. Robbins has served 20 years as a US Army Officer and four years with FDOT. Mr. Robbins said his presentation will focus on the Agricultural Shifts in Southwest Florida report by FDOT District 1. Mr. Robbins said he came to Florida four years ago and did not have an agricultural background, and he has found it interesting what a big industry agriculture is in Florida. He gave an overview that his presentation will include the changing face of freight vehicles, FDOT’s role with freight mobility and agribusiness, and a report overview. Mr. Robbins explained that rural infrastructure was built for smaller rail, ship and air vehicles. Today’s freight vehicles are much larger, and infrastructure has not kept pace with this change. About four years ago, FDOT reached out to the agriculture industry, which is the #2 industry in the state, asking how FDOT could support their role in sustaining the economy in Florida. FDOT sought to identify improvements needed for the industry to address their concerns, such as areas of weak Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 5 infrastructure, for instance substandard turning radii. Mr. Robbins stated there is nothing in the agriculture industry that cannot be sourced elsewhere if produce cannot get to the consumer. The twelve counties of District 1 were assessed to determine truck trips. Almost 500,000 truck trips were generated by harvesting in one year in District 1. Growth in coastal counties is continuing and is pushing east, where the corporate agricultural production land is located. As growth continues east, agricultural operations must move and the FDOT looked at the impact of that move. Mr. Robbins explained that the study included the assumption that the agriculture shift is not a 1:1 ratio. The shift may include a change of crop or change of size of agricultural land area. Mr. Robbins said the report is available online at www.freightmovesflorida.com, noting that it is not a definitive or authoritative document. The report is for planning purposes only. Based on the shift of agricultural production from coastal counties to inland counties, Mr. Robbins said that shifts for Collier County will be from eastern Collier to further east in the County, which is already occurring. Mr. Robbins summarized that production in the District will not have significant change, but change may be more significant on a county-by-county basis. Major corridors of agricultural truck traffic, such as U.S. 27, State Road 70 and State Road 80, will increase in agricultural truck traffic. Mapping of 2020 and 2035 truck volumes reveals large numbers of trucks will be on some roads in 2035. The numbers anticipated for production traffic does not include traffic relating to an increase in workers, commuters, or supplies needed to sustain agricultural operations. Coastal counties are projected to lose 8-49% of their agricultural truck volume. The inland counties are expected to grow 8-10% in agriculture truck volume. The anticipated growth in truck volumes is more than 57,000. Towns like LaBelle, Moore Haven and Immokalee will become or are existing agricultural hubs. Immokalee is expected to flourish. Bridge restrictions, such as weight, number of axles, and truck length will impact freight movement patterns and agricultural shifts. Two-lane roads with deep ditches and swales are difficult for freight drivers to navigate. These roads were not built to sustain the current volume and weight of the freight traffic. Inland state and county roads have potential to become SIS corridors. The shift corresponds to smaller rural roads becoming major roads to accommodate large numbers of trucks. Mr. Robbins explained that these findings can be incorporated in the District 1 transportation model. Mr. Robbins said another finding is that freight movements are switching from northern counties to southern counties. Polk County will remain a major generator of agriculture. The traffic seen today on U.S. 17 will shift to U.S. 27. More agricultural hubs will develop, specifically in Hendry and Glades County. Collier and Okeechobee hubs will connect major facilities as freight movement flow changes. Small towns will have more packing centers and distribution centers that are located closer to the agricultural operations. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 Mr. Robbins explained that the Caloosahatchee River is a barrier to the citrus industry because the U.S. 27 bridge is the only bridge able to support heavier trucks. Trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds must use the U.S. 27 bridge, which can be nearly a 60-mile detour. Bridge replacement projects for the Wilson Piggot Bridge (State Road 31) in Fort Myers and State Road 29 Bridge in LaBelle are scheduled far out, but they are planned to be upgraded, and bridge upgrade plans have been advanced by two years. Mr. Robbins concluded by stating that his work product is a Southwest Florida study by transportation specialists, not agricultural economists. The study intention was for planning purposes, and it does not account for traffic or growth shifts from the east coast coming to the west. Water and Wastewater Utilities Going East Speaker: Mr. Joe Bellone, Director of Financial Operations, Collier County Utilities Department Mr. Van Lengel introduced Mr. Joe Bellone. Mr. Bellone joined Collier County Public Utilities in 2003, serving in different management positions up until his current role as Director of Financial Operations. Mr. Bellone said he will speak briefly about who supplies water to eastern Collier County and the County’s vision and strategy to provide economically feasible service. The Board is scheduled to consider a resolution to serve the eastern area to serve four future developments on September 11, 2018. Rural Lands West, Collier Lakes, and Immokalee Rural Road Village have requested service from Collier County. Providing utility services in these areas prevents proliferation of package treatment plants. The engineering required to move wastewater is substantial. Mr. Bellone showed a map depicting where properties and distribution lines are planned by the Utilities Department. The County purchased approximately 200 acres of land in the early 2000’s intended to be used as a wastewater treatment plant and produced water treatment plant. The map he displayed showed the Trust lands and the current 16-inch force main that extends east to the Rural Lands West area. He identified that an interim wastewater treatment facility and deep injection site will be built on the land to serve through 2024. The facility will initially have capacity for 4 MGD and will eventually expand to 12 MGD through 2029. Mr. Bellone described the growth needs for constructing facilities and capacity through future decades. The next map he displayed was the regional water model. He described how the existing 36-inch water main serving Orange Tree and Twin Eagles will be extended, and a 6 million-gallon storage facility will be built. All water through 2028 will come from the regional facilities in the southern and northern part of the County. He explained that there is current capacity of 200 MGD which is Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 7 adequate to meet demands through 2020. A 52 MGD capacity will be adequate through 2028. Pumping will serve lands to the east, and a water treatment plant will be needed in the late 2020s. Mr. Bellone advised that the Collier County Water and Sewer District (CCWSD) provides raw materials including wells, mains, treatment facilities, transmission mains, and collection force mains. Developers provide service lines within a community, and improvements such as lift stations, valves, and hydrants. All internal lines, valves and lift stations must meet Collier County utility standards including new rules for storm resiliency. Once the infrastructure is built, the developers’ assets are conveyed to the Water and Sewer District to own and operate. Mr. Bellone explained that user fees pay for service, operating and maintenance, non-growth debt service, repair and interim production facilities. Impact fees fund anything related to growth including transmission mains, growth-related debt service, and capacity expansion in plants. Collier County is working with new developments in the northeast to advance a portion of their impact fees. Fiscal Impacts of Infrastructure from Growth Speakers: Ms. Nilgun Kamp and Steve Tindale, Tindale Oliver Kris introduced Nilgun Kamp and Steve Tindale of Tindale Oliver. Collectively they have 66 years of experience in transportation planning, long range planning, impact fees, community development, and budgeting. Ms. Kamp said the first step in fiscal neutrality is to understand the demand and cost of infrastructure compared to tax revenues. This is a focus on the numbers and quantitative variables, not sustainability or environmental impacts. The purpose of comparing potential developments is to understand the impact on the community over the short term and long term. National research provides lessons learned and best practices. Some of the lessons learned include that models are not perfect and do not capture everything. It’s important to be accurate with data and provide reasonable assumptions upfront. Ms. Kamp added that fiscal models exclude other important factors. Revenue must be considered over the life cycle of development, and allocation is important. It is not the sales point, but rather the people participating. For example, it is not the gas station development, but rather the people purchasing from the gas station that generate revenue. Drivers of revenue are income and wages. Growing communities tend to generate more taxes. Transportation and schools are the highest capital costs, constituting 70-85% of infrastructure costs. The cost of transportation is very expensive. The highest operating costs include public safety and schools. Public safety, such as police and fire support, are the majority of this cost. Schools have their own separate funding. The operating costs must be accurately assumed. These are the types of costs looked at for capital funding. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 8 Ms. Kamp pointed out that demand changes over time and is different for new development in contrast to the average for the entire county. New development typically generates more students and traffic. The cost differential is driven by geography, such as urban versus rural, and persons per household. In Collier County the coastal areas have older and fewer people. Inland Collier County is younger with more families, requiring different facilities. Ms. Kamp said that some of the issues revealed in this research effort included area variations, density, mix of use, design of compatible uses next to each other, market rate of growth, balance of mix in the market, and inflation rates that examine revenues and costs. It is important to understand a communities’ characteristics and framework before evaluating. Ms. Kamp displayed a graph representing population growth of Florida and Collier County from 1975 and projected through 2045. In earlier years the growth of Collier County was higher at 5.4%, because the base population was lower. As the base population gets higher, the growth rate is more moderate. Ms. Kamp gave an Orlando example, pointing out the difference in absolute growth and the growth rate. Population data from three areas of Orlando were compared. Plan Area 1 had the highest base population of 211,600 with a projected growth of 35,000 people which is about a .5% annual growth rate. This area has the interstate and infrastructure to support growth. The low annual growth rate of 1.68% in Plan Area 2 can be accommodated. Plan Area 3, the medical area, anticipates a population increase of 40,000 people. The annual growth rate is 4.06% because the base population is low at 17,900 people. This area does not have supporting infrastructure or facilities, creating a great impact, which will affect the actual growth rate versus absolute growth. The growth in the medical area is a higher rate and more challenging to accommodate. Ms. Kamp displayed age range distribution for Collier County, noting it has a denser population of residents age 60 and older than the overall Florida average. The student generation rate is lower for older counties like Collier County. The age range distribution determines the facilities needed in an area, thus Collier County doesn’t need to build as many schools. Ms. Kamp displayed income per capita and wages per job in Florida and Collier County. Collier County ranked 1 out of 67 counties for income per capita. Income is high in Collier County, but wages are not as strong because Collier County is lacking in commercial mix. The Collier County tax base is 90% residential properties, and 8% is non-residential. This is likely because Collier County has a lot of valuable waterfront residential area and less commercial opportunity for jobs. Most counties have a tax base of 80% residential and 20% non-residential. Urban counties like Orange County are 60% residential and 40% non-residential. Ms. Kamp noted that property tax value per capita is healthy, and it’s important to keep up that value. The sales tax per capita is productive but losing some ground over time. Income drives revenue, and education drives income. Collier is high in educational attainment and high in Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 9 income. This translates to high taxable value per capita. The community should aim to keep the productivity up and pursue productive types of development with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, parks, open space, interconnected with pedestrian. Well designed development tends to be more valuable. Ms. Kamp said that fiscal neutrality considers growth rate versus absolute growth, marginal costs versus average cost, productivity and level of revenues generated, required level of service, and quality of life and cost/benefit over time. Urban development is able to use existing infrastructure and reduces cost compared to outlying areas that require more facilities. Ms. Kamp highlighted the key characteristics to reduce development costs, reduce environmental impacts and enhance revenues. These include destination accessibility, design, diversity, distance to transit, and density (the 5D’s). Ms. Kamp displayed a typical example of a less dense area with a high cost of infrastructure at the beginning of development, and then the cost decreased over time. She explained that the public revenue stream is low at the beginning of development and increases as the community builds out. She added that developer contributions are also a factor, giving a design example of 6 square miles with a density of 2 dwelling units per acre. This community would need the following support facilities: 1/3 fire station, ½ elementary school, 1/10 middle school, 1/10 high school, and it would not trigger transit service minimum threshold levels. However, doubling the project density and design to 4 dwelling units per acre in the same 6 square miles affords more: 1 fire station, 2 elementary schools, ½ middle school, ½ high school, and it meets minimum transit service density thresholds. Once again, if you double to 8 units per acre then the development can afford and support more facilities. Ms. Kamp explained that sharing facilities can reduce costs, such as designing public school playgrounds as parks during after-school hours. Fire station locations are critical to response times. Compact development makes facilities more efficient, and the operating and maintenance costs can decrease over time. Public expenditures increase for operating costs as facilities get older. If taxes grow, they could outpace the costs. Ms. Kamp concluded that Collier County has a high income and high tax value. The waterfront development is healthy, but developing inland is a challenge. Rural lands should be developed productively due to the limited initial infrastructure and density. She noted that earlier years of development will have a higher cost, and the right type of development will generate significant revenues over the long-term. III Questions for Presenters Dr. Amanda Evans, facilitator, FGCU Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 10 Presenters convened in the front of the room for questions and answers, and Dr. Evans facilitated questions from the audience. An audience member said we have talked about RLSA in a theoretical sense, but let us shift to talking about the RLSA in a practical sense. It is time to understand how the costs will be paid. For instance, there are two state roads in the rural lands, State Road 29 and State Road 82. Will federal and state funding be only for federal and state roads? Will new roads be county roads? How will those be funded? How does the gas tax work? Ms. McLaughlin said State Road 29 and State Road 82 are on their way with primary funding by the state FDOT. Not all phases are funded yet, but it’s moving along with positive expectations from FDOT. The interplay of available of federal, state, county and impact fee funding is complicated off the state system. Mr. Bosi said generally Rural Lands West gets evaluated by each of the infrastructure providers. At the beginning of a project everyone gets a seat at the table and the applicant presents their plan. Transportation models are used to model the demand associated with the project. All development associated with Rural Lands West will be subject to impact fees to address costs of new roads. They also identify all road segments impacted beyond the local area. The proportionate share of needed improvements must be paid through impact fees. A Developer Contribution Agreement is drafted and the developer fronts money to the County to start a project, and they are paid back with impact fee credits. Utilities, Parks and Transportation use this model. Steve Tindale, the County’s impact fee consultant, said impact fees cannot pay for prior investment, but rather must be proportional and reasonable. Impact fee credits are for right-of- way but not for other types of projects. Location, timing and sequence of a project are all a factor. The audience member asked for more information about the money that developers “front” for improvements and Category A facilities. Mr. Bosi said that is part of the Developer Contribution Agreements (DCAs), which the public will be able to weigh in on during the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) public hearing process. The audience member asked if there is a formula, standard or criteria for the DCAs. Mr. Bosi said a proportionate share ratio is used. Mr. Tindale said the money that is paid up front by developers is considered a credit toward impact fees at time that b uilding permits are pulled. The audience member asked about the written criteria for impact fees that are considered reasonable and proportional. Mr. Tindale said there is case law. The audience member asked who decides what is proportional and reasonable? Mr. Tindale replied that most of impact fees were once associated with utility companies. The utility companies were requiring big chunks of money to upgrade utility systems. Judges ruled that you can’t take care of existing problems, but the fee must be proportional. The audience member asked how “reasonable” is determined. Mr. Tindale said impact fee studies are performed to calculate what is a reasonable fee without overcharging, Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 11 and then the County Commissioners adopt the calculated fee at 100%. Collier County has consistently adopted the recommended impact fee at 100% because the County believes that growth should pay for growth. Tindale Oliver has calculated impact fees for the last 25 years. Tindale Oliver only reviews water and sewer fees. Utility rates are calculated by other firms. About two-thirds of the parks, fire, schools, roads, and administrative building impact fees were calculated by Tindale Oliver over the last 25 years. The audience member asked how Tindale Oliver calculates impact fees. Ms. Kamp said the legally accepted impact fee formula looks at the cost of providing service, how the county is funding infrastructure through taxes, and the balance is the amount that needs to be funded by new growth. The cost is distributed among different land uses. Mr. Tindale said measuring demand and costs is part of the process. The County’s numbers are compared to statewide numbers. An audience member, Brad Cornell, asked about Ms. Kamp’s slide depicting the high cost of starting development and then mentioned Policy 4.18 that says all rural lands development must be fiscally neutral or positive. Mr. Bosi said the fiscal neutrality or positive outcome is required at the completion of the development. From a land use perspective, a single-family home uses $1.20 of every dollar generated in taxes, commercial consumes 65-75 cents on the dollar, industrial uses 30-40 cents. Residential land use is costly. Mr. Bosi said land use budgeting is required in the rural lands with a minimum commercial mix, noting that a top-heavy residential land use pattern at build out is undesirable. A balanced land use pattern including job-creating commercial and industrial uses is preferred. He noted that Rural Lands West proposes 10,000 dwelling units and two million square feet of nonresidential, which will be a better revenue mix over time and should result in a higher internal capture. The premise of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is for towns to be self-sustaining. Ave Maria was viewed as a bad deal in the first few years due to the poor economy combined with the higher initial costs at the start of a project. But projects with the right land use mix start to have positive or neutral fiscal outcomes toward the end. The land use mix is important to have the balance to be self-sustaining. An audience member asked if Ave Maria is at that point now? Mr. Bosi said the code requires them to update their fiscal neutrality analysis. They are well on the road to fiscal neutrality. Arthrex medical manufacturing and associated businesses are improving the equation. The internal trip capture has improved since the first five years. Groceries, restaurants, and entertainment are contributing to more internal capture. Ave Maria is reaching maturity and the economies of scale and diversity is forthcoming. A Facebook Live question was recited about impact fees, specifically, is it correct to say that a developer pays for the development and conveys it over to the County, and then homeowners pay impact fees that pay back the developer? Mr. Bosi said financial obligations with the original developer are typically required to be resolved before turnover to the Homeowners Association. