Loading...
CCPC Agenda 09/03/2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 8/26/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 September 3, 2020 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Patrick Dearborn Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. September 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 8/26/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA: A Resolution of The Board of County Commissioners Proposing Amendments to The Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy and specifically amending The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of The Future Land Use Element, to change acreages, Stewardship Credits, Development Standards, and Program Requirements; furthermore Directing Transmittal of the amendments to The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Anita Jenkins, AICP, Interim Planning Director] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn August 6, 2020 Page 1 of 47 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 6, 2020 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 2 of 47 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the August 6th, 2020, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Ray, are there any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have several changes to make or note on the agenda. The items listed on the agenda, Items 9A7, 9A8, 9A9, 9A10, 9A11, and 9A12 are all being continued to the August 20th CCPC meeting. These were holdovers from an earlier meeting that was canceled, and we couldn't fit them on today's agenda, so they're going on the 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we need to take action on that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Just officially note that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will do. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And also, we'd like to, if this is the appropriate time, talk about what we're doing in regards to creating a standard operating procedure for agenda creation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think what we were trying to do is standardize the process a little more so the Chairman can review the agenda and sign off on the order and note any changes he would like to see, and then we will use that to help create the agenda packets. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Appreciate that very much. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There were some snafus. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But partly a learning curve and, certainly, I've had a full conversation with Anita about it, and I'm confident that things are going to go smoothly going forward, so thank you for that. Before moving too much farther, since we do have a full house today, I wanted to note about unexcused and excused absences, and just to remind my fellow Planning Commissioners that if it turns out they are not going to be able to attend a meeting, please send me a one-way email -- I won't respond to it -- just letting me know that you're not going to be here and providing me with some kind of a reason, general business reasons, it doesn't have to be specific at all, so that I and excuse the absences and keep everybody's record clean, okay. Now, right into the subject of Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is August 20 of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 3 of 47 2020. Does anyone know if he or she will not be able to participate in that meeting? It looks like we're going to have a full house again. That's good. Same question with respect to the September 3rd, 2020, meeting, which will be the meeting after the August 20; anybody know they won't be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excellent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe I will be missing that. Let me check my calendar. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The 3rd? I'll be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good, perfect. All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. Did we need to vote on those continued? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we can take them now, or take them in order. MR. BELLOWS: No. I think you can do them all now at once. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Can we do them in one motion? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So you've seen the revised agenda with -- I don't have it directly in front of me. How many items to be continued, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: It starts from agenda Item 9A7 through 9A12. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: They're all being continued to -- as listed on the agenda, they're all being continued to August 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to continue all those petitions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: That carries, and they have been continued. Thank you, Ray. With respect to the minutes of June 11 and June 16, we actually have already acted upon these. We acted upon them. We approved them unanimously at our July 2 meeting, so it's really not necessary for us to approve them again. I understand that they're referenced in the agenda packet for administrative purposes to create a paper trail. So that's what the purpose of that was. The Chairman's report, I have none at this time. The consent agenda, I believe we have none of that, so we should go right into public hearings, and the first is 9A1. ***This is PL20160000221. It is a petition to add the Immokalee Road Estates Commercial Subdistrict to the Estates Commercial District. It's a large-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment, and it is here before us at this time for transmittal. All persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Let's do ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting down with Commissioner Shea, and let's just move up automatically. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 4 of 47 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, in-person meeting with the applicant and their planner -- attorney and their planner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I've -- materials from staff, meetings with staff, and communications with the applicant's agents. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Communication with the agents, both Noel and Wayne. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the public record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And is Patrick dialed in yet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I need to add a brief communication with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. Thank you. All right. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Davies, please proceed. MR. DAVIES: Okay, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Noel Davies with the law firm of Quarles & Brady. I'm here today on behalf of Barron Collier Companies, specifically the petitioner BCHD Partners 1, LLC. This is our petition for an amendment to your Growth Management Plan. And we're here today for the transmittal hearing on the GMPA only. We do also have a companion rezoning application to PUD which would be heard as a companion item at the time of the adoption hearing, provided transmittal is approved. The subject property is located just north of the county-owned property, the Randall Curve property. We're just over 19 acres immediately west of Immokalee Road after it turns north and directly across Immokalee from the Orangetree neighborhood. There is no residential component to this project. We're proposing a total of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, specifically all permitted and conditional uses in the C-4 zoning district. We did commission a market study from economist Russ Weyer, who's here today, which provides the requisite data and analysis to support our request. The proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the applicable levels-of-service standards and public facilities, no concurrency concerns, all of which was agreed to and confirmed by your staff. We held a neighborhood information meeting. There were some comments about access on 4th Street, all of which have been resolved in our PUD application. We eliminated any access on 4th Street. That area will be used only for open space and water management, so our only planned access point will be at the existing signal at Immokalee Road and Orangetree Boulevard. I do have the full project team with me here. Austin Howell is here from Barron Collier. Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor is our professional planner. I'll turn it over to Wayne shortly. Norm Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions is our traffic engineer. Bruce Layman with Peninsula Engineering is our ecologist/environmental expert. And, as I mentioned, Russ Weyer with Real Estate Econometrics is our economist. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to answer any questions you have for me now or, with your lead, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone have any questions right now of Mr. Davies? I am going to have a considerable amount of questions, but I think it would be easier for you, your presenters, if I wait until everything's been presented. But if any Planning Commissioners want to ask something now, please go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Davies, just clarify the buffering. I know that the portion, the thin 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 5 of 47 portion that abuts 4th Street is now going to be water management -- MR. DAVIES: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- so it won't be accessible. What is the buffering on the north and south of the commercial parcel buffering the adjacent parcels? MR. DAVIES: Sure. So with respect to the buffering, all of that is a more specific PUD question, and that's something that we're going through the process currently now. That PUD application is not at issue at today's hearing, so today is only the transmittal hearing for the GMPA. I believe that we're still trying to figure that out. To the extent that -- you know, I believe Mr. Arnold can show you the master concept plan in its current iteration, which is part of the PUD application, so he would be happy to do that. But at this time the buffering specific site development standards is not at issue today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to make a clarification as well before you proceed. In my judgment, anything that is properly before us or has been presented to us at transmittal is fair game to be talked about and considered and, from my perspective, if there's something fundamentally wrong with the proposal that technically isn't going to come back to us until PUD, it's going to influence my decision-making at transmittal. Also because when it does -- if it comes back for adoption, I don't like to retread old ground on something that had been before us at transmittal. MR. DAVIES: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll do our best to answer those questions to the extent we know those answers at this time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, sir. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and I'm going to take you through a little bit more of the details of the proposed GMP amendment. It is an amendment to your Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And we are creating a new subdistrict. It's not a new concept to you. There are many subdistricts that have been created both in the Golden Gate Master Plan as well as the urban area Growth Management Plan. It's a little over 19 acres, currently zoned Estates. And as Noel indicated, our sole point of access is going to be the signalized intersection at Orangetree Boulevard and Immokalee Road. And that's part of the reason that we think this is an appropriate location for commercial. The subdistrict language, I think there's one clarification we would like to make for the pending materials that are before you, and I don't think staff's going to have an issue with it. But it's shown as strikethrough and underline here, and this is our proposed subdistrict language that allows us to have the commercial uses of C-4 intensity at 200,000 square feet. We would like to modify this slightly to strike "retail" and "office" and put "commercial land uses" as being appropriate, because whether it's the C-3 plus list, as I call it, that staff has proposed, or our C-4 use, it contains uses that are not just retail or office. So it's probably more appropriate to just call it commercial or retail/office commercial or something to that effect. But, anyway, we would propose to change that to commercial. This is the PUD master plan. And this is the one that's pending before staff. We've received our first round of review comments from them. And, Mr. Fry, to answer your question, the buffers to the north and south of the development area are shown as 15-foot-wide Type B buffers on that. They could be a different buffer depending -- there's an application pending to the property south of this property. It's proposed as a mixed-use project, and depending on where their residential component is in relationship to ours, we may be required to put in a more extensive buffer than shown. So we've shown it as an alternate type buffering depending on where their residential component settles down, but it will have appropriate buffering. You can see the finger parcel that is the little narrow piece that goes west of 4th Street Northeast. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 6 of 47 We're showing that as all buffer and water management area, so we're having a natural separation from the street and proposing no access to it. You can see the three larger commercial tracts and a preserve area are largely the area that would be our development envelope adjacent to Immokalee Road. We've depicted the signal there. We're also depicting an interconnection to the south into that property that's currently owned by Collier County Government. And that property is under contract, as many of you probably are aware, under the -- it's called the Randall Curve Property that the county has owned for years. It was going to be the bus barn at one time and a maintenance facility, and the community didn't really care for those ideas, so the county put it out as surplus land, and it's under contract, and their application's pending for that. We think this makes a lot of sense to have a commercial development on this property. Again, it's a little bit unique for Golden Gate. I know that many of you were around for the restudy program, but the restudy didn't get into parcel-specific details, but we attended a lot of those meetings. And there were a lot of comments made that people really -- in this part of the community really want access to commercial, whether it's restaurants, gasoline, car washes, a lot of services that they currently have to drive all the way to Collier Boulevard to get. And this is a unique parcel in the sense that it's on the six-lane segment of Immokalee Road. It's across the street from the commercial tract at Orangetree. It has signalized intersection access to Immokalee Road. It has access to water and sewer, which is also unique. And from a planning perspective, I think we and staff agree that the only use that's permitted today under your plan is to put in one unit per two-and-a-quarter acres with individual access points to Immokalee Road, which probably doesn't, long term, see to be the appropriate use for this corridor to have skinny, narrow single-family homes on this property abutting Immokalee Road. Actually, I should probably go back to the -- whoops, I'm sorry. Go back to the aerial photograph to just get you the better orientation. So immediately east of us across the street there are tracts of land. Those are commercial tracts in the Orangetree community. Farther south down at Randall Boulevard, there's a newer Publix that's been developed, and I think that in this particular case, I can't imagine that people are going to develop individual single-family homes. But this site doesn't even qualify for conditional uses under your Golden Gate Area Master Plan. So it's not like you could put in a church campus or a daycare center or something like that. This is -- the only use permitted is the low-density residential. So for those reasons, we think that it is an appropriate use. The couple of items that we have a disagreement with staff is -- one of the conditions was talking about the westerly 4th Street access, which we have no problem with. They've indicated emergency vehicle access only. We proposed none. Anyway, it says it can be used for that or native vegetation or buffers. We would prefer to reference it native vegetation, open space, and water management and buffer areas, because in our iteration, the better quality preserve area happens to be the area noted on our plan, which is in the northern section of the site, not on the 4th Street parcel, as I call it. The other change is staff's recommending approval with 178,000 square feet, and that goes to some of Mr. Weyer's analysis with regard to the market demand. We think the market demand figures that we've presented clearly support the 200,000 square feet. And the distinction on the uses I want to talk about. The limitation that staff has, I call it C-3 plus, because they've said, we agree with you that commercial is appropriate. A little bit different number in square footage. But we've said we really want C-4 conditional and permitted uses, and they've said C-3 permitted, conditional, plus certain C-4 uses. One of the uses we think is a very viable use here -- and our client has extensive experience with commercial development in Collier County -- is something like an indoor storage facility. You don't get to that use until you get to C-4. So from a conceptual standpoint, we would like transmittal at C-4, but I think we acknowledge that through our PUD process and maybe the language that comes back for adoption would and could be the pared down C-3 plus list. But I think it needs to reflect some of the uses we think truly are critical end-users there. We're not sure that's the debate today, but we do think that the C-4 uses 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 7 of 47 have merit and would encourage you to support the transmittal at C-4. But, I think, Mr. Fryer, I know that you have questions of our economist with regard to some of the demand and supply analysis, but we do have a disagreement with staff on that, albeit it's 25,000 square feet. But when you come to a use like indoor self-storage that it's easy to put 100,000 square feet on three acres because that's typically about the number. It's 80- to 100,000 square feet for these, and you get those on such small acreages. We think it's important that we have the full 200,000 square feet to accommodate uses like that that are sort of high-volume square-foot users but low-intensity uses. So with that, that's my summation of where we are today, and happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Planning Commission. We don't have our electronic system. It's not working today. So we're going to have to go back to the old-fashioned system. COMMISSIONER FRY: Finger -- the raised-finger system. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: It doesn't matter who answers this, but where are -- you mentioned that a very likely use, if approved, would be an inside mini-storage unit -- a facility which, as I understand, is approximately 100,000 square feet on average. MR. DAVIES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where are the other like facilities in proximity to this unit? Are there some that are farther east? Are they -- what distance are they from this location? And how would you justify the need for one of those in this location? MR. DAVIES: I'm going to let Mr. Arnold answer that. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, for the record. Mr. Fry, the closest one that's existing today is a small one that's been constructed in Ave Maria, and that's probably, what, five to seven miles away. It's in the town center area of the community. There are other facilities that can be planned along the Collier Boulevard corridor, but those, again, are about five miles away. This area is growing. It's -- you know, I think with communities like Orangetree, Orange Blossom Ranch, those are newer suburban-style homes. Those aren't Estate places, so you don't typically have storage. So we see this as a very viable use for this part of the community. COMMISSIONER FRY: And this is across the street from Orangetree, correct -- MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- so it would be the closest facility to serve them. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. You made a comment that the preserve area you have shown on your conceptual master plan is superior to the westerly portion. I was just curious why. Is that the nature of the vegetation that is present there? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, it is. Bruce Layman is an ecologist who worked with staff to determine that this was probably the best location. I'm not sure this will be the final. This is -- it's been through one round of comments with staff, but I think we're all in agreement that generally that is where the preserve would be, not in the skinny portion of the western portion. MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding in speaking with staff was that it was going to be an interconnect with the northern parcel, which is, in all probability, going to go commercial as well. You can't do that interconnect if that's where the preserve is. MR. ARNOLD: We're depicting an interconnection to the south. The parcels to the north, Mr. Klatzkow, are still designated Estates. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. So it's -- and yours as well. That's why we do rezonings. My understanding is that, from our planning standpoint, we're expecting those parcels to go commercial as well. My understanding is staff spoke with the applicant about an interconnect to the north. If I'm mistaken, let me know. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 8 of 47 MR. DAVIES: I don't recall that. MR. ARNOLD: I honestly don't recall that conversation, but I'm -- we're happy to entertain that. I'm sure we can be creative in our shaping of the preserve area to accommodate an interconnection. I know that the county staff likes them to be completely connected within a site, so that's what this plan does. I mean, there might be some reshaping that we could do to accommodate that, or the connection point could potentially be closer -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the problem is the traffic light is right in the middle. If you don't interconnect the north and the south to hit that traffic light, you're going to have to have direct egress and ingress onto Immokalee Road, and that's not going to work. I mean, your market analysis has 100,000 people there in 20 years. I don't know where the traffic is going to -- I don't know where the traffic's going to, but without these interconnects, I don't know how it works. I'm just telling the Planning Commission, I don't think that's what the preserve's going to ultimately look like. MR. ARNOLD: I think duly noted. We're going to continue to work with -- COMMISSIONER FRY: And you said the parcel to the south most likely will be commercial as well? MR. ARNOLD: It's in right now pending a rezoning and a plan amendment as a -- MR. KLATZKOW: It will all be commercial. You're not going to want to build your house right over there. I mean, I know it's Estates now, but nobody here wants to put their brand-new house right next to 200,000 square feet of commercial off of a six-lane arterial. So it will be commercial. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to clarify, just to add on to what you're saying, Jeff, there would likely be interconnection to the south parcel as well. MR. KLATZKOW: South and north. COMMISSIONER FRY: South and north, okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what staff's looking at. I don't know if the applicant's aware of that, but staff's looking at interconnections both to the north and the south. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. So that kind of brings up my next question, as Chairman Fryer points out, we -- you know, we evaluate these things based on the information provided. So there is a conceptual master plan in the packet. You've stated it's part of the PUD but not part of this application, yet we're looking at it and basing our decision partly on it. To what extent is it binding, if at all, when you come back for the PUD? What -- how can we rely on it, I guess -- to what extent can we rely on it in our decision-making? MR. DAVIES: Sir, in response to that, you know, as I mentioned at the beginning, this is the -- this is the current iteration of the master plan. Today's hearing is for the GMPA, so it's just -- it's just the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. These types of issues, including the interconnect to the north which, just to clarify, this is currently pending. As Wayne mentioned, we've had one round of comments from staff. We have no issues entertaining the potential for an interconnect to the north. That's certainly feasible, and that's certainly something that we would be happy to work with staff on. But I think that that's illustrative of my point initially which is that we're talking about the bigger picture Comp Plan, Growth Management Plan, and that's the petition that's on the agenda for today. We're certainly happy to divulge as much information as we have about the existing status of the proposed master plan, which is what's before you today. But as noted from this discussion, there are likely to be certain changes to this master plan which would not be attached legally to today's decision -- or to the BCC's decision with respect to the master plan. That is something that is governed by the PUD and rezoning process and the rezoning ordinance incident to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody else? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to clarify, we certainly have an option to discuss it at the PUD level. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 9 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, this is a Comp Plan. It's a conceptual. And it's certainly -- when it comes back for the PUD, it should -- they should present far more clarity, which would then give us an option to discuss either interconnect or other events. Because what's going to change is they go through the permitting process specifically even for water management. That -- this type of layout may change. You've not gone through any type of district permitting yet, have you, so -- MR. DAVIES: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- conceptual or otherwise. So this may change. And it's certainly -- they certainly have the liberty to make the change up and even through the PUD process. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. However, it seems to me, though, that if things are put in front of us today that raise an issue, a significant issue, like an interconnect to the north, if we were inclined to approve this at transmittal, we could impose a condition right now. If it's important, it's in front of us, why wait? All right. Other questions, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I mean, we can impose it, but it's a -- it's a Comp Plan Amendment. It strictly has to do with the Comp Plan making the change to the Comprehensive Plan that -- it is not in any way a commitment for a design, but if you certainly want to make that proposal, I guess you can as far as the Comp Plan, but it's -- you know, we'll -- MR. KLATZKOW: I just -- this is really going to be the first of three you guys are going to be seeing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. And I'm just saying, I don't know that you want to do this piecemeal, because when this thing's fully developed in 20 years, this is going to be one of the major retail centers in Collier County. It just is. And when we do these things right in Collier County, they're a real amenity in the community, and we're doing -- when we do them wrong in the county -- and I'm sure you have shopping centers where it's impossible to get from Point A to Point B, you know, several of them in here, they just weren't well planned out, they weren't well thought out. I'm just saying, this is the first of three you're going to be seeing over the course of the next few years. You just may want to consider, in the totality of the growth of this area, how this is going to fit with everything else. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other option is it comes back as an overall amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan, and this entire area be identified. MR. KLATZKOW: That's another option. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the -- I mean, I'm not defending the applicant, but just in the process, the applicant doesn't have any -- doesn't own the land and can't make any changes to the adjacent property. I mean, quite frankly -- and I hear what you say, Jeff, but it could also be some day developed with apartments in that area. I mean, we have a lot of places where apartment buildings are adjacent to large commercial complexes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point of clarification. Is your client the contract purchaser or the present owner? MR. DAVIES: My client's the present owner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I thought. Any other questions from -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a comment. I believe Jeff's point that this might be a major commercial hub for Eastern Collier County in the future raises a question which I think is -- every application that comes to us for commercial has a mini-storage unit as part of it these days. Every one -- I've been here a year and a half. Every single one seems to have that. If it is 200,000 square feet or 178,500, my question is -- just simply, I guess, rhetorical is does it 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 10 of 47 make sense to use half of that or more than half of that for mini-storage rather than the other variety of uses that would possibly serve the people that live in the area? So I'm just asking that question to throw it out there and something I'll be thinking as we evaluate this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Other Planning Commission questions? Is Patrick on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I have a number of them and -- MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'd like to find a way to get to yes, but I'm far from it at this point. It's just from my vote. And I want to raise several issues with you, and I'm just going to tick them off. And then we can -- we can talk about them or dialogue about them one at a time, if you wish, but I want to put them all in front of you. First of all, just because the GMPA and the PUD and an additional PUD will likely happen on that spot that your client currently owns -- that undoubtedly will happen in the future for market reasons, and it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to acknowledge that at present the current zoning just doesn't work. But having said that, that doesn't mean that the proposal that you've brought in front of us today is the only choice we have. This is -- this is a petition that you've put in front of us calling for, among other things, very high density C-4 commercial, 200,000 square feet -- and to my way of thinking, having acknowledged that the zoning in the GMP may need to be changed there doesn't mean that we're then stuck with your proposal. So that's the framework in which I'm looking at this stuff. Now, my concerns go like this: First of all, the economic consultant based its study on the erroneous assumption that the applicant would be seeking only 150,000 square feet. Now, maybe that was a typo in the material, but that was in there, and to me that calls into question the entire economic assessment, the fact that the number that is being displayed for us is not the number that you're coming in front of us today. Second, the consultant overestimates the number of occupants per household in my judgment. The consultant says it's 2.78. I didn't see any mention in the consultant's work about the BEBR University of Florida number, which is 2.36. And if you use the BEBR number, you're going to come up with fewer people within that 15-minute area. And I think that the fact that that wasn't dealt with is another flaw in the consultant's materials. The consultant also failed to include unbuilt commercial facilities on land that is already properly zoned commercial, contrary to the rules that are in place within our Planning Department, as Corby Schmitt has pointed out. And to me, that alone calls into serious question the economic analysis. The consultant also urges us to speculate on what the population of Collier County is going to be in 2045 but cautions us that we can't assume anything about current zoning or current undeveloped property. So we're being asked to speculate as to population, but as to the potential for development of properly zoned commercial property now, we're being asked not to think about that. The economic consultant's analysis makes no distinction among the four categories of commercial zoning arguing that if any commercial is justified, then it must be -- must include the most intense C-4 zoning. And there's really nothing at all that I found in the consultant's study that focuses on the most intensive uses. You could say that if the consultant had put forth a case that was persuasive that C-4 zoning is appropriate there, then we could assume that all the less intense uses are. But you talk about commercial generically and asking us for the most lenient, if you will, the most liberal permission that could be granted. And, in fact, I acknowledged with thanks the work that Corby Schmidt did in identifying, perhaps, a smaller footprint of 170,000 square feet. I'm not sure I would be that lenient, though, because I don't think we've got information sufficiently in front of us to say C-3 plus, C-4, C anything, because this is generically commercial throughout the consultant's report. The consultant acknowledges in his report that retirees relocating to Collier County is one of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 11 of 47 driving factors of population growth, and that is a point with which I agree, but all the more reason why I believe we need to look at the kind of commercial development that a retiree community would be desirous of having. And is there any proof in front of us that that is the highest intensive C-4 development? I don't believe there is. I didn't see it. So I think there's a potential mismatch between the very flexible, if you will, or liberal application and the exact needs of the target population that the consultant even admits is what -- one of the major factors driving growth. Turning now to the traffic consultant, and Mr. Trebilcock and I have had these discussions. I know he's very busy. I know he works hard. He usually does a great job, but I really am getting tired of seeing the 2018 AUIR or a stale AUIR being referred to in these materials. I realize the work was done then, but can't we at least be presented with something that shows that the assumptions are still valid under the 2019, which is the most current AUIR? I just find that it's a point of irritation. Also, the traffic consultant neglected to point out that Segment 45.0 on the 2019 AUIR -- that's between Wilson and Oil Well -- has only a remaining capacity of 476 peak p.m. trips, and it's going to be deficient in 2024. That's a very short period of time from now. Finally, in a close case -- I don't think this is a particularly close case. But in a close case, I am always inclined to support the work of staff because, among other things, besides being very good at what they do, they are unbiased. They are not hired consultants. And I'm not casting aspersions on consultants who are hired. I'm just saying that if all other things are equal, I'm generally inclined to support what staff comes forward with because I believe that they are the most disinterested. So those are my comments. I'd be glad to have a dialogue with you, or you can address them one at a time, or your choice. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Chairman Fryer. I certainly appreciate the comments. If I may, I'd like to invite Russ Weyer up to respond with respect to the specifics on the market study. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. DAVIES: And then we'll move to responding to your traffic questions, and I'll have Norm Trebilcock do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, sir. MR. WEYER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Russ Weyer with Real Estate Econometrics here to, I guess, respond to your comments and questions and, I guess, in general is really where we need to go to begin with, because of your concern about C-4 versus C-5 versus C-2, C-1, C-3. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, if I could clarify, there was just nothing specific in your study. You just paint with a very broad brush of commercial at large. MR. WEYER: That's correct. Now, if I were to do C-4, then I would take the supply side and only compare it to C-4 uses, because then it's apples to apples and not -- you don't need C-3, C-2, C-1 because you know that those are going to be in there anyway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you've stated in your report that a major driving force of the growth in the county is retirees coming in, and I don't find anything in your study that indicates retirees would be particularly enamored of C-4 or find it especially useful. MR. WEYER: I think if they were moving here, they'd need a place to put their storage stuff. I mean, for instance, as an example of one C-4 use, they went specifically -- you know, the consultant -- or not the consultant, but the client did. One of the -- two -- a couple of things. Number one, I wasn't sure where you saw the 150,000 square feet in the report. In my beginning it says 200,000. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll give you a page number. MR. WEYER: In the introduction it says 200,000. All of the study was done based on the 200,000 square feet. And also when I did the analysis showing the before and after and adding the 200,000 square feet to it, it had 200,000 square feet, and -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 12 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: On Page 208 of our full agenda packet, you said that the request would be for 150,000 square feet. I'll accept that it's a typo. MR. WEYER: It most likely -- go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. DAVIES: Chairman Fryer, if I may clarify. So originally this application was for 15 acres, and the request was for 150,000 square feet total. An additional parcel to finish the assemblage, approximately five-acre parcel, was added, and that is -- and then Mr. Weyer did update his report to state and to analyze it based on the 200,000 square feet. I do believe that I know the reference you're speaking of, and that is in the revised report, but I believe that is a typo in that particular page. But the report, and Mr. Weyer can confirm, is designed to analyze the feasibility of the 200,000 square feet at this site. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I accept that explanation. It makes sense; however, it also shows that in the course of evolution of your planning you thought about 150,000 square feet on a smaller parcel. MR. DAVIES: Smaller parcel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Now you've got bigger ambitions. MR. WEYER: Bigger parcel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Continue, sir. Sure. MR. WEYER: The second thing with regard to the population, the 2.78 basically was irrelevant, and the reason I say that is the way that I study the population growth, first of all, we utilize county data, I'm utilizing for population growth in terms of showing how the growth is going to happen, and I use that in two ways. But the first part, the basis of the whole thing is census data. And what I do is go into my graphic information systems, and we create the drive time, which is based on speed limits and everything else that they pick up, and then I pull the data down from that in particular through -- it's called Esri, which is the GIS business analyst program. And they pull all the census data for me, which gives me the population based on 20 -- at that time it was 2018 through 2023. So it gives us a projection. Then I utilize -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you're saying that it didn't figure into your recommendations or findings? MR. WEYER: The 2.78? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. WEYER: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You've got your Table 2.4.4 which prominently displays this number, and now you're telling us that this is surplusage? MR. WEYER: 2.4.1, the persons per household in that is not -- doesn't drive my numbers. All that is is that's the demographic income profile. What I used there -- and I probably should have highlighted it, was the population going across the top. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've got 2.78 for 2015 and 2022, and that's very prominently displayed on your Table 2.4.1, so I figured it was fair for me to assume that that was part of your presentation. MR. WEYER: No. I only put -- I put the whole table in there just so you see a reference of where I pull my data from, but that was irrelevant to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But you didn't pull any data from the BEBR, did you? MR. WEYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please continue. MR. WEYER: So what I was doing in terms of how I do the population, I took a look at the drive-time area, and then I took a look as the county does. They look at their population based on planning areas. We have the Urban Estates. We have the Rural Estates. This thing divides it. And I believe it was -- 80 percent in the Rural Estates, and 20 percent was in the Urban Estates. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 13 of 47 Well, I calibrated that to the population growth, and I calibrated that to the amount of square footage that has been built in those two areas; therefore, I got down into detail. And if you -- and the reason I mention that is because if you look at the county in general, which is what I do -- first of all, to start, markets are the best indicator of what's going on. What's in the ground at the moment, correct? So if you look at the county in whole -- and I use the county data to do this. They have two million whatever square feet divided by the population at that time -- gives you a square foot per capita of what commercial -- what the commercial demand is and supply is in this county. And if you looked at the entire county based at the time I did this study, it was 78 point something square feet per capita. When I did my analysis on this market area, it actually came out to 17 square feet per capita. So you can see -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Weyer, you're familiar, are you not, with the village and town zoning in Collier County? MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And some of the requirements of those. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, of course, this is not within the RLSA, but I think it shows that for the purposes of planning, what the county's looking for -- and I would submit to you that particularly in a case where you're marketing to retirees, that walkability and proximity are very important features to be observed. And when you -- when you talk about the entirety of Collier County, perhaps, patronizing your stores, I think that will run contrary to my understanding of what a typical retiree might do and would prefer to have, and that would be something closer in. MR. WEYER: I totally understand what you're saying there, Mr. Fryer; however, remember that 78 square feet per capita is really urban driven, because that's where everything has been done, okay. So we're talking about the rural area now. That's why I went and did my analysis and went down to 17 square foot per capita on the demand side. It could be higher than that. Your East of 951 Study that was done quite a few years ago used the Collier Interactive Growth Model, and when you divided what the total buildout was going to be in that study divided by the population of that study, it was 102 square feet, and that's east of 951. That's what the model was saying at the time. So I went into intricate detail to make sure that I was getting the true demand side of this. And then on the supply side -- I notice Mr. Schmidt had pointed out there are a bunch of different parcels in there. Most of those were accommodated in there. There was one that was missing. I did put that back in, reran the numbers, and your -- the allocation ratio came to 1.25 versus the 1.12. So that's the only thing that changed. Because we were off by -- I thought it was like 200,000 or something between what Mr. Schmidt had and what I had. Now, what I did there is I took that drive-time area, and I pulled up all the data from the Property Appraiser, which you can do, and then I, you know, took out all the blank ones, and I have the blank ones, and I put a FAR -- you know, a floor area ratio based on the county to those, and then also I had all the ones that were already built that were applicable. And if you saw back in my appendix, you see the ones I had in there that were applicable, the blank ones that were applicable, all the ones that were taken out, like churches and things like that, which are considered under the commercial, and that's how I got to where I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think your analysis takes us logically to a need for the highest intensity at C-4. I just think it utterly fails to do that. MR. WEYER: My question to you, then, is we would have to go through in each -- you would want a study that would be like this for each, each, each use -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. WEYER: -- ultimately. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- I think the most intense uses should find some support in the competent and substantial evidence from an expert like you, and I find no such support in this document, and I think neither did staff. And I think they were being very generous in trimming you down to what you call C-3 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 14 of 47 plus. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support that. It may be the case. I'm not saying that it can't be supported. I'm just saying that what you've brought in front of us today, in my opinion, doesn't support it. MR. WEYER: I respect your opinion, sir, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. I respect yours, too. MR. WEYER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Weyer -- MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I'm not sure if you're the appropriate person to answer this, but I've just brought up the idea of one of the C-4 uses that is most likely a mini-storage facility. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And it would use 50 percent or more of the square footage of this that's proposed for this project. From an economic standpoint, what is the benefit of that type of facility versus other types of uses that might otherwise be used for that 100,000 square feet in terms of how it economically benefits the residents in the area? MR. WEYER: That's a very good question. The concept of the self-storage, as you know -- and they're doing very well, because when people do move here, they're bringing all their extra stuff with them. And your question has a lot of -- has multifaceted answers to it, one of them being is, what is the economic driver for the landowner? What is the economic driver for a self-storage facility? Is that appropriate? Now, I know they had mentioned the fact that there was one self-storage unit out at Ave Maria. There's one on Vanderbilt Beach Road almost at the intersection of Collier Boulevard. There's another one that's in front of -- near Old Cypress. And those -- this is, like, right in between the two. So it's going to accommodate that growth that's coming east from -- down Immokalee Road. I think that opportunity is there. There's a hole in the market right there for that. So it really depends on -- it's going to be -- it's market driven. The markets are very efficient. You know, they're going to address and go after what is needed, and that's why markets are pretty much an equilibrium. You don't see people building a huge, huge shopping center out in the middle of nowhere. That doesn't happen. They follow each other and make sure that they're -- you know, that -- they're only going to provide the needs of what those people are. So they like to have that use. I think it's very important to have that out there. This is the first opportunity to have it in between those two places. And so, you know, whether it happens or not is one thing, but they would like to have that use there. COMMISSIONER FRY: You brought up that there's economic factors of the property owner as well as putting in these -- is it economically advantageous to the property owner to use these facilities. And, obviously, we've all seen a pattern where it's proposed in every commercial development that we've seen in the last year and a half I've been here. What are the economic drivers for the property owner? Why is a mini self-storage unit always part of what we -- what comes to us? Is it just a very high profitability density use for a property owner? MR. WEYER: Again, that has multifaceted answers to it as well. Yes, it could have that capability. What happens if the land is leased to do that type of use versus owned or sold outright to that type of use? So it really has a lot of different answers, and that's market driven. It really is market driven. We have no control over that market. The market's going to dictate what gets put there, ultimately. COMMISSIONER FRY: When you say "market driven," though, I guess my question is: Let's say a -- I don't know the size of a Home Depot. Let's say you have a grocery store there. There's a Publix close. But you're comparing that use to other uses that might go there otherwise in that square footage, and I'm thinking of large type box stores that draw people from all over the place. Is there a demonstrated 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 15 of 47 need in your report for mini-storage units in that area, the physical -- or the need for those additional units in that area? And how would you contrast that to the alternate use of a big-box store, a Home Depot, a Lowe's, you know, whatever might go in there that's an alternate purpose for the residents? MR. WEYER: At this point that's very hard to determine. I think, ultimately, when you get the people out there, the market's going to dictate what goes there. And if they see people are moving out there first -- there's a Publix right down the road, so Publix has their own way of measuring it. CubeSmart has their own way of measuring the market. They all have their own ways of measuring the market. And I didn't put all those in here. We were just looking at it in general, and it's on a per square foot of what the county has been accepting in there. When you ultimately get to the bottom line in the -- down what they're going to put in there, that's going to be market driven, and it's -- and it's not today. That's a year, two years down the road. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I wonder if it's purely market driven or if it's somewhat supply driven in that it's an easy, profitable thing for a property owner to put in. MR. WEYER: If there is no demand for it, they're not going to put it in. Bottom line. COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You -- would you mind addressing what you called a flaw in staff's analysis that required you to consider undeveloped but properly zoned commercial property in your projections as well as developed? MR. WEYER: Are you talking about the allocation ratio description that I have in my report? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. WEYER: Yes. Basically, when you're looking at the entire Comprehensive Plan, there are places in the Comprehensive Plan that have commercial located in there. And when you have a piece of land, they have us consider -- and rightfully so, they have us consider pieces of land that have a commercial overlay, but we don't know what they're going to be, kind of like what we talked about earlier in terms of use. Well, when I'm considering, like this parcel, for instance, and I'll have a blank piece of land out here that falls within the market area, then that has to be considered competition -- well, not competition but supply. And so we put an allocation ratio out there -- or a FAR, excuse me, floor area ratio, and I base that on what's actually in the market, what the county has in the market based on square footage that's been built acreage and all those good things. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You understand that that's not what the county was looking for from a consultant? Well, we'll wait for staff to explain that. Also, the corridor study, are you familiar with it? MR. WEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And in part the corridor study supports the notion that there will be a rezone and a need for a GMPA because it's acknowledged that at the time it wasn't contemplated that there would be high commercial use or really any commercial use in that area; that it was more to the south. But that takes me back to my point. That doesn't mean that we just have two choices, either your highly intensive C-4 or sticking with the current estates zoning. There are, you know, lots of things that could be way more appropriate in between that is, as the planning group in this county, it's our responsibility to consider. And a question for you; you invited us to think about population all the way out to 2045 as might be in support of what is being proposed. Let's say that you were limiting your opinion to the current horizon that the county operates within, which is 2025. Would your opinion be the same? MR. WEYER: In terms of supply and demand? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. In terms of recommending the appropriateness of this requested GMPA. MR. WEYER: Yes. That is the horizon year. And in talking with prior staff and people that I've talked to here, they usually look out 10 years from this point. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 16 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you're saying -- but I asked you about 2025. MR. WEYER: 2025, it's still there, because we're at a 1.25 allocation ratio. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So there would be no difference in your recommendation -- MR. WEYER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- in support of this GMPA if the horizon were 2025? MR. WEYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anybody else have questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Mr. Davies, do you have more for us? MR. WEYER: Thank you, sir. MR. DAVIES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to invite Mr. Trebilcock up to address your traffic questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. DAVIES: Then I will add some additional comments after his. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. My name is Norm Trebilcock, for the record. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer with 30 years of experience here in Southwest Florida mainly in Collier County. We prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. The traffic study was deemed complete based on our September 2019 submittal, so at that time the 2019 AUIR hadn't been adopted yet. I believe it was adopted -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you're correct, and I saw that. But, of course, you're here in front of us now. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, yeah. No. So -- and out of respect to what you've stated, we did -- and staff normally, too. We look at the current AUIR just to verify that the assumptions continue to be correct. And so I did apply the 2019 AUIR data that was provided, and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Was that in your TIS as an addendum or anywhere in the materials we were submitted? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no. I'm providing that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's what I'm asking for. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, yes, sir. And that's why I guess I'm here to maybe help with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you think in the future that you could include -- MR. TREBILCOCK: I agree. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- bringing things up to date? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. I agree wholeheartedly. I mean -- and please also -- I've done that in the past, and I've been told, well, don't give us these last-minute documents that overwhelm us either, so -- but I will exactly do what you're saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But this wouldn't have been a last-minute. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: October of 2019. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, it's -- but it's a matter of when we're having meetings. But I'm good with it. Yes, I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. TREBILCOCK: So based on those assumptions, we carry forward, as you mention, that the planning horizon had been 2024. 2025 is appropriate, as you said. And so we still would have the same conclusions that we did identify in the study that, you know -- that was identified was Randall Boulevard would fail under background. And so what our proposal -- and with any other segments like, you had mentioned, if for some reason some other segment came forward, we would propose a mitigation plan that would address those items as we move forward, so -- yes, sir. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 17 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And I understand that that would come later. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it was not put in front of us, but it certainly should. If this makes it back to us, I think it certainly should. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: In view of the imminence, if you will, of the deficiency on that segment, 2024. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. So, I did -- I think what you're referring to is typically they'll put a -- kind of a column to say looking -- that may occur. We use those exact numbers, and we didn't have particular failure; however, we did continue to have, on Randall, the issue that we had identified in the study. But I'll make sure we have that taken care of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And that -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The 2024 failure date might not have been in the 2018, but it certainly is in the 2019. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. It's a -- it's kind of an indicator, but it's based on -- depending on what the growth is occurring, and we apply the agreed-upon numbers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It would certainly be your testimony, though, that there's going to have to be significant mitigation of that problem when we get to the PUD. MR. TREBILCOCK: For the -- where we would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: For the site plan. MR. TREBILCOCK: We would have to identify mitigation that we've objectively identified and identified in the original and also currently would be, yes, for Randall Boulevard. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you acknowledge that that is a major thing that has to be dealt with? MR. TREBILCOCK: Mitigation would need to be addressed, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Is that it? Anything else? Any other Planning Commission members? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick, question, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to clarify how the trip bank is evaluated with regards to other projects that have been approved but not yet built that are of a similar nature, commercial nature, in terms of, are those trips that were approved on previous projects that are not yet built out, are those included in the trip bank and then they're, therefore, included in your calculations? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, staff probably keeps -- they kind of run the bank, for lack of a better word. So they can probably better address that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: But, yes, sir, that's exactly it. Certain projects that, when they're vested, they're identified in the bank. And that's a key thing. When you look at a lot of these roads, especially on Immokalee Road, there's a very high bank as compared to what the actual traffic levels are. So staff is doing their job in terms of looking in the future and saying, hey, we see a lot of stuff is coming forward as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Davies, I guess back to you, sir. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 18 of 47 MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Noel Davies, for the record. With regard to your comments as to staff's analysis and other potential options for this property, we do believe that the market supports this specific proposal. We believe that Mr. Weyer's report is professionally acceptable and viable in support of this petition. It does provide the requisite data and analysis to meet the county's requirement -- requirements, excuse me, to amend your Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further questions from the Planning Commission of Mr. Davies or of anyone on the applicant's team? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We will now turn to staff for its report. (The speaker was duly sworn remotely and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SCHMIDT: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: He's very steady. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Corby, if you can hear us, your screen has -- the sound has frozen. MR. KLATZKOW: Or Corby has. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not hearing you at all. Should we take a brief break to try to correct this? All right. How many minutes do we need to see if we can fix it? Five. We'll stand in recess for five minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:00 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's go back in session, if we may, please. We have Corby Schmidt not live but in person, electronically present, and his lips are moving. And we're going to ask him to give staff's report, please. Can we go back into session, please. Go ahead, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. And if I could also see the PowerPoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: PowerPoint. Who's going to run that? By the way, while that's being called up, I personally think it's great -- and I know staff has got a lot on its plate -- but when it can come forward with a PowerPoint for us, it really is very, very helpful, so thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: It's above. He's searching, but it is high on the list. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Way up. There he is. Now No. 1, and the only PowerPoint there. There. We've prepared this to help illustrate some of our recommendations and make them a bit more illustrative as we explain. Now, when the staff made our recommendations, we looked at county policy, our practices, not just application materials, and what we were seeing, what we saw was, like you've talked about this morning, an application that asked for every use, both permitted and conditional, in the C-1 through C-4 districts. And what the county policy is in this area and what we counter recommended with is that next slide, please. The idea that when development for commercial uses is outside of activity centers, your community commercial uses would have any kind of supportable demand. We found that to be what was being proposed, the size of the project, the scope of their market area, and that's what they were showing us. So in kind or -- that was what we were working with. That drive time, the supported square footage that we could come up with and so on is what you see in those community commercial uses -- next slide, please -- is the -- essentially, not everything available in C-4 but a smaller square footage, fewer uses, because what you're going to find in community commercial areas outside mixed-use activity centers, and this is throughout the county, as we begin to use the growth model more actively, they're going to be sized and limited as their locations dictate. And in this case, the recommendation reflects 178,000 square feet maximum, and those C-3 uses, again, with the request -- next slide -- with the request that as we get to the PUD consideration of this, that the zoning personnel limit these uses further. These are simply the ones that we could look at quickly and say, here's your bookends. Some of these may not be appropriate at this location still, and they will be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 19 of 47 looking at these to reduce this list further. We also looked at some other protections for neighbors in this area because of the impacts of traffic and I believe, even as you've talked about this today, have interconnections from this property to both north and the south as part of this plat amendment. Don't wait for the PUD. Make it now as part of the requirements here, as part of the provisions of the plan amendment so the language is in the document, and then later it will appear as part of the concept plan, whatever we saw on screen earlier. It would be -- certainly not look like that later. We saw -- or we heard from neighbors at the neighborhood information meeting that they were concerned about that back street. It looks like we've already heard from the applicant's agent and others that the design of this project, and with the guarantee of interconnections staying off of that 4th Street Northeast, that we can make sure that those neighbors are bothered less by the operations than they first were concerned about during their information meeting. Next slide. You've had this in your packets, but we've gone page by page here to help show some of the changes we've recommended specifically to the language to make sure this is complying with our recommendation and laid into their language being proposed for the subdistrict. We've already heard something earlier in this meeting from the applicant's agent to amend. I believe in that first provision there, lower line, to provide a variety of retail and office uses. They've already said they'd like to counter with that of commercial land uses. Easily changed. Staff can't find a problem with that terminology. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Corby, staff supports that? MR. SCHMIDT: We would not have a reason not to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, when we look at all the land uses that they proposed, and if they were to, let's say, get approved with every C-4 land use outside the realm of retail and office. So, yes, it would almost have to change. Here you see some double underlining that matches the language in our recommendation at the end of your staff report, not as it appears in Exhibit A of the resolution -- next slide -- because our recommendation is different than the applicant's. And, here again, as you just read through these on screen, it matches what's in your staff report. See how the C-4 has changed to C-3. And even here I'd be cautious about some of those things that are in C-3 as conditional uses because you would want to know that -- and this is if we have the zoning people looking carefully at this afterward. What are some of those conditional uses in C-3 that may or may not be appropriate at this location? New car dealerships, bowling centers, hospitals, indoor movie theaters, and some of those permitted uses where we lift the size limitations. Again, community-scaled commercial centers may not be appropriate for some of those conditional uses, and certainly to approve them up front is a concern of staff. Next slide. Here we see some of those individual uses proposed by the applicant that seem appropriate to keep on the list. And one more, please. And just as a comparison, when you get up into the C-4 district, and as the applicant proposed 200,000 square feet of all permitted and conditional uses would mean things like those conditional uses in C-4 might include or can include: Communications towers above the limited heights, outdoor amusement and recreational facilities, new and used car dealerships, automotive rental and leasing establishments, gasoline service station, hotels and motels, recreational vehicle dealers, and, of course, the mini and self-service storage warehousing. Generally, in C-4 you get those items with the outdoor storage and outdoor activities, shying away from that in your community commercial centers, of course, and that's why you see the staff recommendation the way it is. One more slide. I believe that may be the end of it here, except that we're also not knowing at that time what the master plan for the accompanying PUD might look like we had this condition then. And, certainly, at this point I would add another recommended condition -- if I have finished the slides, this would be F2. Let's take a look -- that interconnections shall be provided with properties located immediately to the north and to the south. That kind of generalized statement in the Comprehensive Plan 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 20 of 47 provisions would allow for the specificity in the PUD should this be approved. And that's what I've got. Questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Schmidt? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm still the new guy, so I can ask the dumb questions. What's a bottle club? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't hear what you said. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's a bottle club? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bottle club. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We're approving it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah, is it BYO? Is that what it is? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think so. MR. EASTMAN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: If Ray is present, I'll have him answer that specifically. It's a zoning kind of definition, not a planning one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bring your bottle, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That is exactly what the intent is. You might have an eating establishment that doesn't have an alcoholic beverage license. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: So the patrons would bring their own wine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So another -- I have a series of questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Corby. Again, I don't understand a lot -- I understand a lot, but I don't understand a lot. What would go there if we didn't approve this? Residential? Under the current land use, what would go there? CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I can jump in first and then, Corby, let you correct me. I think it's generally accepted that the property is mis-zoned right now; that something's going to have to change, and it's probably going to involve commercial. But the question that I raise is, is this an all-or-nothing deal? Do we have to take what the applicant is bringing forward, or try to hold it at Rural Estates zoning? No, those are not the only options. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, the concern -- again, I'm trying to learn. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's -- I'm going to have the County Attorney correct me. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, sometimes I think I'm here too long. We've had this conversation once upon a time, the Planning Commission, on Collier Boulevard, when Collier Boulevard was a two-lane road. And we had all sorts of residential uses on it down, and we had some model homes for builders there. And then Collier Boulevard got six-laned. And then it's the same conversations where, well, nobody wants to build a residential house here anymore because. And it took a couple years for the Planning Commission to get through that, and the same thing's happening here. Once upon a time -- this was -- this was appropriately residential. This is going to be a major artery down the road. Applicant's report has 100,000 people in 15 minutes of this place. God only knows how we're going to handle the traffic. And it's no longer appropriate for being residential. Nobody wants to live whose front yard is a six-lane highway, and that's precisely what this is going to become. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the plan is flawed? MR. KLATZKOW: No, the plan is not flawed. The plan is appropriate, but life changes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, here's what I got worried about and I don't understand. So you have residential, and somebody established a growth management plan. I understand how it evolves and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 21 of 47 changes. But you also have a lot of undeveloped commercial area. And, again, I don't see -- it seems like the big disagreement is whether supply and demand is really there for this, to make that change. So I get very worried that now all of a sudden we make this change from residential to commercial, and now you have these two other commercial lots across the street and go, wow, I wanted to put up a storage facility. I have the right zoning, and now they've turned around and changed the zoning so they could get there before me. I kind of look at that as, philosophically, either we change the plan as a whole if it's flawed -- and I don't know what that means that it's flawed -- or we're getting into a spot zoning type thing and that, to me, means that the community at large can't rely on anything they see on a growth management plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea, that is exactly the kind of discussion that we as the Planning Commission need to have and are having, and the point you're making is exactly correct. And when we look at these petitions that come forward, we need to look at the bigger picture as you have rightly pointed out. And the Growth Management Plan was correct and adequate and appropriate at the time, but conditions change and, you know, circumstances are dynamic. So you really have to be prepared to change as change occurs. But my concern -- I'll reiterate it -- is that we don't just have two choices here. It's not we leave it as Estates zoning or we go to most intense C-4. There are a lot of options in between. Eventually, sooner than later, it's going to become commercial. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But in the big picture, we're increasing the amount of commercial land in the county than we thought we had when we developed the Growth Management Plan. And I'm more into following what the attorney was saying, is maybe we should look at the whole plan more regularly than spot changing it and getting ourselves in trouble. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one up here would disagree with you except people who want to sleep eight hours a night because of the amount of time this could take. MR. SCHMIDT: Nor here, nor would I disagree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, Corby, how many times in the past, let's say, 10 years -- well, I'm not -- I'm thinking more of east. But how many times have we discussed the Comprehensive Plan, amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? Haven't there been restudies, different groups meeting, and didn't the Board at one time direct a review of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have Anita at the podium. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Anita will answer that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JENKINS: Yeah, Anita Jenkins, your interim zoning director. And, Commissioner Schmitt, you're right, we did just go through a Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment, and it included the Rural Estates. And we have a policy in that Growth Management Plan that said that the area between Oil Well and somewhere around Randall, a little further south, needed to be restudied as a whole. At the same time that we were doing that, the applicants were also looking at it. So, you know, we're -- it's just a matter of timing here of what's going on. But you're correct in that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan recognized the need to look at that area differently. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, that involves community organization or community meetings and gathering a comprehensive analysis of or conducting a comprehensive analysis, really, what is needed out there versus -- and what the residents want. Yeah, we just did that. I mean, I know we just -- about a year-and-a-half ago was the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, yeah. MS. JENKINS: Right. And that planning study is going to come forward and hopefully help to fill out this area a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That gets -- that's the whole look, but I'm -- we don't have any -- I don't know if there's any justification, I guess, or I'm looking for that -- or I'd even look to the attorney that we could say we can deny the applicant from bringing this forward. They have every right to do so. They 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 22 of 47 own the land and have every right to do so. It's something that -- than other than we deny the petition, but they have every right to seek the Comp Plan amendment; am I correct? MS. JENKINS: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. They have the right to ask for a Comp Plan amendment, and I think that the market studies that the applicant has brought forward in Corby's analysis is demonstrating the need for commercial in this area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: It's just a matter of the intensity that you guys want to look at. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd be anxious to hear what the applicant says in rebuttal to anything that staff brought up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. And I would just say, Commissioner Schmitt -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. JENKINS: We have a technical issue, and I think we need a break for a second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How many minutes? MS. JENKINS: Ten-minute break. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We lost Corby again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We stand in recess for 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:25 a.m. to 10:37 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Return to session. Sorry for the delay. This will probably have constituted our mid-morning -- it will have constituted our mid-morning break. And the first order of business, I'd like -- as we think about logistics and lunch and various things and our remaining agenda, I'd like to ask the County Attorney to tell us real quickly what our options might be just in handling our business for the day. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if we continue to have technological issues, we can table that particular item and move to another one until we can get the technology back on. That's one option the Board has. I don't see much value in sitting here twiddling our thumbs while we're waiting for IT to get us a connection. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, good. So -- MR. DAVIES: I have a suggestion on that point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. DAVIES: And especially if that works for your schedule today, in light of the technology issues. I have had the opportunity to confer with my client. I also was able to confer with staff, with Ms. Jenkins, with respect to the possibility of the interconnect and also the possibility of a more refined and precise use list. So I would like to make a request, Mr. Chairman, to continue this hearing to your next Planning Commission meeting if schedule permits, and I believe that that's possible in my discussion with Ms. Jenkins. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. DAVIES: And during the intermediate time, we will work closely with your staff on those two issues and any other open items that were discussed today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think that's a wise decision. And unless -- without objection from the Planning Commission, we will continue this matter until the 20th of August, and I guess it will be the first item on the agenda at that time. Is that how we do it? Okay. MS. JENKINS: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Davies. Thank you, applicant team. Okay. So we're going to proceed now. It's quarter of 11:00. Certainly we can go till noon, maybe 12:30, see how things move along. ***The next -- next item we have comes in companion form, and it's 9A2 and 9A3. 9A2 is PL20180002804. It's a request to amend the urban mixed-use Activity Center No. 7 to allow up to 265 multifamily residential rental dwelling units in the Hammock -- in the Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and it is a large-scale Growth Management Plan. It comes to us for our 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 23 of 47 recommendation with respect to adoption. A companion of that is 9A3, and that's a rezone from a CPUD to an MPUD. It would be MPUD PL -- may I ask for order, respectfully? Thank you. That the PUDA would be an amendment to change the CPUD to an MPUD to allow for that number of multifamily residential rental units. Without objection from the planning committee, we'll hear both of those at once. There will actually, I believe, be three votes because there's an EAC vote as well. But we'll hear and consider these at once. So all persons wishing to testify in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures, ex parte from the Planning Commission. Let's go automatically starting on my right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, conference call with the attorney. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, staff meeting, and communications with the representatives of the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Communication with Mr. Yovanovich. MR. EASTMAN: Nothing outside the public record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is Patrick still here? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think Patrick has been here. Patrick, are you here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. We'll begin with applicant's presentation. Mr. Yovanovich, please proceed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. Sorry, it's a little sticky up here. With me -- with me today is David Torres with Wilton Land Company, who's the applicant; obviously myself; Alexis is our professional planner; and Jeremy is our engineer; Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant; Bethany Borsious is environmental consultant; and Russ Weyer is our economic consultant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Rich, for some reason you're not coming in real loud. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that better? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's much better. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's usually not a problem for me. I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is your second time you've heard this matter. The first time was the Growth Management Plan at the transmittal stage. At that time we went through in fair detail the PUD as well because we knew we were bringing it back to this meeting, but we wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission understood the impact of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So we discussed both of those items in the past, and you're familiar with those. So I'm going to do an overview of the project, and then if there's specific questions that you have of any of the consultants, we're all available to answer any of your questions. Again, on the visualizer -- it's not the visualizer anymore. I'm sorry. On your screen is an aerial showing the property that's approximately 19 acres at the northeast quadrant of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock. It is -- as you are aware, we're in the Urban Residential Fringe, which is immediately adjacent to the urban area that happens to be on the other side of Collier Boulevard. This is one of two activity centers that does not allow for 16 units per acre for a residential density. It allows for 1.5 units per acre plus the ability to buy a TDR to get to two-and-a-half units per acre. Our intention is to add up to 265 multifamily units to this property which requires us to do both a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 24 of 47 Growth Management Plan Amendment as well as an amendment to the existing PUD. The existing PUD allows for 160,000 square feet of commercial uses. So we have both of those petitions today in front of you. I've already addressed the first point. The second point is to add the 265 multifamily units. We were also required by your staff -- because our intention was to add the 265 units as an alternative use but stay within the existing trip cap related to the 160,000 square feet of commercial that exists today, we were asked to do a calculation of what would be trip neutral if we did the full 265 units and commercial. Theoretically, we could do 265 residential units, and we could theoretically do 148,500 square feet and still be trip neutral under the ITE analysis. As you heard me say at the last hearing, and I will say again today, there's no way to fit all of that on the 19 acres. So I was asked by Mr. Fry in our conversation, could we put a more realistic maximum commercial square footage if we were to do the residential and some commercial. And as I'll explain later, we did commit to a minimum of 20,000 square feet, of which 5,000 of those square feet had to be a sit-down restaurant, because the residents in that area wanted to make sure we were still offering some commercial because they were concerned with the number of rooftops there that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you give us those numbers again, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty thousand square feet of commercial minimum and, of that, 5,000 had to be a quality sit-down restaurant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's in your documents. Our maximum, if we did the residential/commercial mix option, realistically, we don't think we can fit more than 80,000 square feet. So we would cap it at 80,000 square feet. So the number that's already in your PUD that says 148,5- would go down to 80,000 square feet. So that will be -- and I've talked to Ms. Ashton about that change. And since it's going down, it's not something that will be complicated to do. We went through in great detail the compatibility with the surrounding development which is across the -- down to the south of us is the hospital -- or a hospital, across the street is both a mixed use of retail and apartments, north of us is more commercial, and then caddy corner across the street from us is Naples Lakes, which is a mixed-use project. Their commercial is -- or directly across from us. We expressed -- and there has been -- we're getting close to equilibrium on apartments, but the data and analysis shows that there's still a shortfall of apartments for the demand in Collier County and the proposed demand in Collier County, and your staff was recommending approval of the amendment because we've demonstrated that shortfall in demand. I will tell you, as more and more apartments are coming along, the good news is we're getting closer to satisfying that demand and also it's probably starting to stabilize if not reduce some of the rental rates that are occurring and has been a concern for the community and this board as well as the County Commission. And Wilton Land Company, Mr. Torres has been around for a while. He's the developer of Hacienda Lakes along with George Bauer. And so it's a local company that's already building an apartment complex in the area and is the developer of Hacienda Lakes as well. I just went through most of these points, but I just wanted to give you a brief outline of what's around us. The Good Turn PUD is directly to our north, and I had mentioned that that was commercial. Directly to the east is the McMullen PUD. I know there were questions about building heights around us and are we compatible with those building heights. The McMullen PUD has a 50-feet zoned building height, 62-feet actual, which is consistent with what we're asking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty-two or 60? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sixty-two. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 25 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty-two? MR. YOVANOVICH: Or 60, but it's -- yeah, they're 62. The -- we have commercial multifamily as part of Hacienda Lakes, and this is more commercial Hacienda Lakes. We went through this analysis last time. There's hundreds of thousands of square feet of approved commercial in the Heritage -- I'm sorry -- in the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI that there's probably an oversaturation of commercial in this area, and converting it to residential makes sense. Physicians Regional, I mentioned, is there. That's the shopping center in Naples Lakes. And this is a vacant ALF parcel, but that's part of the -- I think it's Sierra Meadows PUD that has retail and apartments and ALF in that area. There may even be a Racetrac gas station. I can't remember if there is one there now or not, but... So, anyway, we fit in with the compatibility with the community and what's around us. This is -- this is the PUD master plan that shows on the CMU tract that is where we would be putting the residential aspect of it. And then, likewise, we could do that up front. But our commitment of 20,000 square feet minimum and a maximum of 80-, you know, the commercial is probably going to be up front and on the frontage of Collier Boulevard. I've already hit this point, too, that we're reducing the commercial square footage that's in the area to make -- and in doing that, we're net trip neutral. The reality is we'll probably be net trip positive at the end of the day from what's already approved on Collier Boulevard. We also committed to this board and to the Board of County Commissioners that some of the apartment units would be dedicated solely to essential service personnel, and we committed to 48 multifamily units, and we also committed, of those 48, 27 of them would be at the maximum price or rental price for 100 percent of the median income. And, if you recall essential service personnel, their starting salaries are slightly more than the 80 percent median income. That is the typical affordable housing cutoff, and we wanted to make sure that by providing rent -- I won't say rent reduced, but, you know, a cap on rents, we weren't cutting out the people we were trying to serve. So we agreed to the 100 percent, and that's also in the PUD document. I went over the commitment for the square footage as well as the restaurant. And there are some minor changes to the PUD. And, Mr. Fryer, I was able to confirm that the strikethroughs for the commitments were because those are already code requirements that are in the PUD document itself -- and the LDC itself. So, typically, we don't repeat LDC conditions or code conditions in a PUD document, so we've updated the document to address those changes. With that, we've had meetings with both our neighbors as well as the East Naples Civic Association. The East Naples Civic Association has endorsed our project. I've hit the highlights of everything we've committed to already. I don't want to repeat myself. And with that, that is the overview, and we are available to answer any questions you may have regarding the specifics of the project. Again, it's pretty straightforward. We're asking to add residential based upon a market study to show residential is necessary and needed, and we've added all the commitments we had previously committed to as we went through this in front of the -- this board several months ago now, before COVID-19. And with that, we'll answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a process question to understand. I don't know if, Jeff, you're the guy to answer. How do we monitor the commitment to 48 units going to essential personnel as well as a rate being affordable for the average? How is that monitored in the future by the county? MR. KLATZKOW: Staff has an affordability housing department; they monitor. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And those conditions will be in the ordinance documents, too. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So we have a group. Yes, that was the answer I was looking for. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 26 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Other questions, comments? Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, you seem to just say a reference capping the rent, but I don't see any verbiage about capping the rent. These are market-rate units, correct, sir? You're simply reserving 48 for essential services? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. If you go to Page 19 of 20 of the PUD -- I have no idea what page it is in your packet -- it's Condition 5.10. And I need to make a slight modification to that as discussed with Mr. Fryer. If you go -- I don't know if you were there yet, Mr. Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If you look at 5.10.A, the second sentence says, the income-restricted units will be offered for rent for a period of 30 years to ESP persons, and it should say -- instead of "based on," it should say "in the amount of the most current Collier County based" -- I'm sorry -- "Collier County board-approved table of rental rates that are established." As you know, the median income fluctuates year to year, but the county publishes the rates based upon those thresholds, 100 percent, 80 percent, 60 percent. So we'll be bound by those rates that are published in that table. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I amplify, if I can, also to be sure that I've gained a complete understanding. With respect to 27 of the 48 units, these will be income restricted to 100 percent? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Now, with respect to the others, I assume that since they are encumbered, in a way, for 30 years, that they can only be leased to essential services personnel, that market will be determined by what a willing essential services personnel tenant is willing to pay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Got it. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I continue? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. I'm sorry. Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Rich, generally at the PUD phase we see a conceptual site plan. We saw something, I think, more developed for the last item than we see for this where we really have just CMU and then CMU1 areas with preserve shown. This -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't done the site plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: Am I missing something? Was there a more detailed site plan showing the layout of apartments and roads and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fry, we have yet -- we have not gotten that far into the actual -- we have just the development standards at this point. We have not laid out the potential apartment complex that would be on that portion of the property. It's not that far away, but we have another project that we're finishing up the lease-up on, and I think once that gets done, there will be a little bit more focus on the actual site plan for this one. COMMISSIONER FRY: So then the site plan -- so I guess my concern is that, is it important for us -- we -- usually at this point we see a site plan that we review, and we include it in our -- you know, our negotiations. Are we at a loss for not having a more detailed site plan at this point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We usually see a master plan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A master plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: A master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically all they have to submit is a concept plan, a master plan, with the -- at the PUD level. I know we -- many times they bring in a more formal plan, but it is not required. MR. YOVANOVICH: And in this case, Mr. Fry, most of the times we're doing that is when we have immediate neighbors actually have developed right around us. In this particular case, we really don't have anything developed right around us. So usually we do that to assure our neighbors we're not going to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 27 of 47 impose upon their quality of life. So we -- that's why we haven't gotten to that level today. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's clear for the master plan, though, it has to show ingress/egress and other types of interconnects if it's required. And then they typically will delineate which area's going to be commercial or residential. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this is sufficient information for our purposes today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For this site, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And I can't go back to -- for whatever reason, my presentation's not here. But I showed you the earlier slide that showed the aerial where we really don't have any development around us. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the applicant is the developer of Hacienda Lakes, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the intent that that same applicant will actually develop these apartments, as you stated? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't tell you if it's the same legal entity, but it's certainly the same people. COMMISSIONER FRY: Same people, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's not just being approved for sale. It's being -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: It will be developed, okay. Let's see. There's a -- I think this calls for an off-premises sign for Hacienda Lakes on this parcel. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's there already. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it's there already. So it's simply kind of grandfathering that in? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was a HEX approval -- a previous approval by the HEX for an off-site sign. It's already there. MR. YOVANOVICH: You'll see -- if you look in the PUD documents, you'll see where we incorporated HEX approvals into this document to make this the current document you go to. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the reason is, it's a similar owner -- ownership, and it's an interrelated project, I take it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Just give us an update on the TDR. This requires one TDR per acre, and what's the status of those TDRs? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have those TDRs under control. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions or comments from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In your -- in our packet, Exhibit A of the transmittal has the old sentence language in it, and it wasn't what was transmitted. Staff had some other language in that. It must have been in the -- well, anyway, on Page 549, that was the exhibit that was transmitted, because the page before that is signed by the commissioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agreed with the staff revisions, so I need to -- I'm trying to find that as you're talking, and I don't have it handy. I guess I can't go to the visualizer. The language that's being added -- I'll just read it for the record, and we're fine with it -- is "the previously established residential density limits in a mixed-use activity center." COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's not what we had in our packet with our -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know why. It's in there. It's in -- you know -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 28 of 47 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the language we've agreed to, so -- and we're fine -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Our material as to what was transferred -- I mean, transmitted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Provided to you-all? Yeah, I don't -- Anita, do you want to address that, or are we good? We're fine with the language that was transmitted. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just wanted to tell you that we had was -- looked like this is what you're going to use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And it's not what was sent before. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions from you, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have just a few. Most of mine have been answered or dealt with, and I appreciate that. With respect to the 48 units -- and, Mr. Yovanovich, you and I talked about this. It is my earnest hope that we could keep that commitment at 48 until you were to go lower than 200 units, in case you didn't develop all 265. Have you had a chance to discuss that with your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have, and thank you for reminding me to bring that up. We are comfortable with that commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Maybe you want to state that so that -- because this was a conversation you and I had. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Your request was that if we ended up developing something less than the 265, that we would still provide 48 ESP and 27 income-restricted units, so down to the number of 200. And if we got below 200, we can talk about percentages. We're not going to go below 200. So it would be -- it would be really too complicated. I think we're comfortable that whatever we develop will be 48 ESP, and 27 of those ESP will be income -- will be income-restricted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The next questions I have are really for Mr. Trebilcock, I guess. Mostly to get some clarification, I think. And I'm not going to beat you up about the 2018 AUIR again, because I think we understand one another now. MR. TREBILCOCK: I'll take care of that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I appreciate that. So this is going to be a mixed-use configuration and with a minimum of 20,000 commercial. Your pass-by number is 192. It just seems a little high to me with that kind of a configuration, but I'm open to an explanation. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure, sure. Good morning, again. It's Norm Trebilcock, for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If you wish, you can remove your mask. You don't have to, but you're welcome to. MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good idea. Thank you. See my smiling face. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. So the traffic study you have before you was not the reduced -- the pared down thing that Mr. Yovanovich had mentioned. So that's why you'd see those higher numbers. And we used the county standard pass-by rates, which are actually lower than what ITE says. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The 192 is not operative? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, exactly. It would be lower if we went lower like that, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see. I had another question for you, and that has to do with the northwest point of ingress and egress which, of course, doesn't exist so you can't -- none of them exist, so you can't count cars. But could you explain how -- I believe you allocated 110 peak p.m. trips to that northwest point of ingress and egress off of Collier. Could you explain -- give us a little bit of an indication of the basis upon which you made your allocations for those three points? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 29 of 47 MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. That's a good -- a good point on that. Part -- let me just orient myself. Thank you. There we go. Okay. Yeah. So they -- the developer had -- when they improved Collier Boulevard, they identified that as potentially a need. This actually will be a shared access with the property to the north and to them. So it looked to be a reasonable assumption to be made using 30 percent of the traffic, you know, with the traffic coming up Collier Boulevard or coming off of Rattlesnake. You would have an access area there, so it would seem to be a reasonable number for that. The other part of the traffic, we're going to have about 10 percent coming from the Hacienda development. And the 2006 approval for this, Hacienda hadn't existed yet. So now with that, that would be a reasonable number, and then the rest of that traffic is then coming from -- off of Rattlesnake from the west there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: That was kind of the distribution based on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Did you give some consideration to where the structures would be located, where they'd be sited? Because presumably someone would use the one that's closest to their residence. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, that's a good point. The -- and, again, with the layout of the property, knowing we're going to have that shared access, it would seem that this would be a good -- you know, good distribution. We didn't go too heavy in either direction as a result. And they did, actually, pay as a fair share for that northbound right turn lane off of Collier Boulevard when it got widened. So they recognized it as an important feature for the site. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And just to complete our record -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- the 2018 AUIR had background traffic at 700 and the 2019 had 753, and I'd just like your testimony that that doesn't change your recommendation. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir, it doesn't. Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's all I had. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have one question. MR. TREBILCOCK: Any other questions? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I notice that you started at certain square footage, and you only had to remove 11,500 square feet of commercial to equal the traffic generated from 265 residential units. So just extrapolating on that to Rich's offer to reduce the cap on commercial from whatever -- what was it before, 148-, 148,5- down to 70-, I think was it correct, or was it 80? MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty. COMMISSIONER FRY: Down to 80. Can we assume that that will radically reduce the number of actual trips from this project to be well below what was accounted for in the original PUD? MR. TREBILCOCK: It would -- it would significantly reduce the trips if you reduce that commercial, to your point, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, if 11,500 equaled all the traffic from 256 residential units, reducing it another 68,500 would seem to have a major impact. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. It's an interesting point. I mean, that's the whole internal capture and things. So it's a bit of a balancing between your internal capture, because then you're going to lose the internal capture, so then you'll get more external from the residential. So it is a bit of a balancing to it. That's the key in tons of working with staff, you know, on the internal captures and such. But to your point, yes, we would see a reduction, a pretty significant reduction -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So this revised -- MR. TREBILCOCK: -- yes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 30 of 47 COMMISSIONER FRY: -- amended project will produce less traffic than the original project? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, with the reduced commercial, exactly. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions? I just have one for Mr. Yovanovich, or a comment. And I trust it's not an issue with you. We talked about adding the word "only" at the end of the first sentence of 5.10.A, which I don't think changes the substance any, but it just clarifies that -- who the universe of potential tenants are. So it would read, "Developers shall make 48 units available for rent for essential services personnel only." MR. YOVANOVICH: We are -- I think that's kind of what the language says, but I don't mind -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- making it clearer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It just makes it a little clearer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that make a difference? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it's clearer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- I think what we should get credit for is -- seriously, because earlier people said, what are you really giving in this project? And I won't remind you that this was one, Mr. Fry, where you agreed with me on this project. COMMISSIONER FRY: I knew that would come up again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't know how else to work it in. So I appreciate Mr. Fryer giving me the opportunity. This -- most projects have said if I can't find a renter, I get to go find other people to rent that unit. There's a commitment here that they're going to find an ESP renter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Or else it goes unrented. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, I mean, I think that's a significant commitment from this developer in exchange for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So I just want to make sure that the developer gets credit for taking that risk. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I agree. I think that's a substantial concession, and we appreciate it. I appreciate it. All right. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate it also, but I don't necessarily agree. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take that. Make sure we write -- where's Terri? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll agree and appreciate it, so there you go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. EASTMAN: That could be a new standard -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Homiak -- oh, I'm sorry. First Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: That could be a new standard moving forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's not get carried away. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Let's not go picking out curtains yet. All right. Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the trip-generation number is staying the same because it still could be 160,000 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. If we don't go with the residential alternative, we could still develop the purely commercial option. If we go with the residential option, there will be a significant reduction in what was already planned for of traffic impacts for this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's an important point to have made. Thank you. That's a good thing to be clarified. Anything else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Still stay as if they were used -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The trip cap is remaining the same; however, the real development is going to be significantly less than what the trip cap is. Now, remember, you don't really -- you don't take away concurrency on a road until you actually 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 31 of 47 come in with your plat or your SDP and you pay your impact fees. So it's not like we're going to be -- we're going to be taking up phantom capacity on Collier Boulevard, if that makes any sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you saying that the trips from this project won't go into the trip bank until -- to be utilized in further calculations until you get an approved SDP? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. Remember, zoning doesn't guarantee you you're going to get a Site Development Plan or a plat. You still have to do another traffic analysis at that time to, again, show that the roads have the capacity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Which is administrative only, but it's another good check. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless they prepay impact fees and -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and retain that right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In some cases -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sometimes we have a developer agreement that -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or otherwise that they pay the -- they prepay impact fees, and then they have development rights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other questions or comments from up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will turn to staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And which staff is it? Anita? We have others on the screen here. I think Sue and -- it's Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I wasn't sure we were going to have Nancy and Sue, but they are here. MS. JENKINS: They are. We're going to try not to have technical difficulties again for you. This is a recommendation of approval. Anita Jenkins, your interim zoning director again. Commissioner Homiak, on behalf of the Comprehensive Planning staff, the language that the agent did agree to on the Comprehensive Plan regarding those 246 units, I verified it is in the resolution under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on about Page 459 or 549. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 549, yeah. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. So it is a recommendation of approval from the Comprehensive Planning staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we want to do questions of Comprehensive Planning first? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MS. JENKINS: Two sixty-five. The unit number was 265. I was corrected. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Anita, just -- you're recommending approval, so I assume that means you concur with the applicant's assessment that there may be a surplus of commercial and that the change to multi-family residential rental units is a positive change? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other -- all right. Well, perhaps, since we've got an environmental component here, is Jaime here? We might ask her to say a word or two just to give us comfort. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, are we going to vote then on the PUD as well then? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 32 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we've got three votes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'll do it all -- okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I didn't recognize you behind your mask. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who is that behind that mask? MS. COOK: Good morning. Jaime Cook, principal environmental specialist with Development Review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. Could you just give us your assessment from -- of the environmental impact of what's being proposed? MS. COOK: So there is a bald eagle nest on the property to the north of this project, so they will be required to follow Fish and Wildlife guidance and permitting procedures prior to any construction on the site. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you're satisfied? MS. COOK: Yes. There is a 1.63-acre preserve already on site and already dedicated. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Ms. Cook? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No jurisdictional wetlands to deal with? MS. COOK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just wondering what impact the bald eagle nest might have on their development efforts. MS. COOK: If anything, that they would be limited to certain times of year for actual development, and that will all be addressed with site development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By that you mean construction? MS. COOK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the eagle is now listed as, what? It's not an endangered species. MS. COOK: It's not listed, but it is still subject to the migratory -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MS. COOK: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anita or Ray, anything -- Ray, I know you have some stuff. Anita, do you have anything further? MS. JENKINS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll go to the zoning side. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I've reviewed this petition with Nancy Gundlach, and we concur with the presentation and the changes made today, and we are recommending approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nancy, we can see you in the little square. So if you wave, you say it's approved. There it is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: She hasn't been sworn in, though, so be careful, Nancy. All right. Any questions or comments on the zoning side for Ray? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you. Anita, thank you. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's -- we've got maybe some public. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that's right. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 33 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think we're going to have any rebuttal, am I correct, Mr. Yovanovich? Nothing to rebut. Or I guess we wait for the public, don't we? MR. YOVANOVICH: We usually do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Are there any members of the public here today who have not registered but yet would like to speak on this one way or the other? If so, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So there don't seem to be any public speakers, so we will close the public comment portion of the meeting and begin our deliberations, including entertain a motion. And we've got three motions. We need one on the GMPA and one on the PUD, and one on the EAC. So entertain a motion first on the GMPA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion that we approve subject to the discussions on the changes that were made for the record, and so that's the GMPA, CP2018-08/PL20180002804. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Do we need to, again, recite the conditions that this is subject to? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we need to just make sure to the extent that what we agreed to is also applicable to the GMP language. It will be incorporated into the GMP language. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because not everything we talked about goes into the GMP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, but it's got to go somewhere. MR. YOVANOVICH: Most of it goes into the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Some goes into the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. That's sufficient for your purposes then? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm comfortable with that. I just want to make sure Heidi's comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We don't need to talk about the 20,000 square feet minimum and 8,000 -- 80- maximum? MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty thousand will have to be incorporated into the PUD. The 20,000 was already in there. So we'll change that 148,5- to 80,000. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And so that was part of your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, yeah, but we're making -- that doesn't go in the GMP. This goes in the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that waits. COMMISSIONER FRY: Doesn't the 80,000 go in the GMP also? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, because they still have the option of commercial. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: The GMP was just to allow for the 265 residential units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The PUD is where all of the conditions we just talked about -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't recall if -- I'm sorry. I don't recall if there was a second to the motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the GMPA, to make a recommendation to the BCC of adoption. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing there be -- seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 34 of 47 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes by a vote of 4-1. Thank you very much. Now, the next, I'd entertain a motion to approve the PUD conversion from CPUD to MPUD as outlined. Would someone -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve the PUD as outlined subject to the discussion we had on the reduction of the square footage. PUDA PL20180002813, Hammock Park. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. With the 80,000? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighty thousand reduction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Based on the construction of the residential. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. I still think the density is too high. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Do you want to make any further record? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nope. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. So that passes 4-1. The third action we need to take is on the environmental matter. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's 11:22. I'm going to test the -- take the temperature of the Planning Commission here. It seems to me we ought to take another matter if we can. Does that seem right to everybody? And I've checked it with the court reporter, and she's okay with it. All right. ***So we will go to the next matter, which, once again, is a companion matter. It's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 35 of 47 PL20190002017. It's a request to change the designation of property to the urban development commercial district interchange Activity Center No. 9 in order to allow construction of commercial and industrial development. This is the property known as 3205 Beck Boulevard. And the first of the two companions is a small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment and it would, therefore, come to us for a proposed recommendation on the question of adoption to the Board of County Commissioners. Then companion to that is a rezone, not a PUD, but a rezone. This is 9A5. It's PL20190002018, a request to amend the appropriate zoning code atlas map changing the zoning classification from agricultural to industrial. Without objection, we will hear those two matters together but vote on them separately. There being no objection, we will then ask all persons wishing to testify on this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll do ex parte disclosures starting on my right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, a brief conversation with the applicant's planner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, conversations with staff, and communications with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did speak with Wayne Arnold about this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Arnold, you're on. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning again. Wayne Arnold, agent for this application. This is, as you mentioned, a two-part Growth Management Plan Amendment and a rezoning for conventional rezoning, which isn't very common before you. But this is -- those of us who've been around long enough remember this as the highway department headquarters facility that's -- Beck Boulevard is an eastward extension of Davis Boulevard. It's adjacent to the Tollgate commercial plaza, which was a large DRI. It's also adjacent to the actual toll plaza on I-75. And this property was surplussed by the Highway Patrol or State of Florida, and our client purchased the property with intent to utilize it for his own purposes as well as having an income-producing property for himself. The building that's there is about 3,500 square feet, and it's set up to be, as you would imagine, more of an office space. But we're adding this to the activity center because right now it's a hodgepodge of future land-use designations, partially urban, partially rural fringe, and it -- given its location, it doesn't really make sense as rural fringe lands, essentially sending lands and, given its irregular shape, it probably didn't really make sense to have a PUD. There's, you know, only a small portion of the three-and-a-half acre site that will be usable. And then the other feature that I point out, and it's on this aerial photograph, the cellular tower that's owned by the State of Florida continues to be -- they did not sell that parcel to our client. So the tower will remain. It had a separate conditional-use approval for that. It allows up to a 300-foot tower. The tower that's constructed, I don't know its exact height, but I do not believe it's 300 feet. But -- so we're trying to bring this -- you know, this odd piece of property into what we believe is the right land-use category. We'll be adding this to Activity Center No. 9. There are several standards in Activity Center No. 9 that govern that we're not deviating from. And we're appreciative the staff supports the Comp Plan Amendment as well as the rezoning. There were several conditions on the rezoning that -- that are there, and we're in agreement, generally, with all of them except I think, one, and that had to do with the limitation for uses on auto repair services that is in your staff recommendation, and we thought 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 36 of 47 that auto repair would be a feasible use. And after talking to Mr. Bellows in a little more detail, it was really -- some of those uses that are allowed on those use groups that were the troubling ones, not general auto repair and not window tinting and things of that nature. It was, are you going to be testing equipment? Are you going to have heavy auto repair with axle straightening and things that -- tire ratcheting and heavy noise? Even though we don't have residential neighbors, per se, we do have a couple of RV parks that are located immediately southeast of us. So -- I'm not sure why my file's not advancing here, but -- there we go. I was going to go to the condition. I know you don't like these changes at the last minute, but up on the screen, Condition No. 4 in your packet was a complete prohibition on auto repair services Groups 7513 through 7549. We've added language that's underlined that says, except the following. And, for instance, under 7532, that allows canvas and upholstery repair. So you could repair canvas tops for convertibles, you could do general upholstery repair. I think Ray and I agree that those are pretty innocuous uses to have. And it's an indoor use. Auto glass repair, for instance. Another one that I think Ray will attest that he is in concurrence with this list. Auto repair shops general. That allows general auto repair. 7539 is auto repair shops not elsewhere classified, and that -- it's another general category, but we've excluded the axle straightening, frame repair, and those heavy uses out of that group, and then 7549 is auto services except wrecker services, and those were some other very generalized land uses, but we didn't want this to become a tow yard or a wrecker service where you had disabled vehicles that would be sitting there waiting for heavy repairs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Wayne, has the County Attorney's Office seen this? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think. I don't think Mr. Klatzkow's seen those. I think we took this in the sense of it kind of evolved yesterday afternoon, unfortunately. MR. KLATZKOW: Ray, do you concur with this? Normally I care, but with the location of this property, it's -- you know, I just want to make sure staff is in concurrence. That's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I did have a chance to look at these SIC codes when the staff report was prepared, and my original assessment was we were concerned about noise of certain of these automotive repair services; however, Mr. Arnold has approached with a list of those specific uses within those SIC codes that I find acceptable and will agree to incorporate. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do they cover the universe of noisy -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: They do? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, ratcheting, as Wayne would say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. No other SIC codes that cover a different subject but a noisy one? I mean, you've looked at all of the 75 series? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The rest of those that are on the list should remain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Should do it? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might, Mr. Chairman. Just -- it's a little cumbersome the way it's written because all the Groups 7513 through 7549 are prohibited except then only the specific uses would be permitted that are listed -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got you. MR. ARNOLD: -- so it's a very narrow group. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Got it. MR. ARNOLD: And it's, again, cumbersome. The other thing, while Ray's there, if you don't mind, we had a conversation. Our client happens 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 37 of 47 to be a training pilot for Airbus, and he does flight simulating training, which is a permitted use under the industrial zoning, which is appropriate, but part of what he also does is repair to those units occasionally, so there is an element of service. And I think Ray and I and Laura DeJohn, who was handling this for the county, had a conversation that that could be viewed as vocational, because in my slide under No. 50 that's listed, I added back in under the prohibition of transportation by air, which are truly airport-related items, aircraft servicing and repairing as an item. But if it's -- if I can get Ray's concurrence that what he does is considered under the vocational training or incidental to it for repair of those facilities, then I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I find it interesting if an airbus can fit there, but... MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's more or less the simulator units. They're aircraft related, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. ARNOLD: So he does do repair of those as well. MR. BELLOWS: That's was what I was asking for is additional clarification, and we're talking about electronic simulator equipment, not aircraft itself. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not going to get a plane there. MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a console, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It's more of console type device. MR. BELLOWS: That's acceptable. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. So I added this language. So, I guess, in an abundance of caution to add that, which I think covers what he wants to do. But if there's an objection, and it's just concurred that he can do that by right, then I'm fine with that, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me just -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question for Ray. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's first go with Commissioner Schmitt, then Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wayne, can you go -- you went through it, but go back to the slide that shows the overlay of the -- there it is -- the entire Activity Center No. 9. For my colleagues on the Board, Activity Center No. 9 was -- has always been, to use the term, kind of a significant emotional event in this county. It was developed, Wayne, what, probably in the late '90s? MR. ARNOLD: It was, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Late '90s. And the industrial park on the north side was a fairly significant issue. But the interesting piece with the Activity Center No. 9 are the design criteria. There's very specific architectural criteria because it was deemed the gateway to Naples coming into 75. In fact, a little history: That's why the county was able to get the Walmart up there to design in the way the Walmart was designed. And the other businesses that actually face the highway, typically, you do not have to have an architectural embellishment or an architectural feature on the rear of the buildings. But every one of those buildings on the north side have architectural finishes facing the highway. This would require -- they would be required -- and Wayne -- I asked Wayne specifically about this, they're not asking for any relief of the design criteria. So, in reality, it's a good thing, because this is an odd piece of land. It's a -- it's just a strange piece of land, but whatever goes in there now would have to comply with all of the requirements of Activity Center No. 9. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. MR. ARNOLD: And to that point, Mr. Schmitt, there are requirements there for buffering and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For buffering and other type of things as well, yeah. It's a -- it was -- it's a pretty comprehensive requirement for anything in the activity center because it was deemed the gateway. I just wanted to make sure you all understood what Activity Center No. 9 was. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 38 of 47 MR. ARNOLD: And, frankly, knowing those as somewhat being constraints on a really small parcel, we felt like it was more appropriate to add ourselves to the activity center than to just create a new subdistrict of 3.4 acres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Makes sense to me, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And understand as well, those who have never been down that way, even to the west of this property, there's some pretty intense uses. Storage, I mean, lumber yard, other type of -- so this is -- an automotive or something would not be -- to me it does not seem to be excessive, but it is nearby the mobile homes parks, if you want to call it that, or the residential area just to the south. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Wayne, you might say just a few sentences to -- I expected a question was going to come up, but it didn't, and you answered it for me when we spoke. But the anomaly of why this is sending lands. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it's largely based on the section lines that the county used when they established the number. It wasn't really looked at ownership per se. So this was a single owner and, frankly, it was owned by the State, I think, was the other anomaly here that it was a State of Florida owned property. They're kind of exempt from a lot of what we do with regard to their essential services so they can go almost anywhere. But in this particular case, now that they've decided to dispose of the property, it really needs to be brought into, we think, the urban area. It doesn't make sense to be a piece of sending land with a tower on it and a commercial -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, actually, it could have remained -- been neutral as well. It's a good question. I can't recall why it was sending other than because the State owned it, and there was nothing else they were going to do with it. MR. ARNOLD: Exactly. I think that's it. Anyway, I think it's a fairly straightforward request. I'm happy to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question on what -- maybe for the other commissioners. How do we manage hours of operations in properties zoned this category? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a code enforcement issue. Once it goes into the ordinance, that's strictly Code Enforcement obligated, or it would be the county that would have to enforce it, but it's Code Enforcement that would basically be the enforcer if somebody -- either they go out and check or somebody calls in a complaint, they would issue a citation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So would something like this have a restriction that, whatever they develop, they can't be operating at 3:00 in the morning? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Shea, if I might, there's -- one of the staff recommendations on the zoning is to have a limitation on hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and we're fine with that restriction. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything else for the applicant? COMMISSIONER FRY: Point of clarification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, Mr. Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: For a commercial airliner, I heard reference to the flight simulator being a console. Isn't it a much larger type device for an airliner with a hydraulic component where they're in a cockpit and there's actually -- moves -- the cockpit moves and simulates being in the commercial jetliner? MR. ARNOLD: I think there are a variety of different types of simulators. But I took console to mean more the generic, that it's -- it's one unit. It's not an aircraft. That's how I took it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. And I don't see any problem with it in terms how loud it would be to repair, but I just -- MR. ARNOLD: Oh, no. It would not be. It's an electronic type repair item, yes. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a prohibited use for my client's sake. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 39 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Virtual reality I think is -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- how they do it. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then we'll call on staff. And Mr. Bellows is at the mic. Should we do the -- here comes Anita. MR. BELLOWS: Do the GMP first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Ms. Jenkins? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sue's there, too. MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins, interim director, for the record. And on behalf of Comprehensive Planning, we are recommending approval to add this 3.4 acres as a text and map amendment to Activity Center No. 9. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Jenkins; comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. We -- I have been working on this project with our consultant, and we have been coordinating with Comprehensive Planning on the GMP amendment. The changes to the conditions of approval with the modification to Condition 2, as outlined, about allowing some of those automotive related uses are acceptable, so staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would you outline, again, for me, please, at least, the hours of operation condition, how that would be worded. MR. BELLOWS: I believe that falls under No. 5 of our -- or 4, No. 4, Condition 4. One of the things that came out of the neighborhood information meeting was concern about noise and operation of hours. So we wanted to look at that as part of the compatibility analysis, and those hours of operation seemed to be typical of these smaller type of industrial locations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just curious, Ray. So usually we see PUDs. Why is this a rezone instead of a PUD? MR. BELLOWS: I think Mr. Arnold explained it earlier on in his presentation. It's an unusual shaped lot, and if there are no real reasons to get deviations, which is one of the primary reasons people go to a PUD, or if they have mixed uses, but since the owner -- or their client seems to want just a specific set of industrial type uses, straight zoning seems to work. I just wanted to point out, too, the way we do it in Collier County on a straight zoning with conditions, we note on the zoning map that there's an ordinance that has special conditions. So anybody looking at what can be done on the property in the future knows that there are conditions that they need to abide by, like they would if it was a PUD. MR. ARNOLD: Good point, Ray. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity. The nice part about straight zoning is now they have to comply with everything in the LDC. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because, typically, they'll come in with a PUD so they can, you know, take a ball-peen hammer and kind of work their way around the LDC. But straight zoning, they have to comply with everything in the LDC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 40 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Ray, while you're up here, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any member of the public wish to be heard on this matter? I see a lady in the back. Please -- have you been sworn in, ma'am? MS. SKUFCA: I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come on up to the microphone, and we'll get you all fixed up. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SKUFCA: I do. My name is Candy Skufca. I am the owner of Panther's Walk RV Resort. I live just south across the street the tract of land and a little bit to the east. And I do want to say that I don't have a problem with what you're planning. We went to the meeting. Since it's talking about reduced hours, not 24-hour service, I don't have a problem with that. I do ask, though, that you consider starting later than 6:00 a.m. Those mobile homes and RVs are not as well insulated as a stick or concrete block house. So 6:00 could be a little bit early, and our residents are not real happy with being awakened before the sun comes up. So, please take this into consideration when you vote. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What would you prefer to see in there? MS. SKUFCA: Eight o'clock. Seven or eight o'clock at least. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. SKUFCA: We know that people want to get to work early. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. SKUFCA: So we appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much for speaking. MS. SKUFCA: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And are there any other public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, Mr. Arnold, rebuttal. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Move that so I can be heard. The 6:00 a.m. time was suggested by staff, and we like that time. One of the uses that is interested in going into the existing building is a survey and engineering company like mine. Our general office hours are 8:00 to 6:00 -- 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but our survey crews that do operate are there at 6:00 most days. So the 6:00 a.m. time frame that staff suggested works very well for that type of use. I don't know if we can modify the hours for comparing those for business type uses that may be there versus the auto repair that would have the noise associated with it but, certainly, we think 6:00 a.m. works for us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, let's talk -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And that makes sense. If it's a business that is opening, typically even if it's an auto shop, typically they -- most don't even open till 7:30 anyway or 8:00. But that said, the staff usually gets there early. If you -- perfect example, a survey crew, they're going to come in. It's just an office crew, but they're loading up their equipment to head out. MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not what I would call a very noisy operation or typically is not a noise-producing -- because it's simply just the office staff going in and opening up the office. But I don't know how we would stipulate that from a standpoint of if it's another type of business where we would say it can't open till 8:00. I look to Ray. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I recall in another instance where a PUD had hours of operation that limited the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 41 of 47 public hours later than -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that makes sense. MR. BELLOWS: Office staff. So office staff could come at 6:00 but, open to the public, 8:00. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 7:30. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, 7:30. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's see. If -- I'm concerned about noisy operations that could take place even before the public arrives. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you could break it out into office use and industrial use, and office use could be one time and industrial use could be another. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we -- Mr. Arnold, could we make that stipulation? MR. ARNOLD: I think so. I mean, I think if we say industrial -- I mean, some of the uses we're talking about are technically classified as industrial, but they're not the noisy use. But I like Ray's opportunity about, you know, having public. MR. KLATZKOW: But you guys must know what you want to do with the property. You don't go through this expense without knowing what you want to do with it. What is it you want to do with the property? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, as I've indicated, we know that a survey and an engineering company would like to be there. We know that a flight simulator would like to be there. Neither one of those have a lot of public coming to them, but, you know, there's a lot of other small industrial uses that could be there. There's, you know, the A/C service guy, the pool guys. I mean, a lot of those do have employees that are there before an 8:00 a.m. start time. So -- and most of those activity centers aren't noisy. I mean, should we try to restrict it to outdoor activities? Nothing outdoor? I'm just looking for some reason -- I agree with you 6:00 a.m. might be a problem if we're doing a lot of outdoor activities, but if I'm inside my office, I don't know that's disturbing to anybody. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Indoor or outdoor sounds like a good way of doing it, provided that -- well, I won't even say "provided." Okay. So what if we -- what if we imposed a condition that industrial activities or industrial -- no, excuse me. Outdoor of any kind don't start until 7:30. Does that do it? MR. ARNOLD: I think it probably does, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ma'am, nod your head? MS. SKUFCA: That would be great. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. The record shows approval on the part of our public speaker. Thank you very much. MR. ARNOLD: And I'll work with Ray, if that's okay, to refine that language before it goes into the ordinance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. I guess it's time to close public comment. So -- one more public commenter. Come ahead, sir. Have you been sworn in? MR. HYATT: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Come right on up, and we'll take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. HYATT: I do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name, please. MR. HYATT: For the record, I'm David Hyatt from Marco Surveying and Mapping. We intend to be making this building our home, so I can answer questions anybody might have about the use, the noise. We do generally start at 7:00 a.m. with the field crews. Everybody meets at 7:00, leaves. They're usually gone by 7:15 or 7:30. That should be seen as a pretty unintrusive use in the sense that there's no loud noise going on. There's nothing beyond somebody putting some sticks in the back of the truck or starting up a truck and driving out of the parking lot. So that would be the only use that would be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 42 of 47 happening at 7:00 a.m. 7:30 would get a little bit more problematic just from our timing perspective, because we're meeting at 7:00 to get crews on the road, and we want to be where we're going to go by 8:00. So if we couldn't have any sort of outdoor activity, depending on the definition of "outdoor activity," if that includes loading the trucks or anything like that, that could be problematic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: How would you feel about a 7:30 no outdoor activity? That's what we've been talking about. MR. HYATT: That's where my concern would be, because if everything's going right, our guys already have their trucks loaded and are pulling out at about 7:15. There shouldn't be anything about that that should be bothersome to neighbors or anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Would it be more appropriate, then, Dave to say 7:00 a.m. for those outdoor activities, if that includes loading trucks? I mean, we do that, too. I mean the guys could be loading -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ARNOLD: -- lathe in the truck and -- MR. HYATT: Somebody might be there on the site at a quarter to 7:00 but nothing's going on outside until 7:00 a.m. And then the guys that are in charge of the crews are inside getting their instructions for the days, and other guys are outside loading trucks and things like that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's somewhat extraordinary, but I'm going to ask the lady, Mrs. Skufca, to come back up and just tell us what your take is on 7:00 a.m., whether you could live with it. You did mention it. MS. SKUFCA: I know I did. I have no problem with that. I don't have a problem with Marco Surveying at all. I have no problem with Marco Surveying. Candy Skufca, for the record. What I was talking about -- you were talking about automotive. We already live right down the road from the center at Mannix and Beck Boulevard, and there's a lot of automotive in there, and those people have bay doors that open their doors, and you can hear the banging from the street when you're going by in the daytime. And I was just thinking about those businesses that may go into that particular area where they could come in early before. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. MS. SKUFCA: And so I have no problem with the surveying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, great. Well, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. All right. So we're going to go to 7:00 a.m. for the outdoor activities. And any other members of the public wish to speak? Yes, Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I'd just like to ask Mr. Hyatt. It's not noisy what you're doing when you load these trucks. It's not like an industrial use. MR. HYATT: No, not at all. MR. EASTMAN: It's not going to disturb any neighbors or anything. MR. HYATT: No machines running. There's no noise generated other than the sound of somebody putting some wood in the back of the truck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would have to believe the trucks on the highway are making more noise than what they would be making. And the highway's right behind them. MR. EASTMAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's close the public comment portion and have a discussion or a motion at this point if discussion isn't necessary. And we've got two votes on this one. The first one would be on the PUD -- excuse me. Yeah, the small-scale GMPA, and then the second one would be on the rezone, straight rezone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion for approval of the small-scale GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 43 of 47 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Any further discussion? Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On the first page of the one I have off the packet of the ordinance for this, it says Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict. Can you change it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Typo. We never want the public to think any of this is cookie cutter. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, no. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure where that lies, if that's in the ordinance; is that what you're looking at? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was trying to find the other page, but I can't get there for some reason. Yes, it's the ordinance. Page 1. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why, it does say that. MR. ARNOLD: I see that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the mover and seconder would stipulate to that change, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, staff's to make change to the whereas clause. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor? This is the GMPA. All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Any opposition? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Similar motion on the straight rezone, 3205 Beck. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion for approval of the Beck Boulevard rezone. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second? Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Moved and seconded. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: With all the changes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With -- subject to the stipulation as discussed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Thanks, yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: With the changes for the exemptions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Exactly. We spent a lot of time on that. We need to put it in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: With the changes of the exception as discussed. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And with the guidance that Ray and Mr. Arnold will work out the final language subject to the County Attorney's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That works with the seconder, too. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 44 of 47 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We've got one more item, and I think it's not going to take too long. So without objection, we'll go right into it, if that seems to be okay with the Planning Commission and staff. ***And this is PL20190002553. This is a -- asking for a resolution of the Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to the Rockedge Planned Unit Development to adjust some configurations and locations of various features of the land. It's the Rockedge RPUDI. So if you will -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is something that could be -- have been approved by the Hearing Examiner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It could have been, and I think the reason we didn't is probably because it was noticed out. Yeah. But we're really not going to be hearing HEX matters after this, but good point. If there are any members of the public who are going to wish to testify on this, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte Planning Commission starting to my right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials plus conversations with staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing other than the staff packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Applicant, please proceed. MR. GALLANDER: Thank you. And, again, yes, appreciate the opportunity to have this in front of you. We understood it could have gone to the HEX, but we were in process. So, thank you for your time today, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name's Ken Gallander. I'm a certified planner with RWA Engineering here on behalf of the applicant, D.R. Horton, in support of the item before you, this insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 1603. First, I just want to provide a little background to the subject property. It's just under 106 point -- or around 106.44 acres. It's at the northeast intersection of Sabal Palm Road/Collier Boulevard. It was originally entitled under Ordinance 06-31 just over 14 years ago, and then it was further amended under the existing ordinance, 16-03, back in 2016 for a residential planned unit development currently entitled with 266 units at a 2.5 dwelling units per acre in size. Again, this is a graphic showing the subject property, again, at the northeast corner of Sabal Palm Road/Collier Boulevard. Particular to the request, there's two major components. The first is -- the majority is to amend the master plan. And, obviously, through market trends and needs of the applicant, the recreational area tract was located in certain areas, so they were wanting to relocate that. And by doing so, when you do those changes, it, obviously, sort of snowballs into the needs to adjust your residential tracts, your water management tracts. There is a future pedestrian interconnection that we're proposing to relocate and, of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 45 of 47 course, then you, obviously, have some of your internal roads that need to be adjusted. The other component to the request is to delete the development standard of Footnote No. 9, which I'll go into a little bit more detail. This graphic may be hard to see, but this is the current master plan. And what I've done here is to identify the particular areas. This is the -- if you can see the cursor, that is the current location under the conceptual master plan of the recreational area tract. This area here is an area that we're changing the road network. And then it's two pieces to this master plan in order for us to provide all the information appropriately, is on the southeast portion. And this is the area where the recreational area tract will be relocated. This is the existing location of the pedestrian connection, which is intended to be moved down to this area. So from that we developed the proposed master plan. You can see this is the change -- minor change to this portion of the development extending the road out to the east. This is the current proposed location for the recreational tract in the southeast corner and, again, this is the future pedestrian connection relocation that we've proposed. And then that general area, again, we made some adjustments to the lake management area and the residential tract areas and some of the road network. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before you remove that slide. MR. GALLANDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't believe that was in our packet. Was it? MR. GALLANDER: This particular presentation -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. GALLANDER: -- with the -- no, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. It would have been helpful. MR. GALLANDER: Okay. Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. MR. GALLANDER: No. This is Exhibit B that's currently within the ordinance with the footnote that has been proposed to be eliminated, and this was in coordination with staff that this footnote is no longer applicable. Due to the fact that the geographic location of the recreational area tract is now in a new location, it is not near or encumbered by an FP&L easement. So the application of that footnote just simply does not apply to that location anymore. We, obviously, had public involvement; neighborhood information meeting back in March, and it was a very productive meeting. Some good discussion with the neighbors; mainly curiosity about the change and what is going on. We've received no documented opposition to the petition. We are -- our analysis provided is -- that we're identifying in support of the staff analysis, and under that we feel that we are consistent with the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code. So on that, we concur with the staff report, the analysis presented, and recommendation of approval of the Planning Commission. Be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Apparently not, and I don't have any either. MR. GALLANDER: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So we'll ask for the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy, go to the center. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been cleaned. There we go. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Feel free, yeah. MS. GUNDLACH: Principal planner with the Zoning Division. And staff is recommending approval of the Rockedge PDI, as it is consistent with our Growth Management Plan and our Land Development Code. And if you have any questions, it would certainly be our pleasure to answer them today. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 46 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Ms. Gundlach? Go ahead. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, Nancy. So they've stipulated that they are, I think, most likely going to build single-family homes. Is that locked in, or do they have the flexibility to change that from this point forward? MS. GUNDLACH: We can take a quick look at the PUD document. I believe it's all single-family attached and detached. MR. GALLANDER: Yeah. The Planned Unit Development provides opportunities for multiple types of residential units. There is a concurrent PPL and a development going through which is focused on single-family detached at this time. But the PUD document does allow for changes in the future if that's needed, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When you say "focused on," is that what it's going to be as your present plan? MR. GALLANDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have any members of the public who either registered or haven't registered but wish to speak on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we will close the public comment portion of the meeting and call for any discussion that might come from this side of the dais. Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: There being no questions, I'd entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. And thank you very much. MR. GALLANDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***And we then move to Item 10, which is new business. Is there any new business to be had at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm seeing no -- no new business to come forward. So we move to old business. I don't think there's any old business either. Public comment. Any member of the public wish to speak on any matter that has not been put on our agenda? (No response.) 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) August 6, 2020 Page 47 of 47 CHAIRMAN FRYER: It appears that's not the case. Therefore, we come to the item "adjournment," and, without objection, we are adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 08-06-20CCPC Meeting Minutes (13337 : 8/6/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) ‒ 1 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 RE: PETITION PL20190002292, STAFF-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] INTRODUCTION The proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments found in Attachment A to this report (and Resolution, Exhibit A) are derived from years of public input and Plan refinements. These are presented to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), in its capacity as the County’s Land Planning Agency under Florida Statutes and as the County’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), for consideration at Transmittal stage public hearings. Staff requests the CCPC and EAC forward these amendments to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). BACKGROUND 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 plan to protect: prime agricultural areas, wetlands and upland habitat, water quality and quantity, and listed species and their habitats. It also required addressing 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 5- Year Review Committee (5-Year Review Committee) to accomplish this directive. In February 2008, the 5-Year 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. 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 5-Year Review 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 5-Year Review Committee unanimously approved the following proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 2 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments “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 5-Year Review 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 5-Year Review 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 parties. Based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended Policies, it was found that 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. Provide a land use framework for long-range transportation planning to serve eastern Collier County. The 5-Year Review Committee’s Report was presented to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Environmental Advisory County (EAC) during meetings held between January 28 and March 10, 2009. Both the CCPC and the EAC made specific and general recommendations to the Board regarding amendments to the RLSA Overlay. Those recommendations were forwarded to the Board by inclusion in the Committee Report. On April 21, 2009, the Board held a public meeting to review the recommendations of the 5-Year Review Committee, the CCPC, the EAC, and to hear from the public. By a 3-2 vote, the Board accepted the Committee Report as a planning document and directed that RLSA Overlay GMP amendments move forward in a “first in and first out” order, and that the GMP amendments incorporate both a 404,000 Stewardship Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area 45,000 acre cap, provided backup data is developed to determine the actual cap values and provided there be placed in the RLSA Overlay a statement to the effect that issuance of Stewardship Credits does not provide vested rights to land owners and that no excess credits are created. A lack of agreement on who should pay for the GMP amendment process, the County or the landowners, put these GMP amendments on the shelf. In January 2018, the Board directed RLSA restudy was initiated by Collier County staff. As with all restudies, staff focused on complementary land uses, economic vitality, mobility and environmental sustainability through a public outreach effort. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 3 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments The Board appointed an ad hoc advisory committee, the Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC), to assist in directing the public engagement process of the RLSA. Unlike prior area restudies, however, the Board directed that staff, rather than appointed committees, provide recommendations to the Board covering each of the four restudy areas. The RLSA 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 restudy 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 RLSA restudy 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. Based upon the incentives of the adopted RLSA Overlay, the 5-Year Review and RLSA White Paper recommendations, with 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. Create opportunities to diversify the eastern Collier County economy; 5. the characteristics of future development. In October 2019, the RLSA White Paper was presented to the Board for staff direction. The Board directed staff to bring forward Growth Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as prepared by the 5-year Review Committee and reinforced 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. The purpose of this petition is to bring forward the RLSA Growth Management Plan amendments as directed by the Board. Substantive Proposed Changes to the RLSA: The proposed RLSA amendments represent recommendations of County staff, a team of over 15 multidisciplinary professionals. The recommendations include substantive strategies to incentivize more protection of agriculture and natural resources and limit the amount of SRA development. The policy amendments are intended to create incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to: • retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion to development; • 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 the program; • provide for an SRA land set aside for future affordable housing; and • increases the range of commercial goods and services within a Town or Village. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 4 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments The 5-Year Review Committee Reports, the RLSA White Paper and Collier County Credit Analysis (Attachment E) provide supporting data and analysis and the status of the current and potential RLSA land use and Stewardship Credits. The potential results of the amendments to incentivize the protection of agriculture lands and limited SRA development can be graphically demonstrated in Figure 1, which shows the current program without the incentive to protect agriculture and limit SRAs, versus the proposed policy amendments providing greater incentives. Figure 1 The RLSA Overlay policy amendments that are most significant in influencing the land use changes are: • Policy 1.22 – establishes a cap of 45,000 SRA acres and 404,000 Stewardship Credits; • Policy 2.2 – assigns Stewardship Credits for designating Agriculture SSAs; • Policy 3.11 – adjusts the Restoration Credits, creates a tiered restoration system and incentivizes additional panther corridors; and • Policy 4.10 – adjusts the Credit ratio from 8 to 10 SSA Credits per SRA acre. Additional RLSA Overlay policy amendments focus on the development characteristics of SRAs. A summary overview of these include: • Policy 4.5 – adding to the SRA document, a Human and Wildlife Conflict Management Plan; • Policy 4.6 – adding to the SRA document a mobility plan for all modes of travel within and between SRAs; including transit transfer stations or park and ride facilities. • Policy 4.7 – removing the Hamlet as a form of development; 37% 18%4% 29% 12% Current RLSA in 2020 Natural Resources Remaining Naural Resources in SSA Ag1 in SSA Open 54% 22% 24% Proposed RLSA Natural Resources SSA Agriculture SSA SRAs 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 5 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments • Policy 4.7.4 – providing location opportunities for Florida Qualified Target Industries; • 4.7.5 – adds provisions for affordable housing • Policy 4.14 – provisions for SRA interconnections and traffic impact mitigation actions in areas of significant influence; and • RLSAO Attachment C – changes to amount of goods and services and sizes of SRAs The changes to the range of goods and services are further discussed and supported by the RLSA Commercial Memo (Attachment F), prepared by Metro Forecasting Models, LLC. The progression of RLSA amendments can be found in A Summary of RLSA Amendments, Including 2009 EAC, CCPC, and Board Comments, and Stakeholder Comments and Staff Recommendations on Proposed Amendments (Attachment G). This document was used by the team of staff members to draft and evaluate each policy, and previous Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), Planning Commission and Board comments. Staff’s initial draft, dated March 9, 2019, was posted on the RLSA website for public comment. Through the public comment period, staff continued their evaluation of the amendments and as public comments were received, added the comments to the document for the staff’s team review. In the draft document, staff proposed affordable housing provisions for both the Village SRA and the Town SRA. During the draft period, staff revised the affordable housing policy from a percentage with varied area median incomes, to an acreage dedication-based format. The acreage approach aligns with the public benefit use in the RLSA that is measured by acreage. The policy also provides an option for the Board to address affordable housing in another manner if they choose to do so. The draft policies were also revised with the deletion of draft 4.7.5. which addressed coordinating infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within eastern Collier County and directed staff to review proximate SRA applications in aggregate with standards that would apply to the aggregated area. Through staff team discussion of the proposed policy and other policies, the team agreed that planning and coordinating infrastructure is addressed in several adopted and recommended policies, and through the SRA application review and developer agreements. Policy 4.14 provides for a holistic review approach and proposes language that directs analysis within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Economic diversification is addressed in Policy 4.7.4 that allows for Florida Qualified Target Industries in both Towns and Villages, along with the proposed amendments to increase the amount of good and services required for a Town or Village. Also, Policy 4.15.1 has adopted provisions that provide for an overall mix of uses within the RLSA and depending on size, scale and character of an SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs or within Immokalee, provided the new SRA can demonstrate sufficient commercial capacity exists for the desired uses. Staff believes the adopted and recommended RLSA policies provide Collier County the policy tools necessary to evaluate SRAs that are proximate. Staff also notes that improvements are needed for the SRA review process and recommends the approach to improve standards and application requirements is the upcoming Land Development Code amendment process. All staff recommended amendments are included in strikethrough and underline format in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 6 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments GROWTH MANAGMENENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (GMOC) RECOMMENDATION At its meeting on June 7, 2019, the GMOC found the RLSA public outreach process sufficient and appropriate and the White Papers findings responsive to the goals of sufficiency, sustainability and economic vitality. Motion approved 4 – 0, with 1 abstention. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report on August 11, 2020. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the Land Planning Agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward the proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Growth Management Plan amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to Transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Attachments: • Attachment A RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Phase I Technical Review Report • Attachment B RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Phase II Report • Attachment C RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Recommended GMP amendments • Attachment D RLSA White Paper • Attachment E Collier County Credit Analysis • Attachment F RLSA Commercial Memo • Attachment G A Summary of RLSA Amendments, Including 2009 EAC, CCPC, and Board Comments, and Stakeholder Comments and Staff Recommendations on Proposed Amendments 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ‒ 7 ‒ PL20190002292 Staff Proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments • Resolution with Exhibit A: Text and map changes 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report RLSA Transmittal with CAO review 8-11-2020 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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; CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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). CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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±±±± CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 15 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 16 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 17 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 18 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 19 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 20 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 21 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 22 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 23 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 24 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 25 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 26 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 27 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 28 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL20190002292 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 29 | P a g e CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment A PL201900022929.A.1.bPacket Pg. 85Attachment: Att A 5-yr Review Phase I (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 90Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 91Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 92Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 93Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 94Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 95Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 96Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 97Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 98Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 99Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 100Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 101Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 102Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 103Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 104Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 105Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL201900022929.A.1.cPacket Pg. 106Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment B PL20190002292 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Att B 5-yr Review Phase II (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment C PL201900002292 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Att C Draft 5-Yr Review Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff May 21, 2019 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) “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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Figure A-1 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 successor 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Figure B-1 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 Messner, Director, Water Division, CCWSD; Kirk Martin, Senior Hydrologist, Water Science Associates. 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, and ditches, while the SFWMD actively manages the larger systems. This Division also contributes to planning analysis during the rezoning process. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 resource goals such as wetland preservation, water quality maintenance, and aquifer recharge. Much the CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 Other conservation programs include low-flow fixture enforcement, stepped water use rates, leak detection systems, asset management systems, irrigation restrictions, and education CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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.” CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Figure D-1 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 significant 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 2. 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 reflect this increase in supply while maintaining an appropriate balance between agricultural CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. Given the input from agricultural land owners, staff believes that it is unlikely that most agricultural property will voluntarily accept a permanent agricultural easement in return for credits. The sentiment of “wait and see” was an opinion offered by some. In the credit assessment section of this paper, an estimate of 50% utilization of the agricultural easement was suggested, believing this to be a conservative estimate. If actual desired utilization of agriculture easements exceeds this estimate, other preservation options can be considered. Therefore, these credits should be capped at a 50% utilization rate. 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. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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). 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. 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: (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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. 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 available to the owner after the owner or agent (not outside agency) completes the restoration according to success criteria. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 n ot 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. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. The 5-year Review approach and the FWF/Audubon approach should be further vetted with permitting agencies and land management experts. Staff believes that it is critical to create careful estimations of needed restoration activity throughout the RLSA private lands, and through that work create a balanced credit system that does not generate excess credits. All credits likely to be generated by restoration and all sources should not exceed the credits needed for the allowable footprint of 45,000 acres. Allow Restoration Area applications only once within any single SSA. 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. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed 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. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. 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. 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 to 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) • 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 • 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) • 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) • 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. 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? CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. • 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 regar ding 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Figure E-5 below illustrates panther telemetry points over 3 decades. Figure E-5: HCP Exhibit Panther Telemetry Since 1981 Miscellaneous Land use layers removed as part of the voluntary stewardship program generally run from more intensive uses (residential and Conditional uses, layers 1-4) to less intensive agricultural and conservation layers, layers 5-8). In the Flowway Stewardship Areas, participation in the program requires the elimination of layers 1-4 at a minimum. However, in Habitat Stewardship Areas, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) conditional uses (Layers 2-4) are allowed on lands with an NRI score of 1.2 or less. Public comment questioned the rationale in treating HSAs differently that FSAs in this regard. Staff is of like opinion and recommends treating these in like fashion. 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 An issue discussed from time to time by the BCC is the suitability for County ownership of lands within the RLSA, either through Conservation Collier or otherwise. This issue received little attention by the public during this restudy process. Staff believes that there is some benefit to County ownership, if deemed appropriate under broad public policy considerations, such as the mission of Conservation Collier. One benefit would be the capture of stewardship credits by the County and removing these from the potential expenditure within the RLSA. County purchase of land (or credits) could accomplish one of two things: permanent retirement of the credits to reduce overall development potential, or conversion of the stewardship credits for use in the urban area under certain limited conditions. One thought raised in this regard is the use of credits within the Immokalee urban area, such as requiring the use of stewardship credits in the Low Residential subdistrict to allow for the highest density, say the 3rd or 4th unit per acre. Unfortunately, use of credits within Immokalee would increase the cost of development there, frustrating housing diversification, development, and redevelopment. However, this can be considered if the Board feels that “Low Residential” should remain lower than 4 units per acre, absent the purchase of credits. Another thought is to allow the private purchase of credits, in the sole discretion of the Board, for high density projects within the urban area that seek density above the current density rating system. This would be highly discretionary at the Board level but would provide an additional tool where high density is sought at appropriate locations. A Unit equivalency based on RLSA SRA densities could be used. Closer to the notion of extinguishing credits altogether, the County may wish to purchase land without using credits in any fashion. This is a concept similar to state conservation programs that have been in existence for some time. For example, the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program has been utilized in the RLSA to create agricultural easements over land that will permanently remove development rights. The County could also consider partnering with state programs to accomplish similar outcomes. 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. 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. 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] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) • 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 difference 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. 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. Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic and governmental 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. 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 manufacturing, or business park would help the long-term sustainability of SRAs. 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. 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. 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 defin ed, and no exemption should be given for excess open space. 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. 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. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) management in the absence of established SSAs or to supplement SSA land management activities. 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 individuals, 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 perso ns 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 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. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. 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. 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 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 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. 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). CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 traff ic 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. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Figure F-2 Vehicle/Panther Collisions CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. In addition, following third party analysis, each category should be capped: Base credits, restoration credits and Agricultural credits, so that excess credit use in one category does diminish the intended results in another category. 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. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits, and agricultural credits separately. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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: • 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 fewer 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations Water Resources 1. Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. 2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. 3. Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state, and local programs. Agricultural Protection 1. Remove the word “premature” from agriculture protection references in Policy Group. 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. 3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. 4. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. 5. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 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. 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). 4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. 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. 7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. 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 “R-1” credit(s) would be awarded only after the owner successfully completes all phases of R-2 restoration. 10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed 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. 11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. 18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance security and safety. Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic and governmental 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 6. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. 7. 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. 8. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. 19. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits, and agricultural credits separately. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Appendix A Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy Public Outreach – Meeting Summaries January 2018 – March 2019 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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: CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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: CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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? CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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? CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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? CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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? CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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, CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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.] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 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.] CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment D PL201900002292 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Att D RLSA Restudy White Paper 6.4.2019 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY 2020 STEWARDSHIP CREDIT ANALYSIS Collier County Growth Management Department August 2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 1 08/06/2020 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 2020 Credit Analysis I. Introduction The Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) was adopted in 2002. One of the primary objectives of the RLSA is to protect natural resources. An innovative planning tool was created through a “hallmark” public process guided by a Rural Lands Study Committee (Committee) appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The development of the RLSA was based on underlying natural resource data, vetted through 32 Committee meetings between 1999 and 2001. The RLSA data was organized in the adopted Stewardship Natural Resource Index (NRI) model. This NRI model reflects Collier County’s first integrated GIS land use and environmental database. The data and associated natural resource values were agreed to through the RLSA Committee process and adoption by the Board. The NRI model values are illustrated in Map 1. The darker the blue, the higher the natural resource value. The NRI scores, along with the RLSA policies, reflect the value of protecting these lands. The RLSA provides a plan to incentivize the desired outcomes of natural resource protection, agriculture land retention, and sustainable development. Map 1 Natural resource protection and agriculture protection are incentivized through the Stewardship Credit system. Property owners who agree to protect lands by designation of Stewardship Sending Area easements are rewarded with Stewardship Credits that can be used for development. This analysis evaluates how the RLSA Stewardship Credits have performed in the first twenty years under current policy and projects how they may perform through full implementation. The adopted plan is then compared to the proposed policy changes. The RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report, 2007, and the RLSA White Paper, 2019 include substantive analysis of the RLSA program. The findings of these reports are utilized in this analysis for comparison. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 08/06/2020 Consistent with the framework of the RLSA to incentivize what is valued using the Stewardship Credit system, the RLSA 5-Year Review Committee’s Report and the White Paper focused on recommended policy amendments to strengthen the incentives for: • agriculture land retention, • additional panther corridors, and • a tiered restoration system. The recommended amendments require a reanalysis of the Stewardship Credit system and rebalancing of the Stewardship Credits to align with the recommended maximum 45,000-acre development footprint. Collier County’s staff analysis provides an updated analysis based on the RLSA implementation to date. Figure 1 provides a simple illustration of the implementation of the RLSA. The majority of lands within the RLSA are valued natural resources and agriculture lands. To date, the RLSA has protected approximately 56% of the lands incentivized for preservation. A small percentage of land shown in orange are SSAs that maintains active agriculture uses. The Stewardship Credits generated from these SSAs total 197,287. These Credits may entitle SRAs of up to 27,127 acres. The approved and potential SRA acreage shown in yellow includes over 6,000 acres attributed to the Town of Ave Maria, and Rivergrass Village. A large percentage of the RLSA remains in the “Open” designation. The Open designation is where the RLSA directs SRA development. Recommended policy amendments incentivize this “Open” land to be retained in Agriculture SSAs as an alternative to future development. II. Stewardship Credit System Analysis To date, the RLSA has been implemented with the approval of SSAs 1-16, Ave Maria SRA and Rivergrass Village SRA. Others SSAs and SRAs are under review and pending. Map 2: Proposed RLSA Overlay Map shows the location of SSAs 1-16. These SSAs total approximately 50,425 acres and have generated 197,287 Stewardship Credits which can be used for approved and potential development of 27,127 SRA acres, including 10% public benefit uses that do not require consumption of Credits. This SRA potential equals 60% of the proposed 45,000-acre SRA cap. 37% 18%4% 29% 12% Figure 1: RLSA Ovrelay in 2020 Natural Resources Remaining Naural Resources in SSA Ag1 in SSA Open SRA Approved and Potential CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 3 08/06/2020 Map 2: CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 4 08/06/2020 1. Credits Generated Under the Adopted RLSA Credit System The Stewardship Credit System analysis considers the generation of Credits under the currently adopted RLSA Overlay. The adopted RLSA policies allow SSA Credit generation through three types of Credits: A. Base Credits B. Restoration Credits C. Early Entry Bonus Credits Stewardship Credits have been generated through all three available types. As shown in Figure 2, the greatest number have been generated by Restoration Credits. A. Adopted Base Credits Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of Policy 1.8. They are created from lands designated on the Overlay Map as Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA) and Open. Base Credits are determined through the NRI model values and the land use layers property owners voluntarily remove. The NRI model data is updated at the time an SSA is submitted for review and approval. SSAs 1-16 generated approximately 72,902 Base Credits, mostly from lands designated HSAs and FSAs as shown on Figure 3. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 Base Restoration Early EntryCredits Figure 2: Type of Approved Stewardship Credits 0.0 5,000.0 10,000.0 15,000.0 20,000.0 25,000.0 30,000.0 FSA HSA WRA OpenAcresFigure 3: Lands Designated SSA CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 5 08/06/2020 To estimate the future potential Base Credits, the data within the Stewardship NRI model is analyzed. Map 3: The analysis evaluates the potential remaining Base Credits for HSA, FSA and WRA lands. These remaining lands are illustrated on Map 3, shown in blue or green without the red hatch, and total approximately 40,080 acres. All Credit analysis must involve assumptions of what land use layers a property owner is willing to remove. The 5-Year Review Committee’s Report, and this staff analysis share the assumption that all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs become designated SSAs with land use layers removed down to Agriculture uses, such as the more intensive row crops or citrus (Ag 1 layer), or more passive agriculture uses such as pastures (Ag 2 layer). The 5-Year Committee Report found the actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, were approximately 15% greater than the Stewardship NRI model projections 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. The Committee Report estimated a total of 128,000 Base Credits. Staff evaluated the Stewardship NRI model data, removing all approved SSA and SRA lands, along with public lands and found approximately 40,080 acres remain designated HSA, FSA and WRA. These lands have potential to be designated SSAs and generate Base Credits. With the assumption the land use layers are removed down to the agriculture use, it was estimated that there is potential for 144,803 future Base Credits. Table 1 shows a comparison between the two analysis. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 6 08/06/2020 Table 1: Adopted RLSA Base Credit Estimates Base Credits 5-Year Review Report Estimates 2020 Analysis Estimates Approved in SSAs 1-13 60,319 Approved in SSAs 1-16 72,903 Estimated Future Base Credits 67,681 71,900 Total 128,000 144,803 Based on the findings of both the 5-Year Committee Report and staff analysis, a reasonable average estimate to use for the purpose is this analysis is 136,000 future Base Credits. There are no recommended policy amendments that affect the Base Credits. The Base Credit analysis is important in considering the potential total Stewardship Credits. B. Adopted Restoration Credits Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Restoration Credits are dependent on site specific conditions, detailed evaluations and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner, as well as successful implementation. For these reasons many different assumptions can be made to estimate the total number of Restorations Credits. This analysis utilizes restoration data within SSAs to date, and a reasonable assumption for potential future Restoration Credits. The 5-Year Committee Report assumed for SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total SSA acreage was proposed for restoration. The Report assumed the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that may initiate future restoration and found that 11,600 additional acres may be restored. The projected additional restoration credits generated under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits Staff’s review of the restoration approved for SSAs 1-16 found consistency with the 5-Year Review Committee. Approximately 29% of the total SSA acreage is proposed for restoration. Restoration Credits per Policy 3.11 prioritize the restoration of Camp Keais Strand providing for a total of 8 potential Restoration Credits per acre. Areas outside of Camp Keais Strand are eligible for a total of 6 potential Restoration Credits. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that 29% of the remaining HSA and FSA may utilize restoration activities. To date, WRAs have not been proposed for restoration activities and are assumed to continue the use of water management for agriculture activities. With this assumption, staff rounds the estimate of future restoration to 13,570 acres. Under the current program these restoration acres could generate a rounded estimate of 48,700 future Restoration Credits. Table 2 provides a comparison of the 5- Year Review Report analysis and staff’s 2020 analysis. Table 2: Adopted RLSA Restoration Credit Estimates 5-Year Review Restoration Acres 5-Year Review Restoration Credits 2020 Analysis Restoration Acres 2020 Analysis Restoration Credits Restoration in SSAs 1-13 12,000 82,000 Restoration in SSAs 1-16 14,439 104,510 Future restoration 40,000 78,000 13,570 48,700 Total 62,000 160,000 27,400 153,210 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 7 08/06/2020 Based on the findings of both the 5-Year Committee Report and staff analysis 156,600 future Restoration Credits is a reasonable average estimate. C. Adopted Early Entry Bonus Credits RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits were available until January 31, 2009. Prior to the expiration of these Credits, the RLSA produced a total of 19,472 Early Entry Bonus Credits. Adopted RLSA Total Potential Credits The RLSA Stewardship Credits generated from Base Credits, Restoration Credits and Early Entry Bonus Credits were estimated by both the 5-Year Review Committee Report and through staff analysis of the proposed policy amendments. Each analysis found very slightly different totals based on the data that was provided within the implementation of the program. Table 3 shows the total Credits estimated from both analyses. Table 3: Adopted RLSA Potential Total Credits 5-Year Review Estimates 2020 Analysis Estimates Base Credits 128,000 136,000 Restoration Credits 160,000 156,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits 27,000 19,472 Total 315,000 311,472 Based on the adopted RLSA Stewardship Credit system, the 5-Year Committee Report, and staff analysis, an average estimate of 313,000 total potential Stewardship Credits is used for the purposes of this analysis. 2. Recommended Policy Amendments to the Credit System The Committee’s recommended amendments include three significant changes to the Stewardship Credit system. These changes are viewed as adjustments to further balance the goal of the RLSA. The application and calculation methodology of the Base Credits described in the adopted program do not change. The Early Entry Bonus Credits have expired and no longer apply. The proposed amendments to the Stewardship Credit System incentivize the outcomes with the following types of Credits: A. Base Credits B. Agriculture Credits C. Panther Corridor Credits D. Tiered Restoration Credits A. Base Credits There are no recommended policy amendments that affect the Base Credits. Table 3 above shows the total estimated Base Credits. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 8 08/06/2020 B. Agriculture Credits (Recommended Policy 2.2) Agriculture Credits are proposed to incentivize the retention of agriculture lands within the RLSA “Open” designation shown on the Proposed RLSA Overlay Map. The Open designation is generally in agriculture uses and where future development may occur. With the Policy 2.2 recommended amendment, property owners agreeing to eliminate non-agricultural land uses from Open lands would be eligible for 2.6 Stewardship Credits per acre within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), and 2.0 Credits per acre on Open lands outside of the ACSC. This Agriculture Credit offers an incentive for property owners to consider an alternative to developing Open lands. The 5-Year Committee Report estimates 15,000 acres designated within the ACSC at 2.6 Credits per acre, and 25,000 acres of Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0 credits per acre Therefore, the 5-Year Committee Report estimates the change to Policy 2.2 may result in 89,000 total Agriculture Credits. Staff’s analysis considers the Open area remaining after discounting the areas of approved SSAs, the proposed panther corridors, and public lands within Open, and assumes a 45,000 SRA cap. The results of staff’s analysis are consistent with the 5-Year Review Report and found approximately 15,000 acres of Open within the ACSC and approximately 25,000 acres of Open outside of the ACSC may be utilized as Ag SSA. With these assumptions a total is found of approximately 89,000 Agriculture Credits. Incentivizing the protection of agriculture land, both outside the ACSC and within the ACSC, can be viewed as equally important. Offering Agriculture Stewardship Credits at the same rate of 2.0 Credits per acre would both incentivize the protection of the land and reduce the overall total Credits within the RLSA. Using the assumption of 2.0 Credits for 40,000 acres of agriculture land, the total potential is 80,0000 Agriculture Credits. Table 4: Recommended Future Agriculture Estimated Credits 5-Year Review Credit Estimates 2020 Analysis Credit Estimates Ag SSA in ACSC 39,000 30,000 Ag SSA not in ACSC 50,000 50,000 Total 89,000 80,000 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 9 08/06/2020 C. Panther Corridor Credits (Policy 3.10) Panther Corridor Credits are intended to further incentivize the protection of lands for panther. These Credits could be achieved by property owners agreeing to designate land and construct improvements to implement a north and south Panther Corridor as shown with red arrows on the Proposed Overlay Map. These corridors are assumed to require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. The Committee Report estimated approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1,000 acres of WRA land in the north and south corridors for a total of 2,300 acres. These proposed Credit System offers 10 Credits per acre, or a total of 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. Staff notes that proposed Policy 3.10, paragraph 2, as drafted in the Committee Report, includes a requirement for these Corridors to be federally approved and issuance of Credits would coincide with a phased implementation in accordance with a federal permit. For these reasons, for the purpose of estimating Credits, staff is using the assumptions found in the Committee’s report and estimates a total of 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. D. Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates (Recommended Amendment Policy 3.10) The proposed tiered restoration system is a substantial modification to the adopted restoration credit system. The purpose of the amendment is to better define the type and relative value of restoration. For this estimate, the Committee Report assumed that 11,600 acres within future SSAs would be 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). The Committee Report estimates 11,600 acres for potential restoration activities resulting in 72,000 Stewardship Credits. The staff analysis included a reviewed the restoration activities within the first twenty years of the program presented in SSAs 1-16. As described under the adopted RLSA analysis, approximately 29% of the total SSA lands have been found suitable for restoration. The restoration plans show 41% were for flow way restoration, while others were nearly equally represented between the other restoration activities, from 14%- 18%. The staff analysis used the total acreages of approved restoration and assumed the same percentages for the remaining HSA and FSA acres organized under the new tiered restoration activities. Table 5 shows the comparison of the 5-Year Report Estimates and the 2020. Table 5: Recommended RLSA Tiered Restoration Estimated Credits Restoration Type Credits per Acre 5-Year Report Estimated Acres 5-Year Tiered Restoration Credits Credits per Acre 2020 Analysis Estimated Acres 2020 Analysis Tiered Restoration Credits Panther Habitat 10 600 6,000 10 600 6,000 Native Habitat Rest. 8 2,750 22,000 8 2,440 19,520 Exotic Control/Burning 6 2,750 16,500 6 1,765 10,590 Flow Way 6 2,750 16,500 6 5,565 33,390 Caracara 4 2,750 11,000 3 1,900 5,700 Seasonal wetland 3 Not included Not included 4 1,900 7,600 Total 11,600 72,000 13,570 82,800 The White Paper included an additional change to the restoration credit system by recommending 1 Restoration Credit (rather than the adopted 4 Credits or the 5-Year Report proposed 2 Credits) be given at the time of restoration dedication. All remaining credits would be awarded following successful restoration CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 10 08/06/2020 implementation. This recommendation affects the RLSA process, but not the total estimated Restoration Credits. The total estimated Restoration Credits with implementation of the proposed tiered system for future SSAs are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Recommended RLSA Estimated Restoration Credits Restoration 5-Year Restoration Credits 2020 Analysis Restoration Credits Awarded Restoration Credits (R1) 28,000 53,333 Restoration Credits Pending Implementation (R2) 54,000 53,476 Estimated Future Restoration Credits 72,000 82,800 Total 154,000 189,609 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. For the purpose of this analysis, a rounded total estimate is 170,000 Restoration Credits Potential Total Credits Upon evaluation and analysis of the three recommended policy amendments affecting the Stewardship Credit system staff found a reasonable comparison to the 5-Year Committee Report. Table 7 shows the estimated total potential Stewardship Credits under the recommended policy amendments. Table 7: Recommended RLSA Estimated Potential Stewardship Credits Credit Type 5-Year Report Credit Estimate 2020 Analysis Rounded Credit Estimate Base Credits 128,000 136,000 Restoration Credits 154,000 170,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits 27,000 19,472 Agriculture Credits 89,000 80,000 Panther Corridor Credits 23,000 23,000 Total 421,000 428,472 If the three recommended policy amendments are adopted without further substantive changes, the RLSA Overlay, with 100% landowner participation with similar assumptions, a reasonable average estimate is 425,000 Stewardship Credits. 3. Adjustments to Meet the 45,000-Acre SRA Cap The 5-Year Review Committee Report recommended a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA. When the Report was presented the Board, the Board concurred with the cap and directed staff to bring back GMP amendments with the 45,000-acre SRA cap, and a cap on Stewardship Credits of 404,000, providing backup data is developed to determine actual cap values. To achieve this objective, adjustments are necessary so that the RLSA Overlay Credit System will produce sufficient Credits to achieve the objectives of natural resource protection, agriculture land retention and 45,000 SRA acres. The Board directed staff to balance the RLSA without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. This can be achieved by changing the CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 11 08/06/2020 SRA Credit Ratio found in Policy 4.19. The current SRA Credit Ratio requires 8 Stewardship Credits for each acre of SRA development, with exception for public benefit and excess open space acres which are not required to consume Credits under the adopted RLSA. The adopted RLSA Overlay is estimated to produce approximately 313,000 Stewardship Credits. With the adopted SRA Credit Ratio of 8 Credits per acre and assuming 10% of development as public benefit use and not consuming Credits, it is estimated that approximately 43,450 SRA acres may be developed and the remaining 46,931 acres would continue in agriculture and be subject to potential future development. Table 8. Adopted RLSA Estimated Credits and SRA Acres Stewardship Credit Total SSA approved and in escrow 197,288 SRA Acre potential @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 27,127 Projected Remaining Future Credits 118,712 Potential Future SRA Acres @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 16,323 Total Potential SRA Acres 43,450 Remaining agriculture acres subject to potential future development 46,931 With the recommended amendments, Stewardship Credits were added to incentivize the objectives of the RLSA program. Adjustments were made to further incentivize agriculture land retention and additional panther corridors. These Credit adjustments increase the potential total Stewardship Credits from approximately 316,000 to approximately 425,000. As previously discussed, 197,288 Stewardship Credits have been approved and may entitle up to 27,127 acres of SRA including 10% public benefit uses. To balance the projected additional Stewardship Credits (227,712) and remaining 17,873 SRA acres to achieve a total of 45,000 SRA acres, without excess Credits, the SRA Credit Ratio would change from 8 Credits per acre to 13 Credits per acre. Table 9 shows the potential Stewardship Credits and SRA acreage based on these assumptions achieving no excess Credits. Table 9. Proposed RLSA Estimated Credits and SRA Acres Stewardship Credit Total SSA approved and in escrow 197,288 SRA Acre potential @ 8 Credits per acre including 10% public benefit acres 27,127 Recommended Policy Amendments Future Credits 227,712 Remaining SRA to equal 45,000 acres includes 10% public benefit acres 17,873 SRA Credit Ratio (Remaining Credits/Remaining SRA, less 10% public benefit acres) 13 Total Potential SRA 45,000 Remaining agriculture land subject to potential future development 0 Conclusions The RLSA program is successfully meeting the objective to protect natural resources. In the first twenty years of the program, 50,425 acres have been protected within SSA agreements. That is 56% of the overall goal of protecting HSA, FSA and WRA lands. These SSAs have generated Stewardship Credits to entitle approximately 27,127 acres, including public benefit uses. The Board directed staff to evaluate the Stewardship Credit system with the recommended policy amendments and to balance the potential Credits with a total of 45,000 SRA acres. Staff’s analysis finds that the additional Agriculture Stewardship Credits and the Panther Corridor Stewardship Credits further the overall goal of the RLSA. The Agriculture Stewardship Credits will address the need to incentivize the retention of agriculture in the Open designation and provides an alternative to future development. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 12 08/06/2020 The recommended policy amendments result in larger total projected Stewardship Credits, from approximately 316,000 estimated under the adopted RLSA, to approximately 425,000 estimated in the recommended RLSA policies. The proposed Board direction to cap the Stewardship Credits at 404,000 and 45,000 SRA acres, with an SRA Credit Ratio of 10 Stewardship Credits per SRA acres, would result in the potential for approximately 20,000 excess Credits, which is about .04% of the total. Therefore, the Credit system does not create an unreasonable amount of excess Credits with a cap of 404,000 Credits. As illustrated in Figure 4, the recommended RLSA policies are intended to incentivize a greater amount of protection of agriculture lands and natural resources while limiting future development. Figure 4 37% 18%4% 29% 12% Current RLSA in 2020 Natural Resources Remaining Naural Resources in SSA Ag1 in SSA Open SRA Approved and Potential 54% 22% 24% Proposed RLSA Natural Resources SSA Agriculture SSA SRAs CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment E PL20190002292 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Att E RLSA Collier County Credit Analysis (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Members of the American Planning Association and American Institute of Certified Planners To: Anita Jenkins, AICP. Interim Director, Collier County Growth Management Division From: David Farmer, PE, AICP. Chief Executive Officer, Metro Forecasting Models Date: August 19, 2020 Re: Supplemental Data and Analysis Supporting the Amendment of Attachment C Introduction/ Factor Methodology To explain the commercial demand methodology used in the 2017 Collier Interactive Growth Model (2017 CIGM), the detailed research applied to produce the commercial factors is described in this memorandum. The memorandum is solely focused on commercial factors applied to the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA). Demand for new commercial services is a function of population growth. Demand is forecasted on a square foot per capita basis, then assigned as potential future Neighborhood, Community, and Regional shopping centers where appropriate. The remaining commercial demand is then allocated using the available supply of vacant commercial land and referred to as “Commercial Other”. For the purposes of amending Attachment C, the commercial demand per person factors were converted to commercial square feet per dwelling unit (Sqft/DU). The approach used to forecast commercial demand is described in the following order:  Research Aggregate Commercial Demand Supply per Person  Comparative Analysis of Places in Florida  Commercial Building Area Allocation (shopping centers, essential services, healthcare, employment centers, etc.)  Conversion of CIGM Commercial Demand in Sqft per Person to per Unit  Commercial Land Area Allocation The 2017 CIGM recommended the average aggregate commercial demand per dwelling unit for the RLSA towns and villages is 135 Sqft/DU, and is broken down as follows:  Towns have an average demand of 170 Sqft/DU.  Villages have an average demand of about 53 Sqft/DU. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Att F RLSA Commercial Memo (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 | P a g e Research on Aggregate Commercial Supply per Person The basis for forecasting the commercial demand of future residents was a detailed analysis of the average commercial building area per person. Based on 2017 property appraiser data, Collier County had 40 million square feet of commercial (retail and office) building area serving 373,795 residents. In aggregate, Collier County had an average of 107 square feet of commercial building area per capita. The City of Naples, which provides a significant portion of commercial services for Collier County, had 391 square feet of commercial space per person. Comparative Analysis of Places in Florida The following table demonstrates a comparison between Collier County and similar counties in the state of Florida in terms of commercial building area per resident (sqft/person). Comparative Analysis of Similar Places in Florida. Source: Metro Forecasting Models, 2017. The table above shows the results of our research ranging from 76 square feet per person to 123 square feet per person. The average of the counties in the table is 103 square feet per person. Collier County’s supply being 107 sqft per person is marginally higher than the average. Commercial Building Area Allocation There are many commercial and nonresidential land uses necessary to sustain a given population. The estimated buildout population of the RLSA is approximately two-thirds of Collier County’s population in 2017. Many neighborhood and community shopping centers will be necessary to serve future residents. Additionally, towns and some villages will need office and business parks to provide employment opportunities in the RLSA. Hospitals, medical office, restaurants, banks, and entertainment venues will also be needed. These land uses are not only necessary to meet the demand of RLSA residents, but also to enhance internal capture and minimize unnecessary trips to coastal Collier County. If the RLSA does not allocate enough commercial land area to serve their future residents, many more lane-miles of roads will be required to meet their needs and demands. The RLSA is envisioned as a series of mixed-use developments, largely self-sustaining. In support of these land-use policies, “Attachment C” provides required minimum for the commercial space needed to meet the demands of residents near their homes. FLORIDA COUNTIES COMMERCIAL SQFT PER PERSON Place Comm Sqft Population Sqft/Person Collier County 40,032,444 373,795 107 Lee County 71,009,266 785,592 90 Manatee County 27,746,187 364,171 76 Sarasota County 50,139,740 407,718 123 Seminole County 55,178,628 454,442 121 Martin County 15,813,086 161,170 98 Average 103 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Att F RLSA Commercial Memo (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 3 | P a g e Collier County’s aggregate commercial demand is 107 square feet per person. Recognizing the unique and regional commercial uses located in the coastal urban area, the average square foot per person demand was projected with adjustments for specific commercial uses. The RLSA is envisioned to have less demand for tourism and hospitality than Collier’s coastal areas while adding opportunities for economic diversification. Analysis of the Collier County commercial building allocation found 58% of uses consist of professional/medical office, mixed-use development and shopping centers. Applying 58% to 107 square feet per person provides an average value of 62 square feet of commercial building area per person. This suggested minimum is proposed within the RLSA boundaries to minimize transportation impacts and provide a high quality of life for future residents. The RLSA, as understood in 2017, will be a mixture of towns and villages. The towns are anticipated to provide contiguous commercially zoned tracts allowing larger retail and office developments while villages will tend to have smaller commercial areas. Since towns are envisioned to be two to four times larger than villages, it makes them ideal to support larger employment and commercial centers. Most villages will not have the critical population mass needed to support larger commercial or employment centers. The market potential of a village is not sufficient to support all the needs demanded by those residents. The red arrows in the graphic to the right depict how village residents may travel to the towns for certain goods and services. With 62 square feet per person being a suggested minimum for the RLSA, the recommended allocation of commercial building area for towns is 76 square feet per resident (31 sqft/person less than Collier County’s aggregate demand), and 24 square feet per resident in villages. The following section will convert the demand per person values to demand housing unit. Conversion of Sqft per Person to Sqft per Housing Unit The aggregate commercial demand in Collier County can be converted to a demand per housing unit as follows based on data from the Property Appraiser: Aggregate Commercial Building Area = 40 million square feet 2017 Housing Units = 219,000 units Commercial Demand (sf) per Housing Unit = 40,000,000/219,000 = 183 sf per unit Source: Attachment B 5-year review Phase II page78 of 159 (red arrows added by MFM) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Att F RLSA Commercial Memo (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 4 | P a g e Future towns and villages are estimated to have approximately 2.5 people per household and an average vacancy rate of 10%. This means, on average, there will be 2.25 residents per housing unit. Applying the recommended minimum commercial building area per person to future town and village housing units in the RLSA is as follows: Towns: 76 square feet per person x 2.25 persons/unit ≈ 170 sf/unit Villages: 24 square feet per person x 2.25 persons/unit ≈ 53 sf/unit The CIGM estimated housing unit buildout potential for towns is 78,108 units. The estimated housing unit buildout potential for villages is 30,950 units. The rounded minimum weighted average of across the entire RLSA is 135 square feet of commercial building area per housing unit. Commercial Land Area Allocation The recommended building area per unit allocations can be used to estimate the amount of commercially zoned land necessary for future towns and villages in the RLSA. Based on our research in suburban Collier County, approximately 8,500 square feet of commercial building area can be developed per acre. This value can vary depending upon how water management and environmental preservation are accommodated by the developer. For example, the Galleria commercial portion of Pelican Marsh (shown in the picture to the right) has over 9,300 square feet of commercial building area per acre. Assuming 8,500 square feet will be the average commercial building area developed per acre in the RLSA, commercial land use factors can be established. Applying the recommended minimum commercial building area per housing unit with the commercial land use factor provides the following: Commercial Acres for Towns per 1,000 units: 170sf/unit x 1,000 units ÷ 8,500sf/acre = 20.0 acres Commercial Acres for Villages per 1,000 units: 53sf/unit x 1,000 units ÷ 8,500sf/acre = 6.2 acres Conclusion Proper allocation of commercial and other land uses is critical to success of the RLSA and maximizing internal capture to serve these future residents needs. The suggested minimum allocations will enhance the land use mix and provide strategic locations near the future populations that will minimize unnecessary trips to coastal Collier County. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment F PL201900002292 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Att F RLSA Commercial Memo (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Collier County Growth Management Department A SUMMARY OF RLSA AMENDMENTS INCLUDING 2009 EAC, CCPC, AND BOARD COMMENTS ON 5-YEAR REVIEW AMENDMENTS, AND STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 1 Staff working document 08/06/2020 DRAFT RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY AMENDMENTS Introduction In 2009, by a 3-2 vote, the Board accepted the Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5-Year Review Committee Report as a planning document and directed the recommended Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments move forward with changes. The Board voted to 1) incorporate both a 404,000 Stewardship Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area 45,000 acre cap, provided backup data is developed to determine the actual cap values, 2) add a statement to the effect that issuance of Stewardship Credits does not provide vested rights to land owners, and 3) that no excess credits are created. Due to lack of funding, the GMP amendments did not move forward. On October 22, 2019, the Board directed staff to bring forward GMP amendments within the 5-Year Review Committee Report and the RLSA White Paper. The following proposed amendments are those included in the 5-Year Review Committee Report (Report) and White Paper. The text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5- Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations from the RLSA White Paper, October 2019. Proposed Amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) 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 protect retain land for 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 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 utilizes employs creative land use planning techniques. through the use of established incentives. Staff Comments: The 5-Year Review Committee Report (Committee Report) recommendations further express the goal of retaining agricultural lands. This is implemented through related RLSA policy amendments. When the Committee Report was presented to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 2 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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(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. Staff Comments: This Committee Report recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive change. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment) 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. Staff Comments: This Committee Report recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive change. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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(11) 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 (recommended amendment) 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 3 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 195,846 185,935 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Staff Comments: Staff’s recommended amendments update the total acreage within the current adopted Overlay boundary. The original Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment study area included analysis of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest public lands. The adopted RLSA Overlay Map does not include these public lands. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. 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 land, 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 (LDRs) 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 owners owner’s consent. Staff Comments: This Committee recommended amendment is grammatical without substantive change. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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 by CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 4 Staff working document 08/06/2020 amendment as may be periodically initiated by the County. 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 in Policy 1.6.1 Staff Comments: The Committee recommended amendment is for policy reference and consistency. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommended amendments update the policy to remove the obsolete EAR process and establishes a new process the County will use to amend the Overlay Map following approval of an SSA. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Nick Penniman Comments: Shifting from “…during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs…” to “by amendment as may be periodically initiated by the county…” makes the designation of new SSAs a political, rather than a planning, exercise. While the EAR process is a shell of its former manifestation, it did involve public input. This change shuts out public involvement to a great extent. Policy 1.6.1 (recommended amendment) 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 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 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 commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan approval, but not building permits. 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; 2. 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: (a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the land, or CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 5 Staff working document 08/06/2020 (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 Management 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 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 foregoing 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 finally 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. 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 Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit agreements 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 any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 6 Staff working document 08/06/2020 For SSAs approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an application for such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy 1.6.1. Staff Comments: This Committee recommendation allows for a five-year “Conditional Period”, with an opportunity for one additional year, during which time the Stewardship Easement is a “Conditional Stewardship Easement.” The Conditional Stewardship Easement is held in escrow by an escrow agent, acting on behalf of the SSA applicant, and is not recorded into public records as a permanent Stewardship Easement until such time that any of the three events cited in Policy 1.6.1 occurs. This new policy will allow owners to opt out of the RLSAO if no market exist for the use of Stewardship Credits. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC recommended to add the last sentence to this new policy. The Board had no objections. By Board Resolutions, the practice of allowing an SSA to be held in escrow has been on-going since 2008. Currently, SSA 10 and 12-16 are held in escrow. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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 no 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 and one of the following: Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; 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. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation adds the FFWCC to future Stewardship Easement Agreements. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 1.8 The natural resource value of land 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 in dex 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 7 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Policy 1.9 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. 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 (recommended amendment) The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also be adopted as a are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment. Staff Comments: Staff’s amendment recommendation is an update to reflect the accomplishment of the policy direction with the adoption of LDC Section 4.08.00 – Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District Standards and Procedures. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment) Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in an SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 8 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff Comments: This Committee amendment corrects a Policy reference without any substantive change. When the Committee presented their recommendations the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the 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 land 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)(l). Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be 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). 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 implemen t uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 9 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 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. Staff Comment: Staff’s recommendation is to delete this policy. The time for Early Entry Bonus Credits lapsed in 2009 and no action has been taken to extend the timeframe. The RLSA Overlay capped the Bonus Credits at 27,000. Within the five-year timeframe the Bonus Credits were available, 19,471.5 were approved with SSA Credit Agreement Resolutions for SSAs 1-16. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 1.21 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, and 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 every seven (7) years beginning [date of adoption of this Ordinance].and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 10 Staff working document 08/06/2020 8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommended amendments update the policy and the Overlay review process and timeline. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. For consistency with Chapter 163.3248 (8) (b), Florida Statutes, number “8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas” should be deleted. Nick Penniman Comments: There is no reason to stretch out the review period to seven years from the current five years. It deprives the public of the right to be involved by two years. Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment) The total number of Stewardship Credit shall be capped at 430,000 404,000 to entitle no more than 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not vest development rights presume approval of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation incorporates the 2009 Board’s direction for a Stewardship Credit cap and a Stewardship Receiving Area cap. In the Board’s recommendation, the Board asked for backup data to determine the actual cap values, and that no excess credits are created. Attachment 1, Collier County 2020 Credit Analysis, shows the recommended policy amendments result in larger total projected Stewardship Credits, from approximately 316,000 projected under the adopted RLSA, to approximately 425,000 projected in the recommended RLSA. The projected excess Credits of a rounded 20,000 Credits represents approximately .04% of the total Credits. Therefore, the Credit system does not create an unreasonable amount of excess Credits with a cap of 404,000 Credits. To maintain the balance of 45,000 SRA acres without substantial excess Credits, the Stewardship Credit Ratio (Policy 4.19) is recommended to change from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre. These changes and the assumptions herein, result in a balance program that incentivizes the protection of natural resources and agriculture land, and limits the future development to 45,000 SRA acres. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed recommendations with a 404,000 Credit cap and further adjustments to Ag Credits and Public Benefit acres described below. The language regarding Credit vesting needs further details, including language that states that all SSAs approved or submitted and under review by Collier County prior to the adoption of the amendments will retain an 8 Credit ratio for each SRA acre requiring Credits. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The proposal to change from 8 credits to 14 credits per SRA acre is not sufficient. The original adoption of 8 credits per acre of development was arrived at by dividing the number of credits expected to be generated (134,388) by the number of acres expected to be developed (16,805) to get a value of 8 credits per acre. With the total credits increasing to 430,000, if one divides that number by the number of acres projected (16,800) one gets 25 credits per acre that should be required for development. This has been a windfall for the developers and the number of required credits needs to be recalibrated. The difference is in the number of acres to be developed. In 2002 the GMP said this was 16,805. Now in your staff comments you are claiming this to be 45,000 acres. (Wilson Miller in 2008 said it would be 43,312 acres.) It would not be 45,000 acres if more credits were required per acre. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 11 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Nick Penniman Comments: I think to institutionalize the credits in a system that is already flawed is a mistake, and an admission that the Wilson-Miller system is faulty. For example, the system, as originally presented to the BCC set the build-out of the county at 16,800 acres. Restoration credits, when calculated, blew the roof off the credits. Group 2 - Policies (recommended amendment) To protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses and 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. Staff Comments: This Committee amendment is to emphasize the retention of agricultural lands and activities through proposed incentives stated in Policy 2.2. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language. Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment) Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be protected from premature conversion to other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner’s right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the form of compact rural development in the RLSA Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of 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. The combination of stewardship incentives and land efficient compact rural development will minimize two of the primary market factors that cause premature conversion of agriculture. Staff Comments: This Committee amendment implements the objective of the retention of agricultural lands and activities through proposed incentives which are stated in Policy 2.2. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Nick Penniman Comments: The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 12 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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, WRA, 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, the se 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 as established by F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009. 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 periodically update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Staff Comments: This Committee amendment establishes Credits to incentivize protection of agricultural lands. These Agriculture Stewardship Credits are expected to be generated from the lands designated Open on the Overlay Map. The Committee’s analysis shown in Attachment 1 estimates a total of 89,000 Agriculture Credits. The proposed amendment incorporates the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. The Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis also assumed 45,000 acres of SRA and found that approximately 40,000 Open acres could be available for designation as Agriculture Stewardship Areas. The Policy and the Credit Analysis shows an adjustment to the Agriculture Credits to 2 per acre for both lands inside and outside of the ACSC. This reduces the total to 80,000. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the Agriculture Credit estimates as a guide to the overall recommended Credit cap to achieve the goal. This amendment and the voluntary participation of landowners would further the goal of retaining agricultural lands with Stewardship Easements and reduce the potential conversion of the lands to 1 unit per 5 acres. ECPO Comments: recommends the Agricultural Credits be awarded at a consistent rate of 2 Credits per acre within and outside of the ACSC, for a total estimate of 80,000 Credits. Policy 2.3 (recommended amendment) Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will may establish an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversificati on of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to agriculture should be allowed under an administrative permit process and make recommendations to the BCC. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 13 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff Comments: The Committee recommended the complete deletion of this Policy. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC recommended to retain the Policy and add the last sentence. The Committee agreed to retain the policy with the amendments shown. The Board had no objections. Staff’s recommendation removes the timeline requirement for the Board to accomplish this Policy due to the Committee’s amendment changing the Policy language for from “will” to “may.” Nick Penniman Comments: The word “will” is an imperative; the word “may” is conditional. Staff comment here is misleading. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 2.4 The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities. Policy 2.5 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 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. Group 3 – Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Policy 3.1 (recommended amendment) 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 31,100 30,869 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. The 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 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the FSA acreage associated with the current adopted Overlay Map. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 14 Staff working document 08/06/2020 ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. 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 39,991 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species, as well as 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 HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation included numerical grammatical changes. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the HSA acres associated with the adopted Overlay Map. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 3.3 (recommended amendment) 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 18,428 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retenti on 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 1 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. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation reflects an update to the WRA acreage associated with the current adopted Overlay Map. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 3.4 (recommended amendment) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 15 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 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. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation is to delete this policy. Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest are not within the adopted RLSA Overlay boundary. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 3.5 3.4 (recommended amendment) 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 3.7. 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 an FSA. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation updates a Policy reference. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 3.6 3.5 (recommended amendment) 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 3.7. Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. Staff Comments: Staff’s recommendation updates a Policy reference. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The number of credits required to indicate that a property needs to be updated to include primary and secondary panther habitat, whether or not panthers are actually observed on site because we now know that this is preferred and tolerated habitat. At a m inimum, all primary panther territory should be assigned a score of 0.6 and secondary habitat should be assigned a score of 0.4. Additionally, the cutoff value for the NRI (now at 1.2) is arbitrary and does not protect listed species. This cutoff should be lowered to 0.8 which would be more protective. This would still allow development of large portions of the RLSA. Alternatively, it could state that all development shall be directed away from the primary zone and all open areas in the primary zone shall become habitat stewardship areas (HSAs). Policy 3.7 3.6 (recommended amendment) CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 16 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Data 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 Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ASCP) for Golf. 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. Staff Comments: The Committee amendment clarifies text and there is no substantive change this policy. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the correct reference to “Environmental Data.” This reference is consistent with the corresponding Land Development Code requirements. Staff’s recommended amendment also updates the reference to Audubon’s program for best management practices for golf. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Nick Penniman Comment: To replace the EIS with some vague document titled “Environmental Data” eases the strict requirements set forth in EIS procedures. It also renders historical comparisons meaningless as to format. There is no description set forth of the content or structure of this “Environmental Data” document. Policy 3.8 3.7 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 3.8(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 and similar CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 17 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 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. Staff Comments: This Committee amendment eliminates aquaculture from Ag 1 group activities. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 3.10 3.9 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 3.10 (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 restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs, four two one additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such Credit 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 four 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 3 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 5 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 4 5 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 18 Staff working document 08/06/2020 6 7 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 Map, there may be opportunities to create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 1 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 9 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit . The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC 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 any area inside an FSA, HSA, or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 1 2 3 additional Credits per acre. Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, an additional 6 7 Credits per acre shall be awarded. 4. Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration and in no case shall more than 10 Credits be awarded per acre. 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 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. Staff Comments: The 5-Year Committee Report recommended amendments are substantive in defining and restructuring Restoration Credits. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC recommend the second and third sentence found in paragraph 2. The Committee included these changes in the recommendations to the Board. The Board had no objections. The RLSA White Paper recommended restructuring the timing of award of Restoration Credits so that one Credit, rather than the 5-Year Review Committee Report recommended two Credits, are awarded at the time of restoration dedication. All remaining Credits would be awarded following the successful completion of the restoration activity. The Collier County 2020 Credit Analysis, Attachment 1, shows the potential total Restoration Credits under the proposed tiered system results in approximately 170,000 Stewardship Credits. This total includes the Restoration Credits generated in approved and escrowed SSAs. Staff recommends approval of the amendment, with the restoration Credit estimates as a guide to the overall recommended Credit cap to achieve the goal. Brad Cornell Comments: Suggests adjusting the restoration values for carcara from 3 to 2 Credits and the wading bird from 2 to 3 Credits. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments with a change to 3.10.2 correcting the implementation credits from 9 to 8 credits, so the total Panther Corridor Credit is 10. ECPO recommends that the estimated Restoration Credits should be 144,000 total R1 and R2 Credits, consistent with the 5 Year review. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 19 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Judith Hushon Ph.D Comments: There is no justification for increasing restoration credits for each species and activity. This is one of the reasons that restoration credits are rising. Credits should only be awarded after restoration is complete, otherwise it does not benefit the ecosystem. This means that only R2 credits should be awarded. To date only slightly over 600 acres have been restored though credits have been claimed for over 30,000 acres – this is egregious. Also, in this section, corridor credits should not be allocated until a corridor is completely committed as a partial corridor has no value to the protected species. (Awarding of restoration credits is explained in the Stewardship Credit Worksheet) Michael Seef Comments: The County should provide oversight for independent 3rd party experienced in long term planning and execution and subsequent issuing of credits. Eliminate R-1 “dedication” restoration credits. This avoids double dipping”. It also is in concert with the assignment of base credits for SSA easements which already incentivize the retention of up to 6 environmental benefits. These are most often reduced to 4 benefits and enabling Ag. Assure control of independent proper planning and execution timing to receive R-2 credits. Place a cap on maximum credits separating for restoration credits, base credits, and Ag credits. Nick Penniman Comments: This adds credits to an already flawed system. I think to institutionalize the credits in a system that is already flawed is a mistake, and an admission that the Wilson-Miller system is faulty. For example, the system, as originally presented to the BCC set the build-out of the county at 16,800 acres. Restoration credits, when calculated, blew the roof off the credits. Policy 3.12 3.11 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 3.12 (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 stormwater quality treatment and retention for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used as primary for stormwater quality treatment for water management for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculations. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 20 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff Comments: During the Committee presentation, the CCPC recommended the proposed amendment requires the acreage of WRAs used as primary treatment for water management for the SRA be included in the acreage calculations for the SRA. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with revisions to the language for consistency with stormwater quality treatment permitting. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Suggests to revise the added sentence to read as follows: However, if the WRA provides water quality treatment for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculation. Judith Hushon Ph.D. Comments: WRAs should not be used to provide water treatment and retention for a SRA. They are being preserved because of their high scores and their environmental value. If they are used they should definitely be included in the SRA acreage calculations and the entire body of WRA bordering the proposed development should be included, not just a small region along the edge. Pollutants from the SRA will disperse through the entire WRA. Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and retention for a SRA…” Period. Policy 3.14 3.13 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. Policy 3.15 3.14 (recommended amendment) Any development on lands participating in the RLSA Overlay Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy By [1 year of the date of adoption of the ordinance], LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation is intended to address light pollution in the rural area. The CCPC recommendations are included in the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with changes noted for policy consistency. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 21 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 an SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.12, is when a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for a SRA, then the acreage of the WRA shall be included in the SRA. 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 approximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. 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 principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations update Open lands acreage and provide for a 45,000 acre SRA cap. The CCPC recommendation was “Total SRA designation shall be from a maximum creation of 315,000 Stewardship Credits.” The Committee’s Report to the Board included the policy as proposed with the 45,000 acre SRA cap. The Board concurred with the 45,000 acre cap and provided direction to include a SRA cap in the GMP amendments. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with removal of the reference to the horizon year, and for consistency purposes, the addition of the language referencing WRA acreage within an SRA. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Suggests to revise the added sentence to read as follows: The exception, consistent with Policy 3.12, is when a WRA provides water quality treatment for a SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and retention for a SRA…” Period. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 22 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 one year from the effective date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to include provisions for consideration of im pacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and provisions for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. Staff Comments: The 5-Year Review Committee’s recommended deletion reflects the policy direction to adopt implementing LDC provisions has been accomplished. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 4.4 (recommended amendment) 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 by amendment process when it periodically initiated by the County. occurs. Staff Comments: Staff recommends deleting reference to the obsolete EAR process and replace it with a County initiated process. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. 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. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County’s then-adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the 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. 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 s hall also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations address SRA Master Plan compliance with Collier County transportation plans and requires management plans to address human and wildlife conflicts. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 23 Staff working document 08/06/2020 When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approving the amendment with the replacement of the “EAR” process with a County initiated process, and deletion of the reference to “the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element.” Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process, not to fund and maintain the development of another process for transportation planning in eastern Collier County. Staff’s objection to the reference for a County Build Out Vision Plan doesn’t preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 4.6 (recommended amendment) SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(l). 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 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. 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 MPO Long Range Transportation Needs 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. Staff Comments: This Committee amendment will require mobility plans with future SRA application. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approving the amendment with the deletion of the reference to the “County Build Out Vision Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process, not to fund and maintain the development of another process for transportation planning in eastern Collier County. Staff’s objection to the reference for a County Build Out Vision Plan doesn’t preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment) There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, 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 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more 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 9J-5.006(5)(l). The size and CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 24 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended amendments to this Policy eliminate Hamlets as a form of development. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or more than 4,000 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 publi c transportation. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. A full range of housing shall include Affordable Housing, as defined in the LDC, needed to support the mix of uses and employee income levels based on the jobs created in the Town. A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the residential units included in a Town shall be Affordable Housing, with at least 50% of the affordable units provided at less than 80% of Area Median Income. The provision of Affordable Housing shall be considered a Public Benefit use and therefore shall not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits for the acreage required to support the affordable housing neighborhood according to the following schedule: Very-low and Low Income units = 100% reduction, Moderate Income units = 50% reduction, Gap Income units = 25% reduction. A housing analysis shall be submitted at the time of application. (Policy 4. 7.6 replaces the deleted provisions) 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 provided described in Policy 4.15 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 25 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendations increase the minimum size of Towns to greater than 1,500 acres and not more than 5,000 acres. Data submitted to the Committee indicated that a small grocery store would need a minimum of about 3,500 dwelling units or approximately 8,000 persons to support such a store. Thus, the current minimum size of 1,000 acres would not, in itself, support a small grocery store. The CCPC recommendations are included in the amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff’s recommendation is to include provisions for affordable housing. A further incentive for the provision of Affordable Housing is the recommendation that affordable units be offered relief from the consumption of Stewardship Credits as a public benefit use. Staff does not object to the recommended change in size of towns. Staff recommends the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 and the adoption of Policy 4.7.5 to address affordable housing in the RLSA Overlay. Staff also recommends amendments related to Towns as shown in RLSA Overlay Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. The proposed amendments are based on the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) which is used to align our future projections for growth management, including land use, long range transportation and utilities planning. The CIGM findings determined the current required amount of goods and services, and recreation and parks fall well below the County’s existing level of service. Therefore, proposed amendments increase the required goods and services from 65 SF per dwelling unit to 170 SF per dwelling unit. The parks requirement is increased from 200 SF per dwelling unit to 358 SF per dwelling unit. The civic use requirement is clarified to be land area rather than building area. ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: The changes proposed here to include a full range of housing types and affordable housing are positive and should be adopted. Collier badly needs worker housing and these new villages and towns are a logical choice. Nick Penniman Comments: To move the Town acreage up from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres is, in my opinion, a way to kill off the possibility of affordable housing in RLSA developments. You can see, in the proposed Rivergrass development, set for 997 acres as a Village, that a developer can avoid a number of public amenities by staying a tad shy of the current threshold acreage for a Town. 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 greater not less than 100 300 acres and up to or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State 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. Vil lages 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 4.7.3 shall also be permitted 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 are CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 26 Staff working document 08/06/2020 included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Diversity of housing shall include Affordable Housing, as defined in the LDC, needed to support the mix of uses and employee incomes based on the jobs created in the Village. A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the residential units included in a Village shall be Affordable Housing, with at least 50% of the affordable units provided at less than 80% of Area Median Income. The provision of Affordable Housing shall be considered a Public Benefit use and therefore shall not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits for the acreage required to support the affordable housing neighborhood according to the following schedule: Very-low and Low Income units = 100% reduction, Moderate Income units = 50% reduction, Gap Income units = 25% reduction. A housing analysis shall be submitted at the time of application. (Policy 4.7.6 replaces this policy) Staff Comments: This amendment retains the 1,000 acre limit for villages within the ACSC, while increasing the village acreage limit to 1,500 acres for areas outside the ACSC, with the Committee citing the need to have a minimum size compact urban development to support a gro cery store. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff’s recommendation is to include provisions for affordable housing. A further incentive for the provision of Affordable Housing is the recommendation that affordable units be offered relief from the consumption of Stewardship Credits as a public benefit use. Staff does not object to the recommended change in size of villages. Staff recommends the amendments to Policy 4.7.2 and the adoption of Policy 4.7.6 to address affordable housing in the RLSA Overlay. Staff also recommends amendments related to Towns as shown in RLSA Overlay Attachment C, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. The proposed amendments are based on the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) which is used to align our future projections for growth management, including land use, long range transportation and utilities planning. The CIGM findings determined the current required amount of goods and services fall well below the County’s existing level of service. Therefore, proposed amendments increase the required goods and services from 25 SF per dwelling unit to 53 SF per dwelling unit. ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Also need to address the increase of minimum size of Village and the gap between 100 acre CRD and 300 acre Village. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: No villages should be built within the ACSC. This is against the State policy for setting aside this land. It was initially decided that only CRD’s could be permitted in this area and that these should be closely examined and their size, location and impact limited. The increasing of required goods and services space for Villages is needed. These inhabitants will be located miles from services and will need to have them provided locally. This will also cut down on miles traveled and increase local capture. Nick Penniman Comments: To describe the allowable acreage limits of Villages within the ACSC is a tacit admission that development should occur within the ACSC. Wrong. It should be prohibited. It is the CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 27 Staff working document 08/06/2020 water recharge area via the Okaloacoochee Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). The county should not permit development in the ACSC. Policy 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single -family housing and limited range of convenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five-acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town. Staff Comments: The Committee recommended deleting the provisions for a Hamlet determining the Hamlet not sufficient to be able to function as self-sustaining urban development. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of this amendment. Policy 4.7.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment) Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the mix of uses and design standards, but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a Hamlet or Village. 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, convenience retail, tourism or recreation. A CRD may include but is not required to have permanent residential housing. and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. and the services that support permanent residents. 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 100 300 acres. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential village. It would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco-tourists, but may not provide for the range of services that are necessary to support permanent residents. Except as described above, a CRD will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth on Attachment C based on the size of the CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those goods and services that support residents such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses shall also not be required, . Hhowever, for any CRD that does include permanent residential housing, the proportionate support services listed above shall be provided in accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter nor more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved ofr each subsequent Village or Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 300 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 28 Staff working document 08/06/2020 100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed in 5 years pursuant to Policy 1.22. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation would allow greater flexibility with respect to housing in CRDs and provide greater emphasis upon CRDs involving research, education, convenience retail, tourism or recreation. The CCPC recommendations are included in the proposed amendment. The BCC had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the revision to the maximum size of a CRD. ECPO Comments: The gap needs to be addressed between 100 acre maximum CRD and the increase minimum 300 acre Village. Policy 4.7.4 (recommended amendment) Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation. The business and industry use allowed include those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended policy is intended to acknowledge the need to diversify the economy in eastern Collier County. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff’s recommendation provides clarity to “business and industry” uses by adding the reference to Florida Qualified Target Industries. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments with the addition “but are not limited to” after the word “include.” Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: CRDs should only be allowed in areas well separated from one another. There should not be a realignment provision because the reasons for this should not be permitted. Policy 4.7.5 For the purposes of coordinating infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within eastern Collier County, two or more Villages or CRDs under common or related ownership that are physically proximate and share infrastructure shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the County shall review the application by the SRA standards (Town, Village or CRD) applicable to the total size of the aggregated development. Staff Comments: The intent of coordinating infrastructure and public facilities between SRAs is addressed in Policy 4.6, 4.14 and 4.17, through the SRA application process, and developer agreements with Collier County. Providing for economic diversification is addressed in policy 4.7.4 and the proposed increase in required square footage for goods and services. Policy 4.7.6 provides provisions for affordable housing distribution with the RLSA. Also, Policy 4.15.1 provides SRAs may demonstrate residents’ needs can be met within other SRAs or within the Immokalee Urban Area. All these policies together provide Collier County the tools necessary to evaluate SRAs that are proximate. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 29 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff finds the other Policy amendments recommended herein meet the intent of coordinating infrastructure and promoting economic diversification between SRAs. Staff recommends the approach to improve SRA standards and application requirements is the upcoming Land Development Code amendment process. ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Policy 4.7.5 To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall utilize one of the following options: 1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of the SRA. c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. 2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. 3) The process and procedures to implement this policy shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. Staff Comments: the proposed Policy replaces the draft language in Policy 4.7.1 and 4.7.2. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Policy. ECPO agrees with the proposed Policy. Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. An SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as an SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) An 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, and WRAs. To further direct CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 30 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 Ind ex score of greater than 1.2. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation is for policy consistency and to allow infrastructure to be exempt on lands that have a Natural Resource Index value greater than 1.2. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of this amendment. 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 those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space . except for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within an SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acreage. Staff Comments: The Committee’s proposed amendments are for policy consistency reference to Policy 4.9 with respect to the CRD area limit. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of this amendment, with the elimination of the incentive for open space over 35 percent. This incentive rewards sprawling design by exempting the use of Credits for open space exceeding 35 percent. Open space is defined in the RLSA LDC to include “non-usable” open space related to infrastructure such as landscape areas including right-of-way, parking lot buffers, and water management areas. Incentivizing non-usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of incentivizing compact design. ECPO Comments: does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: A requirement for open space beyond that potentially provided by lawns and sports facilities should be included. The inclusion of parks and play areas greatly improves the quality of life for the residents. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 31 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 an 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 an SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineat ed 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. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: WRAs should not be used to provide water treatment and retention for a SRA. They are being preserved because of their high scores and their environmental value. If they are used they should definitely be included in the SRA acreage calculations and the entire body of WRA bordering the proposed development should be included, not just a small region along the edge. Pollutants from the SRA will disperse through the entire WRA. 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. 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 approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin 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 arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan the MPO’s LRTP Needs 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 SRA it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 32 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations establishes another transportation planning process for the County. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the elimination of the requirement for the County to develop, fund and manage a County Build Out Vision Plan. Staff’s recommendation is to rely on the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process, not to fund and maintain the development of another process for transportation planning in eastern Collier County. Staff’s recommendation to delete the reference to a County Build Out Vision Plan does not preclude the Board from additional focus on transportation planning for SRAs. The Board may request this effort at any time they find appropriate. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Nick Penniman Comments: The MPO LRTP extends out to 2050. Roads have driven development for 150 years in Florida. The more appropriate sequence would be for development to be included in the long- range planning process at a more granular level than the general designations of Sending, Receiving and Neutral Areas currently in use. 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, 4.7.4 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 provided the capacity of those adjoining area’s facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. 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 Hamlets 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. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommended amendments provide for goods and services to be provided in adjoining towns or villages. Analysis would be required with an SRA application to demonstrate sufficient capacity exists. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 33 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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: 1. 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 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 An 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 essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater manageme nt, 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 those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, 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 permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation provides for policy consistency. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 34 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. 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. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendation provide additional linkage to public facilities policies contained in the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP. The CCPC recommendations are included in this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 4.18 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. In the event that an SRA development, including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA, generates 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 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. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation provides for the use of surplus SRA revenues for the use for economic development. The Committee included the CCPC recommendations into their Report with the exception of, “including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA.” The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 4.19 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 approved prior to (the adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten (10) Thirteen (13) Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. except for o 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 35 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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, 4.15 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Staff Comments: The Committee recommended an increase from 8 Credits to 10 Credits in order to balance the Credit system where the system provides for additional incentives to retain agricultural land, protect the panther, and further incentivize restoration activities. The CCPC concurred with these amendments. The Board had no objections. The RLSA Credit Analysis, Attachment 1, shows the number of Stewardship Credits approved at the ratio of 10 Credits per SRA acre, along with the additional Stewardship Credits added by these recommended policies, create an excess of approximately 20,000 Credits. Staff recommends recalibrating the Stewardship Credit system to 10 Credits to achieve the desired outcome of balancing the Overlay with natural resource protection, agriculture retention and a total of 45,000 acres of development. Staff also recommends removing the incentive for excess open space within SRA development. This incentive has been replaced with an incentive for affordable housing. ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Suggests 10 Credits per SRA acre ratio. Michael Seef Comments: Consider more than the current 8 credits per SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area) to 10, 12, 15 or more to accord with SRA’s design for compact housing, density, transportation, and natural resources. Thus achieving overall a better balance between agriculture, conservation and development. Policy 4.20 The acreage of open space exceeding thirty five percent and public benefit use shall not 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: affordable housing as defined in the LDC, 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 Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations exempt excess open space and public benefit uses from the consumption of Stewardship Credits. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of this amendment, with the elimination of the incentive for open space over 35 percent. This incentive rewards sprawling design by exempting the use of Credits for open space exceeding 35 percent. Open space is defined in the RLSA LDC to include “non-usable” open space related to infrastructure such as landscape areas including right-of-way, parking lot buffers, and water management areas. Incentivizing non-usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 36 Staff working document 08/06/2020 incentivizing compact design. Staff recommends replacing the open space incentive with an incentive for affordable housing. ECPO Comments: ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment as it represents substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process. Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments: It is hard to see that public benefit acreage should not count toward the total acreage of a development. Credits should be required for this land. Both affordable housing and open space should be required. Nick Penniman Comments: I do not believe affordable housing should be included as a “public benefit.” First, it would not be accessible to the public. Second, affordable housing is so important that it should be dealt with as a stand-alone issue in the GMP, with specific goals depending upon the size of the development, and not as an afterthought by adding it in as a “public benefit.” Policy 4.21 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 Hamlets 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 and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs however, that CRDs or not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment 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 of the effective date of these amendments, 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. Staff Comments: This Committee recommendations remove the allowance for a Hamlet in the ACSC and add provisions for a Village. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Nick Penniman Comments: Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and retention for a SRA…” Period. Policy 4.22 (recommended amendment) 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. Staff Comments: This Committee recommendation address a process to assess historic resources if discovered during SRA planning. When the Committee presented their recommendations, the CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 37 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the correction to the reference for the Florida Division of Historic Resources. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Policy 4.23 (recommended amendment) Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Staff Comments: The Committee recommendations are intended to address outdoor lighting. The Committee’s Report included the CCPC recommendation with the exceptions of, “using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program.” The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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 FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only not be allowed in FSAs. 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. 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 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. Staff Comments/Support/Data and Analysis: The Committee recommendation is for policy consistency. The amendment includes the CCPC recommendations. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 38 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Policy 5.3 (recommended amendment) 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, these Group 5 policies following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supersede 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. Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the above revised text recommended by the CCPC. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 5.4 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 by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance] within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Staff Comments: The Committee included in the Report the revised text recommended by the CCPC. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment with changes made for policy consistency. Policy 5.5 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 species of special local concern (SSLC) and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards. A SSLC is defined as species that have been delisted but for which there remain federal, state and/or local protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for their protection. 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or SSLC are utilizing 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 SSLC that may be discovered. 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or SSLC are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or SSLC and their habitats. a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or SSLC and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 39 Staff working document 08/06/2020 regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be 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 or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the required management plans: 1 South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999. 2 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region, USFWS, 1987. 3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale Development in Florida, Technical Report No. 4, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987. 4 Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. 5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 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 or SSLC are utilizing a 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. Management 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 waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 40 Staff working document 08/06/2020 b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves. c.Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. d.For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. e.For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ipicoides borealis), the required habitat protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy. f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear- proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan. g.For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. The Multi- Species Recovery Plan (1999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection standards for the RLSAO. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 41 Staff working document 08/06/2020 h.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 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 containing utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change 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 5.5 will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Staff Comments/Support/Data and Analysis: The Committee include the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with the exception of the last sentence of the first paragraph, “A SSLC is defined as species that have been delisted but for which there remain federal, state and/or local protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for their protection.” The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Policy 5.6 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 d esignated 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 Environmental Resource Permit 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 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 42 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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 SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC, 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, as amended. 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, as amended, andor 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 Environmental Data 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 allowsed. 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. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 43 Staff working document 08/06/2020 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: 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. iv 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 participating in any 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 conserva tion CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 44 Staff working document 08/06/2020 programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with the exceptions of the text struck through in paragraph 3.f.iv.”..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.” The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. Nick Penniman Comments: To remove the requirement to place restored lands in a permanent conservation easement is an appropriate solution and should be retained in the GMP amendments. Policy 5.7 Any development on lands not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. Staff Comments: The Committee accepted the CCPC recommendations regarding this new Policy, with the exception of using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Text with single underline or single strike through are recommended amendments included in the April 21, 2009, RLSA 5-Year Review Committee Report to the Board. Text in double underline or double strike through are staff’s recommendations. 45 Staff working document 08/06/2020 Proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element Policy 3.7 Within 12 months after adoption of this policy, the county shall develop a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS) through the build out of the county (the “County Build Out Vision Plan”). The build out network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existing roadways that need to be improved, all proposed roadways, and the facility type and lane needs. The County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO, serve as a guide to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and be reviewed no less than annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect changed circumstances which occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review shall include a review of land uses within the County and shall include consideration of the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These services shall include but are not limited to government offices, jails, court houses, landfills, maintenance facilities or any other facility that might otherwise require long distance travel. Staff Comments: The Committee’s recommendation proposes a new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element as referenced in RLSA Policy 4.5. The CCPC concurred with this amendment. The Board had no objections. Staff recommends deletion of this Policy to “Within 12 months after adoption of this policy, the county shall develop a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS) through the build out of the county (the “County Build Out Vision Plan”). The build out network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existing roadways that need to be improved, all proposed roadways, and the facility type and lane needs. The County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO, serve as a guide to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and be reviewed no less than annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect changed circumstances which occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review shall include a review of land uses within the County and shall include consideration of the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These services shall include but are not limited to government offices, jails, court houses, landfills, maintenance facilities or any other facility that might otherwise require long distance travel.” The MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan and process serve this purpose. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for County GMP policy to direct the actions of other agencies, such as “…the County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO.” The Vision Plan also has the intent of locating public services needed to accommodate the build out population. For the purposes of these proposed amendments, staff suggests Immokalee, which is centrally located to the RLSA, provides many of the public services needed and has potential for long term future growth. Services specific to the needs of an SRA should be considered and provided for during the time of SRA application. ECPO Comments: ECPO has no objections to the proposed amendments. Nick Penniman Comments: The MPO LRTP extends out to 2050. Roads have driven development for 150 years in Florida. The more appropriate sequence would be for development to be included in the long- range planning process at a more granular level than the general designations of Sending, Receiving and Neutral Areas currently in use. CCPC Transmittal Hearing Staff Report Attachment G PL20190002292 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Att G Summary of RLSA Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Collier County Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Prepared by Collier County Growth Management Department Community Planning Section Prepared for Collier County Board of County Commissioners Adopted October 1997, as amended 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 1 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY [Page 10] GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES [Page 98] A. Area of Critical State Concern *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** B. North Belle Meade Overlay *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** C. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay [Page 120] Goal Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County’s goal is to protect retain land for 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 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 utilizes employs creative land use planning techniques. through the use of established incentives. Objective 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. 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 2 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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. 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(11) 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 195,846 185,935 acresof 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 land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program. Policy 1.5 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 (LDRs) 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 owners owner’s consent. Policy 1.6 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 3 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 by amendment as may be periodically initiated by the County. 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 in Policy 1.6.1 Policy 1.6.1 (recommended amendment) 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 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 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 commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan approval, but not building permits. 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; 2. 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: (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 Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval; or 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 4 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 3. 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 foregoing 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 finally 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. 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 Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit agreements 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 any SSA or SRA. This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof. For SSAs approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an application for such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy 1.6.1. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 5 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Policy 1.7 The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology 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 no 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 and one of the following: Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; 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 land 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 characteristi cs 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 1.9 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. 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. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 6 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 are part of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay 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 Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in an SRA on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 4.18 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 land 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. Policy 1.17 Stewardship Credits may be 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). 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 7 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 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 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. Policy 1.21 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, and 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 every seven (7) years beginning [date of adoption of this Ordinance].and the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. 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. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 8 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, additional review measures may be considered. Policy 1.22 The total number of Stewardship Credit shall be capped at 404,000 to entitle no more than 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Generating Stewardship Credits does not presume approval of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Group 2 - Policies To protect agricultural lands from premature conversion to other uses and 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. Policy 2.1 Agricultural landowners will be provided with lands will be protected from premature conversion to other uses by creating incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner’s right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the form of compact rural development in the RLSA Overlay. Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of 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. The combination of stewardship incentives and land efficient compact rural development will minimize two of the primary market factors that cause premature conversion of agriculture. Policy 2.2 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 to other uses, using Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA, SRA, WRA, 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 Lands, 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 as es tablished by F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed from Open Lands 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. SSA’s created under this Policy will be known as an Agricultural SSA. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA, 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 9 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Collier County shall periodically update the RLSA Zoning Overlay District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Agricultural SSA. Policy 2.3 Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will may establish an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to the continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The AAC will also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to agriculture should be allowed under an administrative permit process and make recommendations to the BCC. Policy 2.4 The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate. The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities. Policy 2.5 Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County’s quality of life and economic well-being. Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation a s provided by the Florida Right-to- Farm Act. Policy 2.6 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. Group 3 – Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, 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 31,100 30,869 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. The 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 10 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8. Policy 3.2 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 39,991 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species, as well as and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included beca use 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 HAS 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 18,428 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 1 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 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 3.7. 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 11 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 an 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 EIS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Data 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 Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ASCP) for Golf. 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 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 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 12 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 1 will 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 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 restoration within the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate designate land for restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs, four one additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. An additional two Stewardship credits shall be assigned for each acre of land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such Credit 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 four additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria, as defined in the Land Development Code or 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 5 Credits per acres, or for flow way restoration at 5 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 7 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 Map, there may be opportunities to create, restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection. Should a property owner in a federally approved corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so designated 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 13 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. dedicated. Should an owner also complete panther corridor restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with four 8 additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the federal permit agency authorizing said restoration. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC 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. D esignation 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, an additional 8 Credits per acre shall be awarded upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. 4. Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration and in no case shall more than 10 Credits be awarded per acre. 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 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 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 an 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 stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculation. 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, 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 14 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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. Policy 3.15 Any development on lands participating in the RLSA Overlay Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy By [1 year of the date of adoption of the ordinance], LDC regulations shall be initiated for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. 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 All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as an SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. The exception, consistent with Policy 3.13, is when a WRA provides stormwater quality treatment for an SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for stormwater quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. 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 de signated 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 approximately 18,300 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000 acres. Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. 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 principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 15 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Policy 4.3 Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the 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 one year from the effective date of this amendment, Collier County shall adopt LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, to include provisions for consideration of impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts, and provisions for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. 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 by amendment process when it periodically initiated by the County. 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. The SRA Master Plan shall comply with the County’s then-adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the County Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended and referenced in Policy 3.7 of the 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. 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 Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 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 that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunities 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)(l). 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 vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 16 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. outside development and 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 MPO Long Range Transportation Needs 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 There are four three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, 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 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more 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 9J-5.006(5)(l). 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 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 1,000 greater than 1,500 acres and up to or more than 4,000 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 ratio as provided described in Policy 4.15 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. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 17 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 o0f the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 300 acres, and up to or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to not more than 1,500 acres outside the Area of Critical State 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 4.7.3 shall also be permitted 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 are included in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located within the village to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Policy 4.7.3 Hamlets are small rural residential areas with primarily single -family housing and limited range of convenience-oriented services. Hamlets shall be not less than 40 or more than 100 acres. Hamlets will serve as a more compact alternative to traditional five-acre lot rural subdivisions currently allowed in the baseline standards. Hamlets shall have a public green space for neighborhoods. Hamlets include convenience retail uses, in a ratio as provided in Attachment C. Hamlets may be an appropriate location for pre-K through elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. To maintain a proportion of Hamlets to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional Hamlets, in combination with CRDs of 100 acres or less, may be approved for each subsequent Village or Town. Policy 4.7.4 4.7.3 Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will provide flexibility with respect to the mix of uses and design standards but shall otherwise comply with the standards of a Hamlet or Village. 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, convenience retail, tourism or recreation. A CRD may include but is not required to have permanent residential housing. and the services and facilities that support permanent residents. and the services that support permanent residents. 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 100 300 acres. An example of a CRD is an ecotourism village that would have a unique set of uses and support services different from a traditional residential village. It would contain transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco-tourists, but may not provide for the range of services that are necessary to support permanent residents. Except as described above, a CRD will conform to the characteristics of a Village or Hamlet as set forth on Attachment C based on the size of the CRD. As residential units are not a required use, those goods and services that support residents 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 18 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. such as retail, office, civic, governmental and institutional uses shall also not be required, . Hhowever, for any CRD that does include permanent residential housing, the proportionate support services listed above shall be provided in accordance with Attachment C. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter nor more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less, in combination with Hamlets, may be approved ofr each subsequent Village or Town. To maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 300 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Village or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 300 acres or less may be approved prior to each subsequent Village or Town. There shall be no more than 5 CRDs of more than 100 acres in size. The appropriateness of this limitation shall be reviewed in 5 years pursuant to Policy 1.22. Policy 4.7.4 Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industry within the RLSA, to further promote economic sustainability and development, diversification and job creation. The business and industry use allowed includes, but is not limited to, those as defined as Florida Qualified Target Industries. The appropriate scale and compatibility of these uses within a Town or Village will be addressed during SRA application process. Policy 4.7.5 To address the accommodation of Affordable Housing in a Town or Village, the SRA applicant shall utilize one of the following options: 1) Affordable Housing Land Reservation a) Reservation of one or more site(s) within the SRA or within a proximal SRA in the RLSAO with densities and development standards that accommodate Affordable Housing residential uses at a minimum density of 10 units per acre, for acquisition by either Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider. b) The aggregate acreage of such site(s) shall be equal to or greater than 2.5% of the gross area of the SRA. c) The acreage of land reserved for Affordable Housing will be considered as a Public Benefit Use and not require the consumption of Stewardship Credits but shall be included in the calculation of total SRA acreage. d) The County shall verify the site(s) is/are appropriate and approve the site(s) at time of SRA approval, subject to standards to be established in the LDC. e) Affordable Housing units shall be excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap for the SRA in which they are located. 2) Alternatives proposed by the SRA Applicant a) While compliance with the Land Reservation described above shall be deemed to satisfy affordable housing requirements, other options may be proposed by the SRA applicant and approved by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability issues in the subject SRA. 3) The process and procedures to implement this policy shall be set forth in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning District. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 19 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Policy 4.8 An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. An SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as an SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment) An 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, and WRAs. 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 Ind ex 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 those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. except for the allowance of uses described in Policy 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within an SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acreage. 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 an 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 an 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 20 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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. Policy 4.14 The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval, an SRA proposed to adjoin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open Lands shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the County’s arterial/collector roadway network as shown on the MPO’s LRTP Needs 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 SRA it serves. Signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA 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 proposed roadway network. Any such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the project traffic on existing or proposed roadways. Policy 4.15.1 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, 4.7.4 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 provided the capacity of those adjoining area’s facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired uses per the standards of Attachment C. 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 21 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Hamlets 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: 1. 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 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 An 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 essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not limited to, 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 those CRDs exceeding one hundred (100) acres in size, 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 poli cy 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 permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.17 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 22 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvement Element in addition to the following: jails, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire service, government buildings and libraries. 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 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. In the event that an SRA development, including any related impacts to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA, generates surplus revenues to Collier County, and Collier County may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are availab le 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 Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio submitted for review or approved prior to (the adoption date of this Ordinance). Ten Credits per acre shall be required for each acre of land included in an SRA, where such Credits were created from any other Stewardship Sending Area. 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 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, 4.15 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. Policy 4.20 The acreage of open space exceeding thirty five percent and public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits of an SRA, 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: affordable housing as defined in the LDC, 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, 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 23 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. Policy 4.21 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 Hamlets 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 and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, not more than 1,000 aces of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs however, that CRDs or not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment 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 of the effective date of these amendments, 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 n ot 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 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. Policy 4.23 Any development on lands participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. 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 To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Areas as shown 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 FSAs. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only not be allowed in FSAs. 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. 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 or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habita ts. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 24 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 5.2 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, these Group 5 policies following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supersede 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 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 initiated by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance], updated periodically, and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies. Policy 5.5 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 species of special local concern (SSLC), as defined by Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards. A SSLC is defined as species that have been delisted but for which there remain federal, state and/or local protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for their protection. 1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or SSLC are utilizing 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 SSLC that may be discovered. 2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or SSLC are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or SSLC and their habitats. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 25 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or SSLC and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans. Open space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be 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 or SSLC habitat shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate. i. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the required management plans: 1 South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999. 2 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region, USFWS, 1987. 3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale Development in Florida, Technical Report No. 4, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987. 4 Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. 5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 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 or SSLC are utilizing a 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. Management 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 Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 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 minimizing opportunities for negative interaction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 26 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. c. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres. b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves. c.Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No. 8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. d.For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. e.For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ipicoides borealis), the required habitat protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requi rements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May 1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy. f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear - proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan. g.For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 27 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. The Multi- Species Recovery Plan (1999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection standards for the RLSAO. h.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 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 containing utilized by listed species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may change 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 5.5 will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection. Policy 5.6 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 Environmental Resource Permit 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 28 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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 SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC, 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, as amended. 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, as amended, andor 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 Environmental Data 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 allowsed. 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. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 29 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. 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: 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 w etlands 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. iv 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 participating in any 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 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 30 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Staff Proposed Amendments Exhibit A PL20190002292 Future Lands Use Element Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments – CCPC Transmittal Draft Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs. Policy 5.7 Any development on lands not participating in the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy, LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security. 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 31 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Attachment A Land Use Layers Base Credit Stewardship Overlay Designation Proximity Listed Species Habitat Soils & Surface Water Restoration Potential Land Use Land Cover (FLUCCS) Total Index Value Credits (Base Credit X Index Factor)Layer Eliminated (X)Stewardship Credits for Land Use Layers Removed 0.0 Residential Land Uses 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 General Conditional Uses 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 Earth Mining and Processing Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Recreational Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Group 1 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Support Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Group 2 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Total of all Layers 1.0 Maximum Total Credits 0.00 0.00 0.00 Credits X Acres =0 Stewardship Credits Stewardship Natural Resource Index Factors Enter X for the Appropriate Factor (Only one for each Index) Stewardship Overlay Designation Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)0.7 Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA)0.6 Water Retention Area (WRA)0.6 Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)0.4 None of the above 0.0 Proximity Indices Enclosed by FSA, HSA, or WRA 0.4 Within 300 feet of FSA or HSA 0.3 Within 300 feet of public or private preserve land 0.2 None of the above 0.0 Listed Species Habitat Indices Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated) plus other listed species 0.8 Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated)0.5 Other documented listed species habitat 0.4 None of the above 0.0 Soils/Surface Water Indices Open Water and Muck Depression soils 0.4 Sand Depression soils 0.3 Flats (Transitional) soils 0.2 Non-hydric soils 0.0 Restoration Potential Indices Large mammal corridor restoration areas 0.5 Connector wetlands and flowway restoration areas 0.5 Wading bird restoration areas 0.4 Other listed species restoration areas 0.3 None of the above 0.0 Land Use - Land Cover Indices FLUCCS Code Group 1 0.4 FLUCCS Code Group 2 0.3 FLUCCS Code Group 3 0.2 FLUCCS Code Group 4 0.0 WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS 1. Select a parcel with a single homogeneous land cover-type to be analyzed and select one appropriate factor from each category in the list of Natural Resource Index Factors (i.e., Stewardship Overlay Designation, Proximity Indices, etc.). 2. Select the individual Land Use Layers (X) to be eliminated from the parcel to yield the Stewardship Credits to be granted for each layer removed. 3. Enter the number of acres being analyzed. The worksheet multiply the total Credits per acre by the number of acres in the parcel to yield the total Stewardship Credits. Index Factors Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Stewardship Credit Worksheet The potential maximum number of Stewardship Sending Area Credits per acre granted for each Land Use Rights Layer to be "eliminated" from the owner's land 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Credits (Base Credit X Index Factor) Stewardship Credits (Credits per Acre) Residential Land Uses General Conditional Uses Earth Mining and Processing Uses Recreational Uses Agriculture - Group 1 Agriculture - Support Uses Agriculture - Group 2 The "base credit" does not change from parcel to parcel once calibrated 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Cumulative Index Factors Natural Resource Indices Natural Resource Index Scores Stewardship Overlay Designation Proximity Listed Species Habitat Soils & Surface Water Restoration Potential Land Use Land Cover (FLUCCS) The cumulative number of Stewardship Sending Area Credits per acre granted for the groups of Land Use Rights Layers "eliminated" from the owner's land Stewardship Credit Matrix Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Land Use Layers Residential Land Uses General Conditional Uses Earth Mining and Processing Uses Recreational Uses Agriculture - Group 1 Agriculture - Support Uses Agriculture - Group 2 Conservation, Restoration, Natural Resources 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 32 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Uses as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code – A, Rural Agricultural District; specific restrictions, conditions or limitations are set forth in the Land Development Code. (P) Principal Use, (A) Accessory Use, (CU) Conditional Use. RLSAO Attachment B Final Adoption dw-/10-31-02 Attachment B Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Land Use Matrix Residential Land Uses General Conditional Uses Earth Mining and Processing Uses Recreational Uses Agriculture Group 1 Agricultural Support Uses Agricultural Group 2 Conservation, Restoration and Natural Resources Single-family dwelling (P) Family care facilities (P) Excavation, extraction or earthmining and related processing and production (CU) Golf courses and/or golf driving ranges (CU) Crop raising, horticulture; fruit and nut production; groves; nurseries; improved pasture (P) Farm labor housing (A) Unimproved pasture and grazing; forestry (P) Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservancies, refuges and sanctuaries (P) Mobile homes (P in MH Overlay; A as temporary use) Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery (CU) Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants (CU) Sports instructional schools and camps (CU) Animal breeding (other than livestock), raising, training, stabling or kenneling (CU) Retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products, grown primarily on the property (A) Ranching; livestock raising (P) (CU) Water management, groundwater recharge (P) Private boathouses and docks on lake, canal or waterway lots (A) Veterinary clinic (CU) Sporting and recreational camps (CU) Dairying; poultry and egg production; milk production (P) (CU) Retail plant nurseries (CU) Hunting cabins (CU) Restoration, mitigation (P) Recreational facilities integral to residential development, e.g. golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields (A) Child care centers and adult day care centers (CU) Aquaculture for native species (P) and non- native species (CU) Packinghouse or similar agricultural processing of farm products produced on the property (A) Cultural, educational, or recreational facilities and their related modes of transporting participants, viewers or patrons; tour operations, such as, but not limited to airboats, swamp buggies, horses and similar modes of transportation (CU) Water supply, wellfields (P); oil and gas exploration (P) Guesthouses (A) Zoo, Aquarium, aviary, botanical garden, or other similar uses (CU) The commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals (CU) Sawmills (CU) Excavation and related processing incidental to Ag (A) Boardwalks, nature trails (P) Churches and other places of worship (CU) Wholesale reptile breeding and raising – non-venomous (P) and venomous (CU) Natural resources not otherwise listed (P) Communication towers (P) (CU) Beekeeping (P) Essential services (P and CU) Social and fraternal organizations (CU) Oil and gas field development and production (CU) Private landing strips for general aviation (CU) Cemeteries (CU) Schools (CU) Group care facilities, ALF (CU) 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 33 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Attachment B Layer 1 Residential Land Uses Layer 2 General Conditional Uses Layer 3 Earth Mining and Processing Uses Layer 4 Recreational Uses Layer 5 Agriculture Group 1 Layer 6 Agriculture - Support Uses Layer 7 Agriculture Group 2 Layer 8 Conservation, Restoration and Natural Resources Single-family dwelling, incl. mobile home (P) Family care facilities (P)Excavation, extraction or earthmining and related processing and production (CU) Golf courses and/or golf driving ranges (CU) Crop raising; horticulture; fruit and nut production; groves; nurseries, improved pasture Farm labor housing (A)Unimproved pasture and grazing, forestry Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservencies, refuges and sanctuaries Mobile homes (P in MH Overlay; A as temporary use) Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery (CU) Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants (CU) Sports instructional schools and camps (CU) Animal breeding (other than livestock), raising, training, stabling or kenneling Retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products; grown primarily on the property (A) Ranching; livestock raising Water management, groundwater recharge Private boathouses and docks on lake, canal or waterway lots (A) Veterinary clinic (CU)Sporting and recreational camps (CU) Dairying; beekeeping; poultry and egg production; milk production Retail plant nurseries (CU)Hunting cabins (CU)Restoration, mitigation Recreational facilities integral to residential development, e.g., golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields (A) Child care centers and adult day care centers (CU) Aquaculture for native species (P) and non-native species (CU) Packinghouse or similar agricultural processing of farm products produced on the property (A) Cultural, educational, or recreational facilities and their related modes of transporting participants, viewers or patrons;tour operations, such as, but not limited to airboats, swamp buggies, horses and similar modes of transportation (CU) Water supply, wellfields; oil and gas exploration Guesthouses (A)Zoo, aquarium, aviary, botanical garden, or other similar uses (CU) The commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals (CU) Sawmills (CU)Excavation and related processing incidental to Ag (A) Boardwalks, nature trails Churches and other places of worship (CU) Wholesale reptile breeding and raising - non- venomous (P) and venomous (CU) Natural resources not otherwise listed Communications towers (P) (CU) Essential services (P and CU) Social and fraternal organizations (CU) Oil and gas field development and production (CU)Private landing strips for general aviation (CU) Cemeteries (CU) Schools (CU) Group care facilities, ALF (CU) Uses as listed in Collier County Land Development Code - Rural Agricultural District (P) Prinicpal Use, (A) Accessory Use, (CU) Conditional Use Collier County RLSA Overlay: Attachment B Proposed Land Use Matrix 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 34 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Attachment C Typical Characteristics Town*Village Hamlet Size (Gross Acres)1,000-4,000 acres 100-1,000 acres**40-100 acres**100 Acres or less**Greater Than 100 Acres** Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1-4 DUs per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre*** Residential Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes Diversity of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes Single Family and limited multi-family Single Family and limited multi-family ****Single Family and limited multi-family **** Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Manufacturing/Light Industrial - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Goods and Services Town Center with Community and Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town and Village Centers: Minimum 65 SF gross building area per DU; Corporate Office, Manufacturing and Light Industrial Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 SF gross building area per DU Convenience Goods and Services: Minimum 10 SF gross building area per DU Convenience Goods and Services: Minimum 10 SF gross building area per DU Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 SF gross building area per DU Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic Community Parks (200 SF/DU) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods Active Recreation/Golf Courses Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes Lakes Active Recreation/Golf Courses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SF/DU Moderate Range of Services - minimum 10 SF/DU; Limited Services Limited Services Moderate Range of Services - minimum 10 SF/DU Full Range of Schools Full Range of Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Auto - interconnected system of local roads Auto - interconnected system of local roads Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Pedestrian Pathways Pedestrian Pathways Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system County Transit Access Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails County Transit Access County Transit Access * - Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7.1 of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. ** - Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Developments within the ACSC are subject to location and size limitations, per policy 4.21, and are subject to Chapter 28-25, 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. Underlined uses are not required uses. Transportation Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Recreation and Open Spaces Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Collier County RLSA Overlay Water and Wastewater Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Compact Rural Development Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems RLSA O Attachment C G, Comp, David, E. Lands GMPAs WM-dw-cf/10-18-0208/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 35 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Attachment C Typical Characteristics Town*Village Hamlet Size (Gross Acres)1,000-4,000 acres 1,500 - 5,000 acres 100-1,000 300-1,500 acres**40-100 acres**100 300 Acres or less**Greater Than 100 Acres** Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1-4 DUs per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1/2 -2 DU per gross acre***1-4 DUs per gross acre*** Residential Housing Styles Full range of single family and multi-family housing types, styles, lot sizes Diversity of single family and multi- family housing types, styles, lot sizes Single Family and limited multi-family Single Family and limited multi-family****Single Family and limited multi-family Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Retail & Office - .5 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Civic/Governmental/Institution - .6 Manufacturing/Light Industrial - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Group Housing - .45 Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Transient Lodging - 26 upa net Goods and Services Town Center with Community and Neighborhood Goods and Services in Town and Village Centers: Minimum 65 170 SF gross building area per DU; Corporate Office, Manufacturing, Research and Light Industrial Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 53 SF gross building area per DU Convenience Goods and Services: Minimum 10 SF gross building area per DU Convenience Goods and Services: Minimum 10 SF gross building area per DU; research, education, toursim/recreation Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers: Minimum 25 SF gross building area per DU Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic Interim Well and Septic Community Parks (200 358 SF/DU) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Public Green Space for Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres) Parks & Public Green Spaces w/n Neighborhoods Active Recreation/Golf Courses Active Recreation/Golf Courses Lakes Lakes Active Recreation/Golf Courses Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Lakes Open Space Minimum 35% of SRA Wide Range of Services - minimum 15 SF of gross land area /DU Moderate Range of Services - minimum 10 SF/DU; Limited Services Limited Services Moderate Range of Services - minimum 10 SF/DU Full Range of Schools Full Range of Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Pre-K through Elementary Schools Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Auto - interconnected system of local roads Auto - interconnected system of local roads Auto - interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system Pedestrian Pathways Pedestrian Pathways Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system County Transit Access Station or Park and Ride Facility Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails Equestrian Trails County Transit Access Station or Park and Ride Facility County Transit Access County Transit Access * - Towns are prohibited within the ACSC, per policy 4.7 of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. ** - Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Developments located within the ACSC shall be no greater than 10% of the total site size and are subject to Chapter 28-25, FAC. *** - Density can be increased through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus or through the density blending provisions. **** - Those CRDs that include single or multi-family residentail uses shall include proportionate support services. Underlined Italizied uses are not required uses. Text underlined is added, text in strikethrough is deleted. Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Collier County RLSA Overlay: Attachment C Proposed Water and Wastewater Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Compact Rural Development Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems Transportation Individual Well and Septic System; Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Recreation and Open Spaces Centralized or decentralized community treatment system Centralized or decentralized community treatment systems Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 36 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) GOLDEN GATE BLVD I-75 SR 29OIL WELL RD CR 846 SR 82 EVERGLADES BLVDSR 29 NCORKSCREW RD IMMOKALEE RD DESOTO BLVD S1ST ST SDESOTO BLVD NLAKE TRAFFORD RD MAIN ST W N EW M A R K E T R D I-75 C O L L I E R C O U N T Y R U R A L & A G R I C U LT U R A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T C O L L I E R C O U N T Y R U R A L & A G R I C U LT U R A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T( S T E W A R D S H I P O V E R L A Y M A P ) ( S T E W A R D S H I P O V E R L A Y M A P ) 4 0 2 41 Miles GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP Growth Management Department File: Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment Map.mxd Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) HSA HSA HSA ACSC Okaloacoochee Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA)ACSC Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA) HSA WRA AVE MARIA SRAOILWELLGRADERD CAMP KEAIS RD SSA 11 SSA 16 SSA 5 SSA 3 SSA 4 SSA 12SSA 10 SSA 6 SSA 15 SSA 9 SSA 1 SSA 2 SSA 15 SSA 14 SSA 13 SSA 7 WRA WRA WRA FSA WRA WRA WRA WRA WRA ACSC ACSC Lake Trafford BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007-18) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 (Ord. No. 2008-59) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 (Ord. No. 2011-26) AMENDED - JUNE 13, 2017 (Ord. No. 2017-22)CR 858 WRA Legend 500 Foot Restoration Area Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Habtitat Stewardship Area (HSA) Water Retention Area (WRA) Open Stewardship Areas RLSA Program Area Major Roads Area of Critical State Concern Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Big Cypress National Forest08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 37 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) GOLDEN GATE BLVD I-75 SR 29OIL WELL RD CR 846 SR 82 EVERGLADES BLVDSR 29 NCORKSCREW RD IMMOKALEE RD DESOTO BLVD S1ST ST SDESOTO BLVD NLAKE TRAFFORD RD MAIN ST W N EW M A R K E T R D I-75 4 0 2 41 Miles GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP Growth Management Department File: Official Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map.mxd Date: 06/2020 Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) HSA HSA HSA ACSC Okaloacoochee Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA)ACSC Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA) HSA WRA AVE MARIA SRAOILWELLGRADERD CAMP KEAIS RD SSA 11 SSA 16 SSA 5 SSA 3 SSA 4 SSA 12SSA 10 SSA 6 SSA 15 SSA 9 SSA 1 SSA 2 SSA 15 SSA 14 SSA 13 SSA 7 WRA WRA WRA FSA WRA WRA WRA WRA WRA ACSC ACSC Lake Trafford CR 858 WRA NORTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION SOUTH CORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION R U R A L L A N D S S T E W A R D S H I P A R E A O V E R L AY M A P R U R A L L A N D S S T E W A R D S H I P A R E A O V E R L AY M A P Note: The official designated titles of SSAs can be found within SSA Credit Agreements. SSA 5A SSA 3A RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA (Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only. Ground surveying and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages) AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007-18) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 (Ord. No. 2008-59) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 (Ord. No. 2011-26) AMENDED - JUNE 13, 2017 (Ord. No. 2017-22) AMENDED - XXX, XXXX (Ord. No. XXX-XX) FSA FSA FSA FSA FSA FSA Florida PantherNational Wildlife Refuge Okaloacoochee SloughState Forest HYDE PARK VILLAGE SRA Legend Stewardship Areas RLSA Program Area Major Roads Area of Critical State Concern 500 Foot Restoration Area Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Habtitat Stewardship Area (HSA) Water Retention Area (WRA) Open Panther Corridor Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Public Lands Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) BigCypressNationalForest 08/03/2020 CCPC Transmittal Hearing Page 38 of 38 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Resolution - 073120 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) i CRITIQUE AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COLLIER COUNTY’S RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA PROGRAM: 2018-2019 RLSA Restudy January 2019 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) ii Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 INTRODUCTION Collier County is currently planning for future growth within 300 square miles of rural lands in eastern Collier County, Florida. The current plan for eastern Collier, called Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), was adopted in 2002 and is undergoing a review by the Growth Management Department, which includes public involvement. The RLSA consists of 195,000 acres of farm fields, pastures, uplands, wetlands, and public conservation lands. At build-out, the RLSA can accommodate approximately 300,000 new residents.1 The Conservancy is concerned that the current RLSA program is fundamentally flawed and that changes must be made to the RLSA program during this review or there will be serious negative environmental and economic impacts to Collier County’s residents and wildlife. The following report outlines the flaws of the RLSA program and our recommendations to improve the plan so that natural resources are protected and a better quality of life is ensured for future generations. RLSA lands encompass an area eighteen times greater than the City of Naples and is a region containing significant natural resources including habitat for 19 endangered or threatened species2, significant wetland flow-way systems, and tens of thousands of agricultural lands. Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) shows that the RLSA is one of the most biologically rich and ecologically important regions in the entire state (Figure 5)3. These natural resources contribute greatly to Collier County’s economy and provide critical ecological functions. As an example, Collier County produces $203 million worth of agricultural products per year.4 Much of that production comes from the 93,000 acres of agricultural lands in the RLSA.5 Tourists are attracted to the region’s unique wildlife, which brings in revenue and creates jobs. In 2011, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission determined that the total economic effect of wildlife viewing in Florida was $4.928 billion6. Wetlands systems in the RLSA, such as the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough, provide ecological benefits to the county such as storing floodwater, the removal of pollutants, and providing critical habitat and habitat linkages to surrounding conservation lands. Because of the region’s economic and ecological importance, each policy of the RLSA program must embody the main goal and the goal mandated by the Final Order,7 which requires that the program accomplish the following: 1) protect agricultural lands and prevent the premature conversion to non-agricultural uses; 2) direct incompatible uses away from listed species habitat 1 Collier County’s 2008 Interactive Growth Model and 2005 Collier County Residential Build-Out Study, Preliminary Report, 8. County website: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=830 2 Stantec Consulting, Inc. (2018, August). “Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners.” The RLSA provides habitat for 16 federal and state threatened and endangered species and three other species that are under r eview or a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. 3 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2016, September). Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project. Found here: http://www.fnai.org/pdf/CLIP_v4_user_tutorial.pdf 4 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2012) “Florida Value of Agricultural Products Sold” – Data is collected every 5 years by USDA, next update 2019. Website: https://www.freshfromflorida.com/Agriculture-Industry/Florida-Agriculture-Overview-and- Statistics 5 Wilson Miller (2000, December). “Immokalee Area Study Stage 1 Report – Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment.” p. 9 6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2011) “The Economic Benefits of Wildlife Viewing in Florida.” p. ii 7 State of Florida Administrative Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002 (1999, June 22). 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) iii Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 and wetlands; and 3) avoid sprawl-type development. The Conservancy has always been supportive of these objectives. However, as currently written, the policies are too weak and ineffective to obligate each new development proposal to be consistent with the very goal of the program. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) believes that if the fundamental flaws of the overlay are not fixed, the program will bring about contradictory outcomes including: 1) severe habitat fragmentation; 2) low-density, auto-centric, and sprawling developments; and 3) needless conversion of tens of thousands of agricultural lands to development. There is evidence that these contradictory outcomes are already materializing under the RLSA program. A major development application for the Town of Rural Lands West (RLW) is moving through the application process. The town’s plans are in direct contrast to the very foundational principles of the RLSA Overlay and would result in grave impacts to natural resources. Even so, it is possible that RLW’s plan, which proposes 10,000 homes and 2 million square feet of non- residential uses, would be approved even under the following circumstances: 1) Listed species habitat & wetlands would not be protected, as three-fourths of RLW is proposed to be built within primary panther habitat and approximately 500 acres of wetlands would be impacted;8 2) Agricultural lands would be prematurely converted, as 3,958 of 4,092 acres or 97% of RLW’s total Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) would be built in agricultural lands;9 and 3) Sprawl-type development would be the outcome, as the site is 6 miles long and includes a 54-hole golf course.10 Even though RLW’s plan contrasts with the underlying principles of the RLSA overlay, it is conceivable that the project will be approved. This is because the site lies entirely within the “Open” areas of the overlay, which according to RLSA policies are locations appropriate for development. Although it is true that the site is within the open area, the site is also within primary zone panther habitat and consists almost entirely of agricultural lands. These facts alone should be grounds for denial, or at the very least, the applicant should be required to modify the site. Also, there are no policy restrictions that limit the size of golf courses and that preclude a six-mile long town from being considered compact and walkable. These are just a few examples of the serious inconsistencies between RLSA policies and goals and why the program is in need of an overhaul. The RLSA program must be substantially amended during this review and not left for future reviews. The stakes are high for Collier County, both financially and environmentally, if the 8 Passarella & Associates. (2018, January 4). Rural Lands West SFWMD Wetland Impact Map. p. 1 of 52. Exhibit No. 3.7. (282.33 acres of direct wetland impacts + 143.69 acres of PFFW impacts + 35.72 acres of secondary impacts + 2.09 acres secondary PFFW impacts + 15.65 impacts to other surface waters) 9 Natural Resource Index Assessment for Rural Lands West, p. 5 10 Stantec Submittal Letter to Collier County dated June 15, 2018. 9 holes were added to SRA application from the original plan s of 45 holes. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) iv Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 program is not amended. Since periodic reviews of the program are not a requirement, it is not known when there will be another chance to make substantial revisions. Smart Growth America states that if the RLSA is built out as currently planned, the County will lose $3.3 billion over 20 years in costs associated with new roadways, emergency medical services (EMS), school construction and staffing, and school bus transportation.11 If the RLSA plans are not modified to curb sprawl and save habitat, the iconic Florida panther is threatened with extinction. Survival of many other endangered species in the region is also at risk. Scientists assert that the Earth’s rate of species extinction is more severe than perceived.12 A primary reason for this massive species extinction is due to habitat loss.13 Habitat loss in the RLSA for many of the listed species is a major concern. Also, water resources could be impacted due to 43,000 acres of development near two major flow-ways. Without significant amendments to the RLSA program during this review, it is likely that RLW and similar projects would be approved, resulting in unacceptable consequences for habitat and natural resources. This document describes the fundamental flaws and major issues of the current RLSA program. It also includes the Conservancy’s solutions and our vision map that, if implemented, would redirect the program back to its central and underlying goal: to conserve habitat, water resources, and agricultural lands, and avoid sprawl. In addition, the Conservancy’s plan reduces the need for new roads and infrastructure, thereby saving billions of taxpayer dollars14. These policy recommendations do not infringe on private property rights, and adjustments to the program were anticipated from the very beginning, hence the required initial five-year review. Landowners, leaders, planners, and citizens all have a responsibility to ensure that development within the RLSA exemplifies the highest level of rural and environmental stewardship. We truly hope our recommendations to fix the fundamental flaws and other issues will be seriously considered during this review. Once each new town and village is approved and built there is no going back! 11 Smart Growth America (2018, September). The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida. https://www.conservancy.org/file/policy-rlsa/The-Fiscal-Implications-of-Development-Patterns---RLSA-Collier-County_FINAL.pdf 12 Ceballos G., Ehrlich, P.R., and Dirzo R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by ve rtebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. July 25, 2017 114 (30) E6089-E6096; published ahead of print July 10, 2017 http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089 13 Ibid. 14 Smart Growth America (2018, September). The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida. https://www.conservancy.org/file/policy-rlsa/The-Fiscal-Implications-of-Development-Patterns---RLSA-Collier-County_FINAL.pdf 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) v Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARIZED LIST OF FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS AND CONSERVANCY’S SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................. viii 1. FLAW I: THE PROGRAM WILL LEAD TO SPRAWL, RESULTING IN HIGH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS .............................................................1 1.1 Current Model for RLSA Development will have Negative Fiscal Impact on Collier County ............................................................................................................................2 1.2 Roadway Network will have High Environmental Costs ..............................................4 1.3 Agricultural Lands are Undervalued ..............................................................................7 1.4 Examples of Sprawl under Current Plan ........................................................................8 2. SOLUTION I: IMPLEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS FROM “TOWARD BETTER PLACES” .............................................................................................................................9 2.1 Increase Minimum and Maximum Density .................................................................10 2.2 Reduce SRA Size .........................................................................................................12 2.3 Require Maximum Distance between Center and Edge ..............................................12 2.4 Reduce Maximum Block Perimeter for Neighborhood General .................................14 2.5 Require Greater Specificity for Mobility Plan .............................................................14 2.6 Limit Size and Number of Golf Courses .....................................................................15 2.7 Conservancy’s 2018 Vision Map .................................................................................16 3. FLAW II: THE PROGRAM ALLOWS 250% MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN WAS INTENDED .......................................................................................................................16 3.1 Five-Year Recommendations.......................................................................................18 4. SOLUTION II: REDUCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY RECALIBRATING CREDITS ...........................................................................................................................18 4.1 Financial Benefits of Recalibrating Credits .................................................................20 4.2 Can Stewardship Credits be Re-calibrated? .................................................................21 5. FLAW III: NRI VALUES ARE OUTDATED ..................................................................21 5.1 Primary Zone Panther Habitat .....................................................................................23 5.2 Agricultural Lands as Habitat ......................................................................................23 5.3 Adult Breeding Habitat ................................................................................................24 6. SOLUTION III: UPDATE NRI VALUES USING BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ......25 6.1 Update Listed Species Habitat Indices and NRI ..........................................................25 6.2 Update NRI Values Before SRA Approval .................................................................25 6.3 Reassess Program Every 5 Years .................................................................................26 6.4 Modify Definition of Listed Species Habitat Indices ..................................................26 6.5 Update Natural Resource Index Map ...........................................................................26 7. FLAW IV: LANDOWNERS CONTROL NRI DATA .....................................................26 8. SOLUTION IV: COLLIER COUNTY HOUSE ORIGINAL NRI DATA .......................27 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) vi Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 9. FLAW V: SRAs ARE PERMITTED WITHIN PRIMARY ZONE & ADULT BREEDING HABITAT .....................................................................................................27 9.1 Why is it Important to Protect Florida Panther Habitat? .............................................27 9.2 Impacts on Adult Breeding Habitat Quantity & Quality .............................................28 9.3 Impacts on Panther Corridors ......................................................................................30 10. SOLUTION V: CONSERVANCY’S 2018 RLSA VISION MAP ...................................30 11. FLAW VI: DEVELOPMENT MAY RESULT IN REDUCED HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY IN ADACENT SENDING AREAS .................................................33 12. SOLUTION VI: AMEND POLICIES GMP & LDC POLICIES ......................................35 13. FLAW VII: The STEWARDSHIP CREDIT SYSTEM FOR RESTORATION NEEDS TO BE RE-EVAUATED ...................................................................................................36 13.1 Double-Dipping .........................................................................................................36 13.2 Only SSAs are Updated during Application Process, not SRAs ...............................37 13.3 The Applicant’s Consultant Calculates Restoration Credits ......................................38 13.4 Program needs more County Oversight of Restoration Plan .....................................39 14. SOLUTION VII: ELIMINATE “DOUBLE-DIPPING” and REMOVE CONFLICTS-OF- INTEREST .........................................................................................................................39 14.1 Eliminate Double-Dipping by Eliminating R-1 Credits ...........................................40 14.2 The County should Select Environmental Consultant for SSA Applications ...........40 14.3 Adjustments to NRI Values should be made during SRA Applications ..................40 14.4 Additional Measures for Restoration Plans ..............................................................40 15. CONSERVANCY’S LIST OF OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................41 16. REJECT THE 5-YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS: ALL ISSUES CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH GOOD PLANNING ......................................................................................42 17. CLOSING REMARKS ......................................................................................................43 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................45 ADDENDUM .........................................................................................................................47 TABLES Table 1: Summarized List of RLSA Fundamental Flaws and Conservancy’s Solutions ............ viii Table 2: Collier County Development Scenarios - Net Fiscal Impact.............................................2 Table 3: Comparison of Densities in Collier County.....................................................................11 Table 4: Credits from SS15 amended application .........................................................................37 Table 5: Estimates of credits and development acreage from 2002 and 2008 and current status of program ..........................................................................................................................................48 Table 6: Increase of Development Capacity of RLSA Program over Time ....................................54 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) vii Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 FIGURES Figure 1: WilsonMiller’s Conceptual Build-out Roadway Network for RLSA ..............................4 Figure 2: Panther Mortality RLSA 1981-2017 ...............................................................................6 Figure 3: Example of Town Plan with 5-Minute Walk Radius ....................................................13 Figure 4: Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Area Map ................................................................20 Figure 5: Landscape Resource Priorities from CLIP v.4 ..............................................................22 Figure 6: Kautz et al Primary Zone...............................................................................................24 Figure 7: Frakes et. al Adult Breeding Habitat .............................................................................24 Figure 8: Graphic of Florida Panther as Umbrella Species ..........................................................28 Figure 9: Loss of Adult Breeding Habitat as proposed by HCP Development ............................29 Figure 10: HCP jeopardizes panther corridor connectivity ..........................................................30 Figure 11: Conservancy 2018 RLSA Vision Map ........................................................................32 Figure 12: Panther Habitat Value Before and After RLW Development .....................................34 Figure 13: Wood Stork Core Foraging Area.................................................................................52 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACSC Area of Critical State Concern CLIP Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project DCA Department of Community Affairs DU Dwelling Units per Acre ECPO Eastern Collier Property Owners EMS Emergency Medical Services FSA Flowway Stewardship Area HCP Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan GMP Growth Management Plan HSA Habitat Stewardship Area LDC Land Development Code PRT Panther Review Team RLSA Rural Lands Stewardship Area RLW Rural Lands West SGA Smart Growth America SRA Stewardship Receiving Area (Areas that can be designated for towns, villages, hamlets, or compact rural development using credits earned from SSAs) SSA Stewardship Sending Area (Areas designated by the landowners to remain in agriculture or preservation in exchange for securing credits to develop SRAs - towns, villages, hamlets, or compact rural development). WRA Water Retention Area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) viii Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Table 1 provides a summarized list of what the Conservancy sees as fundamental flaws of the RLSA program and our solutions. A more detailed explanation of each flaw and our solutions to correct each issue follows the summarized list. Table 1: Summarized List of RLSA Fundamental Flaws and Conservancy’s Solutions FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS CONSERVANCY’S SOLUTIONS FLAW I - THE PROGRAM WILL LEAD TO SPRAWL, RESULTING IN HIGH ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS Implement Traditional Neighborhood design standards from: Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida: 1. Increase Minimum and Maximum Density. 2. Reduce SRA size. 3. Require Maximum Distance between Center and Edge of Community. 4. Reduce the Maximum Block Perimeter for Neighborhood General. 5. Require Greater Specificity for Mobility Plan. 6. Limit Size and Number of Golf Course Holes. 7. Conservancy’s 2018 Vision Map. FLAW II - THE PROGRAM ALLOWS 250% MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN WAS INTENDED. Reduce Development Potential by Recalibrating Credits. I. FLAW III - NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX VALUES ARE OUTDATED Update NRI values using best available science. 1. Update Listed Species Habitat Indices and NRI Values 2. Update NRI Values Before SRA Approval 3. Reassess Program Every 5 Years 4. Modify Definition of Listed Species Habitat Indices 5. Update Natural Resource Index Map II. FLAW IV - LANDOWNERS CONTROL NRI DATA Collier County should obtain & house original NRI data which establishes the NRI value for each acre of land. III. FLAW V - SRAs ARE PERMITTED WITHIN PRIMARY ZONE & ADULT BREEDING HABITAT Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map - directs development away from habitat that is critical to the survival of the endangered Florida panther, thereby saving listed species habitat, wetlands, agricultural lands, and infrastructure costs. IV. FLAW VI - DEVELOPMENTS MAY RESULT IN REDUCED HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY IN ADJACENT SENDING AREAS. Amend GMP and LDC policies to state that SRA design shall demonstrate development will not adversely impact habitat and functionality of listed species habitat in adjoining FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and SSAs. V. FLAW VII - THE STEWARDHIP CREDIT SYSTEM FOR RESTORATION NEEDS TO BE RE- EVALUATED. Eliminate “double-dipping” of credits and remove conflicts-of-interest 1. Eliminate Double-Dipping by Eliminating R-1 Credits 2. Adjustments to NRI Values should be made during SRA applications 3. The County should Select Consultant for SSA Applications 4. Additional Measures for Restoration Plans 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 1 FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS & CONSERVANCY’S SOLUTIONS 1. FLAW I: THE PROGRAM WILL LEAD TO SPRAWL, RESULTING IN HIGH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS According to population projections, Collier County will have 500,000 residents by 2041, which is an increase of about 135,000 people in just 23 years.15 Because eastern Collier contains the greatest availability of undeveloped private lands in the county, the RLSA will accommodate some of that growth. Thus far, only the Town of Ave Maria has been built under the RLSA program; however, several other applications for new towns and villages are under review with the county. Also, a group of major landowners called Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) submitted an Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as part of an incidental take permit through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).16 If approved, the HCP and federal permit would stream-line the development process making it easier for them to build up to 45,000 acres worth of residential homes, commercial centers, and earth mining over a 50 year period. The build-out population in the RLSA could reach well over 300,000.17 Thus, now is the time to ensure that Collier’s RLSA program is set up to guide development proposals in the most economically and environmentally sustainable way. Otherwise, costs associated with low-density sprawl-type development, for which the RLSA program is based, are hefty and include inflated public spending, loss of important agricultural lands, greater energy consumption, air pollution, wetland loss, loss of habitat, and negative social impacts.18 As a solution to sprawl, numerous RLSA policies in the growth management plan (GMP) and land development code (LDC) support compact, walkable, and economically sustainable development. Just one example states: “These planning strategies and techniques are intended to minimize the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while discouraging urban sprawl, 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.”19 Such policies look good on paper, but the reality is that the RLSA program is not set up to curb sprawl, nor will the program attain its own goal and policies. Here is why: 15 Collier County Comprehensive Planning (2018, June). “Collier County Permanent Population Projections and Estimates – Fiscal year.” Retrieve from: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=80748 16 Stantec Consulting Services (2018, August) Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The HCP is a development proposal by Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) to develop 45,000 acres of land within 151,000+ acres of privately owned lands in the RLSA. Stantec, ECPO’s consultant, created the HCP as a requirement of an Incidental Take Permit under the Endangered Species Act. If approved, the Incidental Take Permit will make it easier for ECPO to impact habitat of 19 listed speci es. 17 Collier County’s 2008 Interactive Growth Model and 2005 Collier County Residential Build-Out Study, Preliminary Report, 8. County website: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=830 18 R. Ewing, “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, 1997, pp. 107-126. 19 Collier County LDC 4.08.07C 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 1.1 Flaw: The Current Model for RLSA Development will have a Negative Fiscal Impact on Collier County Smart Growth America (SGA) found that without drastic changes to the RLSA program, patterns of low-density town and village development will lead to enormous economic costs for Collier County.20 In their study called, “The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns - Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida,” SGA modeled three different development scenarios in the RLSA using Collier County’s financial documents. The first scenario, called Sprawl, is based on the 45,000 acreage cap as proposed in ECPO’s HCP and as recommended by the RLSA 5-year Review Committee.21 The Sprawl scenario includes densities between 2.18 and 2.75 dwelling units per acre. The RLSA program currently allows low-density town and village development to spread over a 43,300 acre footprint, very similar to the Sprawl scenario. The second scenario, called More Compact Density, modeled a 40,700 acre footprint with densities ranging between 2.18 and 3 dwelling unit per acre. The third scenario, Smart Growth, modeled 14,915 acres worth of development with higher densities between 2.18 and 14 dwelling units per acre. The results of the study are not surprising. The Sprawl scenario with the lowest densities and least compact development footprint would result in the highest costs to Collier County (Table 2). Over a 20 year period, development patterns between 2.18 and 2.75 dwelling units (du) would lead to a negative net fiscal impact of $3.3 billion from costs associated with new roadways, emergency medical services (EMS), school construction and staffing, and school bus transportation.22 Conversely, the Smart Growth scenario would result in a positive net fiscal impact to the County of $400 million over 20 years. 1.2 Flaw: The Roadway Network will have High Economic Costs 20 Smart Growth America (2018, September). “The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida”. https://www.conservancy.org/file/policy-rlsa/The-Fiscal-Implications-of-Development-Patterns---RLSA-Collier- County_FINAL.pdf 21 Collier County. RLSA 5-Year Review Committee – Section 2 Recommendations. Amended Policy 4.2. 22 Smart Growth America (2018, September). “The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida”, p. 11 Table 2 – Collier County Development Scenarios - Net Fiscal Impact Smart Growth America, 2018 - *Annual costs are average costs per year. The estimated costs on an annual basis would vary from year to year. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 3 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 WilsonMiller (now Stantec) are consultants for ECPO who created a “Conceptual Build-out Roadway Network” for the RLSA. WilsonMiller’s conceptual roadway network consists of 200 miles of new and widened roads that they anticipate are needed to accommodate 45,000 acres worth of development in the RLSA (Figure 1). Based on 2015 construction costs provided in Collier County’s Long Range Transportation Plan,23 the Conservancy calculated the total construction costs for WilsonMiller’s Roadway Network to be $7.8 billion!24 SGA, on the other hand, considered the total fiscal impact of WilsonMiller’s roadway network on the county.25 They estimated that the 20-year fiscal impact of the proposed roadway network over 45,000 acres (Scenario 1 - Sprawl) would be a negative $5.54 billion impact to Collier County! SGA found that if the roadway network was built on a reduced footprint of either 40,696 acres (Scenario 2 - More compact density) or 14,915 acres (Scenario 3 – Smart Growth), then the costs to Collier County over 20 years would be a loss of either $3.28 billion or a loss of $1.22 billion, respectively. Again, the more compact higher density Smart Growth scenario would significantly reduce costs for Collier County over the proposed 45,000 acre Sprawl scenario of low-density development. These estimates of the potential roadway costs are very concerning because ECPO is trying to shirk their responsibility to pay for all of the expensive mitigation costs associated with the transportation network outside of their proposed developments, even though their own conceptual roadway map shows that new roads are needed to accommodate the 45,000 acres worth of development that they propose. Wilson Miller explains this in their HCP: “The HCP Area does not include the existing roadway network, and avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts resulting from improvements to the transportation network are the responsibility of FDOT and the MPO, together with State and Federal environmental regulatory agencies.”26 23 Collier MPO Financial Resources Technical Memorandum 2015 24 The Conservancy’s: “The Real Cost of Building Roads” analysis found here: https://www.conservancy.org/file/15---policy-main/rural- lands/CSWFL-Handout--Map---Real-Cost-of-Building-Roads.pdf 25 Smart Growth America (2018, September). “The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida”, p. 22-23. 26 Stantec Consulting. (2018, August) Eastern Collier Multiple Species Conservation Habitat Plan prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners. p. 110 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 4 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 1.2 Flaw: Roadway Network will have High Environmental Costs Besides significant economic costs, the vast 200 miles of new roads and roadway expansion will have grave impacts on the Florida panther and other listed species. Even without the proposed roadway network, panthers and wildlife are being killed on a regular basis on existing roads. Figure 2 shows panther mortality strikes from 1981 to 2017 on roads within 25 miles of the RLSA. There have been 269 panther mortalities from vehicle strikes during that time frame, 77 Figure 1: Wilson Miller’s Conceptual Build-out Roadway Network for RLSA (includes 87.7 miles of new roads & 111.61 miles of expanded roads totaling 199.31 miles of total roadway improvements.) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 5 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 of those strikes occurred in the RLSA. If development in the RLSA continues on the same path of low-density sprawl that the current program allows, the roadway network needed to accommodate the vast acres of new towns will assuredly lead to many more fatalities to the panther and many other species. Many roads within WilsonMiller’s conceptual roadway network cross primary panther habitat and stewardship areas, even though panther scientists warn against this. The Panther Review Team (PRT), consisting of six panther biologists, stated that: “Planning for all new roads constructed within the RLSA should attempt to avoid bisecting HSAs, FSAs, WRAs, and areas the PRT recommends for protection. All new roads should be designed to minimize the loss or fragmentation of panther habitat if no alternative routes that avoid panther habitat exist.”27 If ECPO’s HCP proposed a development pattern similar to the Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map (Figure 11), then there would be no need to build roads that cross primary panther habitat. The Conservancy studied the impacts on panther mortality from increased traffic on a proposed new road network. Using PRT’s estimates of traffic volumes and the methodology that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) employed in a Biological Opinion letter, the Conservancy was able to estimate the potential impact of increased RLSA development on the panther due to vehicular traffic.28 The PRT estimated the number of daily trips for the proposed RLSA road network to be approximately 825,000 trips per day by 2050 as a result of 45,000 acres of development and mining.29 Utilizing the USFWS’s methodology applied to the RLSA, it is estimated one panther roadkill death for every 8.1 million vehicle trips. This would equate to approximately 37 panther deaths every year due to vehicle mortality within the RLSA, or approximately one panther death due to vehicle collision every 10 days.30 Given gradual increases of traffic over the 50 year time frame, this would equate to approximately 1,275 panthers. The effects of the proposed roadway would be the final nail in the coffin for the Florida panther since the current total population ranges only between 120 and 230.31 27 Panther Review Team (2009, October 15). “Technical Review of the Florida Panther Protection Program Proposed for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area of Collier County, Florida.” Prepared for Rural Landowners and Conservation Organizations as Parties to a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 2, 2008. 28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). Letter from Roxanna Hinzman, Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Office, United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service to Jason Kirk, Colonel, District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated January 23, 2018 with Service Consultation Code : 04EF2000-2015-F-0261, Corp Application Number SAJ-2006-06379 (SP-EWG) for Project: Argo Corkscrew Crossing. 29 Panther Review Team (2009, October 15). “Technical Review of the Florida Panther Protection Program Proposed for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area of Collier County, Florida.” Prepared for Rural Landowners and Conservation Organizations as Parties to a M emorandum of Understanding dated June 2, 2008.Table 6.3-1 30 Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council Letter to United State Fish and Wildlife Service re: FWS-R-4-ES-2018-0079 – Public comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (2018, December 3). p. 25 31 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission webpage accessed 12/26/18: http://myfwc.com/panther 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 6 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Dr. Reed F. Noss, an expert on habitat conservation plans, reviewed the Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which proposes 45,000 acres of development within the RLSA over 50 years.32 In his review, Dr. Noss considered impacts to wildlife resulting from 32 Noss, R. F. (2018, November). “Review of Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Report to the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” Figure 2: Panther mortality RLSA 1981-2017 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 7 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 implementation of the HCP. He asserts that road strikes will significantly and negatively impact listed species if the HCP is approved. Dr. Noss argues: “The increased traffic volume, which would result from implementation of this HCP, poses a grave risk not only to the panther, but to most of the other Covered Species as well, such as the indigo snake (Breininger et al. 2012), diamondback rattlesnake, and gopher tortoise, which are often killed crossing or basking on roads, and the caracara, which forages on roadkill and often becomes roadkill itself. The Plan (p. 126) acknowledges this, especially for juvenile caracara, citing Morrison (2003). Wood storks are vulnerable, as they often forage in ditches along roads, as are sandhill cranes, which are commonly struck as they saunter slowly across roads. Even the Florida scrub-jay is highly vulnerable to roadkill, to the extent that roadside territories are demographic sinks (Mumme et al. 2000), as acknowledged in the Plan. Collisions with vehicles are mentioned as threats to several of the Covered Species (e.g., sandhill crane, p. 188; burrowing owl, p. 191), but inexplicably the increased collisions that will inevitably result from much higher traffic volume under the Plan are not acknowledged as take.”33 Noss further asserts: “It is my professional opinion that the failure to adequately address and mitigate the take of panthers and other Covered Species as a result of roadkill is the single biggest flaw of the Plan. The Plan fails to even recognize this mortality as take, which in inexcusable.” 1.3 Flaw: Agricultural Lands are Undervalued The RLSA program undervalues agricultural lands and treats these lands as a placeholder for future development. In fact, 85% of the 93,000 acres of open areas (areas where SRA development is allowed) is within agricultural lands.34 Collier County should think twice about giving up agriculture so easily. Agricultural lands are a finite resource. There are many reasons for preserving agricultural lands but a few include: long term food security for the region, more access to healthy foods, significant contributions to the economy,35 providing employment, water recharge, providing habitat and habitat connections, and flood risk reduction. If building trends continue with low-density sprawl-type developments, South Florida will lose over 650,000 acres of agricultural lands by 2070.36 However, if land-use patterns in South Florida change to a more compact form of development, the agricultural losses will be much less, at 167,000 acres.37 Unfortunately, trends in the RLSA reflect the status quo as the vast 33 Ibid. p. 11 34 GIS analysis conducted December 5, 2018, according to 2008 FLUCCS codes. Rangelands are included under the agricultural umbrella and in the 85%. 35 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2012) “Florida Value of Agricultural Products Sold.” (Collier County produces $203 million worth of agricultural products per year.) 36 University of Florida- Geoplan Center (2016, November). “Technical Report: Florida 2070 – Mapping Florida’s Future – Alternative Patterns of Development” 2070. p.1 Found here: http://1000friendsofflorida.org/florida2070/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/florida2070technicalreportfinal.pdf p. 25. 37 Ibid. pg. 15 (Statistics combine Protected Agricultural lands and Agriculture – croplands, livestock, and aquaculture ) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 8 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 majority of approved and pending developments are within agricultural lands. As example, over 87% of Ave Maria’s receiving area was from agricultural lands38 and the applicant for RLW proposes to build 97% of the site on agricultural lands.39 These losses contribute to an already growing regional problem. 1.4 Flaw: Examples of Sprawl under Current Plan The State of Florida is losing land to development at alarming rates. If development trends in Florida remain the same, nearly 34% of all lands within the state would be developed by 2070, as compared to 18% in 2010.40 Development patterns must change toward “smarter growth” patterns so that natural resources are available to meet the needs of future generations. The American Planning Association defines “smart growth” as growth which: “Supports choice and opportunity by promoting efficient and sustainable land development, incorporates redevelopment patterns that optimize prior infrastructure investments, and consumes less land that is otherwise available for agriculture, open space, natural systems, and rural lifestyles.”41 Plans for new development and proposed development within the RLSA do not achieve the APA’s definition of smart growth. The RLSA program, as it exists today, allows a mix of new urbanism design principles and business-as-usual low-density cul-de-sac neighborhoods. RLSA development, thus far, consists of a compact mixed-use walkable town center, surrounded by low-density golf course gated subdivisions, typical of many southwest Florida communities. As example, Rural Lands West (RLW) proposes a 6 mile long by 2 mile wide site plan consisting of neighborhoods surrounded by a 54-hole golf course! This is ludicrous, as it is virtually impossible to create an environmentally sustainable compact-walkable town that stretches 6 miles and is surrounded by 54 holes of golf. Another example of a town that has a denser town core surrounded by lower density gated subdivisions is the Town of Ave Maria. Ave Maria was the first approved town within the RLSA, and some lessons can be learned from it with regard to modifications to improve the RLSA. Thus far, only 1,700 homes of 11,000 have been built. We are told that will increase to 2,000 by the end of this year.42 The town contains 5,057 acres (includes 1,000 acres for Ave Maria University) at an average density per acre at 2.18 dwelling units per acre. The community also includes a golf course. Ave Maria meets the density requirements of the RLSA program (between 1 to 4 du for towns), but higher density would result in more compact, walkable towns for future RLSA developments. 38 Florida Department of Community Affairs (2007, December 31). “Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature”. p. 9 39 Natural Resource Index Assessment for Rural Lands West, p. 5. 40 University of Florida- Geoplan Center (2016, November). “Technical Report: Florida 2070 – Mapping Florida’s Future – Alternative Patterns of Development 2070.” p.1 http://1000friendsofflorida.org/florida2070/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/florida2070technicalreportfinal.pdf 41 American Planning Association. APA Guide on Smart Growth. Found here: https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/smartgrowth.htm 42 Information provide by David Genson of Barron Collier Enterprises at Collier County RLSA workshop on November 29, 2018. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 9 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 A major reason why the RLSA does not meet the target of smart growth is because the program’s policies are not sufficiently modeled after Collier County’s own community character plan. The main objective of the county’s community character plan is to do away with low- density, gated PUDs and cul-de-sac subdivisions which are ubiquitous in Collier County. Collier County’s plan, Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida recommends that, “Developing and redeveloping settlements based upon a model of traditional neighborhood design principles is the first step towards great neighborhoods.”43 The plan provides the following list as qualities which make great neighborhoods, absent of sprawl: “A legible center and edge to the neighborhood, an integrated network of walkable streets, an overall size to the neighborhood suitable for walking, buildings set close enough to the streets to spatially define the streets as public spaces, and opportunities for shopping and workplaces to call home.”44 The authors cite Old Naples as an example of a traditional neighborhood, but other examples in Florida include Key West, Downtown Sarasota, Celebration, Seaside, and Downtown Fort Myers, St. Augustine, Dunedin, Winter Park, St. Petersburg, and Abacoa in Jupiter. 2. SOLUTION I: IMPLEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS FROM “TOWARD BETTER PLACES” In 2001, award-winning town planners Dover, Kohl & Partners (Dover Kohl),45 created Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida. The plan was developed over a year-long process with public workshops, focus groups, and a survey. The final product is a plan that provides the framework for how citizens of Collier County would like their community to grow. The plan addresses implementation of land use decisions, transportation networks, and greenspace planning. One of the hallmarks of the plan is “to provide more housing choices in Collier County by reintroducing walkable traditional neighborhood development as a counterbalance to the multitude of gated subdivisions that have been built over the past 20 years.”46 The plan further states that “creating new neighborhoods with interconnectivity and greater density is the only way to avoid the worst-case scenario presented by the sprawl approach.”47 So what are specific ways to ensure that new development within the RLSA better achieves the plan’s objectives and goals? Many of the following solutions can be found within Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida. 43 Dover, Kohl & Partners for Collier County (2001, April) “Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida,” p. 2.6 44 Ibid, p. 2.6 45 Dover, Kohl & Partners have received awards from American Planning Association, Environmental Protection Agency, and Congress for New Urbanism, webpage: https://www.doverkohl.com/awards-2/ 46 Dover, Kohl, & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier C ounty, Florida.” p. i. 47 Ibid, p. 2.32. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 10 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 2.1 Solution: Increase Minimum and Maximum Density Dover Kohl asserts that planning decisions should be integrated with community character and design, and that the perception that lower density is better for Collier County must change. They state: “Housing density must be rethought, especially in core areas and activity centers, the bias against higher density and towards planning by the numbers – with an assumption that lower density is better density – needs to be replaced with an emphasis on design.”48 As the SGA report demonstrates, the minimum and maximum density requirements within the RLSA are too low to avoid sprawl. Towns and villages within the RLSA are only required to average between 1 and 4 dwelling units (du) per acre, while hamlets and compact rural developments (CRD) can average even lower densities between ½ to 4 du per acre. Compared to the City of Naples, these densities are extremely low. Residential density requirements for Old Naples’ downtown walkable area allows up to 12 du per acre.49 Residential densities within other areas of the City of Naples range between a max of 6 du for low density residential to up to 25 du per acre for high density residential (Table 3).50 Densities within the RLSA program are not only far lower than the City of Naples, but they are also lower than many of the gated golf course PUDs (Planned Unit Development), which are known to consume more land than traditional neighborhoods and are often considered not walkable. Table 3 shows a comparison of densities between the City of Naples residential land use categories, three well-known large PUDs in unincorporated Collier County, and three developments within the RLSA that are either approved or pending. 48 Ibid. p. 2.15 49 City of Naples Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (Updated October 2017) Policy 1.1, p. (Downtown Mixed -Use land use category). 50 Ibid. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 11 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 City of Naples (consisting mostly of traditional neighborhoods) Gross Acres Allowed Density per Acre (du = dwelling unit) Estimated Build- out Downtown Mixed Use District (varies per project) Up to 12 du; (in certain areas density is limited to parking requirements & 3 story height limit) n/a Low Density Residential (varies per project) Up to 6 du n/a Medium Density Residential (varies per project) Up to 12 du n/a High Density Residential Mid Rise & High Rise (varies per project) Up to 18 du n/a High Density Residential Tower (varies per project) Up to 25 du n/a Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in unincorporated Collier County Gross Acres Gross Density per acre51 Estimated build- out Lely Resort 2,892 3.10 du 1992 - 2025 Pelican Bay 2,104 3.89 du 2004 - 2024 The Vineyards 1,930 3.02 du 2006 - 2018 Towns within RLSA Size (Gross Acres) Gross Density per acre52 Town of Ave Maria 5,057 (includes 1,000 acre university; without university density is 2.75) 2.18 du 2005-203053 Town of Rural Lands West (proposed) 4,092 2.44 du (Application pending) Collier Lakes (proposed village) 655 2.74 du (Application pending) It is ironic that the RLSA, which promotes a compact form of development throughout its policies, consists of lower density requirements than many other areas in Collier County. Our ways of growing and developing must change. 1000 Friends of Florida recently completed a special report, called Florida 2070, which provides an overview of what Florida will look like in 2070.54 The report states that “if we continue developing land the way we do now more than a third of the state will be paved over by 2070.”55 However, the study continues to say that, “The most important finding from Florida 2070 is that 51 Collier County List of Planned Unit Developments. Retrieved from https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=73654 on 11/10/2018 52 Collier County Growth Management Department, Zoning Division. 53 Estimated Build-out date for Ave Maria provided at Collier County RLSA workshop, November 29, 2018. 54 Thousand Friends of Florida (Spring 2070). What is your Vision for Florida? Florida 2070-Water 2070. Pdf found here: 1000friendsofflorida.org/florida2070 55 Ibid. p. 2 Table 3: Comparison of Densities in Collier County 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 12 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 even modest increases in development densities can result in a substantial saving of land.”56 While the RLSA program is in a review – now is the time to make the necessary changes to get the County back on track starting by increasing density requirements and decreasing the allowed development footprint, as discussed below. 2.2 Solution: Reduce SRA Size In conjunction with increases in density, it is equally important to reduce the size requirements for Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA). By reducing the minimum and maximum SRA size, this will encourage a more compact development design, thereby conserving land. As example, Rural Lands West proposes to build a 4,092 acre town with 10,000 homes. This equates to 2.44 du per acre. The applicant for RLW stated that the projected build-out population for RLW is 23,900, so they used an average of 2.39 persons per household to determine the build-out population.57 If the density was increased to 10 du per acre, which is within the “Medium Density Residential” requirements for the City of Naples, then RLW could build 10,000 homes on 1,000 acres. The number of homes built and the projected build-out population of 23,900 would remain the same. This would save agricultural lands, listed species habitat and wetlands, and avoid sprawl, thus, achieving the goal of the RLSA. 2.3 Solution: Require Maximum Distance Between Center and Edge According to Dover Kohl, in Toward Better Places, a ¼ mile radius is the optimum distance for creating a walkable neighborhood.58 They state that the center of neighborhood (near amenities or mixed-uses) to the edge of the neighborhood should be about a 5 min walk or a ¼ mile (Figure 3).59 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) confirms Dover Kohl’s assessment of appropriate walkable block sizes in their Traditional Neighborhood Development Handbook.60 FDOT states that a 5 minute walk or ¼ mile distance is “highly walkable and assumes the pedestrian mode as a viable and often preferred travel mode.” A national survey, by Yang and Diez-Roux, found that people will walk a bit longer than ¼ mile. They found that the national mean and median values for walking distances were 0.7 and 0.5 miles, respectively.61 Some neighborhoods within the RLSA far exceed even a one mile distance from center to edge. Aerial views the proposed town of Rural Lands West show that distances between the town centers in some neighborhoods are over two miles.62 This far exceeds the optimum walking 56 Ibid. 57 Projected build-out population of Rural Lands West provided at Collier County RLSA workshop, November 29, 2018. 58 Dover, Kohl & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” p. 2.8. 59 Ibid. p. 2.8. 60 State of Florida Department of Transportation office of Roadway Design (2011). “Traditional Neighborhood Development Handbook.” 61 Yang, Y. and Diez-Roux, Ana V. (2012). “Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups.” Am J Prev Med. 2012 July ; 43(1): 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015. 62 The distance between some residential neighborhoods and a town center or mixed use area within the Town of Rural Lands West i s over 2 miles in some areas. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 13 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 threshold of ¼ mile to 0.7 miles that research shows is a comfortable walking distance to retail and mixed uses.63 Figure 3 shows a portrayal of a walkable traditional town plan with Dover Kohl’s recommended center-to-edge 5 minute radius. Source: Dover, Kohl, & Partners. “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” The greater the distance between the center and edge the greater likelihood that people will opt to drive instead of walk.64 A solution to avoid this is to include a policy in the LDC that requires a maximum distance between a mixed-use center and edge of the neighborhood, preferably no longer than 0.7 miles. According to the RLSA program, the location of additional town and village centers, including mixed-use or retail centers, can be added to the master plan at a later date. However, the location of centers should be depicted in the Master Plan during the review period to ensure continuity of the traditional neighborhood design, before the SRA is approved. 63 Yang, Y., Diez-Roux, A. (2012). Walking Distance by Trip Purpose and Population Subgroups. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Jul; 43(1): 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015; Ewing R & Hodder R. “Best Development Practices: A Primer for Smart Growth.” Urban and Economic Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency. American Planning Association. Found here: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/best- development-practices.pdf 64 Dover, Kohl, & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” p. 30 Figure 3: Example of town plan with 5-Minute walk radius 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 14 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 2.4 Solution: Reduce Maximum Block Perimeter for Neighborhood General Old Naples consists primarily of neighborhoods with small blocks lengths and an interconnected street grid pattern. This is the type of development that Dover Kohl considers to be a walkable traditional neighborhood community and a model for new development in Collier County. Dover Kohl recommends a block perimeter between 1,400 to 1,800 feet in order to create walkable block sizes.65 FDOT recommends an average block perimeter of 1,320 feet to create easy walking environments, but they also state block lengths of 400 to 600 feet are acceptable.66 Other researchers agree with Dover Kohl or FDOTs recommendations.67 The RLSA program is not consistent with Collier County’s Community Character Plan. The land development code states that the Town Core and Town Center can consist of a maximum 2,500 feet block perimeter and Neighborhood General can have 3,500 feet block perimeters maximum.68 Although block sizes for the core and center are larger than the block sizes recommended by the County’s own Community Character Plan, the block sizes for Neighborhood General far exceed Dover Kohl’s ideal block size, by almost double. Therefore, we recommend that the maximum block sizes for Neighborhood General should be reduced to a maximum 2,500 feet perimeter. A reduction of the maximum block size will also help towards reducing the total SRA size. It is also important to note that applicants are asking for deviations to the already excessive block sizes. For example, the applicant for Rural Lands West is requesting a deviation to increase the maximum block perimeter in the Town Center from 2,500 feet to 3,500 feet. Any such deviation should be denied, as it is inconsistent with traditional neighborhood development and would move the proposed development farther away from the stated goals of the RLSA and Collier County. 2.5 Solution: Require Greater Specificity for Mobility Plan A large network of well-connected streets is one of the hallmarks of traditional neighborhood design. A dense network of interconnected streets provides an ample number of routes versus a single route that gated communities often offer. In addition to reducing traffic congestion, Dover Kohl, in Toward Better Places, states that a road network greatly affects community character. Although the RLSA program requires an interconnected system of roads, sidewalks and pathways, the requirements for the SRAs Mobility Plan are minimal. Without requiring specificity within the Mobility Plan, it is impossible to determine whether neighborhoods will 65 Ibid. p. 2.8 66 State of Florida Department of Transportation office of Roadway Design (2011). “Traditional Neighborhood Development Handbook”. p. 14 67 Ewing, Reid. (1999) Pedestrian- and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth. American Planning Association. P. 6 Farr, Douglas (2008) Sustainable Urbanism -Urbanism by Design with Nature. John Wiley & Sons. (LEED Diamond level for walking is a block length between 300-500 feet; platinum level 300-400 feet.) p. 151-152 68 Collier County LDC 4.08.07J.2.d.i-iii. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 15 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 consist of a network of interconnected streets and sidewalks or a single route system typical of gated communities. The LDCs Master Plan Content merely requires the location of all roads, all proposed major internal rights of way, and pedestrian access ways on the Master Plan, but it does not require the location of the local streets.69 As a requirement of each SRA application, the applicant should include within the Master Plan Content a rendering of the total street network (including local and neighborhood streets) in all portions of the SRA. If this were required, it would be possible for staff to assess whether the applicant attains a truly compact, walkable design, with an interconnected mobility plan. 2.6 Solution: Limit Size and Number of Golf Courses Dover Kohl states that Collier County must break the cycle of creating “isolated, gated, golf course subdivisions”. During this review, the need for golf courses in the RLSA and maximum size of courses should be re-assessed. Golf course communities in the RLSA consume agricultural land and habitat, they are typically not compact or walkable, and the demand for additional golf courses in Collier County—arguably the golf course capital of the world—is questionable. Building future communities around golf should be reconsidered. The National Golf Foundation states there are 4 million fewer golfers than there were in 2005 and golf course closures have outnumbered openings for the past 8 years.70 Not only is there a sufficient supply of golf courses in the County, but data shows golf memberships are declining, and golf clubs are getting too expensive to run.71 Collier County has over 75 golf courses and there is no evidence the county needs more.72 In fact, recently Collier County government has experienced the effects of the waning industry. In 2016, three golf course owners approached the County regarding rezones or conversions to other uses. This sparked a moratorium on golf course conversions until staff had enough time to study potential issues surrounding conversions.73 The study found that the County would lose money on operating costs and the $3+ million investment if they were to purchase and run a public golf course.74 The first town within the RLSA, Ave Maria, already has an 18-hole golf course and the applicant for Rural Lands West (RLW) requests an allowance for a 54-Hole Golf course. Based on an industry average of 150 acres for each 18-hole golf course, we can assume that RLW’s 54-holes 69 Collier County LDC 4.08.07.G.2. 70 New-Press, Craig Handel (2016, February 26). “Golf clubs becoming a tougher sell.” 71 Eidukot, John (2018, July). Golf Operator Magazine. “The Decline of Golf in 2018 – The Perfect Storm for Most Golf Clubs.” 72 Collier County (2016). Collier County Golf Courses. Accessed on 2018, November 23 here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=70243 73 Collier County Board of County Commissioners; April 12, 2016 –Agenda Item 10 B; and Collier County “Golf Course Conversion Overview of White Paper and LDC Amendment (2016, April 3) 7474 Stanley, Greg (2017, October 22). Naples Daily News. “Study shows public course would cost Collier.” 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 16 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 alone would cover approximately 450 acres.75 The majority of those acres would be within primary panther habitat and agricultural lands. If approved, the course would fragment wildlife habitat, prematurely convert significant acres of agricultural lands and panther habitat to developed lands, and will create sprawl. The RLSA will not be built out for many decades, so the county should focus on needs of future generations. The National Association of Realtors surveyed millennials in 2015 regarding their housing preferences.76 They found that millennials prefer living in attached housing with walkable neighborhoods and in areas with transit. More than half of all Americans would rather have a home with smaller yard but within walking distance to amenities.77 The RLSA program must be amended to redirect away from more future golf course communities and to cap the number of holes allowed, not only to save land, but so that the program is better situated to accommodate changing housing preferences. 2.7 Solution: Conservancy’s 2018 Vision Map A solution to all problems related to sprawl in the RLSA can be solved by directing growth to “Potential Development Areas” as provided in Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map (Figure 11). Our vision map directs development away from habitat that is critical to survival of the endangered Florida panther, thereby saving listed species habitat, wetlands, agricultural lands and infrastructure costs. In addition, our map would result in fewer roads and fewer expanded roads; thereby, decreasing the fragmentation of primary panther habitat and decreasing the potential for panther vehicle collisions. 3. FLAW II: THE PROGRAM ALLOWS 250% MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN WAS INTENDED In 2002, the RLSA Overlay was adopted. Throughout the two and a half year public process leading up to the adoption of the program, the public was told that the maximum development potential for SRAs (included towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments) was 16,800 acres or 9% of the total area. The rest of the lands, 91%, would be set aside as conservation and agriculture. After the program was adopted, and during the first review (2007- 2009), it became very clear that the program had a much greater capacity for development than 16,800 acres. During the review, it was discovered that the program created the capacity for developing 43,300 acres, which was a 250% greater capacity for SRA development than promised in 2002! 75 Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, 2007). “Golf Course Environmental Profile: Property Profile and Environmental Stewardship of Golf Courses Volume I Summary”. 76 National Association of Realtors. (2015, November 19). “Millennials Transportation and Housing Choices will Shape the Nation”. 77 Portland State University. Transportation and Research Education Center. (2015, July 27) “Millennials favor walkable communities, says poll from National Association of Realtors and TREC.” 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 17 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 What happened?! Only a few days prior to the adoption of the plan, Policies 1.21 and 3.11 were amended, increasing the number of Stewardship Credits in the system. The workshops and RLSA committee meetings had ended so the public and most individuals involved in the making of the RLSA program were not aware that these policies were added, nor were they informed of the extent to which these policies would increase the capacity of the program. In fact, Mark Strain, planning commissioner, asked during the Collier County Planning Commission’s RLSA adoption hearing on October 17, 2002, whether or not the added policies were publicly disclosed. (The planning commission adoption hearing was just five days before the RLSA program was adopted). Mr. Strain asked: “Anybody that can answer this is fine with me. The policies in this whole process that you are presenting to us today, did that go back to the committee? And has the committee approved all this? Has it had all the public input in that regard?” The County’s outside legal counsel, Marty Tumbler, replied: “No, in fact, that was the same, that didn’t happen in the fringe either. Um there was some discussion we wish we had the time to do that. I mean as you are all I’m sure very well we were under a very quick block in order to comply with the Final Order here. In a perfect world it would have been nice to do that but we had to deal with the constraints that we got.”78 It was not until 2008, that WilsonMiller, the landowner’s consultants in charge of creating the program for Collier County, provided calculations of how many credits were actually available in the program. WilsonMiller’s 2008 memo to Collier County stated that the, “RLSA Program is estimated to produce a total of 315,000 Stewardship Credits assuming 100% property Owner Participation.”79 The number of available credits in the 2008 memo was in stark contrast to the credits provided in WilsonMiller’s 2002 report which stated the maximum number of available Stewardship credits was 136,909.80 (The Addendum at the end of this report provides additional information on the credit system during program’s creation). Because of the extra credits that were revealed in the 2008 memo, the acres available for intensification ballooned from the original intent of 16,800 acres to 43,300 acres.81 This also led to an increase in the RLSA’s projected build-out population from an estimated 87,000 residents to over 300,000!82 Unfortunately, these important findings were not discovered until after the program was adopted, 78 Collier County audio transcript. Comments by Mark Strain, planning commissioner and Marty Tumbler, Collier County legal counsel. (Audio of Collier County Planning Commission meeting regarding RLSA Overlay adoption on October 17, 2002 – Tape 4 Side B, starts approx. 43:25) 79 Memo from Wilson Miller to Collier County RE Estimates of Stewardship Credits under the current and revised RLSA Program and recommendation for Credit calibration. 9-18-2008. 80 Wilson Miller (2002, May) “Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study”, p. 40 81 Collier County. “Response to DCAs Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report for Collier County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-R2 (Eastern Rural Lands and Agricultural Assessment Area)” provides the point where the County increase the bonus credits for Policies 1.21 & 3.11 prior to adoption. pg. 23 82 Figures from Collier County’s 2008 Interactive Growth Model and 2005 Collier County Residential Build-Out Study, Preliminary Report, 8. County website: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=830 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 18 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 so the real capacity of the program was never disclosed to the public, committees, or Board of County Commissioners during the creation and adoption of the program. We are now faced with a program that allows a massive amount of development, not to mention the amount of public services in terms of roads, police, schools, and EMS that this larger development footprint will require. To put it in perspective, 43,300 acres is greater than the area of 20 Pelican Bays at 2,149 acres and is nearly the size of 2 mega-towns like Fort Lauderdale at 23,238 acres each! With that much land available for development, there is little incentive to create compact communities. Furthermore, that many acres of new towns and villages will have grave consequences on the numerous endangered and threatened species that call the RLSA home. 3.1 Flaw: 5-Year Recommendations Recommendations proposed by the 5-year Review Committee would expand the capacity of the program even further and make matters worse. According to WilsonMiller (now Stantec), the proposed recommendations by the 5-year Review Committee would infuse over 100,000 more credits into the system, increasing the potential Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) acres from 43,300 to 57,800 acres.83 However, we are told that the landowners and the 5-year review committee are suggesting an acreage cap of 45,000 acres. Even with this cap, more than half of the lands proposed for intensification are within primary zone panther habitat and would result in 19,101 to 21,122 acres of primary zone panther habitat loss.84 This is unacceptable, as primary zone habitat supports the only breeding population of panthers and is essential to the survival of the species.85 The Conservancy believes there are other ways to protect and restore listed species habitat and to adequately protect agricultural lands that do not require increasing credits. (See The Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map – Figure 11). 4. SOLUTION II: REDUCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY RECALIBRATING CREDITS The Conservancy understands that it may create difficulties to return the RLSA program to its original intent because nearly 185,000 stewardship credits86 have already been earned or are pending approval. At eight credits per acre, these credits already entitle over 23,000 acres of 83 Wilson Miller (2008); Rural Lands West Stewardship Area “Maturity”- Letter to Tom Greenwood on Estimate of Stewardship Credits under the current and revised RLSA Program and recommendation for Cred it calibration 84 Stantec Consulting. “Eastern Collier Multiple Species Conservation Habitat Plan” (2018, August), prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners. p. 86 & 89. This acreage excludes any potential additional impacts to primary panther habitat from the Town of Ave Maria. 85 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133. 86 From report called “Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land Characteristic Summary and SSA Credits Earned, SSA Credits Pending, SSA Credits Redeemed in SRAs, and SSA Credit Balances” (updated 12/08/11) and from another Collier County report called “SRA Credit Use and Reconciliation and RLW” Dated, August 27, 2018. CREDITS TOTALLED AS FOLLOW: 129,987 total credits from Collier County’s 2011 report + 68,976.9 total credits from “SRA Credit Use and Reconciliation and RLW”, which includes amended Applications SSA14 through SSA16 and SSA17. Then 14,263.4 credits were subtracted for SSA 14 -SSA 16 from the 2011 report since they were already included in the amended applications report for SSA 14-16. Calculation: 129,987 + 68,976.9 - 14,263.4 = 184,700.0 Total credits 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 19 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 SRA development, which excludes additional acreage needed for public benefit use and any open space over 35% of total area.87 First, the Conservancy recommends an official updated count of all stewardship credits that are pending and have been earned, since the last count was in 2011. The public should be informed as to how many credits are in the system. Second, the Conservancy recommends that the Stewardship Credit system is re-calibrated during this review, before even more credits are entitled, to an amount more consistent with what the program intended. Scaling back the development capacity of the program would allow Collier County to get back to the primary goal of the RLSA and the mandate of the Final Order. The current program allows the 43,300 acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) to be built virtually anywhere within 93,000 acres of “Open” areas, as shown in pink on Figure 4. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Florida’s former land planning agency, reviewed Collier’s RLSA program and stated: “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. This may lead to fragmentation of natural areas, wildlife habitat, and agricultural areas. The overall rural character of the area is under threat from the potentially large amount of urban development.”88 87 Collier County LDC 4.08.08.B.2-3. 88 Department of Community Affairs (2007, December). “Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature.” p. 12 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 20 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 4.1 Solution: Financial Benefits of Recalibrating Credits Scaling back the maximum potential development by recalibrating credits has added financial benefits. The Smart Growth America (SGA) report, mentioned earlier in this paper, showed that compact development within the RLSA will save significant taxpayer dollars over the proposed development footprint of 45,000 acres. In fact, the Smart Growth scenario saves $3.8 billion dollars over the 45,000 acre Sprawl scenario in reduced roadways costs, school construction and staffing, school transportation, and EMS response costs over 20 years (Table 2). As densities Figure 4: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 21 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 increase and development becomes more compact in the RLSA, costs drop dramatically. If the stewardship credits are recalibrated to reduce the development footprint significantly, new development could be fiscally neutral to the County or even slightly positive (Table 2). 4.2 Solution: Can Stewardship Credits be Re-calibrated? You may be wondering: “Can the Stewardship Credit System be recalibrated to scale back the maximum potential acreage of development?” According to an ECPO representative from Baron Collier Companies the answer is yes. Stewardship credits are not vested until the Stewardship application has been approved. During a presentation to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on April 21, 2009 regarding the 5-year review of the RLSA program, Tom Jones, of Barron Collier stated:89 “You have to remember, no one has been entitled to these credits. You have to go through an application process, it has to be vetted through staff, and staff has to recommend either approval or disapproval to the commission.” Also, during the 2003 hearings for creation of the LDC policies, the County’s outside legal counsel, Nancy Linnan, stated the following at a planning commission meeting:90 “First of all, you can amend the comprehensive plan at any time assuming you do it during the twice a year state so you have that ability to see it getting out of whack. You have five year period where there is a mandatory check with certain requirements that you have to look at. You also have your EARs where you are going to be doing it and it doesn’t preclude you from asking at any point please bring us up to speed on where we are, give us an accounting on where we are on the credits. And so you will be seeing all of the SSAs coming in, you will be seeing all of the SRAs coming in, so you will have a pretty good idea of what is going on out there.” Dwight Richardson (Planning Commissioner) replied: “So we can change the rules at that time if it’s not working?” Nancy Linnan: “Yes.” 5. FLAW III: NRI VALUES ARE OUTDATED The Natural Resource Index (NRI) values upon which the program is predicated do not reflect the ecological importance of many areas within the RLSA. Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) ranks many of the RLSA lands as Priority 1, which CLIP considers the highest priority for land conservation based on biodiversity, landscape function, surface 89 Collier County Board of County Commission – Transcripts on special meeting on RLSA 5-year review. April 21, 2009. P. 40 90 Collier County Audio Tapes from May 1, 2003, Tape 1A. Conversation starts approximately 40 min 52 seconds. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 22 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 water, groundwater, and marine resources (Figure 5).91 Because of outdated data within the RLSA program, 38,779 acres of Priority 1 lands are designated as “Open” areas of the RLSA overlay, meaning those lands are appropriate for development and intensification.92 After nearly 20 years, the RLSA program has never been updated to include important scientific discoveries regarding habitat of listed species, habitat connectivity, and surface and ground water resources. Source: Noss, R. F. (2018). “Review of Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Report to the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” 91 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2016, September). Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project. Found here: http://www.fnai.org/pdf/CLIP_v4_user_tutorial.pdf 92 GIS Analysis of RLSA Open lands within CLIP Priority 1 lands conducted December 10, 2018. There are 31,742 acres of Priority 2 lands within Open areas. Figure 5: Landscape Resource Priorities from CLIP v.4 prioritization 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 23 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Data from the 2000 Immokalee Area Study Stage 1 Report determined the NRI values of each acre of land and appropriate locations for sending and receiving areas within the overlay.93 Also, the data collected in 2000 was used to score the “Listed Species Habitat Indices” for each acre of land within the RLSA. At the time, the Immokalee Area Study included the most current scientific data available. The report states that, “a major effort was dedicated to producing up-to- date, appropriately scaled, accurate land cover map of the area.”94 It also states, “Mapping areas of highest ecological value using the best available data and analysis established in stage one of the Immokalee Area Study has led to the mapping of FSAs, HSAs and WRAs.”95 WilsonMiller, the report’s author, acknowledged that science would continue to evolve, especially regarding the understanding of habitat use and needs of the endangered Florida panther. The report stated: “The analysis involving panther habitat for the Study will be complemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”96 That was nearly 20 years ago, but the data and program have not been updated. Since that time, there were three major discoveries: the location and importance of the Primary Zone (Figure 6), the realization that agricultural fields are important to panthers, and Adult Breeding Habitat (Figure 7). 5.1 Primary Zone Panther Habitat Using all records of panther telemetry available from 1981 to 2001, land use cover data, satellite imagery, and GIS information, Kautz et al. (2006) identified regions that are most important for conservation of Florida panther habitat. Kautz et al. describes Primary Zone panther habitat as the minimum space needed to “support a population that is barely viable demographically as long the habitat base remains stable.”97 The Secondary Zone is important to transient sub-adult males and may support expanding panther populations if habitat restoration were to occur. 5.2 Agricultural Lands as Habitat In addition to forested areas, agricultural lands are necessary to meet daily needs and support the prey on which the panther depends.98 Many agricultural areas contain important natural landscape connections that support panther home ranges, panther reproduction, dispersal movements, and availability of large prey.99 The Primary Zone consists partly of agricultural lands. USFWS Florida Panther Recovery Plan and other best available science acknowledge the 93 Wilson Miller, Inc. (2002, May) Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study. 94 Ibid. 95 WilsonMiller, Inc. (2002, May) Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committ ee for the Immokalee Area Study. P. 34. 96 Ibid. p. 14 97 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 98 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 99 Cominskey et al (2002). Panthers and Forests in South Florida an Ecological Perspective. Conservation Ecology Vol 6, No. 1 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 24 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 importance of agricultural lands as habitat for species not only for the Florida panther, but also for the eastern indigo snake, crested caracara, and the Florida bonneted bat.100 Figure 6 Kautz et al. Primary Zone Figure 7 Frakes et al. Adult Breeding Habitat 5.3 Adult Breeding Habitat Frakes et al. (2015) found that conservation of Adult Breeding Habitat south of the Caloosahatchee River is also essential to the recovery and survival of the Florida panther.101 Ninety-three percent of panther’s adult breeding habitat lies within the Primary Zone. Frakes et al. (2015) developed a distribution map for resident breeding panthers by using telemetry of 87 adult panthers from 2004 to 2013. They concluded that, “protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recover y of the subspecies and should receive the highest priority by regulatory agencies.”102 The RLSA does not account for Primary Zone or Adult Breeding habitat nor does it consider the importance of agricultural lands to the Florida panther. 100 In example, see Kautz, et al, 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation: Vol. 130, p. 118-133. Jackson, S., 2013. Home Range Size and Habitat Use of the Eastern Indigo Snake at a Disturbed Agricultural Site in South Florida: A Thesis Presented to Florida Gulf Coast University. Morrison and Humphrey, 200 1. Conservation Value of Private Lands for Crested Caracaras in Florida. Conservation Biology, Vol. 15, No. 3, Pages 675-684. Bailey et al., 2017. Impact of Land Use and Climate on the Distribution of the Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat. 101 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133044 102 Ibid, p. 15-16 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 25 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 6. SOLUTION III: UPDATE NRI VALUES USING BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE Collier County’s RLSA program must be updated to capture the environmental value of primary panther habitat and to ensure the program is consistent with USFWS regulatory framework in the prioritization of panther conservation. The USFWS established that Kautz et al. (2006) is current best available science for prioritizing for panther protections. The Florida Panther Recovery Plan characterizes lands identified by Kautz et al. (2006) as crucial for the panther’s continued survival and recovery.103 The plan further states that habitat as identified by Kautz et al. (2006) should be maintained in order to maintain the existing population.104 USFWS states in their Florida Panther Recovery Plan: “The Primary Zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat within the Primary Zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the Primary Zone and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats.”105 Updating NRI values to accurately reflect recent data of panther habitat will not only help to direct development away from those areas which are inappropriate for intensification, but will more fairly and accurately provide the ability for landowners who own lands within primary habitat to earn more stewardship credits. The following recommendations should be implemented during this review of the RLSA program: 6.1 Solution: Update Listed Species Habitat Indices and NRI Values: The Listed Species Habitat Indices score and Natural Resource Index Score for each acre of land within the RLSA should be updated with Primary Zone panther habitat, Adult Breeding habitat GIS data layers, and updated data layers for other listed species. Because primary zone and adult breeding habitat are essential to the survival of the endangered Florida panther, every acre of land within those habitats should score over 1.2 NRI value. The presence many species are not known until a development is planned or started so a wildlife survey would still be required for every SRA application. 6.2 Solution: Update NRI Values before SRA Approval – During the Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) application process, NRI values are verified to determine if the land use-land cover has been altered or listed 103 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. “Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision.” 104 Ibid. p. 101. 105 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) “Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision.” p.89 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 26 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 species habitat has changed. The “Restoration Potential Indices” is also determined during the SSA application process. However, the RLSA program does not require an assessment of changes to NRI value during the SRA application process. Because land cover and listed species habitat can change over time, it is equally important to accurately re-assess the value of SRA lands during the application process, as it is required for SSA lands. 6.3 Solution: Re-assess Program Every 5 Years based on the best available science for panthers, other listed species, and water resources and include compatibility with state and federal regulations, and the Endangered Species Act. 6.4 Solution: Modify Definition of Listed Species Habitat Indices. The definition of Listed Species Habitat Indices in Collier County’s LDC should be revised to define the current data and methodology used.106 6.5 Solution: Update Natural Resource Index Map to reflect modifications mentioned in Solutions 6.1 through 6.4. 7. FLAW IV: LANDOWNERS CONTROL NRI DATA The foundational data for the County’s entire RLSA program is currently held by the landowners’ consultants, Stantec (formerly WilsonMiller), and not by Collier County. Stantec holds the 2000 data which determined every Natural Resource Index (NRI) value for each acre of land within the RLSA. This is very concerning, not only because the RLSA is supposed be a public program, subject to transparency and analysis by all citizens, but because the data that Stantec holds is the very same data that ultimately determines how many Stewardship credits their client landowners can earn. The greater the NRI value of the land, the greater number of stewardship credits landowners can earn. Stewardship credits are the currency of the RLSA program and they are very valuable. If a landowners chooses to participate in the program they can increase the number of allowable dwelling units per acre 20-fold on their lands within the “open” areas. Also, if they own agricultural property within the Stewardship Areas they could sell Stewardship credits to other parties, while continuing to farm those lands. The current method of housing data with the landowners’ consultant and keeping it private, removes the possibility for checks and balances. If only the landowners and Stantec know which values went in to determining the total NRI value of each acre of land, how can the County or the public verify that the information is correct? How can we determine whether the landowners are receiving too many or too little Stewardship Credits for a Stewardship Sending Area application if we cannot verify the NRI data that was used to calculate the credits? How do we know 106 Collier County LDC 4.08.01Q 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 27 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 whether the “open” areas, which are the areas appropriate for SRA development, were accurately assessed? 8. SOLUTION: COLLIER COUNTY SHOULD HOUSE NRI DATA There needs to be transparency. Collier County must obtain the underlying data and the methodology for which the program is based. The Conservancy understands that the program was adopted over 15 years ago and that the data was not turned over to the County at that time; but it is necessary for the County to obtain the data during this review. Or the entire NRI system needs to be revamped based on publicly available data that Collier County can house and published a methodology that any party can follow to determine the NRI value of a particular grid cell. As previously mentioned the data used to determine NRI values and the RLSA NRI map is from the year 2000 and must be updated with best available science. As the NRI values are updated, questions may occur as the accuracy of some of the values assigned to a parcel. It is crucial for the County to have the base data available in order to verify that the value assigned to each parcel is accurate. 9. FLAW V: SRAs ARE PERMITTED WITHIN PRIMARY ZONE & ADULT BREEDING HABITAT It is ironic that the RLSA program encourages development in habitat essential for the Florida panther when a major component of the program’s primary goal is to protect listed species and their habitats. Not only does the program’s outdated data layers increase vulnerability of panther habitat, but the fact that many of the areas “appropriate” for SRA development are within primary habitat makes the problem even worse. This is because the “Open” areas (Figure 4) consist of Primary Zone panther habitat and Adult Breeding Habitat. Approximately half of the 93,000 acres of Open areas lie within primary zone panther habitat and 31% are within adult breeding habitat.107 This is unacceptable as all primary zone and adult breeding habitat should be protected within the RLSA. 9.1 Why is it Important to Protect Florida Panther Habitat? Florida panthers are not only beautiful and majestic mammals, they are part of Florida’s natural history and symbolic of old Florida - of real Florida. Protecting their habitat in the RLSA is essential for many reasons including:  Only 120 to 230 Florida panthers exist in the wild.108 107 GIS data layers show that 53% of “Open” areas are within the Primary Zone panther habitat. Data retrieved December 5, 2018. 108 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com/panther 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 28 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47  The Florida panther is restricted to less than 5% of its historic range, which include RLSA lands.109  Habitat loss is the greatest threat to the Florida panther.110  The Florida panther has one breeding population, which is located in southern Florida.111  If we lose panther habitat we also lose areas for hiking, areas that store floodwater and cleanse water, and areas we need to replenish our drinking water supplies.  We need the panther to maintain biodiversity. Florida is third in the nation for having the most endangered and threatened species.112 The Florida panther is considered an umbrella species (Figure 8). Lands that the Florida panther needs for its own survival protects other listed species. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge states that by protecting panther habitat within their reserve, 126 bird species, 50 reptile and amphibian species, and 22 mammal species are also protected.113  The Florida panther is our state official mammal elected by school children in 1982. 9.2 Flaw: Impacts on Adult Breeding Habitat Quantity & Quality One of the leading panther scientists, Dr. Robert Frakes, modeled the impacts on Adult Breeding Habitat in the RLSA.114 He based his analysis on 45,000 acres of development as proposed by the Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP provides locations of potential SRAs (town and village developments), many of which are proposed within panther habitat. His model predicts substantial loss of adult panther breeding habitat in 109 Frakes RA, Beldon RC, Wood BE, James FE. (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE, 10(7). 110 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 119 111 Frakes RA, Beldon RC, Wood BE, James FE. (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE, 10(7). 112 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Found here: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species- listed-by-state-totals-report 113 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge pamphlet: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Fl%20PantherGeneral%20brochure%2011.18.08.pdf 114 Frakes, Robert A. (2018, October 7). “Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis. Prepared for: Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” Figure 8: Graphic of Florida panther as umbrella species, by Steve Carbol 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 29 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 terms of quality and quantity from proposed HCP development (SRAs). Figure 9 shows loss of adult panther habitat quality post HCP development. Dr. Robert Frakes states, “The model predicted that the RLSA will lose 16,779 acres (18%) of existing adult panther habitat.” The study also reported that overall habitat quality within the RLSA would be decreased by 16% with the implementation of 45,000 acres of HCP development. Dr. Frakes modeled a second scenario, which included likely additional residential development, agricultural intensification, and mining beyond the HCP. That model showed an overall decrease of adult panther habitat of 21,425 acres and 23.4% decrease of habitat quality. Because habitat is already extremely limited for the Florida panther, we do not have even one acre to lose. Figure 9: Loss to adult panther habitat quality under development proposed by HCP. Source: Frakes (2018). The darker red and orange colors represent the greatest loss of habitat quality. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 30 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 9.3 Flaw: Impacts on Panther Corridors Not only will 45,000 acres of proposed HCP development reduce habitat quality and quantity, development in the proposed areas will fragment panther corridors (Figure 10). Dr. Frakes analyzed the potential impacts from proposed HCP development on two main north- south panther corridors in the RLSA: (1) Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary through Camp Keais Strand leading to Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and (2) Okaloachoochee Slough through Summerlin Swamp leading to Big Cypress National Preserve. Frakes (2018) predicts that both corridors will be severely fragmented, narrowed, and shortened as a result of HCP development. Figure 10 side (b) depicts adult panther habitat in the corridor near Camp Keais Strand after implementation of HCP development. The panther corridor is substantially narrowed and habitat value is virtually decimated in locations shown by blue arrows. 10. SOLUTION V: CONSERVANCY’S 2018 RLSA VISION MAP Lands designated as Open should be reassessed. As stated previously, recent scientific literature on panther habitat would more accurately guide receiving areas that are less impactful to the Figure 10: HCP jeopardizes panther corridor connectivity between Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Source: Frakes (2018) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 31 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Florida panther. The Conservancy created a 2018 RLSA Vision Map, aimed at resolving many of the fundamental flaws of the current program. If development is directed to “Potential Development Areas,” according to the Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map, then wetlands, listed species habitat, and agricultural lands will be saved, and sprawl will be minimized (Figure 11). The 2018 RLSA Vision Map was created by directing development away from Primary Zone panther habitat and Adult Breeding Habitat, lands recognized by panther scientists as essential to the panther’s recovery and survival.115 By conserving those areas for the Florida panther, the program would protect many of the other 18 federal and state listed species residing within RLSA lands.116 Panther habitat removed from Open areas should be preserved as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). This would reduce the acres for potential development or Open areas to 36,881 acres. The development footprint could be located within the 36,881 acres of “Potential Development Area,” instead of the 93,000 acres of Open lands depicted on the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Map (Figure 4). By reducing the footprint and directing development to the Potential Development Areas provided in the Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map the following would be achieved (Figure 11): (a) 47,727 acres of primary habitat for the endangered Florida panther would be protected; (b) 41,430 acres of agricultural lands would be saved; (c) 6,103 acres of wetlands protected; and (d) Over $1 Billion saved.117 115 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133 & and Frakes RA, Beldon RC, Wood BE, James FE. (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE, 10(7). 116 Three of the 19 listed species mentioned are under review for listing status or are considered candidate species. 117 Smart Growth America (2018, September). The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida. p. 11 Table 2 (Net fiscal impact over 20 years for EMS, School buildings & staffing, school bussing, and road construct ion). Analysis based on Scenario 2 in SGA report at 40,704 acres; however an even more compact footprint of 37,149 acres would result in greater savings. The projected build-out population would remain the same. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 32 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Figure 11: Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map. “Potential Development Areas,” shown in pink, exclude Primary Zone and Adult Breeding Habitats. Not all lands within Potential Development Areas are suitable for intensification as habitat for ot her listed species may occur within those areas. Each development proposal must be consistent with local, state, and federal guidelines, consist of a listed species management plan, and obtain proper permits. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 33 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 By removing Primary Zone and Adult Breeding habitat areas from the potential development area, over 41,000 acres of agricultural and working lands would be saved, which solves a primary concern of the 5-Year Review Committee.118 11. FLAW VI: DEVELOPMENTS MAY RESULT IN REDUCED HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY IN ADACENT SENDING AREAS The current RLSA system is flawed in that landowners are able to receive Stewardship Credits for actually impacting habitat of listed species, rather than protecting habitat. This is because policies within the program undervalue the importance of water retention areas (WRAs) as habitat for listed species. As an example, if approved, Collier Enterprises will earn 4,845119 Stewardship Credits for “protecting” Stewardship Sending Area 17 (SSA17), which would entitle them to over 600 acres of SRA development. SSA17 is proposed to serve as a WRA for the Town of Rural Lands West (RLW), consisting of 3,122 acres of an ecologically important wetland system providing habitat for 12 listed species, including the endangered Florida panther.120 SSA17 lands also have a high Natural Resource Index value between 1.7 & 2.6 as much of the lands are within the Shaggy Cypress Swamp consisting of high quality cypress strands. However, habitat for many of the listed species would be severely cut off as the Shaggy Cypress Swamp and other SSA17 wetlands would be encircled with neighborhoods, golf courses, and the town center. Also, a sixteen foot wide multi-use biking/walking path is planned to bisect the Shaggy Cypress Swamp, further fragmenting habitat. Using the landscape-scale adult panther habitat model, Dr. Robert Frakes’ analyzed RLW’s proposed site plan.121 Figure 12 demonstrates how the Rural Lands West project will adversely affect Adult Breeding Habitat if the project is permitted.122 The left side shows the current panther habitat value, and the right side shows the Frakes et al. (2015) model re-run with the Rural Lands West project in place. The Frakes et al. (2015) model shows that there will be a significant decrease in the habitat value within the Shaggy Cypress system and all of SSA17 lands if RLW is built. Lands south of Oil Well Road would have virtually no habitat value for the Florida panther. Disturbances from the surrounding neighborhoods—light, noise, pets, and traffic—would deter the Florida panther and other species from occupying SSA17 lands. 118 Collier County. Comments of the Environmental Advisory Council and RLSA Review Committee Responses. Final March 10, 2009 (Attachment C) 119 Rural Lands West SRA Credit Use and Reconciliation Application. (2018, August). p. 3 120 Passarella and Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 17 Application (January 2016) & Rural Lands West SRA Credit Use and Recon ciliation Application. (2018, August). p. 3 121 Frakes RA, Beldon RC, Wood BE, James FE. (2015). Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE, 10(7). 122 Figure 12 demonstrates how the Rural Lands West project will adversely change Adult Breeding Habitat if the project were to b e permitted. The left side shows the current panther habitat value, and the right side shows the Frakes et al model re-run with the Rural Lands West project in place. The warmer the color, as depicted with reds, oranges, and yellows, the higher the value to adult breeding panthers. Gray and white colors depict lower value habitat for adult breeding panthers. Frakes model shows that there will be a significant decrease in the value of lands within the Shaggy Cypress and the Camp Keais Strand (which is one of only two existing south -to-north panther corridors) post-development of RLW. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 34 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Not only would the habitat value within SSA 17 be diminished, but the analysis shows that RLW would decrease habitat value outside the SRA footprint in Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) (Frakes 2018). Camp Keais Strand is a primary wetland flowway system and designated by the RLSA program as lands critical for protection. It is also a major south-to-north corridor for the panther and provides primary habitat. It is troubling that Collier Enterprises could earn Stewardship credits for SSA17, when in reality the SRA diminishes habitat value within the adjacent WRA and FSA. The RLSA Overlay clearly defines the purpose of Stewardship Sending Areas as areas that are to be protected. Stewardship Credits are the currency given to landowners for protecting those areas. Policy 1.21 supports this point when it states, “The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits as the primary basis for permanent protection of flowways, habitats and water retention areas.”123 It would then logically follow that the applicant should not be allowed to redeem Stewardship Credits towards SRA acreage if the development plans demonstrate listed species habitat will be impacted in the SSA for which credits were earned, such as in the case with RLW. 123 Collier County Future Land Use Element. Figure 12: Frakes (2018). Panther Habitat Value Before and After RLW Development Shaggy Cypress SSA 17 Shaggy Cypress SSA 17 Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA) Oil Well Road Oil Well Road 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 35 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Policies must be amended to prohibit development from impacting habitat of listed species in adjoining WRAs, FSAs, and HSAs. Furthermore, the program should not allow lands to become SSAs or for landowners to earn Stewardship Credits if SRA development diminishes natural resources within the SSA. 12. SOLUTION VI: AMEND GMP & LDC POLICIES As a solution, policies within the GMP and LDC should be amended to ensure that the SRA is planned in a truly environmentally acceptable manner, so that SRA development shall not reduce habitat functionality for listed species in an adjacent SSA, WRA, FSA or HSA. The LDC already states that an “SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land.”124 Thus, the same consideration should be made for listed species habitat. Based on Frakes (2018) model, we know that loss of panther habitat quality and quantity can be predicted (Figures 9, 10 & 12). As previously mentioned, the Florida panther is an umbrella species (Figure 8), so by removing potential development areas that would impact panther habitat that will also protect many of the other species that the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge mentions in Section 9.1. Examples of amended language are underlined and provided below: Policy 4.9: “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, HSAs, and WRAs. SRA design shall demonstrate that development will not adversely impact habitat and habitat functionality for listed species in adjoining, SSA, FSA, HSA, & WRA. 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. 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 4.12: “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 124 Collier County. Future Land Use Element Policy 4.12. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 36 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that development will not adversely impact habitat and habitat functionality for listed species in adjoining SSA, FSA, HSA, & WRA. Also, 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.” LDC 4.08.07(A)(1)g: “An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. If the WRA contains habitat for listed species, the SRA must demonstrate that the development does not reduce habitat functionality of listed species in an adjoining SSA, WRA, FSA, and HSA.” 13. FLAW VII: THE STEWARDSHIP CREDIT SYSTEM FOR RESTORATION NEEDS TO BE RE-EVAUATED 13.1 Flaw: Double-dipping The current Stewardship credit system encourages “double dipping” of credits, where landowners can be compensated twice on the same lands without giving up any more rights (Table 4). Not only can landowners earn “base credits” for removing land uses layers and giving up rights to develop within WRAs, FSAs, and HSAs, but they can also earn credits on those very same lands for simply “dedicating” their lands for restoration if they are located in certain areas. The LDC states that, “The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits.”125 Therefore, the applicant does not have to spend one dime on restoration activities in order to receive the credits, and they can continue to ranch, raise livestock or continue with any other activities within the “Agricultural Group 2” land use layer.126 All for simply stating they are “dedicating” their lands for restoration landowners can earn a tremendous amount of credits. Those credits are called R-1 credits. As an example, if Stewardship Sending Area 15 (SSA15) Amendment Application is approved, Collier Enterprises will earn an additional 14,178 (R-1) credits for merely designating their lands for restoration, but for not actually completing any restoration work (Table 4).127 The credits for R-1 will be earned after the applicant has already earned 5,434.9 base credits for removing land uses 1 through 4 (ex. residential, general conditional uses, earth mining, and recreational) and 4,684.9 credits for 125 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.B.3.f(3) 126 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.B.3.f(4). 127 Passarella & Associates. Stewardship Sending Area 15 Amendment Application. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 37 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 removing two additional land use layers (Agricultural Group 1 & support services). The additional 14,178 (R-1) credits would allow the applicant to receive credits on the very same lands twice and would give them another 1,772 acres toward SRA development, based on the 8 credit per acre rule. This is all for doing nothing extra! Credit Source Approved Credits Proposed Additional Credits** Total Credits Early Entry Bonus Credits 1,826.9 0.0 1,826.9 Base Credits (for removing land use layers 1-6) 5,434.9 (Layers 1-4 removed) 4,684.9 (Layers 5-6 removed & Restoration Potential index) 10,119.8 Restoration Credits (R-1) 0.0 14,178.4 14,178.4 Restoration Implementation Credits (R-2) 0.0 14,178.4 14,178.4 Total 7,261,8 33,041.7 40,303.5 According to the RLSA program, removing land use 1-6 layers already removes any potential for crop raising and intensive development, including residential and mining, and leaves only Agricultural Group 2 uses (ranching & grazing) and conservation. Therefore, why should landowners receive additional R-1 credits for doing nothing? They should only receive restoration credits for actually restoring the lands. In addition, there is no guarantee that the actual restoration will be completed under the current program. In fact, very little restoration has ever been done under the RLSA program. Collier County estimates that only 428 acres of approximately 50,000 acres of SSAs have been restored.128 That equates to about 2.5%. Thus, the overwhelming majority of credits for restoration are R-1 credits, which are earned for simply designating lands that have the potential for restoration rather than actual restoration. 13.2 Flaw: Only SSAs are updated during Application Process, Not SRAs During the application process, NRI values can be updated for SSAs but not for SRAs. SRA applications should receive the same consideration. However, it is very concerning that the landowner’s consultant is in charge of determining updated NRI values and calculating stewardship credits, instead of the county or an outside independent consultant not affiliated with any of the Eastern Collier landowners. 128 Collier County. (2018, April 26). Meeting Summary RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting – Protecting Natural Resources. Table 4: Credits from SS15 amendment application. (Source: Passarella and Associates – Stewardship Sending Area 15) Amendment Application) The highlighted R-1 credits are credits to be earned for “designating” lands to restoration. These are in addition to removing land uses 1- 6, which already protects lands from intensification. R-1 credits allow the applicant to earn additional credits for no additional conservation benefit provided. (**Proposed additional credits are from the amendment application. Approved credits are from the original application). 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 38 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 As part of an SSA Designation application, the NRI values can be changed in two ways. First, the NRI value that was assigned to each acre of land during the Immokalee Area Study (year 2000) is verified to determine if the Index Value score is still valid.129 The Index Value of each parcel within the SSA application is verified by the landowner’s consultant via “recent aerial photograph or satellite imagery, agency-approved mapping, or other documentation, as verified by field inspections.”130 If changes to characteristics of the land are found that make the Index Scores assigned during the RLSA no longer valid then the applicant’s consultant must provide “documentation to support a change in the related Natural Resource Index Value(s).”131 The consultant then provides “Calculations that quantify the number of acres by Index Values, the level of conservation being offered, and the resulting number of credits being generated.”132 The applicant then submits the application to the County staff for review. Just as in SSA lands, land cover and listed species habitat conditions could change over time for SRA lands, potentially making a portion of the parcel within an SRA application eligible for stewardship protection and inappropriate for development. A similar review of NRI values for SRA applications should be required, as long as County staff or an outside independent consultant determines updated NRI values and credits. 13.3 Flaw: The Applicant’s Consultant Calculates Restoration Credits The second method for updating NRI value is according to the Restoration Potential Index, which is assigned during the SSA designation process.133 The landowner’s own environmental consultant is tasked with evaluating the restoration potential for the land, which is problematic. The consultant determines the appropriate Restoration Potential Value, figures the total potential Restoration Stewardship Credits, then re-calculates the total Stewardship credit value for lands within the SSA application.134 County staff then reviews the SSA application for accuracy. As shown in Table 4, Passarella and Associates, environmental consultants for the applicant Collier Enterprises, figured that 5,259.0 acres of SSA15 lands have a huge restoration potential. If approved, SSA15 amended application would grant the applicant an additional 28,356 credit for restoration (R-1 + R-2).135 That equates to 3,544.6 acres of SRA development based on 8 units per acre, which earns them enough credits to build 3 towns at 1,000 acres a piece or one large town at 3,500 acres. That does not even include the other 11,946.7 credits for base credits and early entry bonus that would entitle the applicant to another 1,493 acres of SRA 129 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.C.3.a 130 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.C.3.a. 131 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.3.a and 4.08.06.4.i 132 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.4.j 133 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.B.3.e 134 Collier County LDC 4.08.06.B.3.e 135 Credits from Table 4 include R1 and R2 and Restoration Potential Index. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 39 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 development. Although staff will review the application, it is a major concern that the landowners’ consultants are in charge of figuring and calculating their own restoration credits. It is also important to point out that the original intent of the program was to conserve nine acres of RLSA private lands for every one acre of development. In other words, 90% was to be conserved, and 10% would be developed (9:1 ratio). However, if Collier Enterprises receives all 40,303.5 credits for SSA15 application (Table 4) that would entitle them to 5,037.8 acres of SRA development. SSA15 would conserve 5,259 acres of land. Thus, the ratio would be significantly less, at approximately one acre of development to every one acre of preservation (1:1 ratio).136 This is definitely not the deal the people of Collier County thought they were getting when the program was adopted. 13.4 Flaw: Program needs more County Oversight of Restoration Plan There needs to be greater oversight by Collier County in terms of the restoration plan process. As example, the applicant and their consultant create the restoration goal, and they provide the list of activities for the restoration work, the work schedule, and success criteria.137 However, since Collier County grants the restoration credits to the applicant, which can often be a considerable amount of credits, the county should set the goal, the work to be completed, and the success criteria. Otherwise, the restoration work may be minimal and not even effective. Many of the lands to be restored are within a significant natural regional wetland cypress slough system, such as Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. They are also locations that provide important habitat and corridors for numerous endangered and threatened species, such as the Florida panther. What happens if credits are given to the applicant for completing the restoration, but two or three years down the road it is found that restoration was not successful? What happens if the restoration work creates additional impacts? The LDC does state that credits will be granted once the success criteria has been met, but it also says that this is “determined by the permitting or commenting agency authorizing said restoration.”138 Since Collier County is the authority granting the Stewardship Credits, should not the county also be responsible for ensuring that the success criterion is met before granting credits? 14. SOLUTION VII: ELIMINATE “DOUBLE-DIPPING” and REMOVE- CONFLICTS-OF INTEREST The following will improve the flaws surrounding Restoration credits: 136 Total credits from SSA 15 application = 40,305 credits/8 credits per acre = 5,038 acres worth of SRA development compared to 5,259 acres of preservation. This is nearly a 1:1 ratio. 137 Collier County LDC4.08.06.B 138 Collier County LDC4.08.06.B.5.f(5) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 40 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 14.1 Solution: Eliminate “Double-Dipping” by Eliminating R-1 credits. Restoration credits should be awarded only for lands that are actually restored, not for lands that have only been dedicated to restoration. Remove language from GMP and LDC which allows R-1 credits to be earned. 14.2 Solution: Adjustments to NRI Values should be made during SRA applications just as they are during SSA applications. If changes are found for land cover and listed species habitat conditions that would increase NRI value over 1.2, those lands should then be ineligible for SRA development, but could qualify to become an WRA, HSA, or FSA and worthy of earning Stewardship credits. 14.3 Solution: The County should select independent consultant for SSA applications. The County should hire an independent environmental consultant, from an approved list, to conduct all analyses for the SSA Designation Application including, but not limited to: the Restoration Analysis and Report, Matrix Calculation, Natural Resource Index Assessment, Restoration Credit Analysis, Restoration Plans, SSA Credit Agreement, Stewardship Easement Agreement, and all Stewardship Credit calculations for the SSA. This would remove conflict-of-interests by requiring an independent outside consultant to determine updated NRI values and all credit calculations. Applicant should be required to place monies in escrow for payment of such services, which will go toward environmental consultant fees at the time the services are rendered. 14.4 Solution: Additional Measures for Restoration Plans. a. Restoration goal and success criterion for each SSA should be provided by the County or outside independent consultant hired by County from an approved list. b. Description of work and schedule of each phase should be provided by Collier County or consultant hired by County from an approved list. c. Once the work is complete and recruitment of native vegetation has occurred, a third-party consultant who does not represent the applicant or County, should conduct an analysis of the work to determine whether the restoration was successful; such as whether the hydrology has been correctly restored, the sheet flow is functional, listed species are occupying the restored area, the wildlife corridor is functional, and that the restoration plan did not create additional impacts. The anal ysis would then be paid for by the applicant out of an escrow account and then restoration credits granted. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 41 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 We do not agree with the 5-year Review Committee’s recommendations to amend Policies 2.2 and 3.11, which would further increase available Stewardship credits for restoration. The Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map (Figure 11) will better protect agricultural lands, wetlands, and listed species habitat without increasing credits. 15. CONSERVANCY’S LIST OF OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS While the major flaws and solutions of the program have already been addressed in this report, the Conservancy is offering a list of other recommendations to improve the program. These recommendations are also aimed at directing the program back to its original goal of protecting natural resources and agriculture, and avoiding sprawl. In addition, these recommendations are aimed at promoting sustainable building practices. Implement policy to require a mandatory 5 year review of program to assess whether the program is meeting the goals it aims to achieve. Changes to the program may be needed as more SRAs are approved, based on changing demographics and population projections, relevant scientific findings, budgetary constraints, updated assessments of water supply and quality, and to assess any unintended consequences to natural resources, including habitat of listed species. Amend policies which state developments have to be fiscally neutral only by build-out, as build- out could take 30 years+ (Policy 4.18 and LDC 4.08.07L). SRAs should demonstrate fiscal neutrality at the end of each phase or the end of every 5 years, whichever occurs first. Encourage infill and re-development of Collier County’s urban areas by adding a Policy which allows Stewardship Credits from RLSA lands to be used toward entitling additional units or other economic incentives within the urban areas. Require that SRA’s submit Annual Monitoring Report, with the same or similar reporting requirement as PUDs. (10.02.13.F) Certain uses within SSAs, HSA, and FSAs should be removed permanently. 1. FSAs - Oil and gas extraction and exploration should be removed as an allowable use within FSAs, since FSAs were chosen as areas important for protecting water quality, quantity and flowways within RLSA. Oil and gas extraction should be removed as a use in FSAs whether or not the landowner participates in RLSA program. (Modify Policy 3.5 & LDC 4.08.06.A.2.c) 2. HSAs - Earth mining, oil and gas exploration and drilling, and recreational uses, such as golf courses, should be removed as allowable uses from all HSA lands, as HSAs were chosen for listed species habitat importance and connections (Modify Policy 3.7; LDC 4.08.06.A.3.b and 4.08.06.A.3.h). The above mentioned uses should be removed in HSAs whether or not the landowner participates in the RLSA program. Golf courses should only be allowed in SRAs (4.08.05.K – Policy 3.7) 3. SSAs- Earth mining & processing & oil and gas exploration and drilling should not be 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 42 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 allowed in any SSAs. (Modify 4.08.06.A.2.c; 4.08.06.A.3.b; and 4.08.06.A.3.g). 4. Collier should assess whether all agriculture is appropriate for FSAs. Include Dark Sky Policy as recommended by 5-Year Review Committee: “Policy 3.15(New Policy). Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.”139 Florida Green Building Coalition requirement - All SRAs should be required to achieve a Florida Green Development Certification Standard through Florida Green Building Coalition or equivalent designation. New Construction & Remodel Requirements: Include within each homeowner association covenants and/or deed restrictions a requirement that all homes must earn a Florida Green Development Certificate or equivalent. Require energy efficient appliances and indoor and outdoor water efficiency standards for new construction and major remodeling. Require use of 100% Florida Friendly Plantings with low irrigation requirements for new development in RLSA. Include within each homeowner association covenants and/or deed restrictions a requirement that only licensed professionals are allowed to apply fertilizers and pesticides. Homeowners are prohibited from applying fertilizers and pesticides for their lawn or shrubbery. Require Low Impact Development practices to manage storm water run-off in order to protect water quality. (Examples include: vegetative filter strips adjacent to impervious surfaces, commercial and residential rain gardens, using porous pavers, concrete and asphalt, narrower streets, pervious parking lots, and green roofs). Golf Course Acreage Should Require Stewardship Credits even if 35% Open Space is met. Modify Policy 4.10 to state that Stewardship Credits are required for all golf course acreages. Limit Extensions for Stewardship Sending Area Applications to one year to ensure the Natural Resource Index Assessment and Support Documentation includes accurate updated data and information. (4.08.06.C.3-4) Require Complete Street Design Policies for SRA development which will result in safer travel for all users including pedestrians and bicyclists, it would offer greater transportation choices, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it would improve health, and will ease traffic congestion. 16. REJECT THE 5-YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS: ALL ISSUES CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH GOOD PLANNING Recommendations resulting from the first review of the RLSA program (2007-2009) should not be considered nor implemented, as they would create more problems than they would solve.140 The recommendations from the first “5-year review” are misguided, as they seek to better protect 139 Collier County. (2007). “Section 2. All Committee-Recommended Revisions to Improve the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay,” p. 55 140 Collier County. (2009) “Section 2 – All Committee-Recommended Revisions to Improve the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay”. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 43 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 agricultural lands, enhance panther corridors, and increase restoration opportunities utilizing a flawed method. The “5-year recommendations” incentivize landowners through a drastic increase in the number of potential Stewardship credits. At least 106,000 additional credits could be earned if the 5-year recommendations are implemented and likely much more than that. This would dramatically increase the number of available acreage for SRA development from 43,300 to 57,888.141 Even though the 5-year recommendations also propose a cap of 45,000 total acres for SRAs, once the potential is there to earn additional credits only a simple policy amendment would be needed to increase the acreage cap beyond 45,000 acres. Collier County should learn from past mistakes, such as when it was found that a 2002 policy to increase credits for restoration had the unintended consequence of expanding the capacity for development by 250%. As this report mentioned, this increase in capacity was uncovered and disclosed to the public years later.142 Adding more credits to solve the fundamental flaws of the program during this review is like putting a Band-Aid on an oozing gaping wound. The Conservancy has already demonstrated in this report that there are real solutions to heal the flaws of the program, without adding more credits. The best solution to improving the RLSA program is through good planning principles, in other words, by adhering to Smart Growth principles as defined by the American Planning Association in Section 1 of this paper. The Conservancy’s 2018 RLSA Vision Map combined with other solutions offered in this paper provide an alternative that would truly create compact walkable communities, development patterns emblematic of smart growth, thereby saving land. Our plan saves over 41,000 acres of agricultural lands and over 47,000 acres of primary panther habitat and panther corridors, and our plan solves issues surrounding restoration credits. Not only do our solutions offered in this report follow Collier County’s own vision plan, but we offer ways to optimize infrastructure and save taxpayer dollars.143 This report demonstrates that in order to solve the fundamental flaws of the RLSA, Collier County must circle back to the basics of good planning, of smart growth patterns, and of conserving lands for future needs. The system does not need more credits. The system needs planning which truly incorporates responsible environmental and rural land stewardship. 17. CLOSING REMARKS: The development patterns we choose to accommodate growth in the RLSA will impact all of Collier County’s residents for centuries, perhaps even millennia. Now more than ever, citizens and elected officials must spend our tax dollars wisely. Naples includes one of five zip codes in the state of Florida for being most vulnerable to sea level rise.144 Because of impending costs 141 Wilson Miller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County 142 For explanation see Section 3, Flaw II of this paper. 143 143 Dover, Kohl & Partners for Collier County (2001, April) “Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida,” 144 Climate Central (2014, April). “Florida and the Surging Sea: A vulnerability assessment with projections for sea level rise and coastal flood risk.” 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 44 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 associated with sea level rise and climate change, we cannot needlessly squander funds to make up for an economic shortfall created by low-density sprawl that will inevitably result from the current program. Soon, if not right now, Collier County will have additional expenses for making our coasts resilient to flooding and storm surge events, for beach re-nourishment projects, for protecting our living-shorelines, and for ensuring our electric grid can accommodate increasing demands. Besides the need to increase resiliency, the County already has an obligation to its current residents for ensuring roads and bridges are properly maintained, for providing adequate EMS services and public safety, for ensuring students have an opportunity for a good education, that proper mental health care is available, that our parks are maintained, and for maintaining a great quality of life. The costs for these services will become even more difficult to attain as the seas continue to rise and the effects of rising temperatures worsens. The Conservancy does not oppose development, as long as it is done sustainably. We agree that landowners have property rights, but those rights also come with shared responsibilities. Landowners share in responsibilities with the residents of Collier County, with planners, and with elected officials, to ensure that development does not negatively affect generations far into the future. President Theodore Roosevelt once stated, "I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.” We have an obligation during this review to make the best possible decisions for the RLSA, so that our children and grandchildren are not financially burdened by our mistakes, so they are able to experience and enjoy Florida’s beautiful and unique wildlife, so they have clean and abundant drinking water, and so they have the opportunity for a quality of life at least as good as ours. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 45 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 APPENDIX (Provides Additional information Regarding Flaw II, from p. 17) The following passages from important RLSA documents and audio excerpts support the argument that the information provided to the public, the RLSA Committee, and the Board of County Commissioners, prior to adoption of the RLSA program, only included statements that the RLSA program could accommodate a maximum of 16,800 acres of SRA development or the equivalent of 9% of total RLSA lands. However, it was determined during the first 5-year review of the program that the true capacity of the program was actually a maximum of 43,300 acres of SRA development, which was in addition to the base zoning of 1 unit per 5 acres for landowners who choose not to participate in the program. Statements from the 2002 Immokalee Area Study, the foundational document for the RLSA program, described how it was determined that 16,800 acres was appropriate for the maximum SRA development and how many credits could be earned: “Using the current zoning entitlement of 1 dwelling per 5-acres on A-Agriculture zoned land as a control total, the maximum number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the 182,331 acres of privately held land would be 36,466 dwelling units. Using an average gross density for compact rural development of 2.17 dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the Rural Development Characteristics guidelines discussed previously, only 16,805 acres would need to be set aside for the buildout density in compact rural development as opposed to accommodating that same number of units on 182,331 acres of 5-acre home sites. The remaining step in the calculation process involves eliminating the credits for the number of acres to be used as Receiving Lands (16,805 X .15 credits per acre = 2,521 credits). The net result is 134,388 credits generated for the rural compact development of 16,805 acres, resulting in an exchange rate of 8.0 Sending Area credits per acre of Receiving Area land.”145 Several other documents also reported that 16,805 acres or 9% of the RLSA shall be set aside for compact development. As example, the Board of Collier County Commissioners transmittal hearing packet from July 12, 2002, stated: “The results revealed that the incentive-based stewardship program fulfills all Final Order objectives. Approximately 85,000 acres of the 182,300 acres of privately held lands are delineated as Flow Way, Habitat and Water Retention Stewardship Areas. Approximately 21,000 acres of ACSC land are able to generate credits as SSAs and retain current agriculture activities, and approximately 60,000 acres of non-ACSC land can also retain its agriculture designation. Approximately 16,800 acres are required for compact rural 145 WilsonMiller. (May 2002) Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study. p 40 highlights added) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 46 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 development. In contract, the Baseline Reference with interim NRPAs conserved approximately 40,900 acres and, except for lands in the ACSC, offered little or no protection for the 141,400 acres of agriculture lands that could otherwise be subject to conversion to non-agriculture uses.”146 And the Executive Summary of the Adoption Hearing, which is document that the Board of Collier County Commissioners based their final vote to approve the RLSA overlay, stated: “Although there are 93,000 +- acres of potential SRAs (private land less FSAs and HSAs), it is estimated that the “8 credit requirement” will set aside approximately 16,800 acres, or 9% of the Study Area, for clustered development.”147 During the Collier County Planning Commission hearings, just days before adoption of the RLSA program, the County’s own outside legal counsel, Nancy Linnan, confirmed these previous statements when she said: “What is the result of all this? Is that the overlay map would accommodate the population that is projected on that property, and this is not a new population projected and this does not include population projections for the urban area or the fringe. It would accommodate the population over the course of 25 years on 1/10th of the land area. And what you get when you do that is you are going to preserve open space, natural resources, and just as importantly in this process, agriculture. So at implementation 90% of that 195,000 acres would be open space.”148 Finally, Policy 2.1, which is a current policy within Collier County’s Future Land Use Element of the RLSA Overlay, further drives home the point that development in the RLSA should not exceed ten percent: “Analysis has shown that SRAs will allow the projected population of 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.” 146 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Transmittal Hearing Agenda Packet, June 12, 2002, p.78 – (highlights added) 147 Board of County Commissioners Executive Summary Adoption Hearing Report, October, 22, 2002, p. 3 – highlights added) 148 Collier County audio transcript. Nancy Linnan, Collier County legal counsel (Linnan’s statement from audio of Collier County Planning Commission meeting regarding RLSA Overlay adoption on October 17, 2002 – Tape 4 Side A, starts 21:25) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 47 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 ADDENDUM 1. RIVERGRASS VILLAGE REPLACES RURAL LANDS WEST Shortly after this report was submitted to Collier County, Collier Enterprises withdrew their application for Rural Lands West. Collier Enterprises stated the main reason for the withdrawal was because of “Bureaucracy and economic overreach by Collier County management.”149 Their statement further elaborated that they could not agree with Collier County regarding a fair share contribution for county infrastructure. Concerns of the project raised by Collier County staff likely also played a part in the withdrawal of the project. County staff insisted that the plan needed to be modified so that the town did not surround existing and future east-west public roadways. Staff was also concerned that the Rural Lands West project was not meeting the goal of a walkable community with an interconnected sidewalk system, a requirement of RLSA policies.150 Another outstanding issue appears to have been in regard to the developer’s proportionate share of the construction costs for Big Cypress Parkway, a main road that is needed for the development.151 While these are all legitimate concerns of the Rural Lands West project raised by county staff it was disappointing that no concerns were raised regarding environmental incompatibility of the project. There was no mentioned in staff’s comments that the project did not meet the goals of the RLSA as over 75% of the project was proposed within primary panther habitat or because the so-called “preserve” areas would have been surrounded by development, significantly diminishing the habitat value within those preserves. Even though both issues blatantly violated the RLSA program’s goal of directing development away from habitat of listed species, the topics were omitted from the county’s review of the project. Only a month after the county application for Rural Lands West was withdrawn, Collier Enterprises submitted a new application for a smaller 1,000 acre project called “Rivergrass Village.” Rivergrass Village is located north and south of Oil Well Road and proposes to accommodate 2,500 homes and have up to 80,000 square feet of commercial. The mixed-use village center would only be about 20 acres. Unfortunately, like Rural Lands West, Rivergrass is proposed in a location that would impact the endangered Florida panther. Over 70% of the project is proposed within primary zone panther habitat. Also, the proposed plan does not meet the RLSA goal of a compact, walkable community as the town is bisected by a major freight corridor, Oil Well Road, making it difficult and unsafe to walk to the village center. Even though Rivergrass Village was submitted as a smaller project with Collier County, Collier Enterprises is still seeking a federal permit for the full 4,000 acre project of Rural Lands West, which itself is only a phase of a massive future project that would extend from north of 149 Collier Enterprises Statement on Rural Lands West Application. (January 7, 2019) 150 Collier County Growth Management Division Consistency Review Memorandum, August 3, 2018 & Collier County Office of the County Manager (November 1, 2018). Letter to Collier Enterprises Management Inc. regarding Rural Lands West Developer Agreement Status. 151 Collier County. (November 1, 2018). Letter from Office of the County Manager Leo E Oches Jr. from Nick Casalanguida to Donald Huffner Jr. Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 48 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Immokalee Road almost to I-75 in the south. Therefore, it is obvious that Rivergrass Village is only one small phase of Collier Enterprises’ desired development footprint. Thus, the Conservancy’s concerns about Rural Lands West as stated in this report remain the same. 2. THE CONTINUED UNDERESTIMATION OF STEWARDSHIP CREDITS WITHIN THE RLSA PROGRAM Throughout this report, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) identified a number of flaws with the RLSA program. One of the major flaws is the fact that the public was not informed regarding the development capacity of the program. In 2008, during the first review of the RLSA Overlay it was revealed the program’s capacity for development was 250% greater than what the public was told at adoption in 2002.152 Our research has determined, once again, that the development capacity of the program has been greatly underestimated. Past and Current Count of Stewardship Credits The issue of ever increasing development capacity stems from the continued underestimation of stewardship credits. Table 5 provides WilsonMiller’s 2002 and 2008 estimates of the total number of stewardship credits that could be generated at 100% participation in the RLSA program. In 2002, the year the RLSA program was adopted, WilsonMiller predicted that the maximum number of stewardship credits needed to accommodate the build-out population of eastern Collier County was 136,909 credits. Their analysis showed that those credits would entitle a maximum of 16,805 acres worth of Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) development. However, in 2008, during the first review of the program, WilsonMiller’s estimate changed when they revealed that the program could generate far more credits than originally stated.153 WilsonMiller determined that the maximum number of credits was actually 315,000, which would entitle up to 43,312 acres of SRA development (Table 5). WilsonMiller’s 2002 Estimate of Total Stewardship Credits154 WilsonMiller’s 2008 Estimate of Total Stewardship Credits155 Approved and Pending Credits as of 3/1/2019156 136,909 credits 315,000 credits 226,406 credits WilsonMiller’s 2002 Estimate of Total RLSA Development Potential WilsonMiller’s 2008 Estimate of Total RLSA Development Potential Current Development Potential Based on Approved and Pending Credits 16,805 acres 43,312 acres (includes 10% pubic benefit acres) 31,130 acres (includes 10% for public benefit acres) 152 See Flaw II, p. 16 of this report for further detail regarding the increase in credits from the creation to the program to the 5 Year Review. 153 See Flaw II, p. 16 of this report for further detail regarding the increase in credits from the creation to the program to th e 5 Year Review. 154 WilsonMiller (2002, May) “Report and Recommendations of the Collier County Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee for the Immokalee Area Study”, p. 40 155 WilsonMiller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County 156 Collier County (2019, March 14). Email from Kris Van Lengen to April Olson providing RLSAO Program Status for credits as of 3 /1/2019. Table 5: Estimates of credits and development acreage from 2002 and 2008 and current status of program. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 49 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 The program is now seventeen years old. In March 2019, Collier County updated the number stewardship credits that are earned, pending, approved and approved but reserved until restoration is complete.157 The county’s count shows a total of 226,406 credits (Table 5).158 At 226,406 credits, this would entitle approximately 31,130 acres of SRA development (226,406 / 8 credits per acre = 28,300 acres + 10% for public benefit acres = 31,130 acres). Thus, the acreage entitled for development today is already nearly double that of WilsonMiller’s original estimation; yet the program is still far from reaching its development potential. Underestimation of Restoration Credits The Conservancy has uncovered yet another drastic underestimation of stewardship credits which will further increase the development potential of the RLSA, well beyond even WilsonMiller’s 2008 estimate. The miscalculation concerns restoration credits. In 2008, WilsonMiller estimated that a maximum of 160,000 restoration credits could be generated at full participation in the program.159 Eleven years have passed and the program has already come close reaching 160,000 restoration credits. According to the 2019 credit count by Collier County, 123,958 restoration credits have been approved, are pending approval, or will be granted once restoration work is completed.160 The Conservancy’s research shows that 160,000 restoration credits is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the actual number that can be generated. In fact, there is a potential to earn more than three times the restoration credits that WilsonMiller predicted in 2008. This is because WilsonMiller mistakenly assumed that for future Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA) applications only 29% of SSAs within FSAs (Flow-way Stewardship Area), HSAs (Habitat Stewardship Areas), and Restoration Zones would be eligible to earn restoration credits.161 However, the land development code, which provides guidelines for earning restoration credits, is written in such a way that 100% of FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zone lands are eligible for restoration credits.162 An analysis of restoration credits is explained in greater detail in the proceeding sections. A. Types of Restoration Credits According to Policy 3.11 and Collier County’s land development code, applicants who own parcels within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones have the potential to earn restoration credits.163 Landowners can earn restoration credits two ways. They can earn R-1 credits by dedicating their lands to restoration, if those lands have the “potential” to be restored to improve flow-way or habitat restoration. According to Policy 3.11, “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 157 Collier County (2019, March 14). Email from Kris Van Lengen to April Olson providing RLSAO Program Status for credits as of 3/1/2019. 158 Collier County’s number of stewardship credits to date is even higher than the Conservancy’s estimate provided on page 18 of this report. Our estimate did not include the over 41,000 credits that are approved but will be granted if the landowner chooses to comple te the restoration work. 159 WilsonMiller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Pr oposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County , p. 3 160 Collier County (2019, March 14). Email from Kris Van Lengen to April Olson providing RLSAO Program Status for credits as of 3 /1/2019. Restoration credits include RI and RII. 161 WilsonMiller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County , p. 3 162 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06 163 Collier County FLUE RLSA Overlay Policy 3.11. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 50 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 restoration.”164 Landowners may also earn R-2 restoration credits if the landowner has committed to carry out the restoration work. A total of six to eight restoration credits (R-1 + R-2) could be generated per acre, depending on location of the parcel.165 B. Criteria for Earning R-1 Credits There are certain locational criteria for generating R-1 credits. The land development code allows four R-1 credits for each acre of land dedicated for restoration within any of the following locations: the Camp Keais Strand FSA, contiguous HSAs, or those portions of the Restoration Zone that are contiguous to Camp Keais Strand. Two R-1 credits can be earned for each acre of land dedicated for restoration within any of the following areas: Okaloacoochee Slough, contiguous HSAs, or restoration zones contiguous to Okaloacoochee Slough. In addition to locational criteria, LDC 4.08.06.B.3.e, states that R-1 credits can be earned only if a Restoration Potential Index Value is identified under the following conditions: “If the applicant asserts that the land being designated as an SSA has a Restoration Potential Index Value of greater than zero (0), an evaluation of the restoration potential of the land being designated shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant (per Chapter 10 of the LDC) on behalf of the applicant and submitted as part of the SSA Designation Application Package. In the event that restoration potential is identified, the appropriate Restoration Potential Index Value shall be determined in accord with the Credit Worksheet. The credit value of each acre to which the Restoration Potential Index Value is applied shall be recalculated by adding the Restoration Potential Index Value to that acre's total Index Value. (highlight added) C. Why 100% of Lands are Eligible for R-1 Credits All lands within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones are eligible for R-1 credits because all such lands meet the locational criteria presented in Policy 3.11 and because all lands have a Restoration Potential Index Value greater than zero. The RLSA Overlay Map (Figure 4) depicts the locations of FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones. The map shows that all FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zone parcels are within or contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand FSA or contiguous HSAs, or they are located within or contiguous to Okaloacoochee Slough and contiguous HSAs. Therefore, 100% of lands within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones meet the locational criteria for earning R-1 credits. The second criterion for earning R-1 credits is that the applicant must assert that the land being designated as an SSA has a Restoration Potential Index Value greater than zero. Using zero as a threshold for determining “restoration potential” is an extremely easy standard meet. Since the onus is on the landowner or their consultant to show which lands have the potential to be restored, why wouldn’t every landowner assert that their land has a restoration potential value greater than zero? The land development code does require the applicant to submit a Restoration 164 Collier County, Future Land Use Element. Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay. Policy 3.11 165 Ibid. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 51 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Analysis and Report, which includes an evaluation of existing conditions and a summary of restoration efforts “required to reestablish original conditions; enhance functionality of wetlands or wildlife habitat; or remove exotics so as to enhance the continued viability of native vegetation and wetlands.”166 Even so, because HSAs within the RLSA were established to protect listed species and their habitats, every cleared farm field within an HSA consists of disturbed lands with the potential to enhance listed species habitat. Every acre of wetland and upland within HSAs and FSAs has some level of exotic infestation that can be cleared to either enhance listed species habitat or enhance wetland functionality. Thus, based on the second criterion to qualify for R-1 credits, 100% of all lands within an FSA, HSA, and Restoration Zone would be eligible. D. Criteria for Earning R-2 Credits Four additional R-2 credits can be earned when the restoration work is complete. Collier County’s land development code states that in order to earn R-2 credits one of the following eligibility requirements of LDC 4.08.06.B.3.f(5) must be met: “(a) FSA and/or HSA lands where restoration would increase the width of flow way and/or habitat corridors along the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough so that, in the opinion of the applicant's environmental consultant and County environmental or natural resources staff, there will be functional enhancement of the flow way or wildlife corridor; (b) FSA and/or HSA lands where restoration would increase the width of flow way and/or habitat corridors within two miles of existing public lands so that, in the opinion of the applicant's environmental consultant and County environmental or natural resources staff, there will be a functional enhanceme nt of the flow way or wildlife corridor; (c) Documentation of state or federal listed species utilizing the land or a contiguous parcel; (d) Lands that could be restored and managed to provide habitats for specific listed species (e.g., gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, etc.), or; (e) Occurrence of a land parcel within foraging distance from a wading bird rookery or other listed bird species colony, where restoration and proper management could increase foraging opportun ities (e.g., wood storks).” E. Why 100% of Lands are Eligible for R-2 Credits All lands within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones are also eligible to earn R-2 credits. This is because the applicant is required to satisfy just one of the five criteria as stated in the land development code Policy 4.08.06B3f(5). With such lax eligibility criteria, it would be difficult to find one parcel that does not meet at least one of the five eligibility requirements. In fact, if we consider just one of the five criteria, “criteria (e)” for example, we can demonstrate that all 166 Collier County Land Development Code LDC 4.08.06.C.5.j.(4) 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 52 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 parcels within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones are eligible for R-2 credits. Criteria (e) states that the land parcel must be within “foraging distance from a wading bird rookery or other listed bird species colony, where restoration and proper management could increase foraging opportunities (e.g., wood storks).” Figure 13 shows that the entire RLSA boundary is within an active Wood Stork Core Foraging Area. Since FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zone are all within the RLSA, this means that 100% of those lands would be eligible for R-2 credits if the applicant is willing to commit to even meager restoration efforts such as removing exotic plant species, which exists on every parcel. As previously stated, WilsonMiller incorrectly assumed that only 29% of lands within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones would be eligible for restoration credits. However, upon review of the last four SSA applications (SSA14 – SSA 17), we see that applicants applied for restoration credits on 58% of the total SSA acres.167 Of those four applications, SSA 14, SSA 15 and SSA16 were approved but later amended so that the applicant could later receive additional credits for restoration. Therefore, it is logical to assume that all other approved SSA applications could also be amended to generate additional restoration credits. Because we know that 100% of FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones are eligible for restoration credits and because landowners have the option to amend applications to generate additional restoration credits, we should assume that 100% of restoration credits could be earned when determining the maximum potential of stewardship credits in the RLSA system. 167 The total acres for SSAs 14-17 equal 12,966.7. Of those total acres, 7,497.3 acres were eligible for restoration. Thus we find that 58% of the total SSA acres are eligible for restoration credits. Figure 13 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 53 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 F. WilsonMiller’s 2008 Credit Calculation for Max Potential Credits in RLSA Program As stated previously, in 2008 WilsonMiller estimated that a maximum of 315,000168 credits could be earned in the RLSA program. Their 2008 estimate was based on the following calculation: Max Base Credits 128,000 Max Early Entry Credits 27,000 Potential Restoration Credits 160,000 (Assumes 29% of SSAs qualify) Total Potential Stewardship = 315,000 Credits in RLSA Program G. Conservancy’s Calculation for Max Potential Credits in RLSA Program Since we know that WilsonMiller’s estimate of 160,000 restoration credits was grossly underestimated based on their assumption that only 29% of lands would eligible for restoration credits, we also know that their estimation of 315,000 as the maximum number of credits within the RLSA program is also underestimated. The Conservancy is providing an updated analysis of the maximum number of stewardship credits within the RLSA program based on the knowledge that 100% of lands within an FSA, HSA and Restoration Zone are eligible for restoration credits. Our calculation is as follows: According to WilsonMiller, there are a total of 73,000 acres within FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones.169 Since 100% of those lands are eligible to receive restoration credits then 73,000 acres are eligible to receive R-1 and R-2 credits. According to Policy 3.11, up to eight credits (R-1 + R-2) per acre can be earned for restoration within Camp Keais Strand and up to six credits (R-1 + R-2) per acre can be earned for restoration within the Okaloachoochee Slough. We will use an average of seven credits per acre, since FSAs, HSAs, and Restoration Zones are located in both areas. Thus, 73,000 acres x 7 restoration credits = 511,000 potential restoration credits (R-1 + R-2) Using WilsonMiller’s method, restoration credits are then added to the maximum number of base credits that could be earned and to the maximum early entry bonus credits.170 The number of early entry credits was provided in Collier County’s recent count of credits. 168 WilsonMiller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County , p. 3 169 WilsonMiller (2008, September 18). “Memo to Tom Greenwood: Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay)” Appendix H – Collier County , p. 3 170 Policy 1.21 of Collier County’s FLUE RLSA Overlay states that a maximum of 27,000 early entry bonus credits could be generate d. Early entry bonus credits were available until January 30, 2009. Thus, WilsonMiller’s 2008 credit calculation included the full 27,000 credits for early entry. The Conservancy’s credit calculation includes the total early entry bonus credits that Kris Van Lengen stated in his email that have been generated to date, which were 19,552 credits. Since the early entry bonus credit program has expired, this is the maximum number of early entry bonus that can be generated. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 54 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 Max Base Credits 128,000 Max Early Entry Credits 19,552 Potential Restoration Credits 511,000 Total Potential Stewardship = 658,552 Credits in RLSA Program Because we find that the potential for earning restoration credits has increased so too does the development capacity for the RLSA. In fact, over 90,000 acres worth of SRA development would be entitled if the program generates 658,552 stewardship credits (658,552 / 8 credits per acre = 82,319 + 10% public benefit acres = 90,551 acres). This development capacity is more than double the acreage that was predicted in 2008 and more than five times the amount than was predicted in 2002. Table 6 shows how the development capacity in the RLSA program has increased over time. H. Conclusion: R-1 Credits Discourage Restoration and Increase Development Capacity When the RLSA program was created, a benefit of the program often touted was that it would restore and preserve tens of thousands of acres of environmentally important lands within the RLSA, all at no cost to the tax payers. However, since the actual restoration of RLSA lands is not a prerequisite for earning R-1 credits, very little restoration under the RLSA program has ever been accomplished. In fact, as of April 2018, only 428 acres or 2.5% of all acres dedicated for restoration have actually been restored.171 Plus, R-1 credits are earned without giving up any more rights because R-1 credits are generated after landowners earn “base credits” for agreeing 171 Collier County (2018, April) Meeting Summary from April 26, 2018 RLSA Restudy Group 3 Policies Meeting, Protecting Natural Resources. 0.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00 60,000.00 70,000.00 80,000.00 90,000.00 100,000.00 2002 WM (16,805 acres) 2008 WM (43,312 acres) 2019 Conservancy (90,550 acres) Estimate of Total RLSA Development Capacity in Acres at 100% Participation in Program Table 6: Increase of Development Capacity of RLSA Program over Time 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 55 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 to remove land use layers and giving up rights to develop. According to the RLSA program, it is a prerequisite for land use layers 1 through 6 to be removed before lands can be designated for restoration.172 Thus, they earn base credits for removing those land-use layers, which removes any potential for crop raising and intensive development, including residential, commercial, and mining, and leaves only Agricultural Group 2 uses (ranching and grazing) and conservation.173 They then earn additional restoration credits for simply agreeing to designate those same lands for restoration. This is essentially “double-dipping” of credits on the same lands, even though very little restoration work is being undertaken. And most lands continue to be used for ranching and grazing even after the credits are generated, rather than being used for conservation. Since no additional rights are given up after base credits are earned, R-1 credits are mere free-bees. Even though little restoration has been accomplished under the RLSA program (428 acres), an abundance of R-1 credits have been generated, which entitle a tremendous amount of development. To date, 58,854 R-1 credits have been earned or are pending application approval.174 That equates to over 7,300 acres worth of SRA development from just the R-1 credits. To look at it another way, that is enough credits to build more than seven 1,000 acre villages! Development of seven 1,000 acre villages in exchange for 428 acres of restoration hardly seems like a fair exchange. Also, because of restoration credits, the development potential for the RLSA program has ballooned out of control. The program went from the original estimate of 16,800 acres worth of development to what we know as the true development capacity of over 90,000 acres worth of development. That many acres equate to nearly the same geographic size of four mega-towns the size of Fort Lauderdale, Florida!175 Because the development potential of the RLSA is larger than anticipated, this will have far-reaching and catastrophic impacts to listed species and natural resources. Our research in this report has already demonstrated that WilsonMiller’s 2008 estimate of 43,300 acres worth of development is not sustainable for wildlife and natural resources in the region. So 90,000 acres worth of new towns and villages would be devastating to the region. The evidence is clear that the number of stewardship credits that can be generated within the RLSA program is excessive. The Conservancy stands by our position as mention in this report that the Stewardship Credit System needs to be completely restructured and credits recalibrated so that fewer credits are in the system, development is directed to appropriate locations, and the development potential of the program is drastically reduced. Furthermore, R-1 credits do not accomplish any environmental restoration within the RLSA and must be eliminated. 3. SRAs ARE UPDATED DURING APPLICATION PROCESS The Conservancy would like to correct a mistake within the report. Sections 6.2 and 13.2 of the report (p. 26 & 37) state that the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values of SSAs are updated 172 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06.B.3.f(4) 173 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06. 174 Collier County (2019, March 14). Email from Kris Van Lengen to April Olson providing RLSAO Program Status for credits as of 3/1/2019. 175 Wikipedia. Accessed April 10, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida Fort Lauderdale is equivalent to 36.31 square miles or 23,238.4 acres. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 56 Addendum April 21, 2019, p. 47 during the application process, while the NRI values of SRAs are not updated during the application process. This assertion is incorrect. Even though this requirement for SRAs is not mentioned in the comprehensive plan as it is for SSAs,176 Collier County’s land development code (4.08.07.D.4) does require that NRI values for SRAs are updated during the application process. However, it is important to mention that neither the land development code nor the comprehensive plan require that the Listed Species Habitat Indices of NRI Values are updated with data from current Florida panther studies, such as locations of primary zone and adult breeding habitats as mentioned in this report. This has been mentioned as a major flaw of the RLSA program. 176 Collier County’s Growth Management Plan (Policy 1.9) states “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.” There are no such policies in the Growth Management Plan for SRAs. 9.A.1.j Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Conservancy 2019 RLSA Report with Addendum (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Nicholas G. Penniman IV 2386 Terra Verde Lane Naples, FL 34015 ngpiv@aol.com 239-262-7292 (home) To: Collier County Growth Management Department From: Nick Penniman Date: March 19, 2020 My comments regarding the proposed RLSA amendments are set forth below. By way of introduction, I was a member of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) for six years, and during the 2008-2009 5-year review process, and was also chairman of the board of directors of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (CSWFL)during the 5-year review period. I was a member, and for the last two years chairman, of the Collier County Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) responsible for structuring public meetings for the recent Restudy. As to my time on the GMOC, we suggested to staff and helped the county carry out a number of public meetings, many of which produced meaningful, and sometimes surprising, public input and comment. Much of this input was incorporated into a series of White Papers – one for each Restudy area. The final White Paper, for the Rural Lands Overlay, was the product of months of effort by professional planners hired by Collier County to provide an unbiased, comprehensive proposal for land development in eastern Collier County for the next twenty years. After presenting the RLSA White Paper, and in the summer of 2019, those professional planners abruptly quit their jobs and left the county. I do not know why. Here are my comments and recommendations: 1. Under Goal (p. 1) The original language, reviewed and emphasized by the then existing state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was “…to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses,….” There was much discussion, in writing back and forth between DCA and Collier County (CC), about this clause. (See letter from Thomas Pelham, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs to James Mudd, Collier County Manager dated May 8, 2008). Striking this language severely weakens the county’s commitment to agriculture. Retain the original language. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2. Under Policy 1.6 (p.3) Shifting from “…during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs…” to “by amendment as may be periodically initiated by the county…” makes the designation of new SSAs a political, rather than a planning, exercise. While the EAR process is a shell of its former manifestation, it did involve public input. This change shuts out public involvement to a great extent. 3. Under Policy 1.21 there is no reason to stretch out the review period to seven years from the current five years. It deprives the public of the right to be involved by two years. 4. Under Policy 1.22 (p. 9). I think to institutionalize the credits in a system that is already flawed is a mistake, and an admission that the Wilson-Miller system is faulty. For example, the system, as originally presented to the BCC set the build-out of the county at 16,800 acres. Restoration credits, when calculated, blew the roof off the credits. 5. Under Group 2 – Policies (p. 10). Refer to comment 1. 6. Under Policy 2.1 (p. 10) Refer to comment 1. 7. Under Policy 2.3 (p. 11). The word “will” is an imperative; the word “may” is conditional. Staff comment here is misleading. 8. Under Policy 3.6 (p. 14). To replace the EIS with some vague document titled “Environmental Data” eases the strict requirements set forth in EIS procedures. It also renders historical comparisons meaningless as to format. There is no description set forth of the content or structure of this “Environmental Data” document. 9. Under Policy 3.10.3 (p. 16). This adds credits to an already flawed system. See my comment 4. 10. Under Policy 3.12 (p. 16). Under no circumstances should a WRA be used for “…water treatment and retention for a SRA…” Period. 11. Under Policy 4.2 (p. 17). Same comment as above in comment 10. Period. 12. Under Policy 4.7.1 (p. 20). To move the Town acreage up from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres is, in my opinion, a way to kill off the possibility of affordable housing in RLSA developments. You can see, in the proposed Rivergrass development, set for 997 acres as a Village, that a developer can avoid a number of public amenities by staying a tad shy of the current threshold acreage for a Town. 13. Under Policy 4.7.2 (pp. 21-22). To describe the allowable acreage limits of Villages within the ACSC is a tacit admission that development should occur within the ACSC. Wrong. It should be prohibited. It is the water recharge area via the Okaloacoochee Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). The county should not permit development in the ACSC. 14. Under Policy 4.14 (p. 26). See comment 18. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 15. Under Policy 4.20 (p. 29). I do not believe affordable housing should be included as a “public benefit.” First, it would not be accessible to the public. Second, affordable housing is so important that it should be dealt with as a stand-alone issue in the GMP, with specific goals depending upon the size of the development, and not as an afterthought by adding it in as a “public benefit.” 16. Under Policy 4.21 (p. 30). See comment 10. 17. Under Policy 5.6 (p. 37). To remove the requirement to place restored lands in a permanent conservation easement is an appropriate solution and should be retained in the GMP amendments. 18. Under Proposed Policy 3.7 (p. 39). The MPO LRTP extends out to 2050. Roads have driven development for 150 years in Florida. The more appropriate sequence would be for development to be included in the long-range planning process at a more granular level than the general designations of Sending, Receiving and Neutral Areas currently in use. In conclusion, my recommendation to the BCC in October 2019 – for purposes of time and simplicity – was to return to and adopt the White Paper dated May 21, 2019 as presented to the BCC. It was the product of thousands of hours of public input. It was produced by professional planners, hired by the county, and beyond the reach of special interests. However, it is obvious that the BCC has moved on beyond that recommendation, so the comments presented above are an attempt to deal with the reality of the situation, and to salvage some of the innovative ideas that arose during the past two years of the RLSA Restudy. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 1 Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments on Proposed Amendments to the RLSA Attachment A March 20, 2020 Appendix A – Stewardship Credit Worksheet - The GMP specifies that the natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the NRI. An important index comprising the NRI value is the Listed Species Habitat Indices, which is defined in the LDC as the habitat value of land based on “land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that [listed] species.” Clearly this definition is outdated and not the appropriate basis for valuing panther habitat. Panther experts have identified the location of primary zone panther habitat in the RLSA. See Kautz, R, et al (2006), USFWS 2008 Florida Panther Recovery Plan, and the 2009 Report of the Scientific Panther Review Team. USFWS’ 2008 Panther Recovery Plan states “The Primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat with the Primary Zone.” Pg. 89. In creating the NRI in 2000-2002, Wilson Miller made clear that the NRI values would need to be updated because the science on the Florida panther and its habitat was continuing to evolve. See the 2000 Immokalee Area Study in which Wilson Miller stated “The analysis involving panther habitat for the Study will be comp lemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared pant hers and panther and bear death locations. Subsequent research has shown that the panthers occupy their primary zone and all acres within this zone need to have their scores adjusted. The County needs to acquire the data layers and make these and other necessary adjustments to bring the layers into conformity with the latest science as was required by the RLSA Plan in 2002. The panther preferred territory is designated in the LDC 4.08.01 (Q) by certain FLUCCS codes (310, 321, 411, 425, 428, 434, 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630). Since that time the panther studies listed above have identified that panthers use farm fields, range land and citrus groves at night to forage. The following FLUCCS codes therefore need to be added to the LDC list (210-215, 221, 224, 261, 300. 320, and 330) to define panther preferred habitat. The following should also be added to the end of this LDC section: Observational information from USFWS, FWCC and visual site inspections should be added to the FLUCFCS considerat ions. Similarly the primary panther habitat designated areas from Krautz et al, 2008 should be included. If more than one species is present in an area multiple scores should be added (e.g. panther and wading bird). 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 During the 5-year Review, county environmental Staff submitted comments to the 5- Year Review Committee recommending revisions to the NRI values in order to better direct development away from listed species.1 The EAC made the 5-Year Review Committee aware of the ongoing panther studies and the need to update these indices, but nothing was done. Ideally, Primary/Secondary Zone panther habitat designations should be used instead of the “preferred and tolerated” criteria in the Listed Species Habitat Indices. The credit worksheets should also be updated to incorporate the best available science on panthers. At a minimum, all primary panther territory should be assigned a score of 0.6 and secondary habitat should be assigned a score of 0.4. Additionally, the cutoff value for the NRI (now at 1.2) is arbitrary and does not protect listed species. This cutoff should be lowered to 0.8 which would be more protective. This would still allow development of large portions of the RLSA. Alternatively, as stated above, it could state that all development shall be directed away from the primary zone and all open areas in the primary zone shall become habitat stewardship areas (HSAs). 1 Memorandum (April 24, 2008) from Laura Roys and Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialists for Collier County to Tom Greenwood, Principle Planer for Collier County. Memo provided to the 5-Year Review Committee by Ms. Roys. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Attachment A Land Use Layers Base Credit Stewardship Overlay Designation Proximity Listed Species Habitat Soils & Surface Water Restoration Potential Land Use Land Cover (FLUCCS) Total Index Value Credits (Base Credit X Index Factor)Layer Eliminated (X)Stewardship Credits for Land Use Layers Removed 0.0 Residential Land Uses 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 General Conditional Uses 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 Earth Mining and Processing Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Recreational Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Group 1 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Support Uses 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Agriculture - Group 2 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 Total of all Layers 1.0 Maximum Total Credits 0.00 0.00 0.00 Credits X Acres =0 Stewardship Credits Stewardship Natural Resource Index Factors Enter X for the Appropriate Factor (Only one for each Index) Stewardship Overlay Designation Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA)0.7 Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA)0.6 Water Retention Area (WRA)0.6 Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)0.4 None of the above 0.0 Proximity Indices Enclosed by FSA, HSA, or WRA 0.4 Within 300 feet of FSA or HSA 0.3 Within 300 feet of public or private preserve land 0.2 None of the above 0.0 Listed Species Habitat Indices Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated) plus other listed species 0.8 Panther occupied habitat (preferred and tolerated)0.5 Other documented listed species habitat 0.4 None of the above 0.0 Soils/Surface Water Indices Open Water and Muck Depression soils 0.4 Sand Depression soils 0.3 Flats (Transitional) soils 0.2 Non-hydric soils 0.0 Restoration Potential Indices Large mammal corridor restoration areas 0.5 Connector wetlands and flowway restoration areas 0.5 Wading bird restoration areas 0.4 Other listed species restoration areas 0.3 None of the above 0.0 Land Use - Land Cover Indices FLUCCS Code Group 1 0.4 FLUCCS Code Group 2 0.3 FLUCCS Code Group 3 0.2 FLUCCS Code Group 4 0.0 WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS 1. Select a parcel with a single homogeneous land cover-type to be analyzed and select one appropriate factor from each category in the list of Natural Resource Index Factors (i.e., Stewardship Overlay Designation, Proximity Indices, etc.). 2. Select the individual Land Use Layers (X) to be eliminated from the parcel to yield the Stewardship Credits to be granted for each layer removed. 3. Enter the number of acres being analyzed. The worksheet multiply the total Credits per acre by the number of acres in the parcel to yield the total Stewardship Credits. NOTE: Additional Stewardship Credits may be generated through Restoration Activities per Policy 3.10, and Agriculture Land Retention per Policy 2.2 Index Factors Collier County RLSA Overlay: Attachment A Stewardship Credit Worksheet Proposed The potential maximum number of Stewardship Sending Area Credits per acre granted for each Land Use Rights Layer to be "eliminated" from the owner's land 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Credits (Base Credit X Index Factor) Stewardship Credits (Credits per Acre) Residential Land Uses General Conditional Uses Earth Mining and Processing Uses Recreational Uses Agriculture - Group 1 Agriculture - Support Uses Agriculture - Group 2 The "base credit" does not change from parcel to parcel once calibrated 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Cumulative Index Factors Natural Resource Indices Natural Resource Index Scores Stewardship Overlay Designation Proximity Listed Species Habitat Soils & Surface Water Restoration Potential Land Use Land Cover (FLUCCS) The cumulative number of Stewardship Sending Area Credits per acre granted for the groups of Land Use Rights Layers "eliminated" from the owner's land Stewardship Credit Matrix Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Land Use Layers Residential Land Uses General Conditional Uses Earth Mining and Processing Uses Recreational Uses Agriculture - Group 1 Agriculture - Support Uses Agriculture - Group 2 Conservation, Restoration, Natural Resources 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands 1 Judith Hushon, Ph.D. Comments on Proposed Amendments to the RLSA Attachment A March 20, 2020 Appendix A – Stewardship Credit Worksheet - The GMP specifies that the natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the NRI. An important index comprising the NRI value is the Listed Species Habitat Indices, which is defined in the LDC as the habitat value of land based on “land cover identified as preferred or tolerated habitat for that [listed] species.” Clearly this definition is outdated and not the appropriate basis for valuing panther habitat. Panther experts have identified the location of primary zone panther habitat in the RLSA. See Kautz, R, et al (2006), USFWS 2008 Florida Panther Recovery Plan, and the 2009 Report of the Scientific Panther Review Team. USFWS’ 2008 Panther Recovery Plan states “The Primary zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat with the Primary Zone.” Pg. 89. In creating the NRI in 2000-2002, Wilson Miller made clear that the NRI values would need to be updated because the science on the Florida panther and its habitat was continuing to evolve. See the 2000 Immokalee Area Study in which Wilson Miller stated “The analysis involving panther habitat for the Study will be comp lemented by ongoing computer modeling of potential habitat and development of an updated panther recovery plan by interagency committees led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” The original NRI took data only from daytime locations for collared pant hers and panther and bear death locations. Subsequent research has shown that the panthers occupy their primary zone and all acres within this zone need to have their scores adjusted. The County needs to acquire the data layers and make these and other necessary adjustments to bring the layers into conformity with the latest science as was required by the RLSA Plan in 2002. The panther preferred territory is designated in the LDC 4.08.01 (Q) by certain FLUCCS codes (310, 321, 411, 425, 428, 434, 617, 6172, 621, 6218, 6219, 624 and 630). Since that time the panther studies listed above have identified that panthers use farm fields, range land and citrus groves at night to forage. The following FLUCCS codes therefore need to be added to the LDC list (210-215, 221, 224, 261, 300. 320, and 330) to define panther preferred habitat. The following should also be added to the end of this LDC section: Observational information from USFWS, FWCC and visual site inspections should be added to the FLUCFCS considerat ions. Similarly the primary panther habitat designated areas from Krautz et al, 2008 should be included. If more than one species is present in an area multiple scores should be added (e.g. panther and wading bird). 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 During the 5-year Review, county environmental Staff submitted comments to the 5- Year Review Committee recommending revisions to the NRI values in order to better direct development away from listed species.1 The EAC made the 5-Year Review Committee aware of the ongoing panther studies and the need to update these indices, but nothing was done. Ideally, Primary/Secondary Zone panther habitat designations should be used instead of the “preferred and tolerated” criteria in the Listed Species Habitat Indices. The credit worksheets should also be updated to incorporate the best available science on panthers. At a minimum, all primary panther territory should be assigned a score of 0.6 and secondary habitat should be assigned a score of 0.4. Additionally, the cutoff value for the NRI (now at 1.2) is arbitrary and does not protect listed species. This cutoff should be lowered to 0.8 which would be more protective. This would still allow development of large portions of the RLSA. Alternatively, as stated above, it could state that all development shall be directed away from the primary zone and all open areas in the primary zone shall become habitat stewardship areas (HSAs). 1 Memorandum (April 24, 2008) from Laura Roys and Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialists for Collier County to Tom Greenwood, Principle Planer for Collier County. Memo provided to the 5-Year Review Committee by Ms. Roys. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Page 1 of 3 EASTERN COLLIER PROPERTY OWNERS April 9, 2020 Collier County Growth Management Department ATTN: Anita Jenkins Subject: Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay - Proposed Amendments This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO), whose members collectively own approximately 85 percent of the private land in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). ECPO appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the initial Draft Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Amendments and Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis dated March 9, 2020. The following are our initial comments: Draft Policy Amendments ECPO remains in support of the proposed amendments included in the April 21, 2009 RLSA 5- Year Review Committee Report to the Board. These amendments are shown in black text as single underline or strike-through format in the March 9, 2020 Draft. ECPO does not object to the staff recommended supplemental amendment revisions shown in red text and double underline strike-through format in the March 9, 2020 Draft for the following Policies. In our opinion, these represent reasonable clarifications and/or updates to previously recommended 5-Year Review Amendments: 1.3 1.6 1.13 1.21 (delete current policy) 1.21 (formerly 1.22) with the further deletion of item 8. which is inconsistent with Chapter 163.3248 (8) (b), Florida Statutes. 1.22 with a 404,000 Credit Cap as further described below. The language regarding Credit vesting needs further details, including language that states that all SSAs approved or submitted and under review by Collier County prior to the adoption of the amendments will retain an 8 Credit ratio for each SRA acre requiring Credits. 2.2 2.3 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Page 2 of 3 3.1-3.6 3.10.1 3.10.2 with a change from 9 to 8 implementation credits, so the that the total Panther Corridor Credit is 10. 3.10.3 3.12 Revise the added sentence to read as follows: However, if the WRA provides water quality treatment for an SRA, the acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA credit calculation. 3.14 4.2 Revise the added sentence to read as follows: The exception, consistent with Policy 3.12, is when a WRA provides water quality treatment for a SRA, then the acreage of the WRA used for water quality treatment for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. 4.4-4.6 4.7.4 with the addition of “but are not limited to” after the word “include” 4.14 4.22 Proposed amendment to Attachment B RLSA Overlay Map - location of Panther Corridors should be adjusted to conform with HCP. ECPO does not support the staff recommended amendment revisions shown in red and double underline strike-through format for the following Policies, as these represent substantive changes not considered or recommended during the 5-Year Review process: 4.7.1 4.7.2 Note that the change to increase the minimum size of a Village from 100 to 300 acres coupled with the limitation in size of 100 acres for a CRD in Policy 4.7.3 leaves a gap in the ability to have a SRA between 100-300 acres. This must be addressed. 4.7.5 4.10 4.19 4.20 Proposed amendments to Attachment C. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Page 3 of 3 Stewardship Credit Analysis ECPO does not object to the staff recommended estimate of 136,000 total Base Credits, however reviewing the County’s audited data from SSAs 1-16, the average Base Credits per SSA acre is 1.45, when applied to the remaining undesignated FSA, HSA and WRA acreage, arrive at an estimate of 130,675 Base Credits. ECPO recommends that the estimated Restoration Credits should be 144,000 total R1 and R2 Credits, consistent with the 5 Year review. ECPO asserts that this number is a reasonable total estimate based on its evaluation of the Restoration Credits already earned, overall restoration needs, implementation costs, suitability of land for restoration activities and the addition of proposed Panther Corridors. ECPO recommends that Agricultural Credits be awarded at a consistent rate of 2 Credits per acre within and outside of the BCACSC, for a total estimate of 80,000 Credits. ECPO recommends that Panther Corridor acreage estimate remain at 2,300 acres and 23,000 Credits. ECPO believes that the estimated acreage of Public Benefit acres should be reduced to approximately 7% or 3,000 acres based on the proposed change to eliminate excess open space as a Public Benefit. With these adjustments, ECPO believes that the previously agreed to cap of 404,000 Credits, 45,000 SRA acres, and recalibration for the future SSA Credit Ratio of 10 Credits per SRA acre should be maintained. Respectfully Eastern Collier Property Owners Alico, Inc. Barron Collier Partnership Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership English Brothers Partnership Gargiulo, Inc. Half Circle L Ranch, LLP Heller Bros. Packing Corp. JB Ranch Owl Hammock Immokalee, LLC Pacific Land, Ltd. Sunniland Family Limited Partnership 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 5/29/2020 ECPO objection to Aggregation Policy The Rural Land Stewardship program is designed to be a long term incentive based planning and development strategy. Any application submitted must be with the consent of all impacted landowners. The program is required to be implemented with flexible planning and development strategies. The mix of uses is to be functional. (Section 163.3248, F.S.) The landowners within the RLSA are impacted by the proposed Policy 4.7.5. and do not consent to the incorporation of an aggregation requirement. The use of aggregation is a concept borrowed from the Development of Regional Impact Rules. Rural Land Stewardship Areas are specifically exempted from DRI rules, which would include the aggregation rule. (Section 380.0651, F.S.) The Rural Land Stewardship program is required to be implemented to include flexible planning and development strategies. The addition of an aggregation requirement is directly contrary to the incentive based flexible planning and development strategies provided for in the RLSA. Rule 9J-2.0275, FAC, is the DRI aggregation rule. The purpose of the rule was to make sure projects that were subject to the DRI rules did not avoid the review required by the DRI rules. No development can take place in the Rural Land Stewardship area at a density and intensity greater than the base level without compliance with the Rural Land Stewardship Area review requirements. Thus, the rationale for the DRI aggregation rule does not apply to the RLSA. The program requires all property owners that want to avail themselves of the incentive based program to file an application and proceed through intensive review and public hearings. The sharing of infrastructure addressed by the DRI aggregation rule was the “voluntary joint use by two or more developments of internal roadways, internal recreational facilities or parks”. The sharing of public infrastructure was not a basis for aggregation. Policy 4.7.5. submits that aggregation is required for the purpose of coordinating infrastructure. Local governments are required to address the coordination of public infrastructure for all land in the County as part of an ongoing long-range planning requirement as well as short term capital improvement programs. Coordination of public infrastructure is a public requirement for all local governments under Chapter 163, F.S. There is no basis for shifting the county obligation to the private sector, particularly in an incentive based program. Section 163.3168, F.S. states that the legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies to promote a diverse economy and vibrant rural areas. Subjecting the RLSA program to remnants of the DRI straight jacket is directly contrary to the legislative intent of the Community Planning Act and the RLSA. Section 163.3168(2) F.S. specifically recognizes the rural land stewardship area designation as a desirable innovative planning tool. The legislature has directly and intentionally moved away from the DRI process because it was not a desirable innovative planning tool. Section 163.3177, F.S. requires plan amendments to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The data and analysis is to be obtained from professional sources, and to be based on the data and analysis means that the local government should respond appropriately. No relevant and appropriate data and analysis has been prepared that supports the contention that aggregation will lead to economic diversification. Aggregation as the county is seeking to apply it is based on outdated and illegal concepts of need, particularly as it relates to commercial uses. Section 163.3248, F.S. specifically 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) states that “need” is not to be used as a basis for planning in the RLSA. The Wall Street Journal and other periodicals that deal with market and economic issues repeatedly indicate that commercial retail and office uses are changing and the per capita ratios are changing. There are frequent articles that indicate that the pandemic will have a permanent impact on how some people work and shop. Thus, applying outdated metrics of “need” is contrary to the F.S. and is contrary to flexible and innovative planning. Section 70.001, F.S. prohibits local governments from adopting land development restrictions that inordinately burden private property rights. The aggregation requirement would inordinately burden the private property rights of owners in the RLSA and would create a disincentive to participate in a program that is designed to incentivize participation. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 1 From Michael Seef April 14, 2020 Restoration - Credits, and Measures The”5 Year Review” increased the number of total credits (baseline, early entry, and restoration) from 134,000 credits in year 2002 to 315,000. In 2008 addition of 160,000 restoration credits where added thereby comprising 52 % of total credits. Problems lie in SSA restoration oversight, both in the planning and in achieving viable and long term results upon execution. Owners/developers should not be in charge of hiring for conducting planning, establishing goals, execution and timing or determining credits issued. The County should provide oversight for independent 3rd party experienced in long term planning and execution and subsequent issuing of credits. Controlling the growth and assignment of credits is essential because credits represent the currency for town or village development. R-1 restoration credits are currently 58,000 and could grow to 80,000. They do not require actual restoration. R-2 restoration credits are currently 65,000 and potentially 88,000 with future SSA areas. The massive growth in restoration credits affects the entire RLSA system which requires appropriate density design, together with agriculture, natural environments, water management, and wildlife with reduced urban sprawl. Below charts depict growths in total and restoration credits. It also lists 4 approaches to reigning in credits. Following is a critique of SSA # 15’s current restoration planning and an ecologist’s suggested pointers for better planning and execution to establish appropriate results and credits. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 Reigning in Credits 1. Eliminate R-1 “dedication” restoration credits. This avoids double dipping”. It also is in concert with the assignment of base credits for SSA easements which already incentivize the retention of up to 6 environmental benefits. These are most often reduced to 4 benefits and enabling Ag. 2. Assure control of independent proper planning and execution timing to receive R-2 credits. 3. Consider more than the current 8 credits per SRA (Stewardship Receiving Area) to 10, 12, 15 or more to accord with SRA’s design for compact housing, density, transportation, and natural resources. Thus achieving overall a better balance between agriculture, conservation and development. 4. Place a cap on maximum credits separating for restoration credits, base credits, and Ag credits. Below are some suggested guidelines for restoration planning and an ecologist’s critique of the restoration plan for SSA 15. Growth in Total & Restoration Credits 2002 to Current Restoration Credits (Current & Extrapolated) Reigning in credits 1. Eliminate Future R-1 "Dedication" restoration Credits Totals incl. current 58,000, future extrapolation 21,353 credits 2. Control R-2 credit planning and execution 3. Apply 12 or more credits perdevelopment acre vs. Current 8 4. Cap Base credits, Restoration and Ag credits. Total Credits Restora. Credits Yr 2002 County & DCA 134,000 0 2008 5 yr Plan & Estimate 315,000 160,000 Yr 2009 Cap 404,000 144,000 Year 2019 Current & Extrapolated 322,980 168,640 Year 2019 Total actual current credits, excles Ave Maria & Ag = 226,000 credits 134,000 315,000 404,000 322,980 0 160,000 144,000 168,640 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 Total Credits Restoration credits 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 R-1 "Dedication" Credits R-2 Potential Credits 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 3 Planning requirements 1) While it is understood that credit has already been provided to the landowner for restrictive easement on the property, prior to approving any additional credit releases. A fully restrictive perpetual easement should be required. Restoration areas are placed under perpetual conservation easement specifically for the purpose of habitat/restoration as identified in County approved restoration plans and clearly prohibiting activities contrary to that purpose such as fill, excavation, cutting/harvest of native trees, use of lands for certain types of agriculture, road/structure building (unless identified in the approved restoration plan), and exploration/extraction of oil/minerals. 2) The current restoration plan is extremely vague in both details of target rest oration by each restoration unit of activity (farm field size, road length, floway measures) and associated measurable success goals: This should be deemed unacceptable as it will make it impossible to agree upon if restorations activities are done correctly and whether they are trending in a positive direction. It is suggested that each separate restoration unit be defined by owner in the restoration plan. Then for each unit’s acreage the owner provides pre and post determinations by specific habitat type with supporting information describing pre and anticipated post conditions. 3) The restoration plan (SSA 15) provides for two years of natural recruitment prior to potential planting. This seems problematic especially within a large field that has been actively farmed for many years and thus has no appropriate native seed bank to establish an appropriate natural vegetative community. This is likely to result in extended time to meet basic success goals and will likely result in greater coverage of exotic and nuisance species in the initial years after restoration, thus increasing restoration cost and risk. 4) The plan only identifies that the owner will control Category I and Category II exotic species, but nuisance species such as cattail, dog fennel, and pasture grasses might be allowed to flourish and be inadvertently be counted towards successful vegetation establishment. 5) The restoration plan should provide clearly defined success criteria goals by habitat including desired dominate native species and minimum appropriate vegetative cover by habitat (deep marsh, marsh, wet prairie, hydric pine flatwoods, hardwood wetlands, cypress, pine uplands, palmetto uplands, etc.). For each of these systems targeted habitats hydro-periods (time period of saturation/inundation, average season high water depth, maximum seasonal high water) needs to be defined to allow post assessment and management adjustments. For forested and upland systems in addition to identifying appropriate native tree composition (species and domin ance) minimum trees per acre and minimum tree height/canopy closure will define level of success. 6) The agreement must clearly indicate who is responsible for conducting/funding restoration activities and monitoring, including anticipated cost and schedule for restoration activities. Additionally, prior to credit release, financial assurance through an instrument such as a bond should be established. This will provide reasonable assurance that the work will be successfully carried out. The required financial instrument could then be reduced periodically as clearly defined restoration goals/success targets are met 7) Agreed upon approved credits should be released incrementally based on attainment of reasonable levels of success of the restoration activities. Sufficient credits should be withheld until intermediate and final success criteria are met. A long-term maintenance fund as suggested below should be established so that there is incentive for the owners to successfully complete the restoration. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 4 8) The plan should clearly identify a long-term term management entity who will maintain restored lands after attaining restoration success and release of credits. Insuring funding for long -term management is essential. A suggested approach would be for each credit received, the owner would set aside monies into a long-term management endowment fund. Such a fund would be solely used for long term management of the property. This applies only after all phases meet substantial success. Funding should be sufficient so that at the time of final success a conservative projected interest rate will support the fund’s maintenance. Critique of Restoration plan for SSA15 Including Distribution of Credit Allotments • 10,426 credits (73.5%) allocated for flow-way restoration (removal of roads) • 3,658 credits (25.6%) allocated for farm field restoration (grading/natural habitat establishment) • 94.4 credits (0.9%) allocated for the Habitat Enhancement areas (Exotic Control) Problem 1: It appears that an error was made on assignment of credits for flow-way work and farm field work. The amount of restoration work/expense for the restoration of farm fields and the potential regional wetland/flow - way/wildlife benefits for the farm field restoration is an order of magnitude greater than the cost/benefits associated with the road removal (flow-way restoration). The credits allotted should more justifiably be assigned with the 70% percent to the farm fields and ±25% for the road removal. Problem 2: Within the discussion on credit distribution the roads are separate from the farm field restoration. However, in the description of activities it is clear that the restoration of the flow way pinch point requires that the farm road and farm fields 8, 9 & 10 be regraded to alleviate pinch point. So, in order to obtain any credits for the flow way restoration, at least these farm fields must be successfully regraded. Problem 3: There are no success criteria in the plan, only restoration goals: There needs to be clearly defined and measurable expectations on what defines successful fulfillment of the restoration goals (criteria) which are reasonable and progressive in nature. The plan states number of credits for each activity and that success will be met but it is not cle ar on when credits are available. As all activities and achievement of full success attainment are likely to take multiple years, it is recommended that the credits are released progressively after achieving/measurable project thresholds – with enough credits withheld until final success to maintain incentive to successfully complete project: An example of such a graduated release of credit would be as follows: 1. Flow-way restoration a. Place restoration area under perpetual conservation easement – 15% credit release b. Completion of grading/as build surveys - 20% credit release c. Attainment of minimum 20% appropriate native vegetation < 10% exotic/nuisance vegetations – 20% credit release d. Attainment of 80% cover appropriate native vegetation and <5% exotic/nuisance vegetation after 1 year w/out maintenance – 25% credit release e. Transfer to maintenance entity/long term funding - 20% release 2. Farm field restoration a. Place restoration area under perpetual conservation easement – 15% credit release b. Completion of grading/disking/herbicide - provide build surveys - 20% credit release 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 5 c. Attainment of minimum 20% appropriate native vegetation < 10% exotic/nuisance vegetation – 20% credit release d. Attainment of 80% cover appropriate native vegetation and <5% exotic/nuisan ce vegetation after one-year w/out maintenance – 25% credit release e. Transfer to maintenance entity/long term funding - 20% credit release 3. Habitat Enhancement (Exotic Vegetation Removal) a. Place restoration area under perpetual conservation easement – 15% release b. Completion of initial exotic control - 20% release c. Following one year of maintenance treatments (two maintenance treatments) and annual report: – 20% credit d. Attainment of 80% cover appropriate native vegetation and <5% exotic/nuisance vegetation – 25% credit release e. Transfer to maintenance entity/long term funding - 20% release Timing of the Restoration Work: The current plan has table( 3) listing different activities but does not provide any relative information on anticipated dates, or anticipated time frame start to finish for any of the projects. Are they all going to be start in the first year? Or are individual phases anticipated to begin over a period of 5 or 10 years? How long are individual work phases anticipated to take to reach differen t phases of success Time-Zero, confirmation of native vegetation establishment/exotic control, and attainment of appropriate native vegetation cover and less than 5% exotic vegetation cover? The plan is very vague on actual success goals and specific anticipated restoration plans for habitat establishment (ie vegetation/hydrology by designed habitat type) - this should be more specific in order to assess achievement of habitat goals. Also, conversion of large areas which have previously been converted and heavily managed for agriculture use to native habitats through a dependence on native seed bank recruitment is very risky (estimate <10% chance of success within in 5 years) – this serious flaw in the plans and would significantly increase time of success obtainment and cost to reach final goals. 9.A.1.k Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Stakeholder comments on Draft RLSA amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) August 24, 2020 Dear Planning Commissioners: Edwin Fryer, EdwinFryer@colliergov.net Karl Fry, karl.fry@colliercountyfl.gov Karen Homiak, KarenHomiak@colliergov.net Patrick Dearborn, pdearborn@johnwood.com Paul Shea, paul.shea@colliercountyfl.gov Joseph Schmitt, JosephSchmitt@colliergov.net Re: RLSA Overlay Amendments The League of Women Voters Collier County (LWVCC) is committed to strengthening the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay to achieve its objectives, and thereby protect our natural resources and quality of life in Southwest Florida. Members of the LWVCC have been extensively involved in the “restudy” of the RLSA Overlay for the past two years and some members participated in the 2007-09 5-year review of this program. County Staff (Staff) will present draft amendments to the Overlay at the Planning Commission’s meeting Tuesday September 3. This letter provides our comments on the draft amendments. When the RLSA Overlay was adopted in 2002, it was considered a cutting-edge approach to protecting agriculture and environmentally sensitive areas and to allowing development in appropriate locations while discouraging sprawl. However, just as 1000 Friends of Florida reported in its 2019 review of the program, the RLSA Overlay is failing to do this.1 Staff’s draft amendments are almost entirely the recommendations of the 2009 5- year Review Committee. With minor exceptions, Staff did not include the many recommendations resulting from the 2018-2019 RLSA Restudy as presented in the County’s May 2019 White Paper. A major focus of the 5-year Review Committee recommendations is to favor landowners and developers by creating more credits and increasing Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprints. We think the draft 1 1000 Friends of Florida Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay to Support Collier County Restudy , March 2019 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 2 amendments do not accomplish what’s needed. The LWVCC believes that, on balance, the recommended amendments will take the RLSA program farther away from achieving its goals. Our concerns with the Staff recommendations are as follows: 1. Goal: Staff’s recommended amendment to the Goal is not consistent with the 1999 Final Administrative Order. Adding the phrase “through the use of established incentives” suggest that the goals are voluntary. The goals are not voluntary. Participation in the RLSA Program is voluntary. The phrase “through the use of established incentives” should be deleted. The current RLSA Overlay Goal reiterates what the 1999 Final Administration Order directed Collier County to do. The County was to protect agricultural land and prevent premature conversion to other non-agricultural uses, direct incompatible uses away from wetland and upland habitat in order to protect water quality, water quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed species and their habitat. The County was to allow rural land to be converted to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging development that uses creative land use planning techniques. These goals are not voluntary. What is voluntary is participation in the program. Incentives are used to encourage landowners to participate in the program. Other provisions of the RLSA Program explain the incentives. 2. Policy 1.22: Staff Recommendation to increase the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) acres to 45,000 is contrary to the RLSA goals of preserving agriculture, directing development away from wetlands and listed species habitat, and avoiding sprawl. This recommendation ignores concerns expressed by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), CCPC, many organizations and a majority of public comments about the consequences of increasing the amount of development proposed for the RLSA. Take a close look at what 45,000 acres of SRA development will mean for the RLSA. This proposal will result in many more than 45,000 acres being developed because the 45,000 acres does not include: 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 3 • Thousands of additional acres needed for over 100 miles of new and expanded roads to serve 45,000 acres of SRA development. Not only will the proposed four and six lane roads with the corresponding cleared right of ways require considerable acreage, such roads will also stimulate land development on both sides of the new roads and expanded roads.2 • 20,000 acres owned by landowners not participating in the RLSA Program, plus an additional 26,931 acres of open land owned by those landowners participating in the RLSA Overlay. There is nothing in the RLSA Program or recommended amendments that prevents any of these landowners from baseline development of one unit per 5 acres on these open areas. • Roughly 15,750 acres for public infrastructure to serve 45,000 of SRA development.3 • At least 3,300 acres of Sand mines, which will likely be converted to development when the mines are no longer active. With its large quarries this land cannot be restored. It will not be suitable for anything but development. The amount of development resulting from this proposal will create sprawl throughout the RLSA, fragment and destroy environmentally sensitive areas and reduce agricultural lands by almost 60%.4 Many groups, organizations and individuals oppose this increase in SRA acreage because they believe they were misled from the beginning about the amount of potential development in the RLSA program. At the time of RLSA Overlay adoption in 2002, the public was told that the SRA development would be about 16,800 acres. Staff’s proposal allows 250% more development than the original adopted RLSA. The potential scale of urban development that the Staff’s amendments will allow throughout the 93,000 acres of open land will threaten the rural character of the RLSA. 2 For example, Collier Enterprises proposes over 420 acres of development along Big Cypress Parkway and Oil Well Road to provide goods and services and affordable housing to serve the Villages of Big Cypress. The 45,000 acres does not include the land needed for construction of Big Cypress Parkway and expansion of Oil Well Road. 3 According to the Chair of the Collier County Planning Commission, towns in the RLSA use about 35% of the land for public infrastructure. This means that 15,750 acres are needed for public infrastructure. 4 According to the 2007 RLSA Phase I Technical Review there were 64,469 acres under cultivation at that time. A Report from Johnson Engineering dated 15, 2008 to Mr. Tom Jones of Barron Collier companies stated that there will be approximately 28,000 acres of agricultural land remaining under cultivation at build out of the 45,000 acres. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 4 Instead of increasing the number of acres for SRA development, Staff could increase density requirements for SRAs to achieve more compact footprints, and establish criteria for locating SRAs to reduce infrastructure costs and fragmentation of environmentally sensitive areas.5 3. Will the RLSA Overlay keep its promise of preventing checkerboard development of one unit per five acres? Or will the incentives and the 45,000 acres of SRA development in the proposed RLSA amendments result in many 5-acre ranchettes in the remaining open areas? There is nothing in the RLSA Program or recommended amendments that prevents any RLSA landowner from baseline development in the 46,931 acres of open land remaining after 45,000 of SRA development. County Staff reports there will be 46,931 acres of open land with development potential of one unit per five acres remaining after the 45,000 acres of SRA development is approved. (County March 2020 Credit Analysis, page 11.) While the County Credit Analysis implies that agricultural credits may keep agricultural uses on much of the 46,931 open land acres, the May 2019 County White Paper states that “Given the input from agricultural land owners, staff believes that it is unlikely that most agricultural property will voluntarily accept a permanent agricultural easement in return for credits.” Pg. 40. Some landowners expressed a preference to always keep the baseline development option open. Id. About 20,000 acres of the 46,931 acres is not owned by landowners participating in the RLSA program. Forty-five thousand acres of town and village development will likely create an incentive for these landowners to convert their agricultural land to five-acre ranchettes. There also is nothing preventing RLSA landowners participating in the RLSA program from developing their portion of the remaining 46,931 acres into five-acre ranchettes. 4. Policy 1.22 (new): Staff recommends a credit cap of 404,000 as proposed by the 5-year Review Committee. Instead, Staff should revise the credit system to keep the number of credits closer to 315,000 and take steps to prevent creation of excess credits. 5 Instead of letting the landowners and developers determine where in the RLSA they will build, the County should determine where development is appropriate to reduce infrastructure costs. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 5 The number of credits to be established by a credit cap was one of the most controversial issues during the 5-year review out of concern for too much development and excess credits. While everyone agreed that a credit cap is essential, there was and continues to be strong opposition to establishing a cap at 404,000 credits as recommended by the 5-year Review Committee. Instead, many supported establishing a cap at 315,000, the number of credits in the RLSA that were estimated to be available under the current RLSA Overlay. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted the RLSA Program in April 2002 based on an understanding that there would be 134,000 credits in the system. Between adoption and transmittal, credits were added to the program for restoration and early entry bonuses. The actual credit calculation showing that the RLSA program created an estimated 315,000 credits was not known publicly until WilsonMiller (now Stantec) submitted this information to the County in 2008. At the same time WilsonMiller also estimated that the 5-year review Committee proposals could create 421,000 credits, but informed the Committee and the County that the landowners would agree to cap credits at 404,000. In the County’s March 2020 credit analysis, Staff estimated that the 5-year Review Committee proposals will create 437,000 credits. Pg. 11. During the 2009 5-year review, many community groups, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), CCPC, the FL Department of Community Affairs and 1000 Friends of Florida all expressed their concerns about too many credits and many asked that credits be capped at 315,000. At the 2009 5-year review hearing, the County Director of Comprehensive Planning testified to the BCC that all data and analysis should be reviewed and they needed to take a good look at credits because we “don’t want to create a surplus.” Pg. 138-140. The BCC concluded the 5-year review process in April 2009 saying they recognized the concerns of the CCPC, EAC and county staff about creating too many credits. Commissioner Coyle said the County would make it clear that “there will be no excess credits created.” P. 176.6 Why are excess credits a concern? 6 See also “Summary of Board of County Commissioners Actions Taken on April 21, 2009.” 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 6 Credits are currency for landowners. The value of this “currency” creates an expectation among landowners that, if they choose to participate, they will be able to realize the value of their credits, and apply this in exchange for development rights. The landowners may demand that their excess credits be purchased or that the cap be raised or that they be allowed to use the excess credits outside the RLSA. Simply put, once a property is given certain rights, it is nearly impossible to take them away. Staff’s credit analysis of a potential 437,000 credits shows that the Committee’s proposed credit system will lead to more credits than estimated and will eventually result in more development. 5. Policy 3.7 allows golf courses to be sited in Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs)—this runs contrary to the purpose of HSAs which is to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats. The County should not allow golf courses in HSAs. Staff’s recommendation is inconsistent with the 1999 Final Administrative Order7 and the RLSA Program goal to direct development away from uplands habitat to protect listed species and their habitats. Golf courses involve activities related to on-going construction, landscaping and active recreation (playing the course). Golf course maintenance requires use of fertilizers and pesticides, harmful to wildlife. During the 5-year review, the EAC urged that golf courses not be allowed in HSAs for these reasons, and public comment raised this concern again during the RLSA Restudy workshops. Indeed, recently a landowner/developer obtained county approval for Rivergrass Village to build an 18-hole golf course on habitat identified as essential to long-term survival of the panther. 6. Policy 3.11.1-4 (previously Policy 3.10): Staff’s draft amendments do not follow the May 2019 White Paper recommendations on restructuring the restoration credit system to assure that restoration occurs where needed and restoration credits are reasonably estimated and structured. 7 The Administrative Order required the County to “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 animal and plant species and their habitats. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 7 The May 2019 White Paper stressed “Staff believes that it is critical to create a careful estimation of needed restoration activity throughout the RLSA private lands, and through that work create a balanced credit system that does not generate excess credits.” Page 51. The White Paper recommended that first the County engage an independent third party to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and structured. Second, that the County procure an independent analysis of the definitions and estimated acreages associated with a revised restoration program, considering the 5-year review Committee recommen- dations and alternatives, including the Audubon/Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) approach. This independent analysis is to be “based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that no more credits are produced than necessary for the 45,000-acre SRA footprint.” Pg. 89. Both of these things were to be done prior to the Transmittal hearing. Instead of following the White Paper recommendations on restructuring the restoration credit system, County Staff just put forward the 5-year Review Committee proposal. Audubon/FWF presented an alternative to the 5-year Review Committee’s approach that: • focuses on specific activities to make the Committee’s nebulous categories of “native habitat restoration” and “panther habitat restoration” viable. 8 • eliminates the exotic control/burning category. Exotic control is something the landowner should do as part of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) maintenance, as recommended by the 2019 White Paper. • tailors the credits to the acres where restoration work is actually done. The 2019 White Paper supports this approach of awarding restoration credits only for the acres on which work is done, rather than the entire acreage of the area designated for restoration. If restoration work is only done on 100 acres out of 3,500 acres, only 100 acres should be claimed for restoration credits, not the entire restoration designation area, as currently allowed. 8 Audubon/FWF suggested: 10 credits per acre for wading bird habitat restoration, 10 credits per acre for large mammal corridors, 2 credits per acre for hydrological restoration approved by a permitting agency, 2 credits per acre for recontoured flowway areas, 1 credit per area for flow way expansion, 2 credits per acre for native habitat planting. See White Paper pp. 50-51. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 8 Staff should follow the White Paper recommendations and draft amendments that will focus restoration activities on the areas that need restoration and assure that the restoration proposed is what is needed. Staff should consider the Audubon/FWF approach in restructuring the restoration credit system. 7. Policy 3.11.1: “Restoration designation” (R-1) credits should be eliminated because they lead to excess credits, are duplicative and provide less incentive for actual restoration. Currently, the RLSA Overlay awards two credits per acre when a landowner designates land for restoration (R-1 credits), except in the Camp Keais Strand (CKS) area where it awards 4 R-1 credits per acre. In Policy 3.11.1 Staff recommends one R-1 credit at the time of designation, and one R-1 credit awarded when restoration is completed by the landowner, the County or some other third party. This is a minor change that won’t reduce the number of R-1 credits, because the restoration designations and restoration plans for SSAs in the CKS area have all been approved. We believe R-1 credits should be completely eliminated. It’s clear that under the current system too many R-1 restoration credits are being awarded—excessively more than anticipated. As of mid-2019, landowners had received 58,854 R-1 credits9 just for designating land to be restored with no obligation to do the restoration. This is half of the total stewardship credits earned under the RLSA program as of 2019. As the White Paper states “R-1 designation credits have doubled the credit compensation to landowners who have created SSAs, without the necessity to complete the restoration projects.” White Paper Pg. 49. Less than 500 acres (or 1%) of the 50,000 SSA acres have been restored. R-1 credits are duplicative. When a landowner designates an area for restoration, it gets a bump up in the number of base credits for that area in a couple of ways. First, some landowners are increasing the Natural Resource Index (NRI) value of SSA acres for “restoration potential.” This increase in NRI score results in more base credits. Why should a landowner get restoration designation credits as well as credits based on a restoration potential for the same acres? Second, landowners also get a bump up in base credits because they must remove uses 9 2019 White Paper page 80. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 9 down to Ag 2 for R-1 acres. It appears that some landowners are getting a triple bonus in credits for essentially the same action. Staff’s recommendations do not address this. Finally, eliminating R-1 credits may strengthen the incentive for the landowners to do the restoration. 8. Policy 3.11.2: Staff recommendations on credits for panther corridors fail to provide what’s needed to achieve these corridors. The corridors need to be specifically located on the RLSA Status map before more SRAs are approved making land unavailable for a corridor. Policy 3.11.2 provides credits to property owners in a federally approved panther corridor if they designate the required land for such a corridor. Additional credits are provided for restoration of the corridor area. However, Staff does not address how these federally approved corridors will be established. County Staff, working with USFWS and landowners, need to establish specific locations for wildlife corridors before it’s too late. A wildlife corridor could likely cross more than one landowner’s property. All the pertinent landowners must agree to designate the required land for a panther corridor before a viable corridor can be achieved. Ongoing decisions to approve Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) and mining operations can eliminate the possibility for a particular wildlife corridor by making some segment of the corridor unavailable. The Staff includes a map showing the approximate areas for panther corridors, but this is woefully inadequate and certainly won’t prevent open land in those areas from being developed and therefore unavailable for a corridor. The specific locations need to be established on the RLSA Status map with all due haste. Further, all segments of a designated corridor must be preserved by an SSA before awarding credits. This was recommended by the CCPC in 2009, but not included in the 5-year Committee recommendations. The proposed phased implementation of credits set out in 3.11.2 could result in credits being awarded, without the panther corridor being achieved because not all needed property owners participate. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 10 Corridor credits should not be allocated until a corridor is completely designated and recorded—a partial corridor has no value to the protected species. 9. Policy 3.13 (previously Policy 3.14): Staff recommends requiring that Water Retention Area (WRA) acreage used for water treatment and retention be included in the SRA. Allowing SRAs to use WRAs for water treatment and retention is contrary to the 1999 Administrative Order and the RLSA goal to protect natural resources. The RLSA Overlay should emphasize avoiding this practice. Where no other option is available for storm water treatment, the landowner should not be allowed to use any part of a WRA that scores 1.2 or higher on the Natural Resource Index (NRI). We agree that WRA acreage used for storm water treatment should be included in the SRA. The 1999 Administrative Order directed the County to “Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime.” WRAs are so designated for the protection of water quality and quantity (GMP 3.3). Allowing SRAs to use WRAs for water treatment or storm water management will significantly impact and degrade the WRAs. During the 5-year review process, the EAC strongly recommended that use of WRAs as part of a storm water management system for SRAs be avoided. Allowing a WRA to be used for storm water treatment could result in the WRA no longer providing the important functions of water storage, replenishment of aquifers and protection of shallow wetlands for listed birds. However, the EAC said--if there is absolutely no other option available for storm water treatment for an SRA, WRAs designated to receive storm water need to be carefully evaluated for their functionality as part of both flow-ways and aquifer recharge. Part of that evaluation should consider the NRI scores of the WRA acres, and prohibit use of any area of the WRA for stormwater management if the area scores 1.2 or higher on the NRI. WRAs used for stormwater management should definitely be included in the SRA acreage calculations and the entire body of the WRA bordering the proposed development should be included, not just a small region along the edge. Pollutants from the SRA will disperse throughout the WRA and impact high quality areas of WRAs. Stormwater management is a necessary part of development so credits should be required for this area. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 11 10. Policy 3.14 (previously Policy 3.15): Staff recommends requiring development to be compatible with surrounding land uses. This is an important step and should be adopted. Staff also recommends implementing outdoor lighting requirements to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance safety and security that we strongly support. Requiring development to be compatible with surrounding land use could prevent development from destroying the habitat value of an adjacent FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and SSAs. A primary goal of the RLSA Program is to direct development away from wetlands and listed species habitat. However, the draft amendment does not go far enough. Currently, the County is considering allowing development to surround a WRA.10 Development that fragments, surrounds or isolates FSAs, HSAs or WRAs important for listed species habitat and water resources greatly reduces the value of these areas. Among other things, such fragmentation or isolation will cause a steady degradation in diversity of species over time. This amendment should include language to prevent an SRA or SRAs together from surrounding or otherwise fragmenting an FSA, HSA or WRA. Artificial light at night can interfere with ecological interactions like predator-prey relationships, interrupt habitat connectivity, disrupt natural circadian rhythms and influence species ability to detect seasonality. Birds and insects have been hit particularly hard by light pollution. We suggest the County consider the International Dark-Sky Association guidelines in developing regulations to help decrease light pollution. See www.darksky.org. 11. Require Flowway Management Plans with clear maintenance obligations as part of an SRA to provide a mechanism for flowway management and assure funding for downstream stormwater management in flowways, as recommended by the May 2019 County White Paper. Requiring Flowway Management Plans is an important White Paper recommendation that Staff did not include in the draft RLSA amendments. 10 Longwater Village is currently pending with the County. It will surround a large portion of a WRA, which the Applicant has also designated as SSA #17. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 12 Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough are the two major flowways in the RLSA. The White Paper points out that (1) these flowways are more effective in attenuating discharge from upstream areas compared to our ditch and canal systems, and (2) the flowways require periodic maintenance because they are affected up by upstream activity over time. More stormwater runoff will be generated by the SRAs than from the current farm fields because of all the new nonpermeable surfaces that will be created. This is particularly concerning for all the SRAs that will be discharging into CKS, which in turn flows to the Panther Refuge and then the Merritt Canal. The flowways help relieve flooding. Currently, the position of the landowners/developers and the Big Cypress Stewardship District appears to be that they are only responsible for addressing issues within the boundaries of the SRAs. Flowway Management plans can be a public/private partnership, but the SRAs need to contribute for needed maintenance to relieve downstream impacts from their discharges, as a matter of being fiscally neutral. If the SRAs have no responsibility for operational and maintenance functions of the flowways into which they discharge, Collier County citizens will foot the entire bill. The requirement for these plans should be included in the RLSA Overlay . 12. Policy 4.2: Staff recommends deleting the provision that directs the County to follow the principles of the Florida Rural Lands Stewardship Act in designating SRAs. The current RLSA Program expresses the intent to follow the principles of FL RLSA Act.11 Why shouldn’t the County continue to do so? There is no basis stated in the record for this change. The FL RLSA Act sets out what rural land stewardship areas are to achieve and significant criteria for SRAs. Section (11) of the Act states that “it is the intent of the legislature” that the Collier County RLSA Overlay “which was established pursuant to the requirements of a final order by the Governor and Cabinet, duly adopted as a growth management plan amendment by Collier County, and found in compliance with this chapter, be recognized as a statutory rural land stewardship area and be afforded the incentives in this section.” Deleting this provision from GMP 4.2 suggests that the County wants to be able to stray from compliance with the FL RLSA Act. 11 FL. Stat. 163.3248 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 13 13. Policy 4.7.1: Recommendation to increase Town size to 5,000 acres is counter to the purpose of the RLSA Overlay to avoid sprawl and create compact walkable communities. The rationale for increasing Town size by 1,000 acres is contradicted by the facts. The RLSA Overlay directs that SRAs be compact, walkable and avoid sprawl. Metro Forecasting, under contract with the Collier County Growth Management Department, advised that the density of towns should be increased to eight dwelling units (DUs) per acre to achieve the goals of the RLSA.12 Rather than propose an increase in density, Staff puts forward the 5-year Review Committee recommendation to increase Town size by 1,000 acres. The Committee’s rationale for this acreage increase and for a 500 acre increase for Villages (4.7.2) is the need for a minimum size compact urban development of 3,500 dwelling units or 8,000 residents to support a grocery store. However, the current RLSA allows up to four DUs per acre, which could accommodate over 3,500 homes on 1,000 acres. Even Staff has questioned this rationale. This recommendation undermines the RLSA’s proposition that SRAs are to be innovative and not business as usual. The Overlay requires that SRAs in the form of towns and villages, be compact, mixed-use, and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure. That towns and villages be walkable and bikeable. A 5000-acre town will be less walkable and more sprawling; whereas, more compact towns will lower infrastructure costs and prevent agricultural land and listed species habitat from being converted to development. 14. Policy 4.7.2: Recommendation to increase Village size to 1,500 acres is counter to the purpose of the RLSA Overlay to create compact walkable communities and the rationale provided does not support the increase. As stated above in comment 13, the Committee’s rationale does not support increasing Village size. The current RLSA allows up to four DUs per acre, which allows a 1000-acre Village to accommodate more than 3,500 homes. According to BEBR medium population projections, Collier County has an average 2.5 persons per household. Thus, a Village of 3500 homes can accommodate more 12 Memorandum to Kris Van Lengen from Metro Forecasting Models “Collier County RLSA Ideal Future Town Size” May 10,2019. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 14 than 8,000 residents. The County can enhance this capability by requiring greater density for villages. Adding 500 acres to a Village will not necessarily result in 3,500 dwelling units or 8,000 residents, but it will increase sprawl. Staff should recommend revisions to density and multifamily housing requirements. These changes could achieve the objective of providing greater housing diversity and also serve a greater population without increasing acreage. Such changes would be more in line with the objectives of the RLSA. Village size does not need to be increased. 15. Policy 4.7.2: Staff also recommends allowing a 1000-acre Village in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) stating that this just retains the existing Village size allowed in the ACSC. This is not correct. The current RLSA Program limits Village size in the ACSC to 300 acres, or to 500 acres on SR 29 frontage provided frontage the land had been cleared for Ag Group 1 or mining prior to 2009. The current RLSA GMP 4.21 provides: “The only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, however, that two Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective date of this amendment as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses.” GMP 4.21 does allow two Villages or Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) of 500 acres each in the ACSC under the specified conditions. Note the language says two Villages of 500 acres each. It does not provide for combining the Villages, as Staff recommends. These 500-acre SRAs would need to be separated from each other, in keeping with the purpose of GMP 4.21 to protect this important area, as discussed in number 16 below. Please reject this amendment. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 15 16. Policy 4.7.2: Recommendation to allow a 1000-acre Village in the Big Cypress ACSC is completely contrary to the stated purpose of GMP 4.21 and State Policy to protect this significant wetland system. This recommended revision to 4.7.2 runs counter to the purpose of GMP 4.21 which is “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.” GMP 4.21. Allowing a 1000-acre Village increases development potential in the ACSC. A 1,000-acre development like Rivergrass Village which was just approved by the BCC in January 2020 could have 2,500 dwelling units or more—potentially more than would be allowed in the entire ACSC under baseline standards. More importantly, allowing a 1000-acre Village would be entirely inappropriate for the rural character of the area and destructive of the natural resources of regional significance. The Big Cypress ACSC encompasses the Okaloacoochee Slough, one of two major wetland systems within the RLSA. Staff recommendation is contrary to the State Policy to protect this environmentally important area as an ACSC.13 Further, Staff did not consider comments made by the EAC and Conservancy of Southwest Florida and others during the 5-year review. The EAC recommended that “Development should be directed away from the ACSC” and “Guidance should also be included regarding how closely they [CRDs] can be located to one another.” The Conservancy of SWF commented “Do not allow villages of any size within the ACSC.” Allowing a 1000-acre Village in the ACSC, would be contrary to intended protection for the ACSC and the RLSA goal of preserving agriculture. No Villages should be built in the ACSC, especially not a 1000-acre Village. 13 Under Florida Statute 380.05 an ACSC is ”An area containing, or having a significant impact upon, environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide importance, including, but not limited to, state or federal parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, aquatic preserves, major rivers and estuaries, state environmentally endangered lands, Outstanding Florida Waters, and aquifer recharge areas, the uncontrolled private or public development of which would cause substantial deterioration of such resources. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 16 17. Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2 & Appendix C: Staff recommendation to increase required goods and services square footage for Towns and Villages should be adopted. Because RLSA Towns and Villages will be located miles from goods and services, they must provide sufficient goods and services locally so resident do not burden the existing roadway network with additional traffic. Keeping traffic internal to the SRAs and off County’s road network is a specific goal of the RLSA Overlay. 18. Policy 4.7.3 (previously 4.7.4): Staff recommends increasing the maximum acreage for Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) from 100 acres to 300 acres. This is contrary to the 5-year review Committee recommendations which specified that the maximum acreage for a CRD is 100 acres and contrary to the County May 2019 White Paper that recommended limiting the size of any CRD to 100 acres. The 5-year review committee did not recommend increasing the CRD acreage, quite the contrary—it recommended an explicit limit of 100 acres for a CRD, and deleted a sentence in 4.7.4 that may have suggested there could be a CRD of more than 100 acres. The White Paper recommended limiting the size of any CRD to 100 acres. Pg. 71. There is no basis provided for this change, and increasing CRD size is contrary to the intent of the RLSA Overlay as expressed in current Policy 4.7.4. and the 5-year Review Committee recommendations. CRDs are a type of SRA created to support the County’s valued attributes of agriculture and natural resources. The current RLSA Overlay illustrates this intent by describing a CRD as an eco- tourism village that may have transient lodging facilities and services appropriate to eco tourists, but may not provide for the range of services that are necessary to support permanent residences. The proposed increase in CRD acreage should be rejected. This revised Policy also adds “convenience retail” to the list of uses for a CRD. The May 2019 White Paper recommended that, in keeping with the purposes of CRDs, retail should only be allowed as ancillary to the other listed uses. Policy 4.7.3 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 17 should be revised to state retail shall only be allowed as ancillary to the other listed uses. 19. Policy 4.75 (new): Staff proposes an affordable housing requirement that has never been subject to public review at any time. This new policy raises some significant questions concerning consistency with the RLSA Overlay, fairness to Collier County taxpayers, and appropriateness of shifting responsibility for affordable housing from the developer to the County. New Policy 4.75 was not a 5-year Review Committee recommendation. It was not discussed during the RLSA Restudy or a White Paper recommendation. It was not even included in the Staff’s March 2020 proposed RLSA amendments. This proposed policy is also not consistent with what County housing experts have recommended to recent SRA applicants to meet the County’s housing affordability guidelines and assure compliance with the LDC. The questions raised by this Policy make clear that it should be vetted through the public process. In fact, it is not even clear what the County means with the proposed language and how it intends the Policy to work. Staff’s recommendation requires the SRA applicant to “reserve” land for affordable housing within its SRA or “proximal SRA.” Proximal SRA is not defined. Since proximal means “situated close to” or “next to,” this provision appears to allow affordable housing to be on land situated close to an SRA, which land then becomes part of the SRA. This proposal seems written to accommodate a proposal by Collier Enterprises, who provided a map to the County Staff, “The Villages of Big Cypress Stewardship District,” showing 40 acres of affordable housing situated on Big Cypress Parkway south of the Longwater Village access to Big Cypress Parkway. See map, Attachment 1. Allowing affordable housing to be built outside the real boundaries of the SRA and off Big Cypress Parkway is inconsistent with the intent and provisions of the RLSA Overlay. SRAs are to be human-scale communities, with a town or village center that is the focal point for the community. SRAs are to be walkable, with an interconnected street and pathway system. SRAs are to provide a place where residents can live and work, keeping traffic internal and off Collier County’s road network. SRAs are to be designed to avoid sprawl. An affordable housing complex situated off Big Cypress Parkway and separated from the Village is 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 18 inconsistent with the intent and requirements of the RLSA Overlay. This draft Policy also allows an Applicant to propose an affordable housing alternative, but provides no requirements or criteria for the Applicant’s alternative. This option could also allow an Applicant to propose affordable housing close to its SRA just as Collier Enterprises has done. Secondly, this proposed Policy exempts the SRA applicant from any road impact fees or fair share mitigation for the traffic generated by the affordable housing portion of the SRA. The affordable housing units are excluded from the Applicant’s traffic impact statement and trip cap. As a result, the County (and therefore Collier County citizens) will pay for the resulting road impacts. Finally, the current RLSA Overlay provides the County authority to require affordable housing as part of an SRA. The RLSA Overlay requires a town to provide “a full range of housing alternatives14” and that the SRA be self-sufficient, a place where people can live and work so that folks don’t have to leave the community for work or shopping. This Policy shifts responsibility for including affordable housing in the “full range of housing” required for Towns from the developer to the County. Instead of creating something inconsistent with the RLSA Overlay, the staff should draft a policy that implements the County’s existing authority under the RLSA Overlay. 20. Reinstate the draft RLSA amendment to require aggregation of Villages that are under common or related ownership, physically proximate and share infrastructure. The County’s March 2020 draft RLSA amendments and the White Paper both included this proposal, but it has now been eliminated. This Policy would make explicitly clear that Villages should be aggregated under the conditions set out above. We currently see an Eastern Collier landowner successfully avoiding town infrastructure investment by splitting a proposed town into multiple adjacent villages for approval by the County. The result is that taxpayers will pick up the 14 LDC Section 4.08.07 requires that an SRA “offer a range of housing types and price levels to accommodate diverse ages and incomes.” 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 19 tab for the costs of infrastructure in the RLSA through higher taxes,15 while many Collier County residents have lost their jobs during this economic downturn. Requiring aggregation will ensure the developer provides the goods and services and infrastructure needed to support the actual size of the entire project. We believe that the County can require aggregation under the current GMP, based on the intent of the RLSA and Policy 4.7.1 which states that “Towns …are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods.” However, including an explicit statement to this effect may prevent disputes about the County’s authority. However, under no circumstances should aggregation of Villages be allowed in the ACSC. Allowing aggregation in this area would be contrary to the intent of State policy and the RLSA Overlay to protect this important natural resource area as discussed above, in number 16. Each SRA should be separated from one another to protect this area. 21. Policy 4.9: Staff recommendations allow SRAs to be located in WRAs. This eliminates established protections for our water resources. Given the thousands of acres of open lands for development, it is not appropriate to allow SRAs to be located in WRAs. WRAs are so designated because of their importance for water quality and quantity. GMP 4.9 prohibits SRAs from locating in FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. County Staff recommends eliminating this protection for WRAs. Areas of WRAs can have high NRI values due to the environmental significance of the area. Protection of our water resources is critical for the future of Collier County. 22. Policies 4.9 and 5.1—Staff Recommendation to allow infrastructure to be built in Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), HSAs and WRAs “to serve permitted uses” regardless of NRI value threatens water resources and listed species habitat protected by FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. This recommendation contradicts the stated RLSA goal of directing development away from wetlands and listed species habitat. 15 Also, a greater portion of the 1% sales tax revenue will go towards building infrastructure for these RLSA developments, while much needed infrastructure in the rest of Collier County gets shortchanged. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 20 Indeed, GMP 4.9 states clearly that the means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition against siting development (residential, commercial, manufacturing, institutional, civic and community services) on FSAs, HSAs and WRAs that have an NRI value greater than 1.2. Additionally, “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.” The NRI values for WRAs range from 0.6 to 2.4, with 74% scoring greater than 1.2. GMP 3.3. Staff recommends eliminating this protection by allowing construction of infrastructure in FSAs,16 HSAs,17 and WRAs regardless of NRI value. Infrastructure includes roads, EMS, fire and police stations, schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities and water supply facilities. Infrastructure will fragment the environmentally sensitive areas currently protected, leading to degradation of these areas. As noted, GMP 4.9 currently provides a limited exception for conditional use essential services and governmental essential services necessary to serve permitted uses for public safety. While we disagree with this exception because there are plenty of open lands available, Staff now expands this exception to allow any infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses to be built in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of NRI value. Staff says this change “is for policy consistency” with no further explanation. This is a completely inadequate rational to support destruction of protected wetlands and listed species habitat. There is no reason for equating those limited essential conditional and governmental uses necessary to serve permitted uses for public safety with “infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses.” Further, this proposal is contrary to the White Paper recommendation to eliminate land use layers 1-4 from HSAs, with the exception of governmental essential services. In addition, Staff inappropriately eliminates WRAs from Policy 4.9. WRAs are designated to protect our water resources. Further, “additions or modifications to WRAs are not allowed unless the applicant ensures there will be no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs.” GMP 3.14. GMP 4.9 correctly states that the primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat 16 GMP 3.1 protects water quality and quantity and the maintenance of flow-ways by establishing FSAs. 17 GMP 3.2 states that listed species and their habitat shall be protected by establishing HSAs. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 21 is the prohibition against locating SRAs in FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. Staff provides no evidence for completely eliminating protection for WRAs. 23. Policy 4.19: Staff recommends increasing the number of credits required per SRA acre from 8 to 10. This is inadequate because it does not balance the credits to match the 45,000 SRA acres; it will create excess credits. The Staff’s own credit analysis shows at least 14 credits per SRA acre are necessary. Staff is putting forward the 2009 5-year review Committee recommendation to increase the credits required per SRA acre from 8 to 10. Actually, this was the landowners’ proposal in 2008 to help avoid excess credits. See WilsonMiller 2008 memorandum at pg. 6. The 2009 BCC directed County Staff to review all the data and analyses provided in the reports of the 5-year review to make sure that the credits match the amount of land to be developed as SRAs and that there be no excess credits. See also FL RLSA Act. County Staff’s 2020 analysis shows that 14 credits per SRA acre is needed to lessen the potential for excess credits.18 Pgs. 10-11. In addition, Staff added language to Policy 4.19 to allow landowners to use 8 credits per acre instead the proposed 10 credits per acre for credits to be obtained from SSAs applications submitted to the County, but not yet approved. This is inappropriate. This revision will add to the excess credits. The landowners have been aware since 2009 that the number of credits required per SRA acre was going to increase, and acknowledged a willingness to comply with increased credit requirements for pending SSAs. See WilsonMiller 2008 Memorandum to Tom Greenwood, Director of County Community Planning. 24. Policy 4.21: As stated under comments 15 & 16 above, allowing a 1000- acre Village or CRD would be contrary to Policy 4.21 and was not the intent of the 5-year review Committee recommendation. The current Policy 4.21 states “Provided, however, that two Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effective 18 Note 14 credits per SRA acre is based on the 430,000-credit cap proposed in Staff’s March 2020 amendment; however, the credit cap is not relevant to this calculation. Staff’s analysis shows 437,472 credits. Although we believe this credit total is underestimated, even with this number, 15 credits per SRA acre is necessary to limit excess credits. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 22 date of this amendment as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effective date of these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses.” The 5-year review recommendation changed the beginning of this Policy to say “Provided, not more than 1000 acres of SRA development in the form of Villages or CRDs” that have frontage along SR 29 and that have been predominantly cleared by ag 1 or mining operations. The current language does not allow a 1000- acre Village or CRD to be built in the ACSC. To do so would be contrary to the purpose of 4.21, as explained in Comment No. 16. above. Further, “Villages” and “CRDs” are plural. Clearly the intent is not to allow a 1000-acre Village as suggested by 4.7.2 nor a 1000-acre CRD. CRDs are a type of SRA that is to support the County’s valued attributes of agriculture and natural resources. The County May 2019 White Paper recommended that all CRDs be limited to 100 acres. Under Florida statutes, ACSC are areas containing or having an impact on significant environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide importance.19 As noted above in comment 16, the Big Cypress ACSC encompasses one of two major wetland systems within the RLSA. Staff’s Policy 4.21 should be revised to be clear that the intent is to protect this environmentally important area. The current policy 4.21 also restricts the 500-acre Villages or CRDs on SR 29 frontage to land that had been cleared by agriculture 1 or mining operations prior to the 5-year review. Staff’s amendment removes this date requirement, without any explanation for the change. 19 Under Florida Statute 380.05 an ACSC is ”An area containing, or having a significant impact upon, environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide importance, including, but not limited to, state or federal parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, aquatic preserves, major rivers and estuaries, state environmentally endangered lands, Outstanding Florida Waters, and aquifer recharge areas, the uncontrolled private or public development of which would cause substantial deterioration of such resources.” 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 23 25. Policy 5.4: Staff’s recommendation that a map of potential wildlife crossings be initiated within a year of the adoption of these amendments is too little too late. A map setting out specific locations for wildlife crossings should be developed within a year of the adoption of the RLSA amendments. Policy 5.4, which addresses remaining open lands not part of the 45,000 SRA acres, provides that the County will consult with federal and state agencies on appropriate locations for wildlife crossings. Further it states: “A map of these potential crossing locations will be initiated by [12 months of the adoption of this Ordinance], updated periodically, and shall be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.” There are two problems with this: first, just “initiating” a map within a year will likely be too late. SRAs will be approved long before the map ever gets done. Staff’s March 2020 draft amendments had provided that a map of wildlife crossings would be developed within a year from the date of adoption of the RLSA Overlay amendments. Second, the map needs to set out the specific locations for a corridor, just showing “potential” locations will not ensure development projects don’t eliminate the location. 26. Policy 5.6.3.f.iv (new): Staff added a provision to Policy 5.6.3, which requires mitigation for direct impacts to wetlands, to allow exotics removal or maintenance to be considered acceptable mitigation. This provision should be removed. Exotics removal and maintenance is not acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetland functions. Policy 5.6 requires mitigation for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. Exotics removal or maintenance will not mitigate a loss of wetland functions. Mitigation is restoration of wetlands functions or creation of new wetlands. This new subparagraph does not provide any link or relationship to mitigating or lessening the landowner’s adverse impact to wetlands functions. County Staff did not discuss Policy 5 at all during the RLSA Restudy, and they do not provide any support for this position. 27. Staff’s March 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis County Staff included a Credit analysis with its proposed March 2020 RLSA amendments, but did not include the credit analysis with the August draft amendments publicly provided, nor is the March 2020 credit analysis available on 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 24 the RLSA website. We note that the BCC directed the County Staff to do an analysis of the data and reports to make sure the recommended credits support the 45,000 acres and do not create excess credits. While the credit analysis is flawed in that we think it underestimates the potential number of credits, this analysis is important for the Planning Commission to consider in reviewing the draft amendments. We will include a copy of the March 2020 credit analysis with the hard copy of our comments provided to the Chair of the CCPC. 28. Ask County Staff to address Certain Recommendations of the County’s May 2019 White Paper as amendments to the RLSA Overlay. There were many important recommendations that resulted from the RLSA Restudy—important because they address needed protection of our water resources and wildlife habitat, and recalibration of the Stewardship Credit system in ways to avoid excess credits. These recommendations were set out in the County’s May 2019 White Paper at pages 85-89. Attachment 2 provides a list of the White Paper recommendations that we think should be included in the RLSA Overlay. We do not think these items can be handled solely through the LDC unless the underlying concept is included in the Overlay.20 A Zoning in Progress pause is needed As a final note, we ask that you recommend the BCC take a time out or zoning in progress pause on review and approval of new SRA applications. This would be an interim protective measure to hold off moving forward on new SRA applications until the BCC considers the pending proposed amendments to the RLSA Overlay. The County could continue to receive new SRA applications, but the applications will not be processed until the zoning in progress notice or ordinance expires. If the changes to the Overlay are adopted, then new applications will have to be consistent with the changes. Naples City Council recently adopted a zoning in progress resolution on building height and parking. Thank you for considering our comments and for your service to our community. 20 Note that the White Paper recommendations presented to the BCC in October 2019 were revised by the Head of the Growth Management Department to delete or reword several recommendations and remove the word “require” from six recommendations. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 25 Sincerely, LWVCC Environmental Committee Patricia Forkan Charlotte Nycklemoe Susan Calkins Judy Hushon Alison Wescott Bonnie Michaels Loralee LeBoeuf Lynn Martin Gaylene Vasaturo 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 26 ATTACHMENT 1 VILLAGES OF BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 27 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 28 ATTACHMENT 2 May 2019 White Paper Recommendations that should be included in the RLSA Overlay amendments 1. 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. This will help assure maintenance of the two flow-ways critical to Collier Cunty water resources. 2. 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. 3. Require that no overall increase in Ag 1 activities occur during the period of SSA conditional approval. 4. 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. 5. Require clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flow-way, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management in flowways. 6. Allow Restoration area applications only once within any single SSA. 7. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and structured. 8. Require third party approval and monitoring of Restoration Plans if no ERP permit process is required. 9. 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. 10. Require minimum densities within ¼ mile of a Town Center, Town Core or Village Center. Based on the SmartCode v. 9.2 those areas should exceed 6 units per acre. 11. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages. 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) 29 12. 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. This was included in the Staff’s March 2020 draft RLSA amendments. 13. Require wildlife management plans as described in the 5-year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. 14. 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. This is supported by County housing experts and was included in the March 2020 draft RLSA amendments. 15. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, agriculture credits and restoration credits to ensure credits will be available for actual restoration work and wildlife corridors. 16. For human safety and wildlife preservation, address provision of needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs and require lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways. 17. 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 Audubon/FWF approach; the analysis should be based on incentivization of restoration activities in all needed areas and a credit calibration and cap so that no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. The County staff says that the White Paper recommendations not included in the RLSA amendments will be addressed later through the LDC. To promulgate a LDC provision on most, if not all, of the items listed above, the County will need the RLSA Overlay to at least include the concept, if not the details of the recommendation. County Staff is not even able to get the SRA applicants to provide SRAs that are consistent with the intent of the RLSA Overlay, how will they ever get the provisions above in the LDC without the specifically stated authority in the RLSA Overlay? 9.A.1.l Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: LWVCC comments RLSA.amendments.8.24 (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA) Conservancy’s Comments on the March 9, 2020 Draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments (On August 3, 2020, Collier County staff modified some of the draft amendment language from the March 9, 2020 version. Some of the policies were renumbered and a few substantial changes were made to certain policies. We updated this document to address those changes, which are provided in “red” and are either underlined or strikethrough). The Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy) appreciates the opportunity to comment on Collier County’s Draft Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Proposed Amendments, March 9, 2020. Since adoption of the program in 2002 and the first review of the program, referred to as the “5-Year Review” (2007 to 2009), there has been considerable research on the Rural Lands Stewardship (RLSA) program. The research includes two important peer- reviewed studies regarding the location of important panther habitat.1 In addition, the Conservancy hired several experts in their field to evaluate whether the RLSA program would sufficiently protect listed species and their habitats2 and if the program’s growth scenario would create economically neutral communities.3 Based on this research, we provided Collier County with the Conservancy's 2019 report of the RLSA program. In our report, we described the fundamental flaws of the program and we provided recommendations aimed at aligning the program with its stated goals. As we reviewed each of Collier County’s Draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments, we measured whether the proposed amendments would correct the flaws of the program. We believe that some of the proposed amendments would improve the program, while other 1 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118-133. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=79862 Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133044. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=79868 2 Noss, R. F. (2018, November). “Review of Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Report to the Conservancy of Southwest Florida”. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=86787; Frakes, Robert A. (2018, October 7). “Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis. Prepared for: Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” https://www.conservancy.org/file/policy- rlsa/Dr.-Robert-Frakes_Impacts-from-ECMSHCP-Cover-Letter-and-CV.pdf 3 Smart Growth America (2018, September). “The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns – Rural Lands Stewardship Area, Collier County, Florida.” https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=84778 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 2 Page 2 of 32 amendments would fail to fix the Overlay’s flaws or could even exacerbate the issues. The following are the concerns from our RLSA report that we hope to see addressed: 1. The large 43,000 to 45,000 acre development footprint located anywhere within a 93,000 acre “Open” area will lead to sprawl, resulting in high economic and environmental costs. 2. The RLSA program will jeopardize the survival of the endangered Florida panther. 3. The program must be updated with best available science to better protect listed species and their habitat. 4. The roadway network needed to accommodate the proposed 45,000-acre’s worth of development spread throughout 93,000 acres of “Open” areas is too costly for taxpayers and would be detrimental to the panther, 15 other listed species, and other native wildlife that inhabit the RLSA. 5. R-1 “dedication” credits provide no environmental benefit, while at the same time they greatly increase the RLSA’s development potential. 6. The RLSA program undervalues agricultural lands by treating these lands as a placeholder for future development. 7. The program allows development to surround Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), which will reduce the functionality of habitats in the SSAs. 8. The program should require more specificity and more county oversight of restoration plans. 9. Certain uses within Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) and Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) are inappropriate and should be removed permanently. 10. More should be done to protect water resources. (Although not an issue fully vetted in our report, we agree with staff’s assertion in the 2019 White Paper that more needs to be done to protect water resources in the RLSA.) NRI Foundational Data is Now Publicly Available: Before we provide our comments on each of the draft amendments, we would like to thank Collier County staff for addressing a separate issue we discovered while researching the program. The Conservancy was concerned when we found out that the neither the public nor the county had access to the foundational data for the RLSA program. In other words, it was not possible to view scores for the individual Natural Resource Index (NRI) components, referred to as the Stewardship Natural Resource Index Factors (Index Factors). We argued that it was important to provide access to all NRI data so that the public has the opportunity for a complete and transparent review of each SSA and Stewardship Receiving (SRA) application, to ensure the protection of important natural resources. Although the NRI foundational data is still within control of the landowners’ consultant, the information is now publicly available for review, thanks to staff’s efforts. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 3 Page 3 of 32 Sections of this paper: There are four sections of this paper. They include the following: A. Conservancy’s Comments per draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments, p. 3. B. Conservancy’s Comments on the draft Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis, p.2224 C. Unanswered Questions, p. 2627 D. Important Recommendations from the 2019 White Paper that Were Not Addressed, p. 2729. A. Conservancy’s Comments on the draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments: In this section, for each substantive policy amendment, we provide our reason for either supporting the proposed policy change or our reason why we do not support the amendment. A few of the draft amendments include language that we both support and do not support, which is so noted. We also provide additional recommendations to improve flaws of the program that were not addressed in the proposed amendments or in the 5- Year Review recommendations. It is our hope that staff and the planning commission will review and consider each of our comments as each policy amendment is discussed at the planning commission hearings. RLSA AMENDED GOAL – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: The language provided in the Overlay’s goal is from the Final Order4 and should not be amended. GROUP 1 POLICIES AMENDED POLICY 1.6 – CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: We have no objection to the recommended amendments to this policy; however, the Conservancy recommends that a review by the Planning Commission is required for all SSA agreements. The current procedure for SSA applications excludes this important step. SSA applications are reviewed by staff and are then placed on the Board of County Commissioner’s agenda for adoption by resolution. It is our understanding that most SSA agreements were adopted without a public hearing, as the items were typically placed on the consent agenda. Because SSA applications generate stewardship credits, which are the currency of the program and entitle tens of thousands of acres of SRA development, an extra level of review by the planning commission would ensure that the county is providing an accurate 4 State of Florida Administrative Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002 (1999, June 22). 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 4 Page 4 of 32 number of credits per application. In addition, because restoration plans can be complex and include thousands of acres, a review and hearing by the planning commission would provide assurances that restoration plans are designed to accomplish their goals and that the applicant is providing restoration equal to the number of credits they propose to earn. AMENDED POLICY 1.21 - WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT SUPPORT: We agree that there should be a mandatory review of the RLSA program every seven years to assess whether the program is meeting the goals it aims to achieve. WHAT WE RECOMMEND: The specific measures of review are too limited under Amended Policy 1.21 (Current Policy 1.22). Additional measures should be added to assess whether changes to the program are necessary based on changing demographics and population projections, relevant scientific findings, county budgetary constraints, updated assessments of water supply and quality, and to assess any unintended consequences to natural resources, including habitat of listed species. We noticed that the 2020 Draft RLSA Overlay Amendments and 2020 Draft Credit Analysis did not address two of the following measures of review as required in Policy 1.22 (Amended Policy 1.21): “The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption,” (7) and “The potential for use of Credits in urban areas” (8). We suggest that those elements be added. (See our comments in this paper regarding the 2020 Credit Analysis). (The August 2020 proposed RLSA Amendments removed requirement (8) to study the “potential for use of Credits in urban areas”. We disagree with this change, as infill and redevelopment provides a smarter way to grow). WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: The horizon year cannot go undefined. Currently, the horizon year for the RLSA is defined as 2025. While we recognize that 2025 may now be too soon, the Conservancy recommends adoption of a new, concrete horizon year. Among other things, the defined horizon year constrains the fiscal neutrality analysis performed by applicants; without a defined year by which a development must be fiscally neutral, tax payers may be unnecessarily saddled with costly developments that do not provide returns on a reasonable timeline. AMENDED POLICY 1.22 – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: There are four reasons why we do not support this policy amendment to increase credits to 404,000 and to increase RLSA development to 45,000 acres: 1. Baseline development will be encouraged, instead of discouraged: One of the biggest misconceptions perpetuated by the landowners’ consultant (WilsonMiller) is that, if adopted, the 5-Year Review recommendations would eliminate the 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 5 Page 5 of 32 potential for baseline development (1 unit per 5 acres).5 The figure below shows that the public was told baseline development would be eliminated under the RLSA 5-Year Review committee proposed system. The 2020 draft RLSA Proposed Amendments, based on the 5-Year review, adheres to the same logic. The County’s draft 2020 Credit Analysis states that the current program allows the potential for 46,931 acres of 1 unit per 5 acre development; however, if the proposed amendments are approved the baseline development potential would be zero.6 Where in the 2020 draft RLSA Proposed Amendments do the amended policies eliminate the potential for baseline development? The answer is nowhere. None of the proposed amendments remove the possibility of baseline development. In fact, Group 5 Policies are entirely dedicated to landowners who choose not to participate in the RLSA program, but instead decide to develop at 1 unit per 5 acres. Regardless of a cap on credits and a cap on SRA acreage and despite Agricultural Stewardship 5 Phase 2 Report PowerPoint Presentation– 5-Year Review (2009) AND WilsonMiller September 18, 2008 Memo to Tom Greenwood titled “Rural Lands Stewardship Area ‘Maturity’ (Proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay).” Page 7 states, “Remaining Baseline Development Potential – Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs = 0” 6 Collier County 2020, Stewardship Credit Analysis, p. 11. Source: Phase 2 Report PowerPoint Presentation– 5-Year Review (2009) Source: Collier County 2020, Stewardship Credit Analysis, p. 11. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 6 Page 6 of 32 Credits (Amended Policy 2.2), landowners still have the option to develop nearly 47,000 acres of the RLSA as 5-acre ranchettes. This would be in addition to the 45,000 acres of SRAs. The reality is that 45,000 acres-worth of towns and villages, with new roads, infrastructure and goods and services, would be a magnet for surrounding ranchette-style development, which is the very thing the program was supposed to prevent. Because the proposed Amended Policy 1.22 does nothing to eliminate baseline development, this amendment must be denied. 2. The public voiced they would like a decrease in development, not an increase: While we agree that a credit cap and SRA cap are important, we do not agree that the total acres of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) should increase from 43,300 acres to 45,000 acres. Public comments from the 2018-2020 RLSA restudy overwhelmingly show a preference for a reduction in development area, not an increase, as the amendment proposes (See the public comment section on the RLSA review County webpage.) During the restudy workshops, many members of the public stated they felt deceived when they found out the development footprint increased from 16,800 acres, which is the acreage they were told at adoption, to 43,300 acres, as revealed during the 5-Year Review. Amended Policy 1.22 would further increase the total SRA footprint, which is counter to the type of growth the public stated it wants. (See the Conservancy’s solution for a better plan with a smaller development footprint under Amended Policy 2.2). 3. There is no basis for increasing the total SRA size when developers are leaving density on the table: RLSA landowners/developers heavily lobbied for an increase in the total development potential to 45,000 acres. However, what they fail to mention is that for any of the approved or pending SRAs, they have not maximized the density potential. While the RLSA program allows up to 4 dwelling units per acre (du), the average density of all pending and approved SRAs is only 2.67 du.7 A better solution to save agricultural lands and to create more compact communities, would be to build more homes within a smaller footprint, instead of increasing the footprint. 4. The total stewardship credits at 100% participation have been underestimated: In 2009, the Board directed staff to determine the number of possible stewardship credits without the possibility of excess credits, and without the possibility of remaining baseline development as previously stated. Even though a credit cap of 430,000 404,000 credits is proposed, it is still important to ensure that no excess land can be entitled for SRA development or base zoning of one unit per five acres after the 430,000 404,000 credits are generated. If 7 Density per approved and pending SRAs: Town of Ave Maria – 2.75 du (excludes 1,000 acres for university); Rivergrass Village 2.5 du; Hyde Park Village 2.75 du; Longwater Village 2.6 du; Bellmar Village 2.75 du. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 7 Page 7 of 32 landowners understand they have the ability to earn credits beyond the cap, it is likely they would challenge the cap, perhaps claiming Bert Harris8, and demand that the cap is removed. This would be a likely scenario especially for non-ECPO9 landowners, since ECPO landowners already have plans to maximize all 45,000 acres of SRA development leaving nothing for the rest. We believe the miscalculation of credits lies within two areas (a) the underestimation of restoration stewardship credits, and (b) the underestimation of base credits, due to the fact that “restoration potential indices” cannot be determined until SSA applications are submitted. Please see “Conservancy’s Comments on Draft Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis” on page 22 of this document which details the reasons why we believe restoration and base credits were underestimated. GROUP 1 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (1): The Conservancy recommends adding a policy that requires a minimum density that will achieve greater compactness and walkability and will allow landowners to apply additional credits per acre to entitle additional dwelling units. The current allowable density for towns and villages in the RLSA is between one and four units per acre. This density is very low when compared to that of most highly walkable communities. As an example, downtown Naples’ allows up to 12 units per acre for medium density residential neighborhoods. As a result, the City of Naples provides ample housing within a ½ mile walk to the downtown center. Increased minimum and maximum density in the RLSA would create greater, more compact communities and decrease the total RLSA development footprint. In turn, this would result in a lower conversion of agricultural lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat to development. GROUP 1 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (2): To encourage infill and re-development instead of greenfield development, the Conservancy recommends adding a policy that allows Stewardship Credits from RLSA lands to be used toward entitling additional dwelling units or other economic incentives within the urban areas. This recommendation should have been included in the 2020 Draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments for two reasons. First, staff provided a similar recommendation from their May 2019 White Paper: Provide an avenue for County purchase of land or credits in the RLSA; create LDC standards for discretionary approval of private entity purchase an d use of credits for 8 The Bert J. Harris Property Rights Protection Act states that if a government action “inordinately burdens” a person’s property rights, the owner would be entitled to compensation. 9 ECPO stands for Eastern Collier Property Owners, LLC. This is a group who has applied for a federal incidental take permit, which would cover 45,000 acres of RLSA’s Open lands for SRA development. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 8 Page 8 of 32 high density projects in the Urban area; explore opportunities for County purchase of easements in coordination with the identified state programs.10 Second, and most importantly, an assessment regarding the use of stewardship credits toward urban infill is a requirement of the current RLSA program. Policy 1.22 (Amended Policy 1.21) states that during a review period, “the potential for use of Credits in urban areas” is to be assessed. Although we are currently in a review period, unfortunately, this has not happened. GROUP 2 POLICIES AMENDED GROUP 2 GOAL – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: The language provided in the Overlay’s goal is from the Final Order11 and should not be amended. AMENDED POLICY 2.1 - (See comments below for Policy 2.2). AMENDED POLICY 2.2 – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT (AND OUR SOLUTION): The Conservancy agrees that the goal of protecting agricultural lands is very important; however, the proposed amendment, which incentivizes the protection of farmlands through the establishment of credits, is flawed in three ways: 1. The amendment provides contradictory language: One section of the amendment states that “in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated as Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), and two and six tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC.” Because the statement says “in lieu of” using NRI scores to determine credits, this also means that the Credit Matrix Worksheet would not be used for calculating agricultural credits because the matrix relies on NRI values. However, in another section, the language states, “Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix.” This language implies that the credit matrix would be used for determining credits. The language as to whether the credit matrix would or would not be used is unclear and must be modified. 2. The language negates an essential premise of the Overlay: If we accept the assumption that the stewardship credit matrix would not be utilized to calculate Agricultural Credits, then another issue with the amendment emerges. Integral to the Overlay is the premise that each land use layer has separate value. That is why landowners earn additional credit as they remove each land use layer. Policy 1.10 affirms this in the following statement: 10 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, p. 87. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 11 State of Florida Administrative Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002 (1999, June 22). 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 9 Page 9 of 32 “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 resource of the land.” The Overlay affirms that each land use layer affords a higher degree of protection, which incentivizes landowners to remove additional land use layers in exchange for additional credit value for each layer removed. If the Policy 2.2 amendment language states that 2.0 to 2.6 credits are to be granted for each acre irrespective of whether the land is currently used for Agricultural Group 1, Agricultural Support Uses, or Agriculture Group 2 (Land Use Layer 5, 6, or 7), then Amendment 2.2 invalidates this important aspect of the Overlay. If one landowner only removes the land use layers down to Agricultural Group 1 (row crops, commercial poultry operations, etc.) then s/he should receive less credit than a landowner who removes land use layers down to Agricultural Group 2 (unimproved pasture, grazing, etc.). Providing an equal number of credits for all agricultural lands, no matter the land use, eliminates incentives to protect lands of higher natural resource value, thus this amendment should be denied. 3. The proposed amendment still allows development within habitat of an endangered species: The draft amendment to Policy 2.2 incentivizes the protection of farmlands through the establishment of credits; however, the amendment fails to protect primary habitat of the endangered Florida panther on those farmlands. This is very concerning as the species is restricted to less than 5% of its historic range and research shows that in addition to forested areas, agricultural lands are necessary to meet daily needs and support the prey on which the panther depends.12 Some agricultural lands contain important natural landscape connections that support panther home ranges, panther reproduction, dispersal movements, and availability of large prey.13 Agricultural lands are also important for other listed species such as the eastern indigo snake, crested caracara, and the Florida bonneted bat.14 Since the program’s adoption, research shows that some of the RLSA’s agricultural areas are within the Primary Zone. The Primary Zone is primary panther habitat that “provides just enough space to support a population that is barely viable 12 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118- 133 13 Cominskey et al (2002). Panthers and Forests in South Florida an Ecological Perspective. Conservation Ecology Vol 6, No. 1 14 Jackson, S., 2013. Home Range Size and Habitat Use of the Eastern Indigo Snake at a Disturbed Agricultural Site in South Florida: A Thesis Presented to Florida Gulf Coast University; Morrison and Humphrey, 2001. Conservation Value of Private Lands for Crested Caracaras in Florida. Conservation Biology, Vol. 15, No. 3, Pages 675-684; and Bailey et al., 2017. Impact of Land Use and Climate on the Distribution of the Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 10 Page 10 of 32 demographically as long the habitat base remains stable.”15 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) agree that the Primary Zone should be protected. They state in their Florida Recovery Plan: “The Primary Zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habi tat within the Primary Zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the Primary Zone and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats.”16 Even though best available science asserts the need to protect primary panther habitat, including within the agricultural areas, the RLSA Overlay and the proposed amendment allows development within the Primary Zone.17 A solution to this issue is pressing, because Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have plans to destroy approximately 20,000 acres of the RLSA’s Primary Zone panther habitat under their, so-called, “Habitat Conservation Plan.”18 The proposed amendment for Policy 2.2 does nothing to solve this troubling issue. The Conservancy has a better plan than is proposed by the amendment to Policy 2.2. Our plan (Attachment 1) would protect important agricultural lands and panther habitat, while also rewarding landowners to do so. Our plan also incentivizes landowners through credits, but only on lands that double as primary panther habitat. Over half of the 93,000 acres of the RLSA Overlay's “Open” lands lie within Primary Zone panther habitat.19 We propose to re-designate approximately 50,000 acres of agricultural lands within the Open areas that are also primary panther habitat, as Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs). Landowners could then earn stewardship credits on the new HSAs once those lands become Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). They could either sell the credits to other landowners, sell credits toward urban development,20 use credits toward additional density within the RLSA, or use the credits to build SRAs on 36,800 acres of potential development areas outside of primary panther habitat. By implementing our plan the 15 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118- 133 16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) “Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision.” p.89 https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Panther%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf 17 Kautz, et al. (2006) How much is enough? Landscape–scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130, p. 118- 133 18 Stantec Consulting Services (2018, August) Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 19 GIS data layers show that 53% of “Open” areas are within the Primary Zone panther habitat. Data retrieved December 5, 2018. 20 See our “Group One – Additional Conservancy Recommendation” in this report. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 11 Page 11 of 32 following lands would be protected: over 41,000 acres of agricultural lands, 6,000 acres of additional wetlands, and over 47,000 acres of Primary Zone panther habitat. In addition, our plan offers a more compact development footprint than the existing RLSA program offers, providing greater efficiency. In our plan, the 36,800-acre development footprint is adjacent to existing development, such as Ave Maria, Golden Gate Estates, and Immokalee, which reduces the need for additional roads and lowers costs for services and infrastructure. Our plan, also, better achieves the goal of the RLSA, which is to avoid sprawl. It is important to note that a recalibration of the credit system would be essential to ensure that the total SRA acreage would not exceed 36,800 acres. (See Attachment 1 for Our Plan) GROUP 3 POLICIES AMENDED POLICY 3.4 3.5- CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) were chosen because of their importance for water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime. Therefore, oil and gas drilling and exploration has no place within FSAs. Such activities should be prohibited in all FSAs. We recommend that Policy 3.4 3.5 be amended to reflect these changes. AMENDED POLICY 3.6 3.7– CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) were chosen because of their importance for listed species habitat and connections; therefore, general conditional uses, recreational uses, earth mining and processing, and oil and gas drilling and exploration should be prohibited in all HSAs. The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and staff’s 2019 White Paper recommendation agree that land uses 1-4, including golf courses, should be prohibited in Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs).21 AMENDED POLICY 3.10 3.11– WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT (AND OUR SOLUTIONS): Amendments to Policy 3.10 3.11 are substantial. Several topics are discussed under this amendment including R-1 credits, credits for other types of restoration, and panther corridor credits. Elimination of R-1 credits (Amended Policy 3.10.1 3.11.1): There are three reasons we believe R-1 “dedication” credits should be completely eliminated from the program. 21 Comments of the Environmental Advisory Council and RLSA Review Committee Responses. (Final March 10, 2009 Approved Report of the EAC) p. 4. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=24206 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Restudy White Paper (p. 87) https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 12 Page 12 of 32 1. R-1 credits provide no environmental purpose: Landowners receive R-1 credits for simply agreeing to dedicate their lands to restoration, but without having to actually complete any restoration work. Instead of providing an environmental benefit, they drastically increase the RLSA’s development potential. On the other hand, R-2 credits are generated only when the restoration work is completed, which in concept is a fair trade. Therefore, only R-2 credits are essential, though what qualifies for credits under R-2 bears further scrutiny. 2. R-1 credits allow for double dipping of credits: According to the RLSA program, when landowners apply for an SSA application they earn “base credits” for agreeing to give up rights to certain uses such as, residential uses, general conditional uses, earth mining and excavation, and recreational uses. Once their rights to those land uses are extinguished, landowners may also earn R-1 “dedication” credits on those very same lands. No restoration work is required. The land development code (LDC) does require that land use layers are stripped down to Agriculture Group 2 or Conservation in order to earn R-1 credits; however, the removal of such land use layers is necessary anyway before restoration work commences and before R-2 credits are earned.22 Therefore, to eliminate double-dipping of credits, the GMP and LDC should be modified to skip the unnecessary R-1 dedication stage. It is also important to point out that on the same lands where landowners earn R-1 credits, they may receive additional base credits for demonstrating their lands have “restoration potential.” This is yet another method for increasing credits, without having to provide any restoration work. 3. R-1 restoration credits actually disincentivize restoration work: The White Paper states, “R-1 designation credits have doubled the credit compensation to landowners who have created SSAs, without the necessity to complete the restoration projects.”23 In fact, less than 1% of approximately 50,000 acres of SSAs have been restored.24 The lack of restoration is likely due to the fact that landowners can earn a tremendous amount of R-1 credits from one sending area, providing them with enough credits to build multiple SRAs, without the actual requirement of providing restoration. As an example, in January 2020, the Board of County Commissioners approved Stewardship Sending Area 15 Amendment (SSA15). Without having to spend one dime on restoration, the applicant for SSA15 was awarded credits equal to three villages about the size of Rivergrass Village.25 With that many credits why would landowners even bother with the restoration work? 22 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06.B.3.f.(4) 23 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, May 21, 2019, p. 49/89. 24 Only 428 acres of 50,430 acres of SSAs have been restored (this excludes acreage for SSA15 as it was recently approved). Sour ce: Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, May 21, 2019, p. 7/89. 25 Math: 10,714 R-1 credits + 8,112.1 base credits + 1,826.9 early entry credits = 20,653. Rivergrass Village used 6,198 credits; thus: 20,653 / 6,198 = credits to build 3.3 villages the size of Rivergrass (assuming open space is the same) 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 13 Page 13 of 32 Credits for other types of restoration (Amended Policies 3.10.1 3.11.1 and 3.10.3 3.11.3): The Amendment to Policy 3.10 3.11 adds language for other types of restoration (caracara habitat, exotic control/burning, flowway restoration, native habitat restoration, and shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat restoration). We do not support credits for exotic control/burning as those are routine land management and maintenance activities that are expected of good stewards of the land. Furthermore, exotic control and burning are already being offered by the landowners’ “Habitat Conservation Plan” (HCP).26 We would support other incentives for actual restoration work, but only after applicable success criteria is met. The LDC must require detailed restoration plans for each type of restoration, approved by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with a description and schedule of work to be performed, success criteria and maintenance obligations. Again, the credit system would need to be recalibrated so as not to increase development footprint beyond the 36,800 acres of potential development areas provided in Our Vision Plan. Panther Corridor Credits (Amended Policy 3.10.2 3.11.2): While we appreciate that the proposed amendment and the 5-year Review recommendations acknowledge the need for additional panther corridors, the method proposed in the amendment would only work if all landowners opt in. Since the RLSA Overlay is voluntary, there is no way to ensure all landowners will participate and/or restore their lands within the corridor area. Without 100% participation, the proposed panther corridor would be narrowed and fragmented. Even if all landowners participated in the corridors, the proposed wildlife corridor of 600 feet27 would be far narrower than biologists believe would be functional. Also, this amendment for corridors relies on ECPO’s development plan (HCP) in their application for a federal permit, which is fraught with issues.28 The Conservancy’s RLSA Vision Map provides a way to ensure that panther corridors and primary panther habitat remain intact, through landowner incentives (see comments under Amended Policy 2.2). AMENDED POLICY 3.12 3.13– WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the recommendation that states all acres of Water Retention Areas (WRA) used for providing water treatment and retention must become part of the SRA. This amendment ensures that all acreage outside of the SRA used as stormwater lakes consumes stewardship credits. Currently there is a loophole in the program which allows landowners to significantly increase the development footprint of the project by building their stormwater lake tracts outside of the 26 Stantec Consulting Services (August 2018). Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners, LLC. p. 34. 27 Immokalee Sand Mine, which is in the location of the proposed north corridor, provides a wildlife corridor of 600 feet on the ir plans. 28 Public Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Eastern Collier County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan - FWS–R4–ES–2018– 0079. (December 3, 2018) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d7zL6UyrJeDMUCuAP4HHe9J5huYUbBGh/view 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 14 Page 14 of 32 SRA, but within the adjacent WRA, and without having to pay any credits toward those acres. As example, when Rivergrass Village was approved, the applicant did not pay stewardship credits on approximately 124 acres of stormwater lake tracts planned within the adjacent WRA.29 In addition, the pending SRA applications for Longwater Village and Bellmar Village propose to build 111 acres and 112 acres, respectively, for stormwater lake tracts outside of their SRA boundaries, within the adjacent WRAs. The applicant does not propose to pay for credits toward the acreage of stormwater lake tracts.30 Because stormwater treatment is a necessary part of development, the use of stewardship credits for those acres should be a requirement. Furthermore, construction of stormwater lakes and infrastructure should always be prohibited within WRAs scoring over 1.2 NRI, which is contrary to the proposed amendment to Policy 4.9, and they should also be barred within habitat of listed species. (See recommendation below for Amended Policy 3.13). AMENDED POLICY 3.13 3.14 – CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: WRAs, like FSAs, and HSAs, were chosen because of their ecological importance for either providing important wildlife habitat or providing critical wetland functions. Some WRAs, such as SSA17, consist of high quality cypress sloughs and primary panther habitat. Therefore, we recommend that construction of infrastructure and stormwater lakes systems is prohibited in WRAs that consist of habitat of listed species. We recommend that the following language for Amended Policy 3.13 3.14 (Current Policy 3.14) is modified as follows: “Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function, quantity, and/or spatial extent of wildlife habitat. within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function.” AMENDED POLICY 3.14 3.15– WHAT WE SUPPORT: We agree that LDC regulations should be implemented to reduce light pollution in order to protect the nighttime environment and wildlife. GROUP 3 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (1): The Conservancy recommends, based on staff’s 2019 White Paper recommendations, that a new Group 3 GMP policy is added to address numerous issues with the restoration plan process. The 2019 White Paper Recommendations31 acknowledge the need for “further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recom mendations prior to 29 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Agreement Credit Agreement and Rivergrass Master Concept Plan. 30 Longwater Village and Bellmar Village SRA Credit Use and Reconciliation Applications and Master Concept Plans. 31 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Restudy White Paper (p. 86) https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 15 Page 15 of 32 Transmittal,” and “Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and structured.” This third-party review, including a review of restoration recommendations and credits, should be completed before a recommendation is made on the GMP Amendments. and includes several important recommendations that did not make it into the 2020 Draft Amendments. Within one year, LDC regulations for restoration plans shall be amended to address the following issues raised in the 2019 White Paper:  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.  Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements.  Allow restoration area applications only once within any single SSA.  Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed 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.  Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development [based on the third-party review]. GROUP 3 ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (2): Areas designated as Water Retention Areas (WRAs) comprise both manmade water management features and natural wetlands that are utilized as part of agricultural water management systems, not unlike many areas of FSAs. Because of their natural resource value, WRAs can attain a high NRI value, making them desirable to be designated as SSAs. The Conservancy supports such designation because of WRA’s importance to listed species habitat and water resources. However, unlike FSAs and HSAs, WRAs are allowed under the RLSA program to be surrounded by development. This can occur if the WRA stays a WRA, or if it is designated as an SSA. This is unacceptable, because development that encircles preserves cuts off access for wildlife to the preserve, essentially reducing the habitat value of that preserve. For example, the Town of Rural Lands West, was planned to encircle the proposed SSA17, also a WRA known as Shaggy Cypress. Shaggy Cypress consists of a high quality cypress slough, which provides habitat to numerous listed species, including primary panther habitat. If built, Rural Lands West would have significantly reduced the 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 16 Page 16 of 32 habitat value within SSA17 for the Florida panther.32 In order to ensure that SSAs are truly protected, we recommend an additional policy that prohibits SRA development from surrounding SSAs that contain listed species habitat. GROUP 4 POLICIES AMENDED POLICY 4.2 – WHAT WE DO AND DO NOT SUPPORT: We disagree with the amendment to increase the RLSA development potential to 45,000 SRA acres (see our comments under Policy 1.22). We also disagree with the removal of the language stating that SRAs do not have to follow the “principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act.” AMENDED POLICY 4.5 - WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the requirement that each SRA Master Plan includes a Management Plan with provisions to minimize human and wildlife interactions. In addition, we support the removal of language referencing a “County Build-Out Vision Plan.” We agree that the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan process is the best process for transportation planning for eastern Collier County. Adding a second transportation planning process is unnecessary. Furthermore, establishing a County Build-Out Vision Plan to include road improvement projects far in advance of an established need for such projects would obligate taxpayers to shoulder construction and mitigation costs that may otherwise be the responsibility of landowners/developers. AMENDED POLICY 4.6 – WHAT WE SUPPORT: The RLSA program requires that all towns and villages are pedestrian-friendly and consist of a connected street network. We strongly support these requirements and would like to see them enforced more stringently. Thus far, however, mobility plans for approved and pending SRA applications lack detail. The language provided in this amendment would help to ensure all modes of travel are accommodated and that there is a reduction in trips outside of the community. In addition, as stated in our comments under Amended Policy 4.5, we agree with staff that a “County Build-Out Vision Plan” is unnecessary. CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: We recommend including language for Policy 4.6 that requires that all SRAs meet Complete Street guidelines and comply with Resolution No. 2019-05, which established requirements for implementing Complete Streets policies. AMENDED POLICY 4.7.1 – WHAT WE SUPPORT AND DO NOT SUPPORT: Many of the proposed changes to this policy are important, such as We support the requirement for an internal mobility plan (our reasons for support are provided under Amended Policy 4.6). 32 Frakes, Robert A. (2018, October 7). Data of habitat loss provided by Robert Frakes: “Impacts to Panther Habitat from the Proposed Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan: A Quantitative Analysis. Prepared for: Conservancy of Southwest Florida.” https://www.conservancy.org/file/policy-rlsa/Dr.-Robert-Frakes_Impacts-from-ECMSHCP-Cover-Letter-and-CV.pdf Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comment Letter to Collier County regarding Rural Lands West. p. 5 and 6. https://www.conservancy.org/file/15---policy-main/rural-lands/2018-10-08-Letter-re-Rural-Lands-West-SRA-Application-No.- PL20150001335.pdf 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 17 Page 17 of 32 We also agree with the recommendation to include additional measures for affordable housing “needed to support the mix of uses and employee income levels based on the jobs created in the Town.” Coronavirus has reminded us of the importance of essential personnel. Nurses, fire personnel, police, EMS workers, teachers, sanitary and utility workers, grocery store and restaurant workers are vital personnel necessary to provide minimum health, safety and welfare standards for the citizenry. Recent economic assessments of SRA village applications demonstrate that developers plan to provide housing at prices much higher than the median value for Collier County,33 which would mean that most essential personnel could not afford to live there. The added language for affordable housing requirements would clarify that communities are required to be equipped with local personnel to provide necessary public services. We also support increasing the minimum and maximum requirements for goods and services under Attachment C (as mentioned in the March 9, 2020 Amendments). Although we agree to the amendment language pertaining to affordable housing and mobility plans, However, the Conservancy does not support an increase in the size of villages and towns to 1,500 acres and 5,000 acres respectively. An increase in the maximum SRA size is antithetical to the goal of the program, which is to discourage sprawl. We agree with staff’s comments in the March 9, 2020 Draft Amendments that the 2009 5- Year Review analysis for supporting the need to increase town and village size is “questionable.” Staff is correct to point out that already the maximum density for towns and villages is four dwelling units (du) per acre, therefore, the minimum of 3,500 residents per 1,000-acre village needed to support a small grocery store can be easily achieved without increasing the size of the village. In order to be economically sustainable, truly walkable and self-sufficient, towns and villages should be more compact not less. Compact versus sprawling development patterns means lower costs for services and infrastructure, and also protects farmland and listed species habitat from being prematurely converted to development. A better solution than increasing the SRA size would be to amend the RLSA program to increase both the minimum and maximum residential density requirements, with a minimum density set at a level to avoid sprawl (See our comments under GROUP 1 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (1). The 2019 White Paper provides a recommendation to increase density and create more self-sufficient walkable communities. Greater density helps to support essential goods and services, such as a grocery store. Although we believe the density requirements should be higher, based on Naples’ residential density criteria, staff’s recommendation is a good start: 33 Rivergrass Village and Hyde Park SRA Economic assessments state that the average assessed value of single-family homes is 41% and 26% higher than the County’s median value. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 18 Page 18 of 32  Require minimum densities within ¼ mile of a 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.34 AMENDED POLICY 4.7.2 - WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: The Conservancy strongly supports the existing provisions regarding housing diversity and affordability. However, substantial changes were made from the March 9, 2020 version. Important additional language pertaining to housing diversity and affordable housing from March 9, that the Conservancy supported, was removed in lieu of new language found in Amendment 4.7.5. (Please see Policy 4.7.5 for our comments pertaining the new affordable housing language). WHAT WE SUPPORT: We agree with the additional language pertaining to diversity of housing and affordable housing to support the mix of uses and employee income levels based on the jobs created in a village. Although affordable housing is already a necessity for creating self-sufficient towns and villages, (our reasons provided under Amended Policy 4.7.1), the amended language provides additional specificity pertaining to affordable housing requirements. WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: We recommend that Policy 4.7.2 is amended to prohibit any village from being allowed within the ACSC. (Please see our comments under Amended Policy 4.21 regarding ACSC). AMENDED POLICY 4.7.5 - WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: Substantial changes were made to Policy 4.7.5 from the March 9, 2020 proposed Amendments. Language pertaining to an important “Aggregation rule” was removed and replaced with language pertaining to Affordable Housing. We recommend that the language pertaining to an aggregation rule be reinstated for the following reasons: “We agree that an aggregation rule is important. Currently, developers are attempting to circumvent the requirement for creating self-sufficient communities, places where its residents could live and work. The applicant for Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar Villages, offers a good example of this. Even though the population of the three village equates to nearly the same population of the Town of Rural Lands West, the applicant is attempting to provide far fewer commercial areas, fewer goods and services, a limited range of housing, and less space for civic, government and institutional services, than they would have for Rural Lands West. In fact the same applicant of the three villages recently provided what they call a “Town Conversion” plan for the “Villages of Big Cypress.” The town conversion plan shows areas where additional goods and services, housing, and community parks could be located near the three villages. This plan seems to be an acknowledgement that their plans for separate villages are insufficient. 34 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Restudy White Paper (p. 87) https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 19 Page 19 of 32 The proposed amendment is important. If approved, the amended policy would provide better assurances that RLSA development will accommodate the needs of its residents. AMENDED POLICY 4.7.5 - WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT (CONTINUED): Policy 4.7.5 was completely redrafted and contains new language regarding affordable housing provisions that were not included in the March 9, 2020 version of the amendments. We do not support the new language for several reasons. First, the language is counter to recommendations from Collier County’s own Community and Human Services Division. The Division reviewed all new SRA applications and their recommendations for affordable housing have been consistent. Consistent with the RLSA’s existing requirements to provide affordable housing, staff from the Division stated that a Housing Needs Analysis should be required for each SRA to address affordable housing demand and a plan to address the supply of needed affordable housing units or the applicant must commit to providing a certain percentage of housing units that will be sold at purchase prices near the Moderate and Gap affordability ranges to meet the County’s affordability guidelines.35 The March 9, 2020 Amendments confirmed that a minimum of fifteen (15%) percentage of the residential units within SRAs shall be affordable housing residential units (Policy 4.7.2). The current amendment language removes the language for a Housing Needs Analysis and a 15% commitment by the developer to provide affordable housing units. Instead, the current Amendment language only requires that the applicant set aside a site for affordable housing, which does not even have to be within the SRA, as the site can be “proximal” to the SRA. This would undermine and weaken the RLSA’s existing requirements. The onus of providing affordable housing is placed on “Collier County, a Community Land Trust, a private developer or any other affordable housing provider.” Furthermore, even though workers from the affordable housing units may work within the SRA, the amended policy states that traffic from affordable housing units are excluded from the Traffic Impact Statement or trip cap. This language is completely unacceptable and counter to recommendation by Collier County’s own staff who work on the issue of affordable housing. AMENDED POLICY 4.9 – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: We disagree with removal of “WRA” in the following statement: “The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, and WRAs.” The proposed amendment is counter to Group 3 objective which, states: “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.” WRAs need protection, which is the reason why WRAs can become sending areas. Many WRA lands contain important 35 As example see Longwater’s Housing Review from June 30, 2020 from Collier County’s Community and Human Services Housing Department. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 20 Page 20 of 32 habitat for listed species and may include important wetlands systems with high quality Cypress sloughs. As example, 87% of the Shaggy Cypress WRA (pending SSA17) consists of lands scoring over 1.2 and 100% of the WRA is within primary panther habitat.36 Furthermore, we disagree with the amendment language that permits infrastructure to be built on lands over 1.2 NRI. Language within the same policy points to the important ecological value of WRA lands over 1.2 when it states, “the Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value.” There should be no exceptions for infrastructure, all development shall be directed away from areas having a score above 1.2. AMENDED POLICY 4.10 - WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the amended language which would require stewardship credits for open space over 35%. Staff’s reasons from the March 9, 2020 draft Amendments as to why the language should be removed make perfect sense and we agree. They state, “This incentive rewards sprawling design by exempting the use of Credits for open space exceeding 35 percent. Open space is defined in the RLSA LDC to include ‘non-usable’ open space related to infrastructure such as landscape areas including right-of-way, parking lot buffers, and water management areas. Incentivizing non - usable open space over 35% conflicts with the RLSA intent of incentivizing compact design.” AMENDED POLICY 4.14 – WHAT WE SUPPORT: We agree that a County Build-Out Vision Plan is unnecessary, as the county has a Long Range Transportation (LRTP) process for transportation planning. (Please see our comments under Amended Policy 4.5). POLICY 4.18 – CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: We recommend amending Policy 4.18, which states, “The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year, to instead state, “SRAs must be required to show that they are fiscally neutral at the end of each phase or the end of every 5 years, whichever occurs first”. The “horizon year,” is currently defined in Policy 1.22 to be 2025. The Amended Policy 1.21 would delete this definition. Failure to define a consistently applied “horizon year” will result in uncertainty for applicants and a decrease in economic benefit where fiscal neutrality is not required until some undefined date in the future. And if the SRA stops development short of the stated build-out, what then? The SRA would never reach fiscal neutrality and would likely be a burden to existing taxpayers in perpetuity. Market conditions could change, builders could pull out, or the country could enter a recession. House Bill 7103, which passed in 2019, dictates that counties can no longer collect impact fee dollars upfront. Therefore, the county and taxpayers could be on the hook to pay for infrastructure costs if a development project fails or is floundering, such as was the case for 36 Stewardship Sending Area SSA17 Natural Resource Index Assessment, Revised January 2020. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 21 Page 21 of 32 the Oil Well Road widening project associated with the Town of Ave Maria. SRAs must be required to show that they are fiscally neutral at the end of each phase or the end of every five years, whichever occurs first. AMENDED POLICY 4.19 – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: Although we agree that the credit system is in need of a serious recalibration, we recommend that the recalibration is based on the Conservancy’s Plan (Attachment 1) which does a better job at protecting important natural resources than the proposed amendments. Our plan, like the amendments, also incentivizes and compensates landowners (Our comments under Amended Policy 2.2 provides a description of how the Conservancy’s Plan works). Furthermore, no basis is provided as to why the recalibration of credits was reduced from 14 credits per acre in the March 9, 2020 draft Amendments to 10 credits per acre in the August 2020 Amendments. According to Florida Statute, “All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis.” AMENDED POLICY 4.20 - WHAT WE SUPPORT AND DO NOT SUPPORT: We agree that public benefit uses should count toward maximum SRA acreage, but that the maximum SRA acreage for the RLSA should be decreased not increased to 45,000 acres. AMENDED POLICY 4.21 –WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: During the RLSA 5-Year Review, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) stated that villages, like towns, should be prohibited within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).37 We agree. The ACSC was created by the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 as a way to “protect resources and public facilities of major statewide significance, within designated geographic areas, from uncontrolled development that would cause substantial deterioration of such resources.” Fortunately, Policy 4.7.1 prohibits towns from being built within the ACSC, but an amendment to Policy 4.21 is needed to also prohibit villages from being constructed within the ACSC. AMENDED POLICY 4.23 - WHAT WE SUPPORT: As in Amended Policy 3.14 3.15, we agree that LDC regulations should be implemented to reduce light pollution in order to protect the nighttime environment and wildlife. GROUP 4 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (1): We recommend that an additional policy is created for all SRA development to require the use of 100% Florida Friendly Plantings with low irrigation requirements. 37 Comments of the Environmental Advisory Council and RLSA Review Committee Responses. (Final March 10, 2009 As Approved Report of the EAC) p. 4. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=24206 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 22 Page 22 of 32 GROUP 4 - ADDITIONAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION (2): Wetland systems in the RLSA, such as the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough (OK), provide important ecological benefits to the county such as storing floodwater, water recharge, the removal of pollutants, and providing critical habitat and habitat linkages to surrounding conservation lands. The 2019 White Paper includes several important recommendations, based on staffs’ review of numerous studies, to protect water resources from SRA development. Unfortunately, these recommendations did not make it into the 2020 Draft Amendments. The Conservancy recommends an additional policy (or policies) to improve water resource protections based on the following 2019 White Paper recommendations.38 (Some water resource recommendations may be better suited for Group 3 section and others for Group 4):  Require Flowway Management Plans as a 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.  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.  Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate.  Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream.  Coordinate with FDOT and other state and local agencies on an SR29 Comprehensive Water Resource Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK slough.  Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local programs. GROUP 5 POLICIES AMENDED POLICY 5.1 – WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: We disagree with the 5-Year Recommendation of allowing any infrastructure to be built on lands over 1.2. (Amended Policy 4.9 provides similar language that we oppose. Please refer to that policy amendment in this document for our reasons). Furthermore, directional-drilling for oil and gas extraction and concrete batch making plants should be prohibited in FSAs and HSAs. (See Amended Policies 3.4 3.5 and 3.6 3.7) AMENDED POLICY 5.4 - WHAT WE SUPPORT: We agree that it is important for the county to provide a map showing needed wildlife crossing locations. We agree that the map should be incorporated into community, cultural and historical, and transportation 38 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Restudy White Paper (p. 86-87) https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 23 Page 23 of 32 planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs. The Conservancy would like to provide assistance in creating the map of proposed wildlife crossings. AMENDED POLICY 5.5 – WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the additional language that includes Species of Special Local Concern (SSLC), however the definition of SSLC should be provided, since nowhere in the LDC or GMP is the term defined AMENDED POLICY 5.5.2.a – WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the following amended language that states, “The most current and completed data and local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management plans.” WHAT WE RECOMMEND: Not only should the most current and complete data be utilized for management plans within Group 5 Policies, but the entire RLSA program should be updated with best available science. Because the RLSA Overlay is based on data from the year 2000, and does not consider the importance of new best available science, the program does not achieve its goal of protecting listed species and their habitat. This is the reason why over half of the Open areas are also within primary panther habitat. (See our comments under Amendment Policy 2.2) AMENDED POLICY 5.5.3 – WHAT WE RECOMMEND: We recommend that our proposed underlined language is added to the following sentence: “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 utilized by or potentially occupied by listed species or SSLC.” AMENDED POLICY 5.6.3.f.iv - WHAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT: Exotics removal and maintenance is not acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands and listed species habitat. Exotics removal should only be considered acceptable mitigation for secondary wetland impacts. Furthermore, mitigation for direct wetland impacts solely with exotics removal or maintenance is contradictory to Policy 5.6.3.f, which states, “Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetlands functions.” PROPOSED POLICY 3.7 of the Transportation Element (Delete) – WHAT WE SUPPORT: We support the removal of the 5-Year Review’s recommendation for a proposed Policy 3.7 of the transportation element of the GMP. We agree with staff’s comments from the March 9, 2020 draft Amendments that adding another transportation planning process is unnecessary. Furthermore, the creation of a County Build-Out Vision Plan that would “define[s] existing roadways that need to be improved, all proposed roadways, and the facility type and lane needs,” puts the financial responsibility on the taxpayers for construction and mitigation costs of new and expanded roads. Those costs should primarily be the responsibility of the developers who choose to build in the RLSA. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 24 Page 24 of 32 In addition, we agree with the statement that Immokalee should be the focus for a central location to provide many of the public services needed for long-term future growth. B. Conservancy’s Comments on the draft Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis: The Conservancy is providing a few comments, questions, and suggestions that we hope are addressed in the final version of Collier County’s stewardship credit analysis. 1. The removal for the potential for Baseline Development has not been demonstrated: (Please see comments under Amended Policy 1.22). 2. It appears that scores for “Restoration potential” were not considered when estimating the total base credits: “Restoration potential” is one of six index factors that make up the total Natural Resource Index (NRI) score for each acre of land in the RLSA. The NRI score is an integral part of the Stewardship Credit Matrix and is necessary for calculating the number of base credits that are available per acre. During the RLSA Study each acre of land within the RLSA was assigned an index value for 5 of the 6 indices; however, a score for restoration potential index was not provided at that time.39 That is because the score for restoration potential is determined during the SSA application process and if the applicant is able to demonstrate that the SSA has a restoration potential.40 This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many base credits could be generated at 100% participation. The 2020 Credit Analysis estimates that there is a possible total of 144,803 base credits and the 5-Year Review estimated that there were 128,000. However, unless the restoration potential value is included to determine a total NRI score for each acre of FSA, HSA, and WRA land, it is not possible to accurately estimate the total potential base credits under the RLSA. It does not appear that restoration potential was considered. However, if restoration potential was considered for the 2020 Credit Analysis, it is important to know what assumptions were made to determine how the restoration potential over the entire RLSA would increase the total base credits. We looked at four of the most recent SSA applications (SSA14-SSA17) to understand how extensively base credits could increase from restoration potential. Our analysis determined that for those four applications the NRI values were increased 39 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06.B.3.b 40 Collier County Land Development Code 4.08.06.B.3.e 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 25 Page 25 of 32 between .4 and .5 points over 7,497 acres of land.41 Since SSAs 14-17 total 12,559.1 acres, then 60% of the total acreage for SSA14-SSA17would receive an increase in NRI values.42 Without knowing which layers were removed on each of the 7,497 acres, it is difficult to determine the exact increase in base credits from restoration potential; however, our analysis clearly demonstrates that restoration potential would substantially increase the number of base credits in the RLSA. It is also important to note that even though values for restoration potential increase the NRI value, which results in additional base credits, there is no requirement to provide any restoration work. SSA 17 provides a perfect example. Although the applicant is claiming restoration potential on 741 acres of land, the applicant provided no plans to complete the restoration work. 3. We believe restoration credits (R-1 and R-2) are underestimated: The March 2020 Credit Analysis43 assumes that approximately 29% of the total SSA acreage eligible to earn R-1 and R-2 credits would be proposed for restoration. However, the May 2019 White Paper states that 34% of the existing SSA acreage is proposed for restoration and that there are no regulations prohibiting landowners from amending SSA applications to apply for additional restoration credits.44 The Conservancy reviewed the RLSA policies and found that 100% of SSA lands eligible to receive restoration credits would qualify.45 That is because the land development code is written in such a way that 100% of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), and Restoration Zones would be eligible to earn restoration credits. (The Conservancy’s analysis of the total number of stewardship credits can be found on p. 48 our RLSA report.) Whether its 29%, 34%, or 100% of the SSAs that will generate restoration credits, it is critical to get the credit count right. As stated previously, if landowners understand that they have the ability to earn excess credits beyond the proposed cap, they will likely challenge the cap and demand the cap is removed. 4. Pending credits?: A count of pending credits in the 2020 Credit Analysis would be helpful for understanding the amount of SRA development that is currently on the 41 SSA14 Amendment, if approved, would increase the total NRI scores between .4 and .5 points over 1,342.6 acres of land. Approv ed SSA15 Amendment increases NRI scores between .4 and .5 points on 4,671 acres of land. SSA16 Amendment, if approved, would increase the total NRI scores between .4 and .5 points over 742.1 acres of land, and SSA17 Application, if approved, would increase the total NRI scores between .4 and .5 points over 741.3 acres of land. Sources: Passarella and Associates SSA14 Amendment NRI Assessment, January 2020. p. 4; Passarella and Associates SSA15 Amendment NRI Assessment, November 2019, p. 4; Passarella and Associates SSA16 Amendment NRI Assessment, September 2018, p. 4; Passarella and Associates SSA17 Amendment NRI Assessment, January 2020, p. 4. 42 SSA 14 = 1,712.9 acres; SSA15 = 5,253.4 acres; SSA16 = 2,876.2 acres; SSA17 = 2,716.6 acres. (Sources are provided in footnote 38). 43 Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis (March 2020), p. 7 44 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper (May 21 2019). Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Staff. p. 49 of 89 (p. 55 of pdf) https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 45 Conservancy of Southwest Florida (January 2019). Report: Critique and Recommendations of Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program: 2018-2019 RLSA Restudy. p. 49 (57 of 64 of pdf.) https://www.conservancy.org/file/RLSA-Overlay.pdf 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 26 Page 26 of 32 table. We found that pending stewardship credits equal 20,330.71 (for SSA17 and SSA14 and 16 Amendments). If all credits are approved, those credits would add an additional 2,795 SRA acres, increasing the total potential SRA acreage from 27,127 acres to 29,922 acres (includes 10% for public benefit). The SRA potential with pending credits equals 66% of the proposed 45,000 acre cap. 5. How many villages/towns would fit in the RLSA?: Examples of possible development scenarios would help to better understand and visualize what development in the RLSA could look like at 45,000 acres. As an example, the current trend has been toward planning for villages. If we take off 5,000 acres for the Town of Ave Maria, that leaves 40,000 acres left for SRA development. If all villages were 1,000 acres, then there could be 40 separate villages spread throughout the RLSA, in addition to Ave Maria. If the villages were smaller, there would be even more. This is not a development scenario that many thought was possible when the program was adopted. A further discussion of development scenarios should be discussed. 6. Figure 1 graph on page 2 is misleading: The pie graph uses the term “natural resources in SSA” which could either mean that SSAs are held in conservation or SSAs are held in the Agricultural2 (Ag2) land use layer. A reader could easily misinterpret the graph and believe that most of the approved SSAs have had all layers removed down to the conservation layer, when in reality only 1% of total SSA lands are in conservation.46 A clear distinction must be made between the “Ag2” and “conservation” layers to provide the public with a transparent assessment of the program. We recommend that the graph is modified to depict all land use layers of approved SSAs. 7. The amount and type of restoration should be addressed in the credit analysis: Policy 1.21 1.22 (Amended Policy 1.21) provides specific measures of review of the RLSA Overlay. One of those measures requires a review of the following: “The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.” More than half (52%) of the total credits earned are stewardship restoration credits.47 Yet, less than 1% of the 50,000 acres of SSAs have been restored.48 The system is not working. This should be addressed in the credit analysis. 46 Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, May 21, 2019, p. 15-16/89. Table B-3 also shows that only 1% of SSA lands are in conservation. 47 The Draft 2020 Credit Analysis states that 197,288 stewardship credits have been approved (p 11). Total R-1 and R-2 credits earned = 103,331. Math: 103,331/197,288 = .523 or 52%. (Sources: Collier County 2020 Stewardship Credit Analysis, p. 11; Collier Cou nty RLSAO Program Status sheet 3-1-19; and Executive Summary for SSA 15 Amendment, approved January, 2020). 48 Only 428 acres of 50,430 acres of SSAs have been restored (this excludes acreage for SSA15 as it was recently approved). Sour ce: Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper, May 21, 2019, p. 7/89. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 27 Page 27 of 32 While we appreciate that the May 2019 White paper evaluated the amount of restoration to date, the 2020 Credit Analysis is the final document for review, so it should include an analysis of all three measures: the amount, type, and location of restoration. A transparent analysis of restoration credits earned versus actual restoration work completed must be provided. (See our discussion of restoration credits under AMENDED POLICY 3.10.1) 8. An analysis of credits for use in urban areas should be included: Amended Policy 1.21 1.22 (Amended Policy 1.21) unfortunately removes the requirement for an analysis of “the potential for use of Credits in urban areas” during a review of the RLSA program. however, Also, this was not included in the credit analysis. C. Unanswered Questions: Upon review of Collier County’s 2020 Draft RLSA Overlay Proposed Amendments, the Conservancy has several questions we hope will be answered during the public hearing process: 1. After considerable public input and two years’ of workshops, Collier County staff presented the May 2019 White Paper of recommendations.49 The document states, “The White Paper provides a framework to address improvements to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.” While it is understandable that not all white paper recommendations would make it to the draft amendment stage, it is concerning that the majority, 17 out of 24, of the recommendations that provided important water resources and environmental protections were not addressed in the Draft Amendments. In fact, very few of the White Paper recommendations made it into the 2020 Draft RLSA Amendments, unless the recommendation was also from the 5- Year Review. Why is this? (A list of the important recommendations that did not make it to the Draft 2020 Amendments is provided in the last section of this paper). 2. Forty-five thousand acres-worth of towns and villages would be a magnet for 5-acre ranchette development within the remaining Open lands, which is the very thing the program was supposed to prevent. The draft amendments do not solve this issue. Will the county address this issue before the amendments are adopted? 49 Collier County May 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Restudy White Paper. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=87491 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 28 Page 28 of 32 3. Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have plans to maximize the full SRA development potential of the RLSA, up to 45,000 acres.50 However, their own “HCP” plan states that there are “over 20,000 acres of non-ECPO private property within the RLSA.” They further state, “These non-ECPO lands may later be voluntarily incorporated into the Plan” (HCP).51 What will Collier County tell those other landowners if they wish to build towns or villages, even though one group, ECPO, has plans to maximize the entire SRA development potential of the program? 4. Half of the total stewardship credits earned under the RLSA program are restoration credits, while at the same time less than 1% of all SSA lands have been restored. This clearly shows that restoration credits are not incentivizing restoration. How will Collier County solve this issue? 5. Award-winning town planners Dover, Kohl & Partners (Dover Kohl),52 created Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.53 The plan was developed over a yearlong process and included nearly 400 participants from Collier County. The final product is a plan that provides the framework for how citizens of Collier County would like their community to grow. During the 2018-2019 restudy process, the public and staff mentioned the importance of the document. Collier County’s Community Character Plan54 is important to the RLSA and SRA development and should be used as a basis for improving design standards for Stewardship Receiving Areas. Why was that not done for this review? 6. During the 2018-2020 restudy, Collier County hired Urban Three, a nationally renowned urban planning consulting firm, to review the RLSA program. Urban Three provided recommendations55 to improve the RLSA program, including moving toward Form Base Development codes and increasing maximum densities. That report is nowhere to be found in the county’s RLSA webpages. Why did the county not consider Urban Three’s recommendations when drafting the RLSA amendments? 50 Stantec Consulting Services. Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). August 2018. Prepared for Eastern Collier Property Owners, LLC (ECPO). 51 Ibid. p. 8. 52 Dover, Kohl & Partners have received awards from American Planning Association, Environmental Protection Agency, and Congress for New Urbanism, webpage: https://www.doverkohl.com/awards-2/ 53 Dover, Kohl & Partners for Collier County (2001, April) “Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan for Collier Count y, Florida,” https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=72825 54 Dover, Kohl, & Partners (2001, April). “Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida.” https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=72825 55 Urban Three: Collier County Town and Village Analysis. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 29 Page 29 of 32 D. Important Recommendations from the 2019 White Paper that were Not Addressed: Several important recommendations provided in the May 2019 White Paper were not carried over to the current draft 2020 RLSA Amendments. This is concerning as these recommendations were a result of public participation following numerous workshops and public comments. The following list includes White Paper recommendations we believe should be addressed and/or included in the 2020 RLSA Amendments. Water Resources:  Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream .  Encourage 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 SR29 Comprehensive Water Resource Plan aimed at restoring the health of the OK slough.  Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local programs. Environmental Protection:  Require applicants to address the effects of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed.  Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. (The public proposed numerous recommendations for improving restoration plans. None of those recommendations were implemented)  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.  Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements.  Allow restoration area applications only once within any single SSA.  Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed restoration credits can be reasonably estimated and structured; add specificity to restoration standards and 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 30 Page 30 of 32 objectivity to the acres claimed by different restoration types; review with permitting agencies and land managers.  Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development.  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.  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.  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.  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 the identified state programs. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. Towns, Villages, and Other Developments:  Require minimum densities within ¼ mile of a 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.  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.  Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages.  Require Flowway Management Plans as a 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.  Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes.  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.  Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. Credit System:  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 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 31 Page 31 of 32 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. (The Conservancy was concerned that an independent analysis was not conducted and alternative credit approaches not pursued, including Our Vision Map)  Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings.  Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits and agricultural credits separately. 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Conservancy of Southwest Florida Conservancy Comments on Draft RLSA Amendments (Modified for August 2020 draft) 32 Page 32 of 32 Attachment 1: Conservancy’s Vision Plan for RLSA 9.A.1.m Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: 8-25-2020 Conservancy Comments -RLSA Proposed Amendments (modified) (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 1 Issues the Conservancy and the public asked to be addressed during this review: Issue solved? = NO = YES What the proposed RLSA Amendments include: Reduce the development footprint.  The total development allowed is 250% greater than what the public was promised at RLSA adoption.  Development areas and SRA sizes are too sprawling, which will lead to high economic and environmental costs.  We, and the majority of the public who attended the workshops asked for a smaller, more compact SRA footprint and more walkable towns and villages. Instead, RLSA development was increased.  Total SRA footprint was increased from 43,000 to 45,000 acres  Town size was increased to 5,000 acres.  Village size was increased to 1,500 acres. (RLSA Amendments 1.22, 4.2, 4.7.1, and 4.7.2) Development areas must be removed from primary habitat of the endangered Florida panther.  The Conservancy provided a plan, based on best available science, which would protect essential habitat of the endangered panther by creating Instead, over 50,000 acres of primary panther habitat remain vulnerable to development.  Conservancy’s plan ignored  Overlay continues to ignore best available science, accepted by US Fish and Wildlife Service, which states that Primary Zone panther habitat is essential to the species’ survival. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 2 additional HSAs within Primary Zone panther habitat and compensating those landowners through stewardship credits. Credits would then be recalibrated so that the development footprint would not exceed 36,881 acres, which equates to the acreage of Open Lands outside of primary panther habitat.  Amendments add credits for Panther Corridors, however, program is voluntary and all landowners must opt-in, otherwise corridor would be fragmented. Also, proposed corridor widths are too narrow, and restoration of corridor lands is not even a requirement to receive credits.  Eastern Collier Property Owners right now have plans to destroy approximately 20,000 acres of the RLSA’s primary panther habitat within their so-called “Habitat Conservation Plan”. 45,000 acres of SRA development with new infrastructure, roads, and goods/services, will be a magnet for 5-acre ranchette development, which is the very thing the program is supposed to avoid. The amendments propose Agricultural Credits, in which the county states will “provide an alternative to development at 1 per 5.” (Credit Analysis, p.11)  However, this will not work. Since the program is voluntary, any landowner within the 93,000 acres of Open lands can still build 1 per 5 development. The County must obtain from the landowners the data that makes up the NRI scores for each acre of land within the RLSA. The NRI Data was made publicly available. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 3  It is important that the public has access to all NRI data to ensure that natural resources are protected and that the number of credits generated per acre are accurate.  We were thankful that the county was successful in making available to the public the scores for the individual Natural Resource Index (NRI) components. The need for an “aggregate rule” was recommended by many members of the public, we agreed.  Developers are building multiple villages within the same proximity, in lieu of building one town which has far greater requirements for services and infrastructure. An aggregate rule was included in the White Paper, but was later removed from the proposed amendments.  In addition, the March 9 Draft RLSA Amendments included an aggregate rule (Policy 4.7.5). This was removed and does not exist in the final proposed amendments. An extra level of review is needed for Stewardship Sending Area applications.  Although SSA applications are the currency of the program and entitle tens of thousands of acres of development, SSA applications are not reviewed by the Planning Commission. A review by the planning commission would ensure that the county is providing an accurate number of credits per application, that restoration plans are The proposed amendments do not address the issue.  The White Paper recommended third party approval and monitoring of restoration plans if no ERP process is required. This language was not included in the amendments. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 4 designed to accomplish its goals, and that the applicant provides restoration equal to the number of credits they propose to earn. The program allows SRA development to surround Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs), which will reduce the habitat functionality in the SSAs.  Longwater and Rural Lands West are examples of this. Both projects propose(d) to surround SSA17 with development, which would have reduced habitat functionality for endangered species. The White Paper Recommendations addressed the issue, but were later removed from the proposed Amendments.  The White Paper provided a recommendation to “Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed.”  The proposed amendments fail to address the issue. R-1 “dedication” restoration credits must be discontinued from the program.  R-1 credits provide no environmental benefit while at the same time they greatly increase the RLSA’s development potential.  Because of R-1 credits only 1% of SSA lands have been restored. The White Paper recommendations somewhat addressed the issue, but the language was not included in the proposed Amendments.  The White Paper provided a recommendation to award half of the R-1 credits at time of approval of ERP process or county permit; the other half would be awarded when the restoration is complete.  The proposed amendments fail to address the issue of R-1 credits. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 5 Agricultural lands are undervalued and treat lands as a placeholder for development.  Our solution is to offer stewardship credits to landowners who own agricultural lands in the Open Areas and that provide primary panther habitat. Those lands would then become additional HSAs. The credit system would then be recalibrated so that the development footprint is not increased. Although the Conservancy strongly disagrees with the methods in which the amendments protect agricultural lands, through the use of Agricultural credits, the amendments do address the issue. However, Agricultural credits will further increase the development potential of the RLSA, and the recalibration of 10 credits per acre is not enough to avoid an increase in the development potential. The program should require more specificity and more county oversight of restoration plans. The White Paper addresses the issue under multiple recommendation, none of which were included in the proposed Amendments. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in the Land Development Code. Toward Better Places provides design standards to create truly walkable self-sufficient communities based on Traditional Neighborhood Development, preferred by over The Community Character Plan was not used as a guide to improve SRA designs during this process, however, the White Paper includes a recommendation similar to one proposed in 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 6 400 residents of Collier County who helped create the plan. Although important to the RLSA, design standards from Toward Better Places, Collier County’s Community Character Plan were not considered during this current restudy process. the Community Character Plan, which is to increase minimum densities within ¼ mile of town and village centers to exceed 6 du/acre to strengthen the RLSA’s requirement for walkability. We hope that recommendation will be addressed in the LDC. SSAs, FSAs, and HSAs include lands important for listed species and water resources, therefore, certain uses are inappropriate and should be removed.  FSAs- Oil and gas extraction and exploration should be removed.  HSAs – Earth mining, oil and gas exploration and drilling, and recreational uses such as golf courses should be removed.  SSAs – Earth mining and processing and oil and gas exploration and drilling should be prohibited. The White Paper recommendations somewhat addressed the issue, but the language was not included in the proposed Amendments.  The White Paper provides a recommendation to remove land use layers 1-4 for HSAs (Residential, General use, earth mining, and recreational, including golf courses). The amendments omit such language. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 7 More must be done to protect water resources in the RLSA.  At the RLSA workshops the Conservancy recommended a study by an independent third-party to determine the impacts of 45,000 acres of development on flowways, water quality, and water quantity.  A Flowway Management Plan for SRAs and for the entire RLSA should be included in the GMP language. The White Paper addresses the issue, but the language was not included in the proposed Amendments.  The White Paper recommends the requirement for “clear maintenance obligations through SRAs based on their volume discharge to the flowway, thus assuring perpetual funding (fiscal neutrality) for downstream stormwater management Flowways.”  Flowway management plans were not addressed in the amendments. The landowners’ proposed 200-mile network of new and expanded roads to accommodate 45,000 acres of development would be detrimental to not only to the panther, but most of the RLSA’s listed species. The amendment language does not address the significant projected impacts to listed species from the proposed 200-mile road network, other than including 5-Year review language pertaining to wildlife crossings.  However, a wildlife expert on large development plans reviewed the landowner's 45,000 acre development plan and stated: “I was shocked to see the relative inattention paid to road impacts in the Eastern Collier MSHCP.” “The increased 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 8 traffic volume, which would result from implementation of this HCP poses a grave risk not only to the panther, but to most of the other Covered [listed] Species as well.” A mandatory 5 year review of program should be required. Changes to the program may be needed as more SRAs are approved based on:  Changing demographics and population projections  Relevant scientific findings  Budgetary constraints  Updated assessments of water supply and quality  To assess any unintended consequences to natural resources, including habitat of listed species Although Amendment Policy 1.21 requires a review of the program every seven years, none of the measures for review suggested by the Conservancy were included. Furthermore, “the potential for use of Credits in urban areas” was excluded. Include Complete Streets Design Policies in RLSA  Resolution No. 2019-05 established that “to the extent practical, the County will incorporate the goals and policies of complete streets into the Transportation Element and continue to The proposed RLSA amendments do not incorporate Complete Streets policies. While we are in review of the RLSA program, it is the appropriate time to ensure that road networks 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 Recommendations from the RLSA Proposed Public and the Conservancy vs Amendments April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August 2020 9 implement the Growth Management Plan policies and LDC provisions that support complete streets initiatives.” for all SRAs are consistent with Complete Streets design standards. Policy 4.18, which currently states that developments must be fiscally neutral at “horizon year,” should be amended to state that SRAs must demonstrate fiscal neutrality at the end of each phase or end of every 5 years. The White Paper addresses the issue, but the language was not included in the proposed Amendments. We supported staff’s comments in recent SRA applications where they recommended a housing needs analysis to estimate affordable housing demand from each SRA and a plan and a commitment to supply those units. This language would strengthen the RLSA’s require- ments for housing diversity and affordability. Policy 4.7.5 was added, which addresses affordable housing by requiring the applicant to set aside a site for affordable housing, but the language puts the onus on the County or an outside developer to provide the affordable housing units. Also, the site can be “proximal” to the SRA and does not have to be in the SRA. Eliminate policy that exempts use of credits for open space over 35%. This rewards sprawl. We were pleased that the language in Policy 4.10 was deleted that allowed this practice. 9.A.1.n Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: 8-25-20 RLSA Amendments vs Conservancy's recommendations (13250 : PL20190002292 April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist – Conservancy of Southwest Florida – 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August, 2020 1 Important White Paper Recommendations absent in the RLSA GMP Amendments After considerable public input and two years of workshops, Collier County staff presented the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper, May 21, 2019. The document states, “The White Paper provides a framework to address improvements to the Rural Lands Stewardship Areas.” The Conservancy supports several recommendations from the May 2019 White Paper that would provide better protections for natural resources and strengthen policies that require self-sufficient SRA development. While the Conservancy understands that some of the recommendations are more appropriate for the Land Development Code (LDC), as they merely add specificity or modifications to existing Overlay policies, we believe that there are several White Paper recommendations that must be addressed in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) because they provide new concepts or language unrelated to an existing GMP policy. THE CONSERVANCY’S RECOMMENDATION: May, 2019 White Paper Recommendation: Water Resources 4. 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. We understand that staff will propose a Regional Flowway Management Plan that will be created through a separate process, outside of the GMP. However, it is important to include GMP language requiring participation in such a plan for all SRAs. Policies should then be drafted for the land development code to require specific maintenance and land management activities for each SRA. Agricultural Protection 3. Create cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. Environmental Protection 4. Require applicants to address the effects of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. Prior to any decision made by the planning commission for the proposed 2020 GMP Amendments, the Conservancy requests that the following May, 2019 White Paper recommendations are addressed, including drafting amendment language supported by the data and analysis required for GMP amendments at the time of transmittal. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist – Conservancy of Southwest Florida – 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August, 2020 2 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. (See our comments under #10 below) 10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed 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. Recommendations 5 (above) 11 and 12 (below) are contingent upon Recommendation #10, which calls for an independent third party analysis to study needed restoration activities and restoration credits. Even though the RLSA Amendments significantly add restoration credits to the program (Amended Policy 3.11), to our knowledge an independent third-party review of the proposed restoration credits and needed restoration activity was never conducted. This analysis must be done before GMP amendments are transmitted. Although a cap is proposed for total credits and SRA acreage, a cap can always be removed in the future, which is a likely scenario for the RLSA as only a few landowners have plans to maximize both caps, leaving nothing for the rest. In addition, any Open Lands, where credits have not been removed, and remain after the credit cap and SRA acreage caps are met, are extremely vulnerable to conversion to 1 unit per 5 acre ranchettes, the very thing the RLSA is supposed to be designed to avoid. A third party review is also imperative to ensure that restoration credits actually incentivize restoration, which is not currently the situation (see Credit System #1 below), and that restoration activities will result in improved flowways, corridors, and listed species habitat, as proposed. 11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. (See our comment above for Recommendation #10) 12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acreage; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agricultural credit. (See our comments for Recommendation #10) 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. Although the specific language for maintenance obligations should be provided in the LDC, the GMP should mention that SRAs are financially responsible for the impact of the development’s discharges into the flowway. 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. Policy 3.5 of the GMP states that land use layers 1-4 shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation, so the GMP is the appropriate place to include the amended language in recommendation 15. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist – Conservancy of Southwest Florida – 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August, 2020 3 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. While the recommendation is better addressed through other processes than GMP Amendments, it is concerning that Policy 1.22 (Amended Policy 1.21) removed as a measure of the RLSA Overlay review “the potential for use of Credits in urban areas.” The potential to use stewardship credits in the urban areas should have been explored during this review period, as urban infill and redevelopment is smarter growth. Towns, Villages and Other Development 2. Create an aggregate 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. Language for this recommendation was provided in Policy 4.7.5 in the March 9, 2020 draft, but was excluded from the final draft of the proposed RLSA Amendments, which is concerning. 9. 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 and land management activities. The requirement for a Flowway Management Plan should be included in the GMP, the details can later be added to the LDC. 10. Require a Housing Analysis similar to the former DRI requirements to assure a wide range of housing types and price points and to accommodate the needed workforce within the SRA. The RLSA requires that SRAs provide a diversity of housing and affordable housing, therefore, a housing needs analysis is consistent with the RLSA’s existing housing policies. Policy Amendment 4.7.5 addresses affordable housing; however the amended policy excludes the requirement for a Housing Analysis, and the amendment puts the onus on the County or an outside developer to provide the affordable housing units. The site, also, does not have to be within the SRA, as it can be “proximal” to the SRA site. Furthermore, the language provided in Policy 4.7.5 is counter to recommendations for affordable housing provided by Collier County’s Community and Human Services during their recent reviews of SRA applications. 11. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. Credit System 1. Procure and 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 no more credits are produced than necessary for 45,000 acre SRA footprint. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay April Olson – Senior Environmental Planning Specialist – Conservancy of Southwest Florida – 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL – 239.262.0304, ext. 250 – AprilO@Conservancy.org August, 2020 4 Although the language for this recommendation was provided under Policy 3.11, an independent analysis was never conducted to our knowledge. While we agree that restoration of natural habitats in the RLSA is important, an independent analysis of the proposed tiered system would determine whether the proposed language would be effective at incentivizing restoration activities and if an appropriate number of restoration credits would be awarded in exchange for restoration. Less than 1% of restoration has occurred under the current program, while over half of the Stewardship Credits awarded toward SRA development have been for restoration. The restoration credits are not incentivizing restoration, instead they are drastically increasing the development potential of the RLSA. 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. To our knowledge, a third-party analysis was never conducted. 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits and agricultural credits separately. Again, an independent analysis was never done to determine the appropriate cap on the various credit categories. This should be provided before a recommendation is made by the planning commission on the GMP Amendments. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay White Paper List of Staff Recommendations Water Resources 1. Continue to study the need for maximum peak discharge rates for basins within the RLSA to maintain water quality and quantity downstream. 2. Count WRAs as SRA acreage if used for primary water management. 3. Encourage filter marshes prior to offsite discharge or discharge into WRAs where appropriate. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Continue to monitor aquifer supply and quality through existing federal, state and local programs. Agricultural Protection 1. references in Policy Group. 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. 3. Create a cap for agricultural easement credits calculated at a 50% utilization rate. 4. Exclude any aquiculture operation from the agricultural credit system both at inception and through easement language. 5. Collier County may establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee at a time deemed appropriate by the BCC. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 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. 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. 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). 4. Require applicants to address the effect of potential SRA development on adjacent SSA values when SSAs are proposed. 5. Foster further data and vetting of the land management and restoration recommendations prior to Transmittal. 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. 7. Consider, through the LDC amendment process, any additional specific maintenance standards that should be included in all future SSA agreements and easements. 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); t he remaining - of R-2 restoration. 10. Engage an independent third party prior to Transmittal to study the needed restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that needed 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. 11. Structure restoration credits so that needed restoration is assured in return for the maximum credit and acreage footprint of SRA development. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 12. Cap Stewardship credits and SRA acres; provide separate caps for restoration credits and agriculture credits. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Reduce speed limits along collector and arterial roadways, particularly at night. 18. Provide LDC regulations for outdoor lighting to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy and enhance security and safety. Towns, Villages and Other Development 1. Require minimum densities within 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. 2. 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 o f development, Town standards should apply if aggregate size exceeds maximum village acreage. 3. Village sizes should not be increased to 1,500 acres unless additional commercial, civic and governmental 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 6. Allow corporate office, light industrial and manufacturing uses in Villages . 7. 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. 8. Require Wildlife Management Plans as described in the 5 -year Review and Wildfire Management Plans within all SRAs. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Require all homebuilders in the RLSA to offer a Universal Design option in the sale of new homes. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Require annual monitoring reports to gauge the status of all developer commitments associated with the SRA and developer contribution agreements. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. All roads internal to an SRA will be constructed and maintained by the SRA. 19. Provide needed wildlife underpasses inside and outside of SRAs, and lower speed limits on collector and arterial roadways for human safety and wildlife preservation. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay 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 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. 2. Provide the third-party analysis to stakeholders and public for further vetting prior to Transmittal hearings. 3. Cap credits within the categories of base credits, restoration credits and agricultural credits separately. 9.A.1.o Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: 8-25-20 - White Paper Rec that must become GMP Amendments (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay ND-GCI0468216-01 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on September 3,2020 commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,RELAT ING TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY RESTUDY AND SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT,TO CHANGE ACREAGES,STEWARDSHIP CREDITS,DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS;AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTA L OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.[PL20190002292] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s Offi ce, Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.Wr itten comments fi led with the Clerk to the Board’s Offi ce prior to September 3,2020,will be read and considered at the public hearing. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic,the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely,as well as in person,during this proceeding.Individuals who would like to participate remotely,should register any time after the agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov.Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting.For additional information about the meeting,please call Thomas Clarke at (239)252-2526 or email to CCPCRemoteParticipation@CollierCountyFL.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Ta miami Tr ail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Offi ce. Edwin Fryer,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission August 14,2020 GOLDEN GATE BLVD I-75 SR29OILWELLRD CR 846 SR82 EVERGLADESBLVDSR29NCO RK SC RE WR D IMMOKALEERD DESOTOBLVDS1STSTSDESOTOBLVDNLAKE TRAFFORD RD MAIN ST W N E WMA R K E TRDI-75 Okaloacoochee Slough Flowway StewardshipArea (FSA) HSA HSA HSA ACSC Okaloacoochee Habitat StewardshipArea (HSA)ACSC Camp Keais Strand Flowway Stewardship Area(FSA) HSA WRA AV E MARIA SRAOILWELLGRADERD CAMPKEAISRDSSA11 SSA16 SSA5 SSA3 SSA4 SSA12 SSA10 SSA6 SSA15 SSA9 SSA1 SSA2 SSA15 SSA14 SSA13 SSA7 WRA WRA WRA FSA WRA WRA WRA WRA WRA ACSC ACSC Lake Trafford BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL FOREST CR858WRA SOUTHCORRIDOR GENERAL LOCATION RLSA RESTUDY AREARLSARESTUDYAREA SSA 5A SSA 3A RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA 9.A.1.p Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: PL20190002292 - NDN Ad (13250 : PL20190002292 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay GMPA)