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 12 An audience member asked if agriculture is moving east and north? Mr. Robbins responded that agriculture is moving east and south within FDOT District 1. The audience member asked, “What do you attribute that to?” Mr. Robbins said the eastern shift is due to residential and commercial growth pushing agriculture east. The north to south move within the district (for example, Polk County agriculture moving south) is due to similar development growth and partially because of land, temperature and better suited land in the south for citrus crops. The audience member said that it is concerning about the availability of food and losing food growing areas, noting that California is suffering wildfires, and Florida is a food basket for the country. The audience member asked what is going to happen when the population shifts from 300,000 to 700,000+ people? Are seasonal factors considered in transportation planning? Mr. Bosi responded that the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) associated with the Capital Improvement Element is updated annually to assess population growth and what is needed to serve population growth. Developments are required to provide infrastructure needed to satisfy populations moving forward. The Capital Improvement Element is directly tied to concurrency. The County puts a 25% mark up on population to address seasonal influx, and water and sewer puts a higher safeguard mark up because seasonal visitors do tax the system. Waiting for a parking spot is an inconvenience, but needing water to flush your toilet is of primary importance. Ms. McLaughlin said the population figures are from BEBR. The travel demand model does have a seasonal factor built into it. A specific corridor may be studied, and counts may be taken during high season. The audience member asked if the population coming from the east to the beaches are taken into consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the current plan and projection is for 160,000 people over a 20+ year timeframe. The complexity of the question is hard to answer in a quick Q & A period. The County is trying to build more complete communities in the east that are intended to capture more internal traffic. An audience member stated that smart growth and new urbanism is supported, but developers are not catching on or developing in this manner. Developers are creating gated communities, with no support services nearby and everyone has to drive everywhere. A concern of new development in the eastern lands is that it should be contained in new urbanism style development. An audience member asked out of the total infrastructure costs, what percentage is paid by Developer Contribution Agreements (DCAs)? Mr. Tindale said location, size and rate of development determine the negotiation. The County’s intent is to take these revenues and apply them based on the location, size and rate of development. The audience member asked, what if developer doesn’t perform? What if the model doesn’t work or if the County has tied up money and someone else wants to come in or the developer wants to renegotiate? Mr. Tindale said if the situation is risky, the money is required to be paid up front by the developer. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 13 The audience member said the biggest concern is roads and schools, stating that the County is putting up money for roads and schools. When the curve is not at the right angle, do you renegotiate? Does the developer not pay everything back? How does it work in this County? Ms. Patterson with Collier County explained that the DCA is not one-sided. The developer either gives the County money, donates land or builds something. There are parameters and restrictions on how DCAs can be done and what projects can be included. An audience member said there are a number of developments that would like to come on line in the next 10-year period, and asked if the County has a budget for putting in infrastructure. If so, does the county tell the developer to wait? Mr. Bellone said that utilities are different because they are not funded by taxes; user fees fund utilities. If the developer hasn’t developed yet, there are no customers. The audience member said that is not the answer to her question. Her question is: does the County make developers wait based on the County’s infrastructure budget? She knows that concurrency is in place, but money is finite. Mr. Bosi said concurrency measures the capacity in the system. If a developer wants to move forward now and there is not enough revenue to pay for it, the developer would be asked to pay their proportionate share upfront to move forward now and be credited later. An audience member asked Mr. Robbins about agriculture shifting from coastal urban areas to rural areas, noting that his study was based on a regional area, and inquired about Mr. Robbins’ data of where agriculture will go in eastern Collier County by 2035? Mr. Robbins said projections were not based on a parcel by parcel analysis, just a land use pattern and trends of where shifts would go to the closest available area. Mr. Bosi said two restudies of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) area and the RLSA are addressing the topic of credits to incentivize permanent agricultural production. He said three scales were considered in the original adoption, including property rights, environmental protection and agriculture protection. A suggested amendment from the RLSA 5-Year Review was creating an agriculture credit system to provide for long term viability of agriculture in the eastern lands, noting that most people do not realize the significant economic impact that agriculture has on the County. Mr. Robbins said the shift is not just happening within the district, but some of the shift is happening from the east coast to the west coast. An example of this shift is the new farms near the Seminole Reservation. The audience member said the reason she is asking the question is because landowners are saying that agricultural production is becoming less viable. Mr. Robbins said some of the land is not viable, and sometimes the crop is not supportable. The study represents an overall trend of land use patterns. Mr. Van Lengen voiced appreciation for the audience’s input and noted the time remaining for the meeting allowed for a few more questions. He added that the County can better identify the population numbers more clearly. The population for the Golden Gate Estates area is projected to double in population from 45,000-50,000 to 90,000 people by 2040. In contrast, the Rural Lands is projected to be 40,000-47,000 people by 2040. The congestion on the roads currently is Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Exploring Infrastructure and Fiscal Impacts August 23, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 14 primarily from Golden Gate Estates. People are concerned about traffic from the growth in Rural Lands, but growth will not be coming in a concentrated wave like a freight train. An audience member made a personal observation. She inquired with moving companies and learned that a lot of people are moving north out of Collier County. She noted that the County anticipates growth of about 6,000 people per year and asked if the growth projections consider outmigration? Mr. Van Lengen said yes, growth projections do factor outmigration. An audience member said agriculture lands are diminishing rapidly in the County. If you are going to develop land, is it a lot easier or cheaper to develop agriculture land? Mr. Bosi said the open lands or agriculture lands are considered the most prime for compact urban development, and that is why an agriculture credit is suggested. Overall the allocation of agricultural land is protected within SSAs. The SSAs create credits based on a formula that considers acreage, the Natural Resource Index score, and land use layers. Most SSAs are brought down to AG-1 (active agriculture activity) or AG-2 (passive pasture activity). The program does try to perpetuate agriculture in the future because we know it is a presence we need in the County. An audience member asked from the RLSA initial adoption until the 2009 Restudy, what was the acreage loss in agriculture, and what is that number in 2018? Mr. Bosi recognized that there has been significant loss in agriculture. There are macroeconomic issues impacting farming. The farming production from South and Central America and international markets have undercut the ability for some farmers to have a profitable and successful operation. He said there are some factors beyond what we can influence locally, but we can try to make the best regulatory framework possible. Farmers need to be profitable to sustain their business here. Farmers are looking at new strategies to fill the gaps, such as growing specialty products. Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience for any remaining questions and then thanked the panel for their participation. He reminded the audience of the next meeting on September 27, 2018. The meeting concluded at approximately 8:15 p.m. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113 I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Planning and Zoning, welcomed attendees and opened the meeting at 6:05. He described that comment cards are provided and asked attendees to fill in their concerns and comments at the start of the meeting, noting that this will be requested again at the end of the meeting. Mr. Van Lengen introduced the panel of professionals with the overview that Jerry Kurtz will talk about watershed issues, basin rules, storm and surface water, where the surface water goes and how long it takes to get there, and the County’s role. Brad Cook, Section Leader at South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) will give a regional perspective on water supply planning and permitting through the SFWMD, and the water uses that occur agriculturally and domestically. Steve Messner, Collier County Public Utilities Department, will talk about how water gets from well to faucets and the impacts associated for the Collier County Water and Sewer District as services move east. Kirk Martin, Hydrologist, will discuss how all of these concepts come together, permitted use versus actual use, and an overview of the entire water cycle. Mr. Van Lengen reviewed the meeting schedule and noted that the presentations at the August and September meetings have a focus on facts related to infrastructure, fiscal impact and water resources. The intent of these meetings has been to provide information that will apply to future meetings and discussions. October and November meetings will be more interactive with topics of sustainable development, what the building environment should look like, lessons learned, Group 4 policies, and Group 5 policies for baseline development in the form of 5-acre ranchettes if time permits. Future meeting content will include the review of Rural Lands policies that the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC) conducted previously. The credit system from Group 1 policies and consensus building will be part of future meetings. Public comments, the 5-year review recommendations and responses from advisory boards will be reviewed as the workshop series wraps up. He noted that January and February may not be the last two meetings, because it may take longer to work through the consensus building phase. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that Facebook Live is available for communication during this session, and that Dr. Amanda Evans will facilitate the Q&A portion of this session. Presenters will give their presentations followed by time for questions. Video archives of these sessions are available at colliercountyfl.gov. The RLSA workshop website has summaries and the PowerPoint presentations available, and Mr. Van Lengen noted that all participant feedback and emails are appreciated. He then introduced Mr. Jerry Kurtz with a brief biography outlining that Mr. Kurtz is an engineer and has been with Collier County for 20 years. II Presentations Speaker: Mr. Jerry Kurtz, P.E., Collier County Stormwater Management Section Mr. Kurtz began his presentation describing the importance of stewardship of water and land and people that make up a watershed. Mr. Kurtz gave an overview of his discussion topics, which include stormwater management rules, basins and each basin’s flow, the rural land flowways, and rural land water retention areas (WRAs). The County’s stormwater management program once focused on drainage improvement and now focuses on watershed health management. It’s about managing the resource, not just nuisance flooding. Mr. Kurtz’s group in the Growth Management Department in the Capital Management group helps keep the County systems up to date and functioning while planning, building, and designing capital improvement projects for the County. Mr. Kurtz explained the SFWMD manages the larger water systems, and Collier County manages smaller water managements systems such as lakes, canals and ditches. The Big Cypress Basin is managed by both SFWMD and Collier County. Mr. Kurtz’s group provides long range and short range planning and maintenance, area master plans and implementation of the watershed management plan, which was finalized in 2011. As funding and resources become available, improvements will be done on the basis of that plan. Staff also reviews rezoning at a high level, considering regional waterflow issues as well as impacts to canal systems and structures. He noted that stormwater management rules of the SFWMD apply in Collier County, and using these rules is good for efficiency and consistency. Mr. Kurtz displayed a map of the stormwater basins, also called sub-watersheds, identifying there are 22 basins on the map, and there are 51 total basins in the County. In 1990 the County assessed water running off the land, and the rate of release (or discharge) became controlled. In this case, the local County rules supplement the SFWMD rules. The County restricts the discharge rate by ordinance, and the County has added areas to these restrictions over the years. The watershed scale planning effort showed that 16 more sub-basin areas need to be controlled with a discharge rate. These rates apply to all new development. Relative to rural lands, most of the area is Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3 unrestricted, or the base discharge rate of 0.15 cubic feet per second per acre applies. The rates could be reduced by as much as half in the urban area. Mr. Kurtz said that canals and ditches are more predominate in the urban area compared to the rural area. He displayed a map showing the natural flowways in the rural lands. The Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) will function like canals, meaning the water will be guided to these areas as receiving waterways. As development occurs, the flowways will be studied. The flowways will deliver water to the sensitive receiving areas to the south, the Panther Refuge, Big Cypress Preserve, Ten Thousand Islands, and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Kurtz stressed that this is an entirely different scheme compared to the urban area, adding that the resulting regional flow patterns and water quality must be studied over time to help better understand and manage conditions in the future. Mr. Kurtz explained that the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough are currently used for water management, and as long as this is acceptable and working, then this condition should be kept the same or improved as needed as land uses change. As more information is gathered, the County can adapt and adjust to new needs. Mr. Kurtz has recently heard from a property owner about water building up in the northern part of the Rural Lands Area, which may have resulted from changing water flow through the Okaloacoochee Slough during the rainy season. Mr. Kurtz added that he believes the flowways should have management plans. Mr. Kurtz said the Water Retention Areas (WRAs) are great features, noting they are designated for current and future water management functions. Water could be guided through them to flow toward sensitive receiving waters. This is the current condition for the most part and is successful. In contrast, the urban environment has natural features that were impacted many years ago, and the situation for the rural lands is better because the watershed approach to water management can incorporate natural features and systems. Mr. Kurtz described that agriculture operations were historically accustomed to pumping water into massive retention areas, and he participated in some monitoring about 25 years ago and saw how much water can be managed. He concluded that these are good areas to use for water management today and into the future. Speaker: Mr. Brad Cook, South Florida Water Management District Mr. Van Lengen introduced Brad Cook with a brief biography. Mr. Cook joined the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 2012 and has 25 years of environmental and water resources management experience. Mr. Cook introduced his two main topics: water resource planning (water supply planning that the District conducts and the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan) and water use and consumptive use permitting. Water resource planning is determining if there is enough supply to meet the demand. He explained that the SFWMD has five regional areas, including the Lower West Coast, for which water needs are assessed over a 20-year planning horizon. The timeframe Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 for the recently completed 2017 plan is through 2040. The plan evaluates strategies and sources to meet future water demands and is updated every five years. Mr. Cook displayed a general hydrogeologic cross section of water sources in the area. The water table and Lower Tamiami aquifer are called the surficial aquifer system. Sandstone and Mid- Hawthorne are intermediate aquifer systems. The deepest aquifer typically tapped for water supply is the Floridan aquifer system. Mr. Cook displayed a chart showing the use of each aquifer system. Every five years when the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan is updated, the demand projections are updated for six different types of water use including public supply, domestic and small public supply, agriculture irrigation, industrial/commercial/institutional, recreational/landscape irrigation, and power generation. Agriculture has the highest demand of water supply. Mr. Cook explained that the population growth projections have been slightly reducing over the past ten years. As population increases, the demand is increasing at a lower rate due to conservation measures, reduced per capita demand and use of reclaimed water. Conservation measures are through Block rate structures, efficient fixtures, and irrigation restrictions. Reuse water is also known as reclaimed or irrigation quality (IQ) water. Reuse water can also be used in place of other sources, such as potable water. Reduction in per capita demand has been noted since 2000. Currently in the Lower West Coast area, around 80 million gallons per day (MGD) is reused for irrigation of residential lots, golf courses, parks, and other green space. The 2017 Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan concluded that 2040 demands can be met by the proper management, conservation and implementation of additional water supply projects. Future demands through 2040 can be met through implementation of projects identified in the plan. Mr. Cook noted that the SFWMD website provides extensive information, and the plan, which is about 400 pages in total, can be found at sfwmd.gov/lwcplan. Consumptive use permitting is based on Florida water law, which gives SFWMD the exclusive authority to regulate consumptive use of water. There are no property rights to water. Users must obtain a water use permit to have a water right, and permits must be renewed. The water use permitting rules are found in Florida Statutes Chapter 373 and Rule 40E-2 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and the Water Use Applicant’s Handbook is a supplement to the rules and regulations. Mr. Cook explained the permitting process beginning with the application for a water use permit, which is subject to a “three-pronged test.” The water use request should be reasonable, beneficial and consistent with public interest. Common water use permitting is for public water supply, mining, industrial, and irrigation. Private single-family homes, fire protection, and reclaimed water are exempt from consumptive use permitting. Permit types are based on the amount of water needed for a particular purpose, or the allocation. The Noticed General Permit is for the smallest allocation, and permits are issued for twenty years. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 5 There are three tiers of Individual Permits, which can require reporting. These are issued for five years for new uses to evaluate if there are issues with the permit, and up to twenty years for renewals. Mr. Cook explained that the SFWMD evaluates water use permits by determining how much water is needed for a particular project. The Blaney-Criddle spreadsheets have several input parameters used to calculate water demand for irrigation permits. While public water supply is based on population and per capita use, other types of uses are based on project specific calculations. An applicant must provide a site map with pumping facilities, details on the well, proof of legal control, reclaimed water availability and water use accounting for projects over 100,000 MGD and an application processing fee. For projects with proposed uses over 3 million gallons per month, an impact analysis must include analysis of existing users, availability, and other factors. Mr. Cook elaborated on the methods of performing the water resource availability analysis, describing how the Maximum Developable Limit (MDL) is evaluated. The top of the aquifer and historical water levels are determined. MDL monitoring is performed on an ongoing basis, especially in dry season when water levels are at their lowest. He referenced that United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrographs show water levels since 1976 for some wells. Mr. Cook explained how modeling is done to assess drawdown, and he displayed an exhibit based on aquifer hydraulic parameters and pumpage rates. Mr. Cook explained how saline water intrusion or migration is assessed. Wetlands are evaluated to ensure water use won’t affect the hydroperiod or affect water levels in wetlands. Some permits can include conditions for water level monitoring. Soil and groundwater contamination are also evaluated during water use permitting review. The water use permit outlines the allocation with annual and maximum monthly allocations, duration of the permit, facilities, and permit conditions like monitoring or other restrictions. Mr. Cook concluded by sharing that the website sfwmd.gov contains a lot of related information. Speaker: Mr. Steve Messner, Collier County Public Utilities Department Mr. Van Lengen introduced Steve Messner, Director of Collier County Public Utilities Department, noting Mr. Messner’s impressive understanding of the logistics and current system in Collier County. Mr. Messner provided an overview and stated Collier County provides potable water services to 73,400 service connections. Collier County has two water treatment plants, four water storage and re-pumping stations and three wellfields. Collier County water treatment plants have 140 full time employees with an annual budget of nearly $30 million and capital budget of nearly $43 million. The service area is 240 square miles. There are over 800 miles of water main in Collier County. Nine billion gallons of water is distributed or 24.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The highest day demand this year was 32.9 MGD. The treatment capacity is 52 MGD so there is room to grow. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 Mr. Messner explained that raw water sources include fresh water from the Tamiami aquifer, which the County accesses with 36 wells located 60-110 feet below the ground with 30 MGD capacity in that wellfield. The brackish water is sourced from the Hawthorn Aquifer zone 1 and lower zone with 65 wells located 300-900 feet below the ground with 60 MGD capacity. Mr. Messner pointed out that brackish water is not seawater. Mr. Messner displayed a map showing the two water treatment plants in Collier County referred to as the North Plant and the South Plant. The North County Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 1993 with 12 MGD using fresh water and a membrane softening water treatment process. The North Plant was expanded by 8 MGD in 1999 with reverse osmosis treatment, and average production is 12 MGD for this facility. Mr. Messner explained the treatment processes, noting there are two different treatment processes under one roof, making the treatment plant “hybrid.” The South County Water Treatment Plant located on County Road 951 was constructed in 1984 with 4 MGD with a conventional treatment process or lime softening process. The plant was expanded to 12 MGD in 1998. In 2004 the plant expanded again, adding 8 MGD with reverse osmosis treatment. In 2009 the reverse osmosis treatment process added 12 MGD for a total 32 MGD. Average production in fiscal year 2018 was 12.5 MGD. The plants are targeted to produce a 50/50 split, keeping the water fresher and maintaining compliance. Mr. Messner explained the plant’s treatment process, noting it is also a hybrid plant. Conservation methods include the use of irrigation quality (IQ) water. Five billion gallons of IQ water is used for irrigation annually for golf courses parks, some residential communities and roadway medians. This represents 90% of water used in Collier County, and Mr. Messner noted that IQ water can also be used for potable water. Speaker: Mr. Kirk Martin, Water Science Associates Mr. Van Lengen introduced Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrologist with Water Science Associates. Mr. Martin consults for the Rural Lands West project, and he has been a consultant for the Collier Water and Sewer District for many years. Mr. Martin’s discussion topics included improved water resource management in rural lands, existing systems, and saltwater intrusion. He began by explaining how the Collier County Water and Sewer District is a progressive public water, wastewater and irrigation water utility. The County is a leader with early adoption of reuse, desalination, and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR). The County’s integrated resource management is innovative. The County’s system is 1/3 fresh, 1/3 brackish, 1/3 reuse. He explained the differences in saline, brackish and fresh water. He explained the water table and the Tamiami Aquifer, which is very productive in Collier County. With 52 MGD installed capacity and 30 MGD in use, there is capacity available in the system. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 7 Mr. Martin said the future Northeast Water Treatment Plant is planned for a brackish water source. Collier County capped the use of fresh water as brackish and reuse water sources increased. He noted that brackish water comes at a more expensive cost. The IQ system consists of reclaimed plus supplemental groundwater. This accommodates the dry seasonal needs. Currently over 95% of the water used is going to reclaimed reuse. He described how there is a north and south facility currently and a planned facility in the northeast. The IQ system reduces competition for limited resources, reduces demands on the potable system, removes surface water quality impacts, and provides aquifer recharge every day, particularly providing aquifer recharge near the coast which helps keep saltwater at bay. The IQ source is brackish or inland, providing advantages to the coastal developed area. On the topic of saline water, Mr. Martin said saline water is considered water with over 10,000 chlorides. The SFWMD map is wrong in that the City of Naples wellfield is fresh water, not salt. Mr. Martin displayed a second map that he said is also inaccurately labeling salt water. Mr. Martin displayed a third map showing topography from sea level to 12 feet above sea level, indicating where the coastal ridge and lower lying areas are in the County. On the topic of connate water, Mr. Martin said this is water that was entrapped in the ground and did not get flushed out. He said 120 thousand years ago, the Collier County area sea water was 25 feet higher than it is today. Mr. Martin explained the dynamics of hydraulic entrapment of connate water. He explained that a modeling effort is underway for wellhead protection in Collier County showing net recharge up or down among the water table and the aquifers. Mr. Martin said that most water considered saline in the Lower Tamiami aquifer is not saline but very mildly brackish (approximately 300-500 mg/l chloride). Saline water in the Lower Tamiami aquifer is not intruded, but trapped connate water from the last high sea level stand. He went on to say there is no apparent movement of saline water in Collier County. Use of the connate water is actually good for the resource, and sea level rise is not projected to increase saline water intrusion. Groundwater and sea level are on a continuum. As sea level rises, the entire system will rise. A model is being developed for Palm Beach County, revealing the issue with sea level rise is not saline intrusion, but rather flooding. Mr. Martin said the RLSA provides owner incentives for preservation, restoration, connectivity of wetlands, flowways, and wildlife habitat. Water use reduces significantly when agriculture converts to new communities. Mr. Martin described the Rural Lands West project and the components of the 4,000-acre new town. He pointed out the historical agricultural water use compared to the planned demands. He displayed that water levels vary between 10-15 feet in the aquifers, and there has been no decline in the aquifer over several years. Mr. Martin described the plans for utility services in northeast Collier County. He pointed out four projects that equate to 7 or 8 MGD of potable water demands, noting there is a lot of capacity in Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 8 existing County facilities, and there will eventually be a permeant plant in the northeast part of the County. Mr. Martin explained that conversion of agriculture acreage will significantly reduce current water demand. Collier County will provide potable water and wastewater services to Rural Lands West. Rural Lands West will meet reduced irrigation demands from onsite wells, and it will provide additional fresh water to the County system. Mr. Martin summarized that Collier County has a long and highly respected history of prudent and progressive water resource management. The County provides an area-appropriate mix of fresh groundwater, brackish groundwater and reclaimed water to meet total water demands. Conversion of RLSA lands in eastern Collier County provides a new opportunity for improved water supply management. Development of proven sustainable freshwater supplies in the RLSA for public utility use will provide flexibility in County water sources, reduce concentration and impacts of freshwater withdrawals, reduce reliance on expensive and high maintenance brackish sources, expand opportunities for provision of critical IQ water supplies, and provide new resources for coastal aquifer recharge. III Questions and Comments Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, FGCU Mr. Van Lengen called the presenters to the front table to allow the audience to ask questions. He explained Rural Lands West is an application that is already under review, and it makes sense to discuss aspects of the Rural Lands West project for illuminating questions. Dr. Amanda Evans said Facebook Live questions are welcomed. Brad Cornell asked if the County or the SFWMD is doing any modeling on a regional basis to demonstrate water resource or wetland impacts? Do we have enough monitoring wells? Mr. Martin said the permitting process is rigorous and a regional perspective is important. Large wetland areas are in beautiful shape and the resources are proven. Mr. Cook said the SFWMD is doing some Lower West Coast modeling that takes into account the entire service area. In reference to the monitoring wells question, he said the District is looking at the Maximum Developable Limit (MDL), however there is restriction in the number and location of monitoring wells. He concluded that the SWFMD would always like to have more data. An audience member asked Mr. Martin if converting agricultural land to residential is a good thing, then why keep agricultural land? Mr. Martin said there is push back by the agricultural industry on conversion of agricultural land. The agriculture industry has changed a lot over the last 20 years to minimize fertilizer and water use. The Rural Lands West project is one particular project in which the conditions will be better after development. He is not suggesting that residential use is better than an agricultural use, but it is just different. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 9 An audience member asked Mr. Martin, if Rural Lands West develops the optional 50-hole golf course, is there an analysis for the water withdraws for the golf course irrigation? Mr. Martin said the original plan did not have the golf course, and the result of adding an 18 or 36-hole golf course holes offsets houses, and it was not a significant change. An audience member asked when you compare Rural Lands West agriculture withdraws are you looking at actual use or permitted use in the water use studies? Mr. Martin said both; 30 MGD permitted and the use has been historically that much. An audience member stated that the history of water use is intriguing, but the addition of 300,000 people will have implications and much of the problems along the coast are due to runoff. Can the County take another 300,000 people? Mr. Martin said the volumes, rates and points of outfall will be exactly the same. There is room for more storage and more controlled discharge in the rural lands. Mr. Kurtz said the impact will be less in the rural lands. Impacts are generated in the urban area and the County is always playing catch up with the runoff since areas built before regulations were in place in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr. Kurtz said there are lessons learned from the urban area and it’s exciting to use the natural lands in the rural areas by doing proper water management at no expense to the natural lands. An audience member asked a question about the two flowways and Camp Keais Strand. With Rural Lands West to the west and Ave Maria on the east, is there a flowway management plan for Camp Keais Strand? Mr. Kurtz said he does not know, and Rural Lands West is still under review. Mr. Kurtz said he thinks there should be a flowway management plan because the flow should be monitored at a minimum and managed if needed. He does not know if there will be a management plan in the future. Mr. Kurtz doesn’t have first-hand knowledge if there have been management plans in the past, but doing land use changes should involve County, state and federal consideration of how the flowways are managed. Tidal receiving waters don’t have a management program or policy, but now downstream receiving waters need a water management plan. The first phase of a management program would be annual inspection, but there are a lot of areas without any type of inspection. The audience member voiced concerned that Corkscrew Swamp is draining more rapidly and losing water, and considering the new development, the lakes can draw water faster and cause Corkscrew Swamp to drain sooner. Mr. Kurtz said it’s a common concern. Flood protection level of service has to be balanced with resource protection so there is no over-draining. Stormwater used to be considered a nuisance, and it is now an important resource and will someday become a drinking water source. The question of the Corkscrew Swamp draining involves a regional approach to water management. Assessing the flow in the watershed is a concept that water managers deal with every day. An audience member commented about retaining agriculture and asked if water reduction is a benefit to wildlife habitat and connectivity? Second, on Mr. Kurtz’ reference to a management plan, the audience member suggested that this can be an initiative that the County goes forward with by creating and implementing management plans. She had a question for Mr. Martin on how Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Water Resources September 27, 2018, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 10 Rural Lands West will provide additional fresh water? Mr. Martin said the reduction in agricultural water use will provide fresh water to Collier County, not to the system. Mr. Van Lengen asked for an explanation of the costs for production of water. Mr. Messner said of the three water treatment options (lime softening, membrane filtration, and reverse osmosis of brackish water), reverse osmosis is the most costly. It takes power to drive the pumps to make the reverse osmosis work. The lower the water quality, the higher the cost of treating the water. Technologies are getting better but there is additional cost for treating brackish water supply. An audience member commented that solar panels should be included on these plants. She asked if development is allowed on the County’s 51 stormwater basins? Mr. Kurtz said yes, the basins cover the whole County. The audience member asked when someone wants to develop in the basin, do they have to do certain things? Mr. Kurtz said the maximum discharge rate determines how the designer designs the project. This applies to remaining parcels that are yet to be developed, and the resulting water management system is more robust and the runoff is released at a reduced rate. This controls adverse impact on the existing system, so the burden goes on the parcels yet to be developed to do a more robust water management system. Low impact development forces treating the runoff on the site to relieve the burden of conveying the water rapidly off the property. The audience member asked if the County will require more pervious systems? Mr. Kurtz said that is a growing trend and mentioned that the upcoming sports center and Rural Lands West projects should be considered relative to perviousness. An audience member referenced that farmers are upset about retaining water south of the lake and asked how did farmers determine they would convert their land? Mr. Kurtz said the decisions by property owners are based on their own reasons. An audience member asked how to access the projects being referenced in the eastern lands? Mr. Martin said Oil Well Road, just east of Golden Gate Estates. The audience member asked if Vanderbilt Road is going out that way? Mr. Van Lengen said access is off Oil Well Road just past the Estates. The audience member asked if the developer is going to pay for the road? Mr. Van Lengen said that is a topic for another workshop. IV Adjourn Mr. Van Lengen thanked everyone for their participation and encouraged the audience to complete the comment cards. The meeting ended at 8:05. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Public Workshop Sustainable Development October 25, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113 I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at approximately 6:05 p.m. stating that the discussion will be about the built environment. He explained that the presentations will be in sections, allowing for questions and answers before each presenter. Sustainability, smart development and some of the Group 4 policies will be the main concepts. Then the audience will be asked what they would like to discuss at the next meeting. Mr. David Weeks will present and discuss population concepts. Mrs. Laura DeJohn will discuss growth patterns and how development has occurred in Southwest Florida. Mr. Van Lengen will discuss selected provisions of Group 4 and Group 5 policies. Finally, Dr. Amanda Evans will facilitate the group discussion. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the next meeting on November 29th will further explore sustainable development. David Genson representing Barron Collier will discuss successes, challenges, and lessons learned in developing Ave Maria. The Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) meets next on December 6th and the Committee will be discussing the direction for future meetings that will be aimed at building consensus on any proposed policy changes. The public is encouraged to participate at the GMOC meeting. The first meeting in 2019 will include revisiting Group 1 policies and consensus building. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted opportunities for participation, noting that Facebook Like is available for anyone not able to attend meetings in person. Past meeting archives including workshop summaries, PowerPoint presentations and videos can be accessed at www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies. Feedback can be emailed to RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov. Comment cards are collected at the end of the meeting and are appreciated. II Population Concepts Speaker: Mr. David Weeks, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Manager www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Mr. Weeks introduced statutory requirements that apply to every county in Florida, including the requirement for a growth management plan (GMP). The County must have population projections and estimates, both permanent and seasonal. The County is required to use the state’s population figures unless otherwise approved by the state to use an alternative methodology. Collier County uses the medium range projections provided by the state. When the GMP was adopted in 1989, population growth was explosive, and the high range of population growth projections were used. Growth eventually slowed down, and the mid-range projections are now used. Collier County determines land needed for future growth that far exceeds a 10-year period. Mr. Weeks explained that the latest population estimates available are for 2017. For the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) the population for 2017 is 5,000 people and the projected 2040 population is 47,000. The population is concentrated in Ave Maria or small communities north of Immokalee along State Road 29, State Road 82, and in small farms south of Immokalee. The population difference anticipated between 2017 and 2040 equals an average increase of 1,800 people per year over the 23-year timespan. Historical growth for Collier County dates back to the 1930 census, with fewer than 3,000 people. Over time, there have been explosive ten-year periods of growth ranging from 65% to 126% increases in population. From 2010 to 2018, there was a 16% change and growth is now tapering off. Mr. Weeks summarized that population projections and estimates in 2018, 2013, and 2008 portray a rather steady growth rate for Collier County. Collier County’s permanent population projection methodology is from the published estimates and 5-year increment projections received from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The County uses census ratios in small geographic areas known as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that consider dwelling units and permanent population, divided to identify the ratio of persons per household, and then certificates of occupancy are monitored each year for determining annual population growth in the TAZ. This gets aggregated based on geographic area and then officials arrives at population estimates. The estimates are published in April, and then converted in October considering the County’s fiscal year cycle. Mr. Weeks said that Collier County’s peak season population is 20% more than the October permanent population. The 2018 projected population is 442,420, which reflects a 74,000 person increase due to season. Some areas of the county experience greater seasonal influx than others. Areas such as Immokalee have seasonal influx due to migrant laborers and trucking industry employees associated with agriculture activity in and around Immokalee. The concept “build it and they will come” is a spin-off from the movie Field of Dreams. In reality, before development occurs, the developer considers demographics, the national, local and regional economy, infrastructure capacity (available water, wastewater, roads, fire and police protection), regulatory changes that could impact the success of the development, and competition. Other considerations include events like red tide that could impact decisions by people who might relocate to this area. Unless causes of issues are addressed, the issues can deter development. Mr. Weeks explained that regulatory matters also impact development, such as County land use allowances www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov including the RLSA program, state and federal permitting, and subsequent County approvals and development of the infrastructure and building permits, before vertical construction can begin. To wrap up the topic of development absorption, Mr. Weeks explained that when a project gets approved it may be a year or several years before necessary permits are obtained to allow construction of infrastructure and buildings. When a project is approved, it doesn’t mean immediately it will be developed or that there is demand for the development. Some PUDs have obtained approval and sat dormant for 10-12 years. For example, Lely Resort at US 41 & Collier Boulevard was approved in 1985 with 10,150 dwelling units; today the residential units are about halfway built out and the commercial components are about halfway built out. The developer estimated a 40-year absorption, which would conclude in 5-7 years from now. Mr. Weeks said that experience shows the larger the project is, the less likely it is that the approved number of dwelling units will be actually built. Lely Resort might be built out as far as the land is considered at 6,500 dwelling units although it has approval now for 8,946 units. The theoretical approval is what is approved, and the actual buildout is what is actually built. While it might be feasible in the future to redevelop or replace existing development with new or higher density development, it is typical for larger projects not to build all units they are authorized to build. Remaining units are called ghost units by the County. Ave Maria was approved in 2004 with 11,000 dwelling units. These projects take time even after the permitting is obtained. Rural Lands West will take decades to build. Mr. Weeks then opened discussion and questions from the audience. An audience member asked how many units have been built in Ave Maria? Mr. Weeks said there is a regulatory glitch. Ave Maria is not required to submit an annual report to the County. Annual reports are required for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Ave Maria was a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), but the Florida legislature did away with DRIs a few years ago. The audience member asked if communities in the RLSA will have to submit an annual report? Mr. Weeks said no, RLSA communities will not submit an annual report, and that is something the County should fix. An audience member asked if a Development Order (DO) count is available? Mr. Weeks said the County could get a DO count, but it is not prepared for the meeting tonight. Mr. Van Lengen said he would obtain the requested Ave Maria information and post on the website. III Growth Patterns Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Johnson Engineering, Inc. Mrs. DeJohn introduced herself and indicated she has been working on behalf of Collier County in support of the RLSA public workshops. She said that she will present a high level review of the Group 4 policies, and quoted that the Group 4 policy objective is to enable conversion of rural lands to www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). To gain perspective about growth patterns and community development, look nearby to downtown Naples and the early mid-1900s large-scale platting of Golden Gate Estates. From a planning perspective these developments were not sensitive to nature because the homogenous grid did not accommodate any existing land or water features. The outcomes of historic Collier County land development plans can be seen in Collier County today. She depicted piecemeal land development examples such as two-acre Estates lots and PUD communities that have been pieced together across the County’s landscape over time. Developers can anticipate the type of people that want to move and live here and can design land to accommodate these people. She pointed out an example of development proposed to fill in where very limited space is left to develop. The piecemeal development pattern is being perpetuated, and is also seen moving further east into Lee County along Corkscrew Road. Residential development projects displayed along Corkscrew Road illustrate how a large scale outcome results from several individual projects being approved over time, based on their own individual merits. These developments aggregate to form a 6,000-acre area where 6,000 single-family homes will be built, with no consideration for commercial uses or services. Relating this information back to the study areas, the RLSA was originally agricultural land subdivided into 5-acre tracts where individual homesites would be allowed across the landscape. What came about from the RLSA program was an effort to do something better. If you want to do something to protect rural lands, it should be well planned, creative and not piecemealed. Geographically the RLSA is a very large area that will not be built in a short amount of time. There are multiple private interests involved in the RLSA, family legacies, land values and property rights that need to be protected. Public interests include ecological values in this area, fiscal impacts of growth and community sustainability. Mrs. DeJohn explained that the design with nature concept is a fundamental planning theory. The evolution of Babcock Ranch is an example of designing with nature. This community evaluated and identified the most valuable land areas, displayed as green areas on the map, and then determined the areas for development as seen in the gray areas on the map. The footprint for developable areas is based on protecting the most valuable areas. This concept was the same foundation for RLSA. High quality environmental areas were the areas set aside for protection first, then the remaining areas are available for property owners to use as allowed per their property rights, such as agriculture or other types of development. As described previously, individual owners doing what they want with their property results in piecemeal development. The RLSA approach is a much more difficult formula than the piecemeal approach. The RLSA requires more intense collaboration with property owners to plan smarter growth. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Mrs. DeJohn queried, do RLSA strategies accomplish this balance as described? Is the development being done sustainably? Are green development goals met? Are sustainable design standards implemented? Are smart growth and compact walkable communities available? Sustainability is making sure that development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability also protects the environment, including maintenance of agriculture, and upholds the rights of property owners. Mrs. DeJohn cited the American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth that this approach to growth and planning can not only deliver dynamic attractive communities with greater choices for consumers but can be a powerful tool for farmland, open space and habitat preservation. Policy 4.6 includes these sustainably concepts, including protecting the environment, maintaining agriculture and being cost-efficient. Mrs. DeJohn said the Restudy effort is an evaluation of whether there are better methods to accomplish the objectives. As a member of the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), she said efforts are underway to explore green development options through the Florida Green Building Coalition. This is an example of how Collier County is continually looking into sustainable development concepts. An audience member said it was useful to see the history and the development overtime which were not of best practice. He said we are now looking at projects in this area which are huge in scale, and asked if designing or thinking of things so large in scale is the appropriate thing to do? Mrs. DeJohn said the alternative to large scale planning is the piecemeal style. She said we have to ask what is the best way for Collier County to move forward with growth because growth will continue. Large scale planning is a thoughtful approach. Piecemeal development is a less thoughtful approach. The audience member agreed, but still thinks Rural Lands West is too large of an area for planning. He worries that communities and their needs are evolving, so it does not seem logical forecast for something so large. Another audience member said it seems the proposed development concepts are aspirational, but are you actually working with developers to achieve these ideas? Mrs. DeJohn said she is not a consultant for developers in the County’s rural areas. However, other consultants have the same information and follow the same program and the goals outlined in the GMP. The purpose of this Restudy is to make sure the RLSA goals are being met. Do the current goals outlined in Policy 4.6 protect our natural environment, maintain economic viability of agriculture and discourage sprawl? If not, the purpose of this Restudy is to look for improvements and alternatives to meet the outlined goals. Another audience member recommended to provide the following information to DSAC. She said we should look at how we can force higher density planning and mixed-use development planning to actually get walkable and bikeable towns. That didn’t happen in Ava Maria and it’s a random sprawl town. She said in Ave Maria you cannot get everywhere with a baby carriage. A better idea is to plan a community with one or multiple town centers with the right amenities and density highest at the town center, then density should reduce as it goes out. The audience member stressed the need to rework the rules to maintain high density in town centers. She said in terms of www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov planning communities, one of the problems is developers build giant golf communities here, and we need to do more community planning like Mercato. The audience member said we need shops, churches, restaurants, daycares, and things communities need to thrive located where people can access within the community so residents do not have to leave their community. Ava Maria residents must drive so far to reach a food store. Mrs. DeJohn appreciated the thoughtful comments and indicated that density is not going to be a matter fully addressed by the DSAC. She also indicated that Mr. Van Lengen will discuss density and requirements next, which may help address her ideas. Another audience member asked where does stormwater runoff go and where are detention ponds located? What happens to the water? Mrs. DeJohn said we had a great presentation last month from the County Stormwater Manager, Jerry Kurtz, and he described historical methods to channel water off of properties through canals efficiently, but how the RLSA is different because of lessons learned. In the RLSA, there are areas that allow for continuing the natural stormwater drainage patterns of the area. IV Selected Development Provisions Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen said the Group 4 policies are broad with 28 policies and topics that include program goals, location, compatibility, credits and infrastructure. He noted that comments cards are on the tablles, and he encouraged participants to suggest policies to discuss at the next meeting. He referred to the paperwork that was provided on the audience tables outlining Group 4 policies. Also provided was highlighted material reflecting the five year review recommendations. He encouraged the audience to review all of the material, and indicated the highlighted goals and others are equally important. Group 4 policies include location of SRAs, method of approval, administration, master plan requirements, goal statements, compatibility, transportation requirements, SRA components, public facilities, coordination with the School District, infrastructure, fiscal neutrality, credit requirements, public benefit uses, Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) special provisions, historical resources, and lighting. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that the Group 4 policies as they exist today, the recommendations from the five year review committee, and Attachment C are the printouts provided on the tables. Mr. Van Lengen said his presentation will focus on the forms of development referenced in Policy 4.7, and that Attachment C shows the level of goods and services required for towns, villages, hamlets and Compact Rural Developments (CRDs). He said the Congress of New Urbanism was a source for determining sizes of required goods and services, and a more recent tool is the (Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM). He noted that Ave Maria and Rural Lands West provide more goods and services than the minimums required. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted that towns are defined as areas 1,000 to 4,000 acres, villages are 100 to 1,000 acres, hamlets are 40 to 100 acres, and CRDs need to be better defined. Some elements, such www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov as public schools and parks, are not counted toward the acreage in towns and villages. Benefits of compact and mixed-use development provide a diversity of housing, housing affordability, internal mobility, external mobility, scaling for goods and services, economic development, community character and fiscal benefits to local government and taxpayers. Towns, as described in Policy 4.7.1, provide an urban community level of goods and services, human scale, balance of land uses, mixed-use town center, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parks, full range of schools, and corporate offices. The Land Development Code has provisions and detailed requirements to regulate development. Collier County welcomes suggestions for improvements. He clarified that towns cannot be located in Areas for Critical State Concern (ACSC). He said that Land Development Code Section 4.08.07 more specifically provides for transects from core to edge. Architectural standards, landscape, streetscape, lighting, building heights, setbacks, parking and environmental standards are also provided in the Land Development Code. The five year review provided ideas for improvement on Policy 4.7.1 including the requirement for a more formalized “Mobility Plan” to address transit, park and ride facilities, and increasing the town size range to be 1,500 to 5,000 acres. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy has suggested to add a housing analysis requirement to address workforce accommodation in the towns and villages so they are more self-sufficient. Villages are smaller than towns with a lower threshold for goods, services and parks. Villages still require a village center focal point, interconnected sidewalks, parks or public green space, and are an appropriate location for schools. The five year review provided ideas for improvement in village criteria, including an increase in the size range to 100 to 1,500 acres, requiring a mobility plan similar to towns, and allowing corporate office and light industrial as an option in villages. In the discussion of hamlets, Mr. Van Lengen said that these could be eliminated. An example in the vicinity of Brantley Boulevard was shown. The structure for hamlets is similar to the piecemeal growth pattern. Mr. Van Lengen said he thinks hamlets should be eliminated but is open to discussion on why they should be kept. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) support concepts like eco-tourism and accommodate transient lodging facilities. Mr. Van Lengen said that uses in CRDs need to be better defined. The CRD designation is generally a catch-all to accommodate different uses in the future. An audience member said a concern is trailer communities. Mr. Van Lengen agreed that it is important to look at the definition of CRDs more closely. The requirement for goods and services is at different levels for towns, villages and other forms of development ranging from 10 to 65 square feet of gross building area per dwelling unit. The idea is to have dynamic levels of activity within the towns and villages. The mix of uses formula requires residential development to be supported with goods and services and employment and civic uses that in turn contribute to mobility, efficiency and character. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Mr. Van Lengen pointed out that Group 4 policies are about SRAs, which is where development goes if and landowner opts into the RLSA program. Group 5 policies are for landowners outside of SRAs who do not choose to own, buy or spend stewardship credits. Underlying zoning is still in effect, and Group 5 policies provide tightened restrictions and requirements when landowners develop without invoking RLSA Overlay. Mr. Van Lengen noted that the policies are structured such that an owner cannot petition the Board of County Commissioners for development of a gated community unless they go through the stewardship program and develop according to the criteria applicable to SRAs. When not developing through an SRA, various uses are allowed within the baseline zoning of Agriculture including farming, mining, recreation, cemeteries and other conditional uses. Residential uses are allowed at a density of one unit per five acres under Agricultural zoning. Mr. Van Lengen summarized that Group 5 policies impose strict environmental rules and restrictions for development, including that site clearing and nonpermeable surfaces are restricted and an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Property within the ASCS is subject to even tighter restrictions. Wildlife surveys and habitat management plans are also required for non-residential development. V Group Input Mr. Van Lengen initiated the question for the audience to discuss: Do Towns, Villages, Hamlets and Compact Rural Developments provide the right pattern of development within the RLSA? If not, what changes would you recommend? Dr. Amanda Evans said comments on Facebook Live will be included in the feedback tracker and encouraged the audience to continue participating. Dr. Evan reminded the audience that all comments are recorded in the feedback tracker. An audience member asked if any information is available on the number of people needed to support specific uses, like a gas station, hospital, or grocery store. Mr. Van Lengen said the CIGM models what is needed in terms of goods and services to support certain uses. Developers know that projects like Ava Maria need a Publix and that it will not be profitable for a while, but that need must be fulfilled. Roughly 12,000 people are needed to support such a use. Dr. Evans followed up linking this discussion to the group question, guiding the audience to provide a consensus on what policies work and which need improvement. Dr. Evans encouraged the audience to provide suggestions for improvement, noting that it is difficult to make recommendations without specific suggestions for improvement. Understanding that some people are not comfortable speaking within the group, she mentioned the comment cards provided on the table for written feedback. Dr. Evans pointed out to the Facebook Live audience that this meeting is not about the Rural Lands West project, and is about the Rural Lands Stewardship Area restudy. While the public’s comments www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov on the Rural Lands West project are important, she said they are not applicable for the restudy effort being discussed at this meeting. After the audience work session, the feedback of the work groups was presented, starting with the Purple Group. The Purple Group reached a consensus that villages and towns make sense, and hamlets and CRDs do not make sense. Action items included: requiring rules for high density at town centers and cores, with variable density moving outward; offer incentives to get more open land; certain essential services are needed before occupancy; and stronger zoning laws are needed to fill in gaps, such as rules on pervious surfaces. The Purple Group supported variable affordable housing options and green building standards. This group wanted to see developers that are experienced in town center development. Finally, the Purple Group expressed concern and wants the Board of County Commissioners to hear the recommendations presented and pass them. The Yellow Group reached consensus that hamlets do not make sense and require too much supporting infrastructure and services. The AARP self-sustaining livable community model was recommended for villages. The group said a provision should be provided for wildlife to travel and use their natural habitat without crossing streets and major highways. Questions included: what demographic is anticipated and what services do they need? Are they transient, seasonal, elderly, or aging in place? The Green Group reached consensus on requiring a ¼-mile radius for walkability for all neighborhoods with amenities at the center. Mobility efficiency should be considered, and cars may not even be needed. Minimize automobile centricity. Government support should be provided for amenities. Streamline the process to make sure people have what they need. Increase minimum densities and increase clustered development. The separation between SRAs should be defined so they are not sprawling together and rather so that they have edges. Amenities must be put in developments even if the services must be subsidized, and maybe tax dollars can be provided to support the town center at the beginning stages of development. The Pink Group had consensus items including: staging permitting so that not all developments are constructed at once; do not permit new developments until current residential projects reach a defined level of development buildout; and the developer should be on the hook for infrastructure during all the years of buildout. The group inquired will this zoning overlay bring new urbanism or more sprawl? Will the overlay bring the green space desired? Who is the target audience? Consider development placement relative to HSAs and other sensitive areas. The groups recommended action items include: restudy the credit methodology and the RLSA worksheet to take into account best available science for panthers and other habitat; the ¼-mile average walkability radius is important; green space and smart growth patterns are desired. The Blue Group reached consensus that: SRA policies should include requirements for new urbanism principles to encourage compact and walkable towns; towns that are six miles long with golf courses should be held to requirements that make them compact and walkable; adopt more criteria to guide the development of towns, villages and hamlets; require architectural standards for www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov towns and villages; the minimum density should be increased to encourage walkability; landowners should not earn credits for impacting habitat in WRAs or primary panther habitat; the master mobility plans should be more detailed in SRAs to show interconnected street networks; SRAs should not be built in primary panther habitat; and the best available science needs to be used. Dr. Evans said reoccurring topics, such as panthers and other protected species, will be revisited in future meetings. Mr. Van Lengen said the wrap up discussion of Group 1 Policies will cover the credit system and panther habitat scoring and that the County needs to consider a third-party opinion on the best available science on future panther viability. VI Adjourn Dr. Evans said the comments and discussion has been very valuable and encouraged additional comments to be provided by email or on comment cards. The meeting ended at approximately 8:10 p.m. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1 Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Public Workshop Discouraging Sprawl and Encouraging Responsible Development November 29, 2018, 6:00-8:00 PM, South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, 34113 I Introduction Speaker: Mr. Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen opened the meeting and welcomed the audience at 6:10, making note of an accident on US 41 that might cause delay in attendees arriving. He welcomed newcomers to the meeting and invited them to contact him if they have any questions or want more background information. He outlined the evening’s agenda, which will include his introduction, followed by an explanation of case studies of new towns and villages by Laura DeJohn, and a presentation of lessons learned at Ave Maria by David Genson. Questions will be welcomed after each speaker, and an opportunity for discussion at the end of the meeting will allow for more input if time permits. Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County audio/video staff could not attend this evening, and audio of the meeting will be available on the County website. Summaries and PowerPoint presentations can be found on the website also. He added that the RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov email address can be used for sending comments, and comment cards can be filled out and returned during the meeting as well. In January the venue will change to North Collier Regional Park, however space is not available January 24 and is available January 31. The date of January 31 is also a conflicting time for the audio/video staff. Mr. Van Lengen advised that the Growth Management Oversight Committee mentioned they would like to see a meeting held in Immokalee or Ave Maria, and he asked if a night meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria is favorable. An audience member commented that previously meetings in the eastern part of the County were held in the morning. By a show of hands, about half of the audience was in favor of an evening meeting in Immokalee or Ave Maria and about half the audience was opposed. Mr. Van Lengen described that the February and March workshops will be consensus building meetings held at North Collier Regional Park. The consensus building process will be reviewed with www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 the Growth Management Oversight Committee, and feedback is welcomed from the audience members. Mr. Van Lengen said that feedback from the October workshop was great. He mentioned the following items that were suggested by the audience members at the last workshop: density and sustainable town centers, minimum density requirements, ¼-mile radius walking distances per neighborhood, tax incentives for earlier commercial phasing, requiring wildlife crossings where appropriate, separation between towns and villages, addressing decreased habitat value of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) adjacent to towns, not approving too many projects in close timeframes, attracting visionary developers, and considering emergency evacuation planning. Mr. Van Lengen highlighted questions from the October workshop. The first question was about the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Mr. Van Lengen explained the base zoning in the Rural Lands area is agricultural zoning, which allows certain conditional uses such as mining, recreation, and schools. Residential development is allowed at one unit per five acres. He explained that the ACSC covers 750,000 acres, and roughly 60,000 acres of the RLSA is in the ACSC. The rules for the ACSC restrict uses and limit site alteration to 10% for any kind of development. The maximum density is one unit per five acres. The State of Florida must review any zoning change, regulation change or building permit. The State review is a double protection to make sure rules are followed. The second question from the October workshop was about population. Mr. Van Lengen said approximately 1,600 certificates of occupancy have been issued in Ave Maria out of the maximum of 11,000 units allowed within the project. This maximum does not include assisted living or dormitory units. The rate of growth was also a question at the October workshop. Mr. Van Lengen displayed figures from the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) showing population growth in five-year increments. The data revealed approximately 47,000 people are projected in 2040. By 2070 when the Habitat Conservation Plan expires, the area will be halfway to buildout. Golden Gate Estates currently has 45,000 people and is anticipated to be 90% built out by 2040. That number is a concern for traffic, which illuminates the need for places for work, shop and play. Another question Mr. Van Lengen addressed was about the cost burden of RLSA development. Displaying slides from the Tindale Oliver presentation from the August workshop, Mr. Van Lengen explained that when a new development begins, the total cost for infrastructure is greater than the revenue generated by impact fees and ad valorem taxes. Public subsidy and developer subsidy are greater than revenues at the beginning of the project. At a certain point in time, the revenue starts to exceed the expenditures. He said that the RLSA program requires that fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated at the time of development application for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Van Lengen referenced a final question from the October workshop about the market for towns and villages, and he said Mr. Genson’s presentation will address this. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3 An audience member asked about revenue neutrality or positive revenue, which can usually only be achieved through industrial or commercial development, because residential property cannot usually generate enough to cover the cost of services. Mr. Van Lengen agreed that that non- residential development is an important part of the fiscal neutrality equation and planning process. An audience member said that it would be nice to show Ave Maria’s actual fiscal data for today’s conditions and projected future conditions. Mr. Van Lengen said the conditions of Ave Maria were discussed at the June 26th BOCC meeting as item 11B (around the 4:46 mark on the meeting video) and encouraged the audience to listen to the tape. Mr. Van Lengen said he cannot answer where the balance of reaching fiscal positivity is for Ave Maria. Commissioner Taylor asked how to plan for fiscal neutrality if the financial details are not known. Ave Maria has been there for ten years and it would be important to know if the fiscal goals are being met. The Tindale Oliver presentation is so subjective, and there are so many variables that cannot be controlled. Mr. Van Lengen said it is important to know the answer, and the experts must be relied upon at the time of application. It’s the Board’s duty to make sure the models do work out. In the past, the Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) was jettisoned because it was assumed to be subject to manipulation. An audience member asked if the timeline of fiscal input and output has been prepared or provided for Ave Maria, and how much has the County and the developer contributed by year, and the payback? Mr. Van Lengen said it was a great suggestion to find out more information on Ave Maria. An audience member asked since this meeting is not filmed, whether the PowerPoint slides will be available online, and if the meeting is being taped. Mr. Van Lengen said yes, the presentations and the audio of the meeting will be posted on the County website. An audience member said many states including northern Virginia have been through this, and it would be helpful to see the fiscal neutrality data from those other communities. Mr. Van Lengen asserted that Tindale Oliver does such studies, and such information was presented at the August 23, 2018 RLSA workshop. He added that another consultant, Urban3, is scheduled to perform a return on investment analysis for Collier County in 2019. An audience member commended the County for bringing Urban 3 onboard to provide a return on investment analysis. An audience member said Smart Growth America does work on fiscal neutrality all over the country. As to build out periods, the audience member noted that Rural Lands West proposes a 20-year build out period and questioned if 20 years should be used as the fiscal neutrality timeline for Rural Lands West. An audience member from the town of Columbia, Maryland said that community started developing in 1965 and was near build-out but had not reached build-out in the 2000s. She concluded that large urban developments do not get built out, for example, Reston is still not built out, and the timeframe for buildout will likely be longer than 20 years. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 II Survey of Sustainable New Towns Speaker: Mrs. Laura DeJohn, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Johnson Engineering, Inc. Ms. DeJohn gave an overview that she’ll present case studies focused on development standards as defined in the RLSA program and as they are being developed in actual towns and villages. She noted that comparing and learning from other communities is helpful, and she asked the audience to write down standards that they like and dislike during the presentation to compile suggestions and feedback. Mrs. DeJohn presented five different town examples, based on the RLSA definition of a town per the Attachment C handout provided to the meeting attendees at each table. She noted that towns are the largest development type allowed in the RLSA, and the first example of a town to be reviewed was Ave Maria in Collier County. The RLSA town size criterion is 1,000 to 4,000 acres, and Ave Maria is at the top of the size range with 4,000 acres excluding public benefit acres. The allowable residential unit range for RLSA towns is 1,000 to 16,000 units, and Ave Maria is approved for 11,000 units. The density range allowed for RLSA towns is 1 to 4 dwellings units per acre, and Ave Maria is permitted with 2.75 dwelling units per gross acre. An audience member asked how the density figure was calculated. Ms. DeJohn said it was calculated by dividing 11,000 units by 4,000 acres. She noted that some areas of the project will have clustered development with a higher density, and other areas will be large open areas. The density is calculated according to the project’s gross acreage. Standards are not in place to mandate higher densities or minimum densities near town centers. Ave Maria was approved for non-residential development including: 600,000 square feet of retail; 510,000 square feet of office; and 600,000 square feet of business/employment. The RLSA town criterion for open space is 35% of the entire project, and Ave Maria provides 45% of the project as open space. RLSA towns are to include a full range of housing types, and Ave Maria includes single and multi- family housing types. The minimum goods and services ratio (restaurants, shops, etc.) for an RLSA town is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Ave Maria has nearly double with 112 square feet per dwelling. The minimum park ratio for an RLSA town is 200 square feet per dwelling, and the proposed community parks for Ave Maria provide 294 square feet per dwelling. Civic and institutional type buildings must be provided with at least 15 square feet per dwelling in an RLSA town. Ave Maria exceeds this standard with 367 square feet per dwelling, attributable to the university, church, government buildings, and school sites. Water and wastewater services must be centralized for RLSA towns, and this is achieved at Ave Maria through its own private utility provider. Transportation requirements for RLSA towns include connectivity, an interconnected sidewalk system, and connection to transit, which are all addressed by the Ave Maria plan. Mrs. DeJohn said she will highlight four more towns, followed by a side-by-side comparison of the communities. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 5 She explained the next example is Rural Lands West, which is proposed but not yet approved by the Collier County Commissioners. The size of this project is at the high end of the allowable range with 3,964 acres excluding any public benefit areas. Similar to Ave Maria, 10,000 units are proposed which equates to a density of 2.51 dwelling units per gross acre. Proposed non-residential development includes: 800,000 square feet of retail; 450,000 square feet of office; 250,000 square feet of business/employment; 132,000 square feet of hotel; and 250,000 square feet of medical office and hospital. The minimum 35% open space for RLSA towns is proposed to be met in Rural Lands West. The standard full range of housing types is also proposed to be met in Rural Lands West, with one- third of the housing units proposed to be multifamily and two-thirds proposed to be single family. Rural Lands West proposes more than doubling the minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA towns with 138 square feet per dwelling proposed. Parks are proposed to be more than double the RLSA town standard with 518 square feet proposed per dwelling. The civic and institutional provision is proposed to be met with 21 square feet per dwelling for civic uses plus 106 acres for public school sites. An audience member asked if golf courses were considered parks. Ms. DeJohn said that golf courses are counted towards open space, but are not counted as parks. The water and wastewater systems will be centralized according to the Rural Lands West application, and transportation systems are generally proposed to meet RLSA criteria, however transit service is still to be determined. Ms. DeJohn introduced the third example, Babcock Ranch, noting it is in Charlotte County. She said that development is underway following initial approval in 2007. The expected build out date is 2045. This project is 13,631 acres and therefore much larger than the standard town size for Collier County. The project contains areas designated as villages, hamlets, and a town center. Preservation areas like those classified as Habitat Stewardship Areas or Flowway Stewardship Areas in the RLSA are located inside the Babcock Ranch community in the form of greenways. Roughly 6,500 acres of greenways are within the 13,631-acre Babcock Ranch project boundary. Nearly 18,000 units are proposed at Babcock Ranch. Given the open spaces and preserves within the project boundary, the gross density is brought down to 1.31 dwelling units per gross acre. Density is allowed to be up to 24 dwelling units per net acre in the town center and up to 16 dwelling units per net acre in villages and hamlets. Non-residential development is proposed to include: 1.4 million square feet of retail; 3.5 million square feet of office; 650,000 square feet of industrial; 360,000 square feet of hotel; 177 hospital beds; and 418 assisted living units. The minimum open space to be provided at Babcock Ranch is similar to the RLSA town standard at 35%. The full range of housing types proposed in the community include accessory dwellings, such as garage apartments and guest houses, which are important for providing more housing choices. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 There is a commitment that 10% of units will be affordable or workforce attainable, and satisfaction of this commitment is addressed through the developer performing and submitting a housing analysis. The minimum goods and services ratio for RLSA towns is 65 square feet per dwelling, and Babcock Ranch is permitted for 294 square feet per dwelling. Parks are proposed in the form of community parks, mini-parks, neighborhood parks and community/regional parks at three times the Collier County standard of 200 square feet per dwelling. Ms. DeJohn pointed out that Babcock Ranch is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). DRI’s are subject to a regulatory process through which specific developer commitments are determined. Substantial detail is provided for civic and institutional uses in the DRI approval, such as the number and size of school sites, educational service centers, law and fire rescue buildings, sheriff substation site, EMS vehicles, and library contributions. These contributions are eligible for reimbursement of impact fees. Civic uses do not count toward the maximum allowable non- residential development. For Babcock Ranch, central water and wastewater must be provided at time of Certificate of Occupancy. Transportation requirements are defined in detail within the DRI approval, and an internal capture goal of 55% to 70% is identified in the traffic analysis. An elaborate trail system of sidewalks and on- and off-road multiuse paths is provided, and an internal autonomous vehicle program is being pursued by the Babcock Ranch developer. Additional commitments for the Babcock Ranch development that are not addressed in RLSA town criteria include: pattern books to establish development standards at each phase of development, low flow fixtures, one zero energy model home, and compliance with Florida Green Building Collation or equivalent standards. The Babcock Ranch Community pattern book is aspirational in nature, and it conveys to the regulatory agencies, the county and to the public what is envisioned for the community. A pattern book is pictorial including diagrams, development standards, and examples of how the development is intended to look and feel. Ms. DeJohn provided a series of the Florida Green Building Coalition standards, noting that achieving compliance with the standards is based on a scoring system. For full review of all the standards and program criteria, Ms. DeJohn referred the audience to the organization’s website FloridaGreenBuilding.org. She summarized the program criteria, noting the environmental protection category contains the most standards. Circulation is a separate category with ten standards for measurement and scoring. The Utilities category has nine standards including green power, irrigation standards and a conservation approach to utilities provision. Amenities is another category that addresses features such as golf courses, landscaping, and community gardens. The category of Covenants and Deed Restrictions has standards to help engage homeowners in maintenance of the green aspects of their homes and community. The category www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 7 of Education addresses the need for education through provision of materials or educational staff members within the community. An audience member asked if compliance with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is required. Ms. DeJohn affirmed that compliance with Florida Green Building Collation Certification or equivalent standards is a condition of the Babcock Ranch DRI approval. Another audience member asked how all this information relates to sustainability. Mrs. DeJohn said that having a development that complies with Florida Green Building Coalition standards is a way to be closer to achieving the objective of sustainability, which is to see that resources are protected in a way that future generations are ensured to have the resources they need. Another audience member asked if the County Commissioners or the final report from these restudy workshops would recommend to include green standards because it would be a progressive move. Ms. DeJohn replied that the audience input and feedback help to drive recommendations. Dr. Amanda Evans said that these workshops are structured to provide information and get audience input, collect feedback, and ultimately use it to arrive at a meaningful outcome for the RLSA Restudy. Another audience member requested a show of hands by those whom agree that the County should require compliance with green development standards, and a majority of audience members raised their hands. Mrs. DeJohn introduced the fourth town of Haile Village Plantation in northern Florida near Gainesville, noting that the community was approved in 1992 and comprises 1,700 acres with approval for 2,700 units. The gross density is 1.6 dwelling units per gross acre, however townhomes are allowed at a density of up to 16 dwelling units per acres. The town is approved for 160,000 square feet of retail and office space, which manifests in 48 different businesses. The community’s open space is increased because it includes 54 golf holes. A takeaway from this exercise is that marketing drives perception on what is good new urbanism planning practice. New urbanism makes up a limited part of this larger golf course community. But having been developed for over 20 years and having seen success, it is worth comparing how this community has developed against the RLSA towns criteria. Haile Village Plantation has a variety of housing types including live-work units, accessory dwellings, and units within a 50-acre mixed use village center. There is no calculation provided for the square footage of community parks; a village green anchors the village center. The civic and institutional components of this development are limited, with a 3,200-square foot town hall owned and operated by the developer as a for-profit event space. Space is also provided for a post office, sheriff’s office and homeowners association office. Ms. DeJohn said she did not find water and wastewater utility information, but it can be assumed that public utilities are available given the site’s close proximity to Gainesville. The transportation system is characterized by narrow streets to promote slower traffic and walkable conditions. The www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 8 developer has measured internal capture, finding that 23% of single-family home trips are captured internally. There is also a system of alleys and lanes with an emphasis on pedestrian passageways from neighborhoods to the village center. Ms. DeJohn presented Abacoa as the final town example. Located in Jupiter, Florida, Abacoa started developing in 1995 and is anticipated to build out soon. Measuring 2,055 acres, Abacoa is roughly half the size of Ave Maria and of the proposed Rural Lands West project. Abacoa was originally approved through the DRI process, with 6,325 units permitted and density range of a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre in the urban residential areas. The allowable non-residential development includes: 1.75 million square feet of workplace; 841,000 square feet of retail; 217,720 square feet of office; 130 hotel rooms; a 4,009 seat movie theater; and the 7,500 seat Roger Dean Baseball Stadium. The open space in Abacoa is just under 25%, and this includes golf course area. Common use areas are required at a rate of 3%, or minimum of three acres, per neighborhood, and a minimum one- acre public square is required per neighborhood. This form-based approach helps achieve the desired outcome of visible and accessible green space versus the unpredictable outcome of applying a general acreage threshold. A full range of housing types is provided in Abacoa; a minimum of 10% of all units must be multifamily. The RLSA town criteria of 65 square feet of retail and office per dwelling is exceeded with 167 square feet per dwelling. Additionally, Abacoa has 277 square feet of workplace per dwelling. A community parks ratio could not be calculated, nor could the civic and institutional square footage, however institutional assets include the Florida Atlantic University Honors Campus and other school sites. Abacoa has centralized water and wastewater systems, and transportation connections are provided given the community’s adjacency to Interstate 95 and other main roads, along with a system of connecting sidewalks and paths. A Tri Rail station is also proposed. Ms. DeJohn summarized the towns with a display of the attributes of each example compared to the RLSA town criteria. She noted the presentation will be online for those that want to study or compare in depth at a later time. She then focused on RLSA criteria for villages. Villages are a smaller in size than towns, and there are currently no villages in the RLSA. The first example she presented was Habersham in South Carolina. The RLSA standard for village size is 100 to 1,000 acres, and Habersham is 266 acres with 950 dwelling units, which yields a density of 3.6 dwelling units per gross acre. Non-residential development includes 77,895 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space. The minimum open space is 27%. A full range of housing types and parks are provided. The ratio of goods and services provided per dwelling units exceeds the RLSA village standard by nearly three times. Neighborhoods in RLSA villages must have a minimum of 1% of gross acreage in parks and public green space. Habersham requires parks and public green space in the forms of: parks and squares www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 9 in the neighborhood center, parks and playgrounds in neighborhood general areas, and parkways in the neighborhood edges. Civic and institutional space is also required in the neighborhood center and encouraged adjacent to forests or wetlands at the neighborhood edges. Habersham has a centralized water and sewer system, and the transportation system is characterized by narrow streets, on street parking, and walking trails. The second village example was I’On, also in South Carolina. This community is 243 acres with 750 dwelling units, and a density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross area. Non-residential development includes 30,000 square feet of retail and office space. Open space acreage data was not available; open space is provided in natural open areas, a wetlands corridor and creek, lakes and recreational facilities, and pocket parks. I’On has a range of housing types including dwellings as small as 950 square feet and as large as 6,000 square feet, which provides flexible and affordable housing options. The square footage of goods and services provided exceeds the RLSA village standard of 25 square feet per dwelling, and the village center includes a mixed use main street and a central square. Eight sites are reserved within the community for civic and institutional buildings such as community meeting hall, school and church sites. I’On is a suburban infill site with available central utilities. Streets are narrow, and the “marshwalk” is a trail that provides connections through the community’s natural areas. Baldwin Park in Orlando, Florida was presented as the third example village. The site is 776 acres and approved for 3,500 dwelling units. The density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre exceeds the maximum density for RLSA villages of 4 dwelling units per acre. Baldwin Park is approved for 200,000 square feet of retail, one million square feet of office, and a 54-acre mixed-use village center. Ample open space is provided with 250 acres of lakes and 200 acres of parks and green space. Baldwin Park’s variety of housing types includes a range of units including some within a vertical mixed-use context. This community has a high ratio of goods and services with 343 square feet of retail and office per dwelling. No data was available for civic and institutional uses. Baldwin Park was formerly the Orlando Naval Training Center, and utilities are centralized. The transportation system is characterized by a grid network and an extensive trail system. Ms. DeJohn summarized with a side-by-side table comparing the three example villages, which can be viewed in the PowerPoint presentation available on the County’s website. Ms. DeJohn concluded with a series of take-aways learned from the examples. She said the Collier County standards are quantified, formula driven and measurable as provided in Attachment C. The outcomes from the example communities reveal there are aspects of placemaking that are not formula driven but rather are more qualitative and subjective, such as the placement and form of green space in the community. www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 10 Ms. DeJohn reviewed some potential options for adjustments to improve RLSA town and village criteria. The RLSA density standards may be adjusted to require concentrated densities in core areas such as town or village centers. The RLSA housing type standards may be adjusted to require housing market analyses or to establish minimum thresholds for multifamily housing or affordable housing if a mix of housing types is desired. Locational standards could be added for non- residential development based on a critical radius in proximity to housing for a more walkable and bikeable environment. The minimum goods and services per dwelling could be increased based on the evidence of the case studies. An audience member asked if imposing certain standards would cause developers to stop building gated communities. Ms. DeJohn said that Mr. Genson can address this question based on market conditions during his presentation. She added that she has not seen standards such as increased density or connectivity requirements result in fewer gated community projects. The gated community phenomenon exists because history has proven that these are a community type where homebuyers choose to buy homes. Another audience member said the examples provided have low density, yet are somehow walkable. She suggested shrinking the size of the towns and increasing density. Another audience member agreed with higher densities concentrated at town centers and gradually reduced densities at ¼, ½, and ¾ mile radius distances, because this would make towns more walkable. Another audience member asked whether the example communities have been successful. Ms. DeJohn said the examples were considered successful case studies from organizations such as the Urban Land Institute, American Planning Association and the Congress for New Urbanism. She said success is measured relative to the community, its context and the people living in the community. This is a good question to ask, but there is no scoring system to determine success and no single model that can be replicated with any guarantee of success. Another audience member asked why the Seaside community was not presented? Ms. DeJohn said she did not present Seaside or Celebration because they are unique projects that were not developed organically, and she purposefully researched examples that would be relevant to the type of development that goes on in Collier County. Ms. DeJohn said another take-away is the concept of adjusting RLSA standards to add locational criteria for green space. Also, an impact fee reimbursement for developer-funded civic, government or institutional facilities such as schools or an EMS station is a tool to get those facilitates established. She said that mobility standards can be improved by adding a requirement for multimodal analysis that considers bicycle and pedestrian paths between residential and non- residential areas, an off-road greenway/trail system, and other non-auto oriented transportation modes. She added that Pattern Books can be implemented to improve the review and approval process and provide more opportunity for innovative designs. Another option is to add a www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 11 requirement for compliance with Florida Green Building Coalition Certification or equivalent standards. Finally, she said imposing a system for monitoring performance and annual or biennial reporting would help ensure that standards are implemented and maintained. III Ave Maria Lessons Learned Speaker: Mr. David Genson, Senior Vice President and Director of Development Barron Collier Companies Mr. Genson said he has been involved with the Ave Maria project since 2002. He explained that his presentation will cover how the project started and the current conditions, and he’ll address some of the questions that were brought up during the evening. Ave Maria is entitled as a 4,000- acre town, with approval for: 11,000 homes; 1.2 million square feet of office and retail; 600,000 square feet of light industrial; and a 6,000-student university. The population is estimated to be 30,000 people at buildout. Mr. Genson said Ave Maria is considered a self-sustaining town with a private water and sewer utility system, four privately developed parks, and 15 miles of privately developed roadways. The roads within Ave Maria are privately owned and maintained. He said by the end of 2018, roughly 2,000 homes will have been purchased, and those homes amount to $44 million in impact fees paid to Collier County. Mr. Genson gave the site’s history beginning in April 2005 when the Ave Maria lands were farm fields. In 2009, development was underway and the current population is 6,000 people. Home prices range from $200,000 to $450,000 with an average price of $320,000. The homebuilding trend equates to an average of three hundred homes constructed per year. Mr. Genson cited that Ave Maria has been ranked as the #1 selling community in Southwest Florida for four years. Also, this community has been ranked as one of the Top 40 Selling Master Planned Communities in the United States for the past three years. Mr. Genson described the progress of the community as of 2017, including development of Coquina at Maple Ridge which is a denser neighborhood at approximately six units per acre. He described how Publix was an important business to establish early for residents, and showed images of the town center. He explained how Arthrex has been a major impact with 400,000 square feet of building area supporting 1,500 employees. He said that several hundred of those employees have purchased homes in Ave Maria, resulting in short commutes for employees. The Park of Commerce now has a gas station and medical office buildings in place, and the university will have the largest incoming freshman class ever in the coming year. Mr. Genson described the range of neighborhood types within Ave Maria, including estate homes, condominiums, and neighborhoods that are oriented toward families, active adults, and the workforce. The market for Ave Maria is not just a single demographic; it serves everyone including retirees, young families, and active adults. Amenities include parks, water parks, softball fields, and soccer fields that constitute a $17 million investment by the developer. A fitness center and www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 12 other amenities are also provided. Tours are offered to the general public for exploring wildlife in preserved lands around Ave Maria. Mr. Genson addressed topics raised during the meeting. Regarding mixed use development, he described how Ave Maria has 70 units above retail ground floors in the town center, and this development type has been problematic. The idea of residential units over commercial ground floors seems appealing, but in reality people do not want to live above establishments that generate odor and noise. Based on experience with the mixed use development form in Ave Maria, Mr. Genson said it is not desirable to most people in the general marketplace, and it has not been very successful. He said new urbanism concepts with front porches and alleys are nice, but they are not working in Ave Maria because that form of development is too expensive. Enticing people to travel 20 miles from Naples to live in Ave Maria cannot be successful if the costs to live there are too high. Mr. Genson explained that Ave Maria offers housing that is affordable. Many buyers are coming from Lee County, and roughly half of buyers are from the east coast because the commute to work along I-75 is easier than the experience of commuting on the east coast. Ave Maria is a more convenient, safe and affordable place for this commuting population. Mr. Genson gave an overview that Barron Collier Companies has 80,000 acres in the rural lands of Collier County. The town of Ave Maria constitutes 4,000 acres and 1,000 additional acres are public benefit area. In order to develop Ave Maria, roughly 16,000 acres of stewardship sending areas (SSAs) were dedicated at no cost to the County or the taxpayer. The terms of the easement on the SSAs ensure that nothing can be built or developed on those lands. This balance of environmental protection in exchange for development of communities is what makes the Rural Stewardship Lands Area program a success for the whole County. Mr. Genson addressed the notion that higher densities should be concentrated to promote the idea of a walkable community. At Ave Maria, there are 300 to 400 homes within ¼-mile of the town center. He said the higher densities are not feasible everywhere because the development pattern becomes too costly and overbearing. He said neighborhood centers outside the town center provide some degree of convenient access to services. An audience member asked if any of the neighborhood centers have been built with retail uses. Mr. Genson affirmed that the Del Webb community clubhouse includes restaurant space that is open to the public. On the topic of buildout, Mr. Genson said that a 20-year horizon is not realistic. At the rate of 300 homes per year, it would take roughly 30 years to build the remaining units in Ave Maria. On the topic of fiscal neutrality, Mr. Genson said that Oil Well Road is always mentioned as a negative issue. He gave an explanation on the history of Oil Well Road, noting it was a two-lane congested road prior to development of Ave Maria. He said the widening of the road was needed for many years regardless of the addition of Ave Maria. He said Oil Well Road did cost the County www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 13 money upfront. The original developer contribution agreement contemplated that all the impact fees of Commission District 5, including Golden Gate Estates and Ave Maria, were supposed to fund Oil Well Road. In 2012 the County Manager said that many other projects are in need of the District’s impact fee funds, therefore it was limited so that only Ave Maria impact fees became the funding source for Oil Well Road improvements. Mr. Genson highlighted that utilities infrastructure at Ave Maria is private and not County funded. Community parks are private, yet community park impact fees are paid to Collier County. He emphasized that the developer has not made money on Ave Maria. At one point, Ave Maria was costing the developer $30,000 per day to subsidize. On the topic of green development standards, Mr. Genson was in favor of incorporating such standards in the RLSA program. He mentioned that some people express concern about impacts of Ave Maria on the water table, and he explained that the prior use as farm fields consumed greater amounts of water than the permitted level of water use for Ave Maria. Mr. Genson supported that the County should examine Ave Maria to help formulate ideas during the restudy process, noting that examples of what does and does not work can be gathered from experience at Ave Maria. He concluded that Ave Maria is a long term project, and the developer will continue for many years to see the project through. An audience member asked if a small gas station, basic food store, and drug store should have been established in the community earlier. Mr. Genson said the community started in 2007 and the Publix and gas station opened in 2009. The recession impacted the community, evidenced by the fact that the gas station closed and only 30 homes were sold in 2009. The audience member said that Reston, Virginia started with a successful town center. The developer did not collect rent from the grocery store vendor for the first five years, and the store provided an important service to the community for those years. Mr. Genson said Barron Collier Companies also subsidizes the Ave Maria town center, noting the commercial lease rate of $5 per square foot versus $40 per square foot in other areas of the County during the recession. The developer still helps tenants with subsidies during the summer months. An audience member asked if it was a good business decision to build in eastern Collier County, and will Rural Lands West have the same problems? Mr. Genson clarified that Rural Lands West is proposed by Collier Enterprises which is a different entity from Barron Collier Companies. He said that people will continue to move to Collier County and the growth should be accommodated through developments that embody sustainable, smart growth principles. This restudy is about determining how to develop correctly and with foresight. Mr. Van Lengen asked Mr. Genson to clarify his statements about mixed use development. Mr. Genson clarified that vertical mixed use has not been successful, but horizontal mixed use with housing, retail and employment opportunities in proximity to one another is good for balance www.colliercountyfl.gov/gmprestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 14 within the community, and it supports a healthy internal capture rate to reduce vehicle miles travelled. An audience member asked about Mercato as an example of vertical mixed use development, noting that affordability is key to securing residents for a vertical mixed use project. She suggested that marketing to the right population and providing units at densities that make them affordable would be a more successful model. Mr. Genson said increasing density is the best way to help make units more affordable, especially in coastal Collier County. He said leaders are starting to recognize and understand this issue. He cited examples of an apartment building developed with a density of 100 units per acre in St. Petersburg, and another development with a density of 75 units per acre in Sarasota, noting that these examples are aesthetically pleasing additions to those communities. An audience member asked if it would it be more economical if the vertical mixed use building was taller, making units more affordable? Mr. Genson said the Oratory is what drove the proportions and building heights in Ave Maria’s town center. He affirmed that buildings with more stories help make the units more affordable. An audience member asked why apartment buildings are not in place where parking lots currently exist near the Oratory? Mr. Genson said there are townhouses planned in the vicinity of the referenced parking lots. He added that bicycles and golf carts are the popular transportation method when Mass is held at the Oratory. Commissioner Talyor complimented Barron Collier Companies for how they resolved the controversy over the Jackson Labs project. She said that the efforts taken to bring Arthrex to the Ave Maria community speaks to Barron Collier Companies’ business acumen. Mr. Genson acknowledged the significance of the efforts to secure Arthrex as part of the community. IV Adjourn Mr. Van Lengen said that the County will be interested in working with Barron Collier Companies to further understand the fiscal aspects of development in the RLSA. He welcomed the audience members to return and participate at the next meeting in January, noting that the meeting date and location will be posted online once confirmed. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Public Workshop Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109 I Introduction Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at approximately 6:10 p.m. and gave appreciation to the audience for attending. He offered assistance as needed to access information on the Collier County website. He explained the meeting is a revisit of Group 1 Policies, and that audience members also provided some suggestions on topics to cover at the meeting, which have been incorporated in the agenda. These added topics address policies on the credit system and easements related to Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). He highlighted that Policies 3.11 and 3.13 were requested for discussion, and they address restoration and water retention areas. He noted that listening to the audience is the goal of the evening, and that the final item on the agenda is for Dr. Amanda Evans to talk about the process for consensus building meetings going forward. Mr. Van Lengen described that the County’s RLSA webpage has a library and summaries from past meetings. He noted the audio/video team is not present, so Facebook Live and video are not available this evening. The audio/video team will be available at the next meetings. He pointed out that group discussions and comment cards provide opportunities to be heard, and that participation is encouraged. For next steps, Mr. Van Lengen said the upcoming February 28 and March 28 meetings will be consensus building sessions. Collier County staff is charged with completing a white paper, and staff’s white paper will convey the public input gathered through the workshop series. The white paper will be publicly available in the timeframe of early May, and the public may provide written feedback to the paper. The feedback provided will be added to the packet that goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff recommendations and the public feedback will be presented to the County Commissioners, at which time the Board may vote to advance to policy amendments which will be then subject to the transmittal public hearing process, followed by State review, followed by adoption public hearings; or the board may vote for the staff to perform more data collection and analysis. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 II. Policy 1.6 – 1.9 (SSA Approval, Environmental Assurances, and NRI Values) Mr. Van Lengen began revisiting Group 1 policies with Policy 1.6 regarding SSA approval. He explained that property owners petition the Board for approval, and beginning with SSA #10 the Board allowed escrow agreements in five year periods, eligible for renewal for five year periods. The 5 Year Review Recommendations were for SSA approval to be conditional subject to expiration in five years if credits were not used or sold, or if the owner canceled. Use or sale of credits in any amount was proposed to lock in the SSA designation, meaning that the credit agreement and the easement agreement get recorded and are in full force and effect. The 5 Year Review Recommendation was similar to Board policy since SSA #10. Mr. Van Lengen described that Policy 1.7 relates to environmental assurances, or the ensuring that SSA commitments are fulfilled. He said that consensus was observed in earlier workshops that more than one easement holder should be required. Currently the regulation allows for the County or other agency to be the easement holder, and the 5 Year Review Recommendation was to require three agencies as easement holders. Mr. Van Lengen read an example of an easement agreement from a standard SSA agreement, highlighting that land management measures will be those customary measures of ranching in Southwest Florida. He referenced that Johnson Engineering has researched a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for a variety of land and agricultural management techniques, and the list with links will be available on the RLSA Restudy library webpage. Audience member Meredith Budd asked about the intent of the BMP list. Mr. Van Lengen said the potential for using BMPs is open to the audience’s recommendations. Mr. Van Lengen described Policy 1.8 and 1.9 regarding Natural Resource Index (NRI) Values. He said the applicant submits updated or adjusted values at time of application, and County staff reviews and verifies the values. He displayed all the layers that make up the NRI values, noting the overlay designations of Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA), Water Retention Area (WRA), or open areas which were adopted in 2002; and the proximity index within 300 feet of certain overlay designations. He said that these two factors can be accessed from Collier County because they are part of the Collier County Geographic Information System (GIS) at this time. Species scoring is primarily related to panther habitat, but other listed species are also included. He said the standard is based on a prior standard used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) called preferred and tolerated habitat. That standard was based on the land use and land cover index that is part of the USFWS matrix and an overlay of the indication of wildlife appearing at particular sites. Wilson Miller refined this using District data and telemetry points based on preferred and tolerated land covers, and this is open source information. He described that soils and surface water data is from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is also open source information. He said restoration potential and the land use/land cover index is an open source from the South Florida Water Management District. He said that some people want all the Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3 data that went into the NRI scoring, and the County has a composite number for each acre, and the subdata would need to be re-created. Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience for feedback on two discussion questions: 1. What ideas do you have concerning natural resource factors that measure the value of conservation? 2. Do you agree with the land management standards for SSAs? An audience member asked about the index, particularly the listed species habitat index, which starts with panther habitat including preferred and tolerated habitat. Is the landowner valuing the score? Mr. Van Lengen said a qualified biologist consultant would value the score for the landowner. She asked how each acre is determined if there has been value assigned based on the Wilson Miller score? Mr. Van Lengen said he is not sure if scores are updated with new telemetry the same way that others have been updated. When asked who does the updating, Mr. Van Lengen said the consultant for the landowner provides all the background information, and the County reviews and does ground truthing and aerial reconnaissance. When asked if the County knows the original scores for panther habitat, Mr. Van Lengen said he is not sure. The audience member said the main question has been about the NRI values done in 2000-2002 with the understating it would be updated with completion of more panther studies. Has each acre been updated based on newer studies? Does the County get information on updated panther data? Mr. Van Lengen said there has not been a move to recalibrate scores based on primary and secondary habitat; the scoring is still based on USFWS preferred and tolerated panther habitat. When asked if Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) are evaluated in the same manner, Mr. Van Lengen said the SRAs are evaluated through a different process, and they are subject to the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process. Dr. Evans suggested that it is wise to spend more time understanding this topic if the audience is still unclear. Discussion ensued about the standards set in 2002, and the concern that new research has become available and the scoring of acreage has not been updated. Audience member concern was that old data should be reassessed. Dr. Evans summarized the question and asked if the scoring is updated, or can it be updated? Audience member Al Reynolds said he is a planning consultant who originally put together the methodology and the scoring system with assigned values. The data was the best available at the time. When an applicant seeks to establish an SSA, the applicant would find the current and best available data and apply the methodology of the scoring system. In 2002, the panther telemetry available was used to set a starting point from 2002. Any scoring today would reflect the most current data, which is more accurate and voluminous. The new data showing more current panther telemetry helps define panther habitat for scoring purposes. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 Audience member concern was raised apart from the SSAs, because the open area can be developed, and the open areas of primarily farm lands are essential habitat for survival of the panther. Concern was that SRAs develop in open areas, and there is no requirement to look at NRI scores for open areas to see if they need to be updated. Mr. Reynolds said that is not correct; an SRA application requires scoring all land in the SRA using the same methodology used to score the SSA. He said that every acre in the SRA is scored the same way a score is applied to an SSA. If the SRA reaches a certain threshold, it has to be set aside for protection within the SRA. The most current data available must be used to determine if an area within the SRA must be set aside for protection. Audience member April Olson said approximately half the acres in open lands are in primary panther habitat and adult breeding habitat. She stated that 2006 science used by the USFWS for the Panther Recovery Plan is an example of data, and sites like Rural Lands West have about ¾ of the site in primary panther habitat, yet the site scores under 1.2, or not environmentally sensitive. Therefore, she concluded, SRA lands are not be updated with the best available science. Mr. Reynolds said he respectfully disagreed stating the comprehensive planning level of the scoring system has successfully been used for nineteen years. He said the system is a tool that does not take the place of the Endangered Species Act or a permitting process. Ms. Olson said the listed species habitat data is from 2000, and Mr. Reynolds responded that primary panther habitat is not a part of the scoring system. Ms. Olson suggested that it should be a part of the system because it is best available science, and Mr. Reynolds responded that the system was adopted and is used as a planning tool, noting that new data indicating listed species occupy habitat does get scored as habitat. He added that the innovative aspect is that this encourages owners to manage the land well, citing that an owner of SSA land is incentivized to manage land well to get a higher NRI score. Ms. Olson said the use of primary habitat as a scoring measure would allow owners to earn credits on those lands and be compensated. Mr. Reynolds responded that the system is not designed in that way, noting that there are different opinions on whether primary panther habitat is the latest greatest science. Ms. Olson said the County program should be consistent with the USFWS method. An audience member asked when an application is submitted, is the environmental rating of the land updated, and is the information available to the public? Mr. Van Lengen said the information can be made available to the public. The County’s environmental group and GIS group work together on the review effort, and any work product can be made available. An audience member said that SRAs might not all be properly classified. He asked should a serious wildlife area even be in a SRA? Mr. Van Lengen said such a philosophical question has to be reconciled with practicality. He said this planning tool is subject to information and opinions offered by the public. He said suggestions to make changes are welcome, and declarative statements with recommendations are most useful in the progress of this Restudy. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 5 Meredith Budd commented that the notion is being raised that areas within the SRA can be pulled for generating credits. For example, 45,000 acres will increase to over 50,000 acres. She said she does not believe it is the intent to pull out SRA areas that are sensitive and give credit. Mr. Van Lengen said that is correct, and the idea is a hypothetical, not necessarily a recommendation. An audience member said the NRI index has been used for nearly twenty years, and asked from an adaptive management standpoint, has the measurement tool been evaluated as to if its working or not working, and how it may be improved in the future? Mr. Van Lengen said there have not been any formal studies, however public feedback helps contribute to a sense of how well it is working. The audience member asked if the threshold of a 1.2 score has been verified as being the right threshold? Mr. Van Lengen said such a recommendation is a good one to take to the Board to see if they want to evaluate that measurement. An audience member said she spent years at the World Bank, and it is customary to do evaluations every five years. Mr. Van Lengen said the 5 Year Review was an exhaustive effort, and the Restudy that is underway constitutes another review. He suggested looking at the 5 Year Review effort outcome, and comment on whether more needs to be reviewed. An audience member said the County claims all the data is available, however he has been informed that the data resides in the hands of the original consultants that were hired by the landowners. Mr. Van Lengen said both statements are true, and explained that the original data created as part of the system resides with Wilson Miller, which was purchased by Stantec, and they are still looking for it. Mr. Van Lengen said the data is open source, and it can be recreated by anybody. The audience member suggested the original data may be manipulated by landowners who have a vested interest and said it seems strange the County would not have the data. The audience member asked if it is publicly available? Another audience member said that data can be compiled from various sources, and it can be obtained by Googling. Dr. Evans interjected to address the concerns being debated between audience members about the data and its availability, and she summarized that the NRI scoring system is a tool that has data inputted, and that data gets updated when it is inputted. Mr. Reynolds said the agencies have data that is the most current. The data from 2002 was a starting point for a map, and anyone can find the public sources for all the data available online and come up with a score. He said anybody can create an index map with today’s data using the NRI scoring tool. Dr. Evans said the credibility of the data sources is a question, and there seems to be suspicion among some audience members. Mr. Reynolds acknowledged there are concerns about whether the system is transparent, and the County website has a report with all the sources of data, and scoring can be derived using data from 2002. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 An audience member asked if landowners come in with a score for the SSAs and SRAs at the time that the landowner seeks to do an application; is each acre scored by the landowner’s consultant? Mr. Reynolds replied yes, at the time of application, a biologist generates a map that scores the lands, and puts the data on a disk and gives it to the County for review and quality assurance. He said every acre in an SSA approved today has a disk with the data submitted to the County. Ms. Olson said the Conservancy has done a lot of research, and she said the County wasn’t given all the data in 2002. She said there is information that Mr. Reynolds is not sharing. She said that every acre of land was given a score in 2002. She said based on the score given in 2002, anything over 1.3 is considered environmentally sensitive and under 1.3 is considered not environmentally sensitive. She said the data from 2002 should be shared with the public because it’s the starting point. She said this is the information that Mr. Reynolds says can be changed, but she would like to know where the original scores come from. Mr. Reynolds explained the scoring to get to 1.2 is done the exact same way. Ms. Olson said technology and science has changed, and the 2002 data should be available for analysis. Mr. Reynolds said the map is a tool to look at. Ms. Olson said data should be available to the public to know the starting point and how it was derived. Mr. Reynolds summarized that all the data was given to the County, and the old records are being collected in an attempt to recreate the 2002 map. He said everything shown on the x-ray map that had a score of 1.2 in 2002 is subject to the processing of a current application requiring rescoring with current data. Because there seemed to be confusion about whether the scoring is all based on data that only Wilson Miller has, Dr. Evans offered that the scoring system is the tool, but the data behind the tool is updated. Ms. Olson said the updating for an SRA or SSA application starts with a base number in order to generate new scoring. She said the tool and the data itself is a concern. Dr. Evans asked what information is needed to resolve the concern, and Ms. Olson said the baseline data from the 2002 data needs to be publicly available. Mr. Reynolds explained that until a private property owner comes to the County seeking SSA or SRA approval, nothing has changed on the property. The system is used when an applicant asks to be designated SSA or SRA. The applicant must submit current data at the time of submittal to score it according to the system. For instance, he said, if the Conservancy bought 100 acres and wanted to conserve the land, they would gather biological data, score it, and the County would review and assign credits, and the land would be put into conservation. Dr. Fritz Roka of the Florida Gulf Coast University Agribusiness Center added to the conversation, acknowledging there is confusion about methodology and data. He said he did not believe that the old data is of value today. If there are panthers are in a certain area today, then the score would be different than twenty years ago. He suggested having a workshop to work through a scoring exercise to help illuminate that there is no secret to the methodology or the data. Mr. Van Lengen said the Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 7 workshop is possible by either the County or a private group, because the scoring is based on publicly available information. An audience member asked when a biologist does the assessment, does the County have a trusted list of approved biologists who can do the rating? Mr. Van Lengen said a qualified biologist with certain credentials provides the scoring in the application. Mr. Van Lengen said the audience could suggest and make a declarative statement if they think a third-party reviewer should be involved in reviews of the submittals. An audience member said that computers are used to do these exercises, and asked why is there no evidence that the material we are working with is updated? As an example, the audience member said Rural Lands West would not be allowed to develop as the applicant requests in panther habitat. She asked why the material does not indicate where can you build, where can you not build, and how many acres can you build on? Information developed since 2002 should dictate less areas suitable for development, not more. Ms. Budd offered that she thinks the audience concerns over original data is really a desire to reevaluate where open lands, SSA and SRA boundaries are designated. She asked how much does preferred or tolerated panther habitat with no other resource value score? Mr. Van Lengen said the score is 0.5 for just panther habitat with no other listed species. She said that explains how a score could not rise to the threshold for protection. She said in 2009 experts reviewed the RLSA and opined on the 5 Year Review and found it is better for the panther than the current system; they provided additional recommendations to make it even better as well. She added that panther biologists may be needed to do another technical review. An audience member asked if it possible to update the indices? Mr. Van Lengen said it is a difficult question to answer, and there are legal implications. The beauty of the 5 Year Review was that there were several parties working together. If the Board wants to proceed, and the landowners do not agree, the legal experts need to weigh in. An audience member asked if the xray map reflects scores from the NRI worksheet? Mr. Van Lengen said the map’s colors represent HSAs, FSAs, WRAs, and the intensity of color represents the number of points. Mr. Van Lengen said the threshold of 1.2 was derived to identify where preservation should occur within an SRA. An audience member said there are more panther incidents in Golden Gate Estates since buildings have been developed in the area. She suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Agency should investigate because there have been many pet kills. She urged protection of the panther, or people will get hurt. Mr. Van Lengen responded that there is a panther recovery implementation team headed by USFWS with others from universities who are constantly studying the issue. He said the differences may be related to the pace of growth within Golden Gate Estates as opposed to outside of Golden Gate Estates. The initiative to build in the RLSA has only been realized in one town, Ave Maria. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 8 The audience member reiterated that panther habitat is being lost. Mr. Van Lengen said literature indicates the incidence of human panther interaction has been slightly on the increase in Golden Gate over the past decade. Dr. Roka said in terms of data, there has been an increase in number of panthers in 22 years from thirty panthers to over 300 panthers. The audience member said the panthers are peaking in houses and endangering children. III. Policy 3.11 (Restoration) Mr. Van Lengen summarized Policy 3.11 by explaining that the purposes of restoration include: functional enhancement of flowways, widening and enhancement of wildlife corridors, enhancement of listed species habitat, and creation of wading bird habitat. He explained that the process includes evaluation by wildlife professionals, review by County environmental staff, and monitoring by County staff and possibly other permitting agencies. Mr. Van Lengen advised that some SSAs have restoration within them, and some do not. The R-1 credits are for dedication of restoration and do not require any activity other than dedicating the area. Four credits per acre are granted in Camp Keais Strand, and two credits per acre are granted for the OK Slough on the east side in the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The R-2 credits are for completion of the restoration, and success criteria must be met. Four credits per acre are granted if the owner completes the restoration. Recommendations from the April 2018 workshop included: recalibrate the credits granted, consider stricter mandate for completion before credits are given, consider stricter success criteria, and monitor and verify for restoration success. Mr. Van Lengen said the 5 Year Review recommendations included reducing the R-1 dedication credits to two credits per acre. He said a cost-centric idea was used for the R-2 credits. For example, restoration for caracara was proposed at two credits per acre, exotic control/burring was proposed at four credits per acre, flowway restoration was proposed at four credits per acre, native habitat restoration was proposed at six credits, panther corridor creation was proposed at eight credits, and shallow wading bird habitat was six credits. Mr. Van Lengen then asked the audience for ideas with respect to environmental restoration within the RLSA program. Ms. Olson alluded to the 5 Year Review recommendation adding more credits to the system. Mr. Van Lengen clarified that the 5 Year Review recommendation would add less credits to the system. Ms. Olson said that all the credits that landowners are receiving are for the potential for restoration, and only 200-400 acres have actually been restored. If the owners are gaining credits for removing land use layers, and then also getting credits for the potential for restoration, the landowner is double dipping. Mr. Van Lengen agreed, and said the R-1 credits ensure there is no intensification of use on the property, and there is a slightly elevated maintenance requirement. He confirmed that a vast majority of credits granted are for potential restoration without having the restoration completed. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 9 Ms. Budd agreed with the concern about credits for potential restoration. She asked who can do the restoration other than the property owner, given the restrictions of private property rights? She suggested the R-2 restoration credit will only be sought and restoration will only be performed when additional credits are needed. An audience member said that Rural Lands West removed four or five layers of use, kept Ag-2 on a small portion, and got 10,000 credits for use removal. An additional 14,000 credits were granted for the potential for restoration. She said it seems excessive to get more credits in that fashion. She expressed concern that Group 3 policies only reference restoration credits; the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Land Development Code (LDC) do not provide direction on the actual restoration. Some of the restoration plans do not have a start date, and no metrics for progress, milestones or timelines. Instead the LDC says when success criteria are met, then the credits are awarded. She described an example of SSA 15, where the goal was to restore the flow way and wildlife habitat corridor in the Camp Keais Strand area. Success criteria included removal of two road grates and a pinch point farm road and restoration of native habitat. She said nothing mandated that the flowway gets restored. She said the GMP needs stricter guidance for restoration, including start dates because once construction begins, the habitat is impacted. She said SSA 15 is in an important corridor for panther habitat, and Collier Enterprises was not going to start restoration until they had a certain number of committed developers, and restoration would take ten years. She said that restoration needs to start at the beginning of construction or sooner because the wildlife will be impacted. Mr. Van Lengen responded that timing of the restoration in relation to development and tying the success criteria to the goals are both good comments. An audience member said there is a need for monitored review points of the restorations, and credits should not be granted until complete, which could take three years or longer. He said hydrology, herbaceous area, and shallow wetland restoration for wood storks can take a long time. He said giving the credits up front makes no sense, and we need to monitor and determine the final results. Mr. Van Lengen said the restoration plan contains success criteria, and it typically takes five years to determine if criteria are met. He agreed that granting credits upon designation of areas for future restoration is an issue. The audience member said nothing is done in return for the incentives. Mr. Van Lengen said when the R-2 process begins, there is monitoring and success criteria in place. However, R-1 credits are awarded for restoration dedication, and R-2 credits are awarded for doing the restoration. The audience member said granting of the credits is the issue, because there are about 16,000 restoration available credits, making it is the single largest source of credits in the system, and it has the loosest standards. IV. Policy 3.13 (Water Retention Areas) Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 10 Mr. Van Lengen summarized Policy 3.13 stating water retention areas (WRAs) were originally subject to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits and eligible to be used for water management in new towns and villages. They are not required to be designated as part of towns and villages. The 5 Year Review recommended they consume credits and become part of the SRA. An audience member said the WRAs were important to water retention and water quality. The policy currently allows the WRAs to be used for stormwater management systems. The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) commented that WRAs should not be used for stormwater management systems, and she hopes the county leaders will consider that. If WRAs are going to be used for water management systems, then she recommended considering a requirement for filter marshes as part of the treatment systems. She added that Camp Keais Strand is impaired for nutrients, and Rural Lands West proposed using the WRA for stormwater management, with discharge into Camp Keais Strand. She summarized that filter marshes have been used successfully around the state to reduce nutrients , and more information can be provided if desired. Mr. Van Lengen acknowledged water management, pretreatment and a flowway management plan as recommended by the County stormwater staff are important to support water quality and quantity. Ms. Olson said some WRAs have high ecological significance such a Shaggy Cypress Preserve. When that is surrounded by development, the habitat value is reduced for the panther. She said landowners should not receive credits for SSAs when development chokes off a preserve, noting the habitat functionality would be reduced significantly by development in those areas. An audience member said maybe someone from the County environmental department could speak to the group to help give confidence that restoration is being done well. He suggested it would be nice to have an ecologist, USFWS and/or SFWMD representative speak on restoration practices. V. Consensus Building and Conclusion Dr. Evans said she will be working on the consensus building process. The issue of consensus building is not an ideal, it is a process, and this group will not reach consensus on every issue. What is helpful in the process are the type of comments on the Policy 3.11 slide presented earlier which are statements of recommendations such as: recalibrate the credits granted, stricter mandate for completion before credits are given, stricter success criteria and monitor/verify restoration success. Dr. Evans said she is hearing mistrust of past data and processes and concerns about transparency on whether what is said is being done is being done. She reiterated that the group’s input will go into a white paper that will go to the County Commissioners, and tangible recommendations are most useful. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 11 She pointed out that the members of the County’s team are keeping records. She noted that recordings and meeting notes document all the meetings. Collection of the public comments are captured by tape recorders, desktop discussion worksheets, Facebook comments, and emails have all been collected and recorded for the past year. The collected data will be used and collapsed into topics. The intent is to take lots of data and capture in a way that is agreeable to the people making the statements, to be sure that the ideas are being captured properly. At the next meeting sticky notes will help align comments. The tracking of comments has been done, and the input will be organized. The process will be interactive. Something specific can be prepared for future meetings, such as tangible recommendations; otherwise the year has been futile. The County staff wants recommendations to take to the County Commissioners. She advised that if there is mistrust, get the message clear so there can be actions taken. At the end of this process there will be topics of agreement, and other areas may not reach consensus. These non- consensus items will be captured, and barriers will be identified for non-consensus items. Dr. Evans noted that two County Commissioners were present (Commission McDaniel and Commissioner Taylor), to which Commissioner McDaniel responded that he would not be offering comment or feedback given the provisions of the Sunshine Law. Dr. Evans acknowledged that the Commissioners must observe the Sunshine Law and be quiet observers, and she reiterated that a County Commissioner would want clean and concise recommendations. An audience member said he understands the audience does the work and then a white paper goes to the Commissioners. He thanked the two Commissioners for being present at the workshop, and said he is inclined to go directly to his Commissioner with recommendations rather than going to all the public work sessions for his input to be collected by staff, and then into a white paper that will then go to the Commissioners. Dr. Evans affirmed that a voter should be speaking to his or her Commissioner, but the point of this activity is to get public input on the Restudy of the RLSA. He asked if the Commissioners will make the final decision on the Restudy of the RLSA? Dr. Evans said the actions being taken through the workshops is to bring together a group with divergent opinions, so that the group can work together to identify points what can be agreed with a strong voice. The audience member asked if Nick Penniman will continue as the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) chairman? Mr. Van Lengen said that he is not sure at this time. The Oversight Committee looks at all four Restudies to verify the Restudies are coordinated and that there is sufficient public outreach. An audience member asked if the white paper will go to the CCPC? Mr. Van Lengen said it does not. The public hearing process for GMP Amendments includes the CCPC sitting as the CCPC and EAC, then to the Board, and then it goes around again. Ms. Olson said a concrete recommendation is that she wants the 2002 underlying data on which the program is based. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Requested Review/Input: Group 1 and other Policies January 31, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 12 Dr. Evans said the more precise the recommendations, the better. She said while some topics can become polarized, there have been many conversations throughout the year of workshops where many people were on the same page. Trust has been an underlying issue. The next two meetings are important for tightening up thoughts and recommendations and consensus building. The many pages of data collected from all the workshops will be organized to pull out specific recommendations. An audience member asked if additions can be made to the feedback tracking? Dr. Evans said any changes can be brought forward by email or contacting the County staff, but feedback will not be redacted. She said when consensus is not reached, it will be identified and the barriers to reaching consensus are important because they could represent a whole policy issue. An audience member said several attendees were in attendance, and they would like to endorse the paper from the Conservancy. Dr. Evans said that is fine. An audience member said the issue of the data could be clarified if the original data was available and compared with how the data is now classified. It would help clarify the changes as someone tries to assess how the system is working. The original data and the new data would be helpful for understanding what has happened at the site. Dr. Evans said this is a helpful recommendation to assess the efficacy of the program. Dr. Evans said we are all living on land that was developed poorly, and it’s important to resolve the best way to continue how development occurs. An audience member said that Rural Lands West can be reviewed as a good study of the original data and updated data for comparison. Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting is February 28th and closed the meeting at 8:05 p.m. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Public Meeting Consensus Workshop February 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109 I Opening Remarks Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at approximately 6:10 p.m. and gave appreciation to the audience for attending, noting especially those who attended and provided comments during the yearlong workshop series. He explained the meeting will be a consensus building exercise led by Dr. Amanda Evans. From a timing standpoint, Mr. Van Lengen explained that the County staff’s white paper will be drafted and in May it will be distributed to the workshop participant email list for public review before moving on to the public hearing phase. The public hearing phase will likely begin in September. II Affinity Mapping Speaker: Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, Florida Gulf Coast University Dr. Evans explained that the RLSA Restudy Workshops have been held monthly since January 2018. The Restudy process has involved the collection of data and comments. She said all the comments collected from the public is considered qualitative data. These qualitative data, or perceptions, have been organized and tracked. This includes all emails, comments from roundtables, and written comments. Dr. Evans said the exercise of affinity mapping helps identify ideas that are agreed upon, and those ideas that aren’t. All comments collected during the workshops and the public’s correspondence to date have been gathered and collapsed onto sticky notes for use during the affinity mapping exercise. The exercise allows audience members to expand or comment on what ideas have been gathered. Dr. Evans said the affinity mapping exercise may require a second meeting to finish, and the results will be the affinity diagram, which will be the basis for the public opinion portion of the County staff’s white paper. The ideas that the audience agrees are important will get conveyed in the white paper. Meeting Summary for RSLA Restudy Meeting – Consensus Workshop February 28, 2019, 6:00 PM www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 Items that are not agreed upon will be identified as potentially needing additional research or feedback. Audience members were instructed to place each sticky note containing a comment on the appropriate board arranged in the front of the room with the headings: Water, Agriculture, Taxpayer Impact, Towns & Villages, Credits & Scoring, Environmental Protection, Land Management, and Other. Dr. Evans affirmed that new categories and comments are allowed to be added during the exercise. The meeting proceeded in an interactive fashion with audience members participating in the affixing of sticky notes on the topic boards. Then Dr. Evans led discussion on each of the comments associated with the topics of Water, Agriculture, Taxpayer Impact, and some of the comments associated with Towns & Villages. Dr. Evans identified by polling the audience whether a comment was supported by all audience members; if so, it was considered a consensus item and would be identified in staff’s white paper as such. If a comment could not be supported or agreed to by all audience members, the comment was considered to be a non consensus item, which meant the comment would be identified in staff’s white paper as a public comment needing further study or discussion or deliberation. At the close of the meeting around 8:10 p.m., Mr. Van Lengen said the next meeting will be at the same time and place on March 28th. [Photos were taken at the close of the meeting of the comments adhered to the boards.] www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 1 Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Public Meeting Consensus Workshop March 28, 2019, North Collier Regional Park, Exhibit Hall 15000 Livingston Rd., Naples, 34109 I Opening Remarks Speaker: Kris Van Lengen, Collier County Mr. Van Lengen, Collier County Community Planning Manager, opened the meeting at approximately 6:05 p.m. He stated that the agenda begins with a presentation from the Eastern Collier Property Owners group (ECPO), who represent the majority of landowners in the eastern Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). He explained that Mitch Hutchcraft will present for ECPO and there will be time for a few questions, followed by Dr. Evans continued affinity diagramming. For any item where consensus cannot be reached, the item is still important. Such items constitute areas that need to be explored because of difference of opinion. Mr. Van Lengen explained that after the public engagement workshops, staff will generate an analysis based on public comments, owner comments, and professional input which is planned to be ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners in June. Mr. Van Lengen noted that 170 people are on the email distribution list, and fifteen emails did not transmit. Mr. Van Lengen asked the audience to please provide email addresses on the sign in sheets if they did not receive an email on Monday. Mr. Van Lengen gave an update that Collier County staff is getting the data that underlies the Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores. Staff has the composite scores. Stantec has worked to provide the data, and the legal staff is working on how to provide the information publicly. An audience member asked about the data for stewardship credits generally, and the data for restoration credits. Mr. Van Lengen said the NRI value score includes restoration potential. The stewardship credits and restoration credit information is resolved later in the process and is not part of this data set. II Eastern Collier Land Owners Perspective Speaker: Mitch Hutchcraft, President, King Ranch Mr. Hutchcraft said it seemed some people haven’t had the benefit of working on this project from the very beginning, and that he wants to give an overview of the regulatory framework that makes www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 2 the RLSA program what it is. He suggested that all interested parties should have the same context for conversations moving forward. Mr. Hutchcraft asserted that the RLSA program is a big picture tool that is innovative and incentive- based. It is a planning program to protect habitat, protect land for agriculture, and promote sustainable growth and economic diversification in the rural areas. A statutory legislative framework establishes these parameters. Mr. Hutchcraft described that the effort started in 1999. After discussions with the County, State, Governor and Cabinet, the RLSA program was adopted in 2002. He said that the County’s original approach was to take away property rights, and the landowners opposed that. The Governor and Cabinet said to come up with a better approach, and the program implemented in 2002 received broad support including non-governmental organizations such as the Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier Audubon, and The Conservancy. It is based on data and analysis including land use, wildlife, wetlands, which drives how the program gets implemented. He said it is incentive based and market oriented to protect owner interests and public interests through stewardship. The program has unique Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) requirements. Mr. Hutchcraft described that the RLSA program is voluntary, and the landowners can participate or not participate. If not participating, the base property rights are vested with landowners. Through the RLSA program incentives encourage clustering development into a smaller footprint with greater densities and intensities. The benefit to the public is larger preserves, concentration of open space and habitat connectivity. In order to get participation in the program early, early entry bonuses and private restoration credits were made available. It’s now an award-winning program. Mr. Hutchcraft referred to Florida Statutes indicating that the RLSA program is a tool that furthers broad principles of rural sustainability, including restoration and maintenance of agriculture, identification and protection of ecosystems and habitats, and diversification of the economy through expansion and new employment opportunities. He said that the intent is not just for setting aside the rural lands forever, but rather for maintaining the viability of agriculture in the economy. He summarized that Florida Statutes recognize protection of private property rights in rural areas, and the statutes were modified to reference Collier County’s RLSA program and to recognize the program as compliant. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map of the RLSA showing several property owners, all having different interests and having the choice to opt in or out of the program. The program was designed to create credits, allowing two landowners to work together to achieve a better big picture outcome. He said that if all owners don’t participate, then the outcome is diminished. If all landowners participate, the result is maximum preservation and protection of agriculture going forward. Mr. Hutchcraft posed the question, why was the program set up the way that it is? Before the RLSA program, if a property owner had wetlands or habitat, this was a devaluing effect. The public desired preservation and protection of water resources and habitat, while the landowners want to protect property rights and values. Mr. Hutchcraft argued that the program aligns the interests of the public www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 3 and the landowner. If the public wants more wetlands or wildlife conservation, the owner is credited for that either through value of the land or through a different currency such as density offered in the RLSA program. The incentives are structured to align private property rights and property values with the interests of the public. Mr. Hutchcraft explained that another option is public acquisition. The County, State or Water Management District could provide money for public land acquisition, however money and resources to acquire land for public acquisition is diminishing. The protection of land without a cost to taxpayers is achieved through the use of development rights as currency for landowners to preserve habitat or cluster density. Mr. Hutchcraft said the regulatory framework involves how the credits are calculated. The most environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands or wildlife habitat generate the highest scores and value, and those credits can be used to develop on lower value lands. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a sample calculation indicating how different levels of property rights can be removed to gain credits. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed a map to show the effect of land use regulations before the RLSA program to portray how base rights could allow development to occur on what is currently open space, tomato fields, pasture, wetlands, etc. By implementing the RLSA program, including the 5-year review recommendations, the likely outcome was displayed on a map showing that more land gets preserved or maintained for agriculture. He highlighted that the financial ramifications include no costs to the public for land acquisition or maintenance. Mr. Hutchcraft said since 2002, 180,000 acres of private land has been rezoned to limit the land’s development potential to a clustered pattern. He noted that most landowners in the RLSA are large landowners, and since 2002, no land has been subdivided into five-acre lots. He said the benefit of the program is less rural sprawl, noting that total conservation land has grown to 50,000 acres which will be perpetually preserved and maintained at no cost to the public. Mr. Hutchcraft added that some well-planned development has occurred. He said for every one acre developed, six to eight acres get set aside for preservation. He stressed that landowners are making long-term decisions in reliance on the program, and when the 5-year review was performed and recommendations were proposed, those recommendations were supported at the time. In reference to the 50,000 areas preserved through the RLSA program, Mr. Hutchcraft said it is anticipated that 134,000 acres will be ultimately preserved at no cost to the public. He described that the Ave Maria development of about 5,000 acres, with additional proposed development totaling 7,300 acres, has resulted in 50,000 acres of preserved lands, noting that these preserves provide for flowways, wildlife and habitat. Mr. Hutchcraft displayed calculations of the costs associated with preserved lands. He said that the Conservation Collier program has preserved 4,000 acres with an average cost of over $25,000 per acre, and that Jim Beever of the Regional Planning Council identifies economic value to the public as $144 million annually. He said the Lee County 2020 program saved 30,000 acres with an average cost of $12,000 per acre. The RLSA program has already preserved almost 51,000 acres at zero acquisition costs. With zero acquisition cost and zero maintenance cost, he said the value to the www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 4 public of preserved RLSA lands is about $1 billion annually. Considering the potential of 130,000 acres of preserve, the numbers become staggering. He added that all the preserved land stays on the tax rolls, albeit that the values do go down. Mr. Hutchcraft said the 5-year review effort was a result of original Comprehensive Plan policy to review the program and determine if it could work better. It was a robust process involving a committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Significant consensus was reached on a few key components. The County Commissioners ultimately accepted the Committee’s report but did not adopt it. Mr. Hutchcraft summarized key recommendations from the 5-year review, including: 1. Better incentives for protection of agricultural land. 2. Better focus on land preservation for panther corridors that are more functional with incentivization. 3. Cap on the number of credits and number of receiving acres. Create a maximum development footprint of 45,000 acres. 4. Add credits for panther corridors and agriculture. 5. Restoration credits should be capped. Mr. Hutchcraft reported that the projections for the program today are: 92,000 acres of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA), 43,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), and 43,800 acres not participating and still developing at the base density. By adopting the 5-year review recommendations, he said that credits are recalibrated to account for agriculture credits, and there would be more agricultural use of the 43,800 acres that would not have participated previously. Mr. Hutchraft described that questions have been raised about economic impact assessments. He said the Collier County LDC requires a review of economic impact of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) each time an application is submitted. Rules are established for the evaluation. He said that the Smart Growth America study does not follow the rules established by Collier County, and said if the study cannot be validated, it cannot be considered a valid study. He argued that credit should be given to the landowners’ studies that comply with the rules. He concluded by noting that the landowners wanted to reach out and provide perspective, and that ECPO supports the adopted plan and supports the 5-year review recommendations. He offered that the program aligns private and public interests, provides positive outcomes, maintains agriculture, and provides diversity in the economy. He reiterated that for nearly two decades, landowners have acted on reliance on the program, stating that the program is law and landowners feel strongly about maintaining the program, and they continue making decisions in reliance on the program. Mr. Hutchcraft said that ECPO does not find it appropriate to consider additional changes until the 5-year review recommendations are done, and that now is time to move forward with the www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 5 recommendations. Afterwards, he said landowners will continue to work with the community to move forward. An audience member asked why the BOCC did not adopt the 5-year recommendations. Mike Bosi, Collier County Planning and Zoning Director, said the cost to do the 5-year review recommendations could not be funded by the BOCC due to the recession. April Olson of The Conservancy said she has been involved in the RLSA program for twenty years, and she wants to set the record straight. She said The Conservancy was in support of the RLSA program in 2002, but there was an understanding that it yielded 16,800 acres of development and an estimated build-out population of 87,000 people. She said that tens of thousands of credits were put into the program just days before the program was adopted, and it was never disclosed to the public. Instead of 16,000 acres, she said 45,000 acres, or 250% more development, is proposed. She said this was not revealed until the 5-year review in 2008. She said that the program as understood by The Conservancy in 2002 is not the program we have today. She appealed for comments identifying flaws or inconsistencies found in the Smart Growth America report. She stated that The Conservancy opposes the 5-year review, noting it was conducted ten years ago and is outdated. She said the 2008 Wilson Miller calculations of the credits are still wrong, and now more lands are eligible for restoration. Dr. Evans offered that there is disagreement on this issue, and it is a fact that some topics will not achieve consensus. She acknowledged that property owners and The Conservancy have different perspectives, which can be explored further. Any issue identified as a non-consensus item can be captured as such and will not go away. Another audience member expressed confusion from the presentation. She said the presentation should have been at the beginning of the workshop series and not at the last meeting. She summarized that she heard the landowners don’t want any changes and don’t plan to adhere to any changes. She noted here impression that nothing was in place until the Commissioners adopt the plan. She questioned what the point is of a 5-year review if nothing happens. Dr. Evans said the effort underway is a restudy; it is another effort to refine the program. The audience member asked what the point is if there is not consensus? Dr. Evans said the last 14 months have provided clarification of the policies. Areas of consensus are visible and non-consensus areas are visible. This process makes it clear where everyone is on the same page. Where they are not in agreement, those issues can be identified and presented to the BOCC as topics needing further discussion or exploration. An audience member asked if development rights are currently four units per acre, noting that other cities do not allow development in wetlands. He added that he is concerned that no land is set aside for surface water. Dr. Evans said he can offer a recommendation based on this concern, and it can be determined if consensus is reached for the recommendation during the affinity mapping exercise. www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies RLSArestudy@colliercountyfl.gov Page 6 An audience member asked if wetlands are developable lands. Mr. Van Legnen said wetlands are very expensive and not easy to develop, noting it is not impossible to develop wetlands. He advised that permits are needed, and there is a mitigation cost. The designated Stewardship Sending Areas help toward preservation of wetlands and habitat. An audience member said there is no resolution on the number of credits, noting there are about 240,000 credits and about 58,000 credits are for restoration. The definition for restoration is not well defined in the LDC. An audience member said that the statement presented declaring the acres set aside in the RLSA program cost the public nothing is not true. The cost of infrastructure is roughly in the $90 million range for the road network, and there is additional cost for schools, fire stations, etc. She stressed that there is a big cost to the public. III Affinity Mapping, continued from February 28, 2019 Dr. Amanda Evans, Facilitator, Florida Gulf Coast University Dr. Evans initiated the affinity mapping exercise for the topics of Towns & Villages, Land Management, Credits & Scoring, Environmental Protection, State Requirements and Other recommendations that did not align with the grouped topics. (Topics mapped at the February 28th Workshop included Water, Agriculture, Taxpayer Impact, and some comments associated with Towns & Villages). Dr. Evans identified by polling the audience whether a comment was supported by all audience members; if so, it was considered a consensus item and would be identified in staff’s white paper as such. If a comment could not be supported or agreed to by all audience members, the comment was considered to be a non-consensus item, which meant the comment would be identified in staff’s white paper as a public comment needing further study, discussion or deliberation. At the close of the meeting around 8:10 p.m., Mr. Van Lengen asked for attendees to include their email addresses on sign in sheets so they will receive correspondence sent to the distribution email list group. [Photos were taken at the close of the meeting of the comments adhered to the boards.